What Is God?

[_Z_]

Smkolins.

Baha’I is interesting indeed, in terms of meanings, but a little hard to understand the language of the text.



To text you graciously supplied has much good meaning & made sense – thank you.



There is a question inherent within all, and this question has perplexed me and everyone I have put it to of many faiths from Buddhists & Hindu’s to Christians and Muslims & some physicists…



q. Where does one draw the lines? You may have noticed I keep harping on about the notion ‘there are no absolute divisions between things’



As I see it there can be no divisions, thus all things and we are a part of god & vice versa! Yet paradoxically there is difference, we are we and god is god, quantum energy is itself and a part of all things including god. It is easy to say that everything is an illusion except nirvana or god yet e.g. nirvana could be an illusion of nothingness! There is only reality even a hallucination has a reality to it – in the mind or as experienced en-mass.

But I don’t want to get into the reality illusion argument [been there got the t-shirt, it goes nowhere], I just want to understand the paradox & ask if you think there are divisions?

As I see it we have god, then universal spirit followed by manifestations of the inner natures within infinity as they become of body [themselves] & form. There then is a little of divinity within every atom illuminating all of his existence & hell is the lack of it at the other end of the scale sending all to darkness and the concretising the intangible that it seams real and unmovable. This brings me to my next question [yes I know I am full of questions ] does hell exist? Eternity for me has not the base natures of earthliness, thus those who cannot become one with eternity are re-born – ‘like attracts like’!



Z

 

[smkolins]

Smkolins.

Baha’I is interesting indeed, in terms of meanings, but a little hard to understand the language of the text.

There are four core sets of scriptures in the Baha'i Faith. They have relatively different styles. 'Abdu'l-Baha tends to speak simply, Shoghi Effendy in extended details and specificty, and Baha'u'llah and the Bab speak with great authority and yet also using allusions and multiple meanings which tend to bring out the pov of the reader as point the reader past those impulses. I suggest you sample them and start where things seem to make more sense to you and then bridge out to the other styles.

To text you graciously supplied has much good meaning & made sense – thank you.

Thanks. If I said something illuminating it was hopefully more than an accident. However don't put to much in my words - lest when I fail, the impulse is to follow me.

q. Where does one draw the lines? You may have noticed I keep harping on about the notion ‘there are no absolute divisions between things’

I suggest the understanding and implications of the lines depend on "where you are at" and where the truth is of itself, and the differences and sameness between the two.

If there is no absolute, than how can there be "no absolute"?

As I see it the hard part is seeing the relative compared to the absolute.

As I see it there can be no divisions, thus all things and we are a part of god & vice versa!

That is a popular alterntive. I'm proposing another one. There is the absolute and the relative. The value of the relative is in it's ability to reflect the influence of the absolute, though it cannot become the absolute by doing so any more than the absolute can become the relative by it's influence. But the relationship is not equal, even as it is binding. The absolute can approach us, while we are ever far from it.

But I don’t want to get into the reality illusion argument [been there got the t-shirt, it goes nowhere], I just want to understand the paradox & ask if you think there are divisions?

A paradox is the result of the point of view. Or so goes an insight I had in high school.

Edges make no sense of themselves. A tree is seen and then a part of a house. There are no parts of houses - if there were no one could live in them and they would often come crashing down. But if you surpass the point of view and understand the house is behind the tree and that you can't see it from where you are at - if you have faith - then the paradox of a partial house next to a tree is not the reality, even though it is what you see.

But now comes the rub - at least some truths are almost never found in this world, and all truth found in this world is without proof of itself except by reliance on other truth - and you cannot prove all truth. It is even proved so Godel's Theorem. In reality the question is not what is the truth - it's what is convincing to you?

] does hell exist? Eternity for me has not the base natures of earthliness, thus those who cannot become one with eternity are re-born – ‘like attracts like’!

The Baha'i Scriptures relate that heaven and hell are the experience of being near and far from God. Those who cannot abide by His Presence are alone and lonely, left to themselves. Puzzled. Helpless unless helped. God can hold out longer than we can.

 

[_Z_]

If there is no absolute, than how can there be "no absolute"



Ah semantics dear chap! That’s just playing with words, its like saying ‘there is no truth, this then must be a lie therefore there is truth’. Whereas I am saying that in real terms there are no divisions – quantum energies have no edges and can appear from nothing, this is not a play on the term ‘absolute’ it is a statement of the real nature of existence relatively speaking, the words are simply an explanation yet are irrelevant to the actuality in itself. On the level of absolutes and the relative, where do we draw the lines on spirit? Is it not universal and boundless – primarily stateless, we cannot put everything into boxes and segmentalise existence as it is all multiples of the one, separate in its apparency joined by a common unifier & ultimately all of the same – everything is in everything.

Your take on the paradox is interesting, but more to do with perspectives. I am saying that parody is a function of existence – a principle that defies any kind of logic and is beyond logic. The universe [omniverse] can never be fully explained because there is always an element beyond explanation – same applies to god & spirit or any ambiguous nature! This why [as you say] one cannot actually prove any ‘truth’ & science is built out of method – a ‘proved’ truth built upon another through experiment and theory, yet if looked at singularly the truths are vague and non absolute.

I see the Baha’I scriptures believe similar to me that heaven and hell are polarities, and one is the lack of the other. The only difference is that of universal balance – that as reality has both within it, so do we & so to spirit – perhaps even god in some way? One has to learn to balance these things within ourselves and society, to keep away from extremities. Perhaps god is the balance – the heart, existence is made of opposites and extremities, thus by creating the universe he may keep his heart and centre being pure but is still held to the paradox thus in body [existence] is impure, yet the heart is infinite thus making the body ‘almost’ insignificant.

Z

 

[smkolins]

If there is no absolute, than how can there be "no absolute"

Ah semantics dear chap! That’s just playing with words, its like saying ‘there is no truth, this then must be a lie therefore there is truth’.

I disagree. Such problems are problems of limitation, not inherent to the way things are in themselves. Semanitics are the form or expression, but they reveal the presence of the paradox in one's thinking.

Whereