Your religious/spiritual journey

[TheLightWithin]

We have named it Brahman, you can call it by any other name, but do not call him God. Brahman is not God in the way we look at it..

This reminds me of something I read as a teenager called The Impersonal Life by Joseph Benner. I think I was listening to a tape series (or my mom and I were) and they recommended a few books including that one, to further explore their theory that God was something more "impersonal" than Westerners liked to think. I don't know if by that they meant Brahman or were pointing towards the idea of Brahman. For some reason I thought so but I don't remember if that's what it said.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, Brahman is supposed to be 'Nirguna', without any attribute. It does not ask for submission or prayers. It would not help you if you were in trouble.

 

[otherbrother]

But I see you point ... So in a broader sense, I'd say as the distinction between the Three Persons is one of relation, it's how a person relates to God.

I like that a lot. Similar to the observer effect postulated in Quantum Physics Theory, in which regular human consciousness during the act of observation tends to make quanta act more like a particle than a wave (reverse madusa—creature described in Homer’s The Odyssey— that would turn the observer into stone, or Lot’s wife in Bible). There is no separation between us and God except what what we create. Even the edges we perceive about objects are the result of a useful distortion of physical reality. It’s called the Mach band effect. Makes objects appear more contrasted (separate?) to each other than they really are. Helps us navigate the ten thousand things of this world, but then disjoints our minds with the ten thousand things. I suppose the spiritual growth goal would/should be to be in the (seeing of separation) world but not OF it.
And perhaps the Adivista (right word? spelling ?) Hindis have it right by seeing the separation as illusion? It’s something we are crucified (nailed to “reality”) with/by, but is not the way ultimate reality really is.

The base of being may be interwoven energies flowing about in one Ocean, or even more seamlessly connected that that—of One Mind. We are left guessing about the identifiers of such an underlying Reality, but perhaps we can agree about its Oneness or No-thing-ness (gaplessness?).

 

[otherbrother]

Yeah, Brahman is supposed to be 'Nirguna', without any attribute. It does not ask for submission or prayers. It would not help you if you were in trouble.

But the Oneness we are discussing here CAN help us integrate inner and outer resources. A calling out for in a social/interpersonal sense, but more like stepping into, or aligning with, in an intentional being sense.
The Judeo/Christian tradition is awfully social and personifies spiritual functions. Isn’t the apparent Polytheistism of the more superficial forms of Hinduism the result of personification also (to make the spiritual functions more accessible to the masses without deeper understanding?)?
The deeper one’s consciousness goes, the closer and more gap-less-ly enveloping reality seems. As though there is a unifying force within us. Can we learn to tap into it?
My guess is yes—by sensing and originating from a deeper place or perspective within the creation called a self. But the outer experience of love also seems to lead to this deeper way of seeing and being, as long as we look at the love itself and not too much at the separate objects/beings it bridges.

 

[otherbrother]

But the Oneness we are discussing here CAN help us integrate inner and outer resources. A calling out for in a social/interpersonal sense, but more like stepping into, or aligning with, in an intentional being sense.
The Judeo/Christian tradition is awfully social and personifies spiritual functions. Isn’t the apparent Polytheistism of the more superficial forms of Hinduism the result of personification also (to make the spiritual functions more accessible to the masses without deeper understanding?)?
The deeper one’s consciousness goes, the closer and more gap-less-ly enveloping reality seems. As though there is a unifying force within us. Can we learn to tap into it?
My guess is yes—by sensing and originating from a deeper place or perspective within the creation called a self. But the outer experience of love also seems to lead to this deeper way of seeing and being, as long as we look at the love itself and not too much at the separate objects/beings it bridges.

Perhaps we should apply the Nike slogan to Brahman? Just do it!

 

[wil]

This reminds me of something I read as a teenager called The Impersonal Life by Joseph Benner. I think I was listening to a tape series (or my mom and I were) and they recommended a few books including that one, to further explore their theory that God was something more "impersonal" than Westerners liked to think. I don't know if by that they meant Brahman or were pointing towards the idea of Brahman. For some reason I thought so but I don't remember if that's what it said.

For me this lends to Unity's "G!d is principle", or my view TOE...the physics, biology axioms that exist in this universe that "allow" all the rest to come into being.

I still can't get to G!d,

 

[TheLightWithin]

Yeah, Brahman is supposed to be 'Nirguna', without any attribute. It does not ask for submission or prayers. It would not help you if you were in trouble.

Oh... Sort of like the thoughts about God in classical Deism.
What is the motive for adherents, if there is no thought that Brahman might help?

 

[TheLightWithin]

or my view TOE..

What do you mean by TOE in this context? Theory of everything?

 

[JustGeorge]

What is the motive for adherents, if there is no thought that Brahman might help?

Why would a person have a motive to hold a belief?

Generally, I feel people believe what they have found to be true, either through study, experience, or relying on others who they have high esteem in.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no separation between us and God except what what we create.
And perhaps the Adivista (right word? spelling ?) Hindis have it right by seeing the separation as illusion? It’s something we are crucified (nailed to “reality”) with/by, but is not the way ultimate reality really is.

The base of being may be interwoven energies flowing about in one Ocean, or even more seamlessly connected that that—of One Mind. We are left guessing about the identifiers of such an underlying Reality, but perhaps we can agree about its Oneness or No-thing-ness (gaplessness?).

If there is no separation, then we exist and not God. God becomes superficial.
Adivista: Advaita (Dwaita is duality, Advaita is non-duality), Hindis: Hindus.
Does ocean have a mind? It depends on temperatures in its various regions.
Universe too does not need a mind. It works according to conditions developing in its various regions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Judeo/Christian tradition is awfully social and personifies spiritual functions. Isn’t the apparent Polytheistism of the more superficial forms of Hinduism the result of personification also (to make the spiritual functions more accessible to the masses without deeper understanding?)?
The deeper one’s consciousness goes, the closer and more gap-less-ly enveloping reality seems. As though there is a unifying force within us. Can we learn to tap into it?

True. Hinduism caters to all kind of people, those who seek security, and those who seek truth. Advaita is for those who seek truth. Advaita does not differentiate even between living and non-living.
(BTW Polytheistism: Polytheism ).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh... Sort of like the thoughts about God in classical Deism.
What is the motive for adherents, if there is no thought that Brahman might help?

Not even that. Just rejection of the concept of God.
Search for truth. Does God really help? It is a comforting thought but not truth.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Why would a person have a motive to hold a belief?

Beliefs themselves are involuntary. But any form of adherence or devotion takes motivation.

 

[wil]

What do you mean by TOE in this context? Theory of everything?

Yes, the science that allows quantum physics, astrophysics maths (lol autocorrected to myths!) Work together.

 

[wil]

Beliefs themselves are involuntary. But any form of adherence or devotion takes motivation.

Aren't these involuntary beliefs most often instigated by early childhood indoctrination?

 

[JustGeorge]

Beliefs themselves are involuntary. But any form of adherence or devotion takes motivation.

If one believes in an impersonal Brahman without attributes that does not intervene(perhaps isn't even aware of us), they may not actually engage in any sort of devotion towards said being. There's nothing to really adhere to with such a belief, either. There are things a person can choose to adhere to(or not adhere to), but it would be because of just that, choice. They want to(or don't want to).

Aren't these involuntary beliefs most often instigated by early childhood indoctrination?

I think yes, most often, but not always.

I fell so far from the religion my dad tried to 'put in my head' that the seed of that belief system didn't even stick around in my head. I've also met others in similar situations. So, while I think its often that people adopt the belief system(whether for accepting or rejecting) of their parents or culture, it isn't an 'always' case(and its worth noting that there are exceptions).

 

[wil]

I fell so far from the religion my dad tried to 'put in my head'

Always seemed to me something should be able to stand on its own and not need putting in someone's head...if it is valid.

I find it a shame folks feel the need.

 

[JustGeorge]

Always seemed to me something should be able to stand on its own and not need putting in someone's head...if it is valid.

I agree. While I understand in families the desire to share culture and stories(and you can only share what you know), I think the mistake is made when one tries to force on the other "this IS the way!"

I find it a shame folks feel the need.

I wonder where that need comes from.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I fell so far from the religion my dad tried to 'put in my head' that the seed of that belief system didn't even stick around in my head..

I'm sure he meant well.
..but yes .. we have to find our own way when the time comes..

 

[TheLightWithin]

Aren't these involuntary beliefs most often instigated by early childhood indoctrination?

Depends. Sometimes people simply DO NOT believe what was hammered into them as children.
Also sometimes people become believers in something because they witnessed or experienced something.
Or read about it. Or heard someone else talk about it.
To believe something, I think, is to be convinced that it is reality. There are a few ways you could end up thinking something is real.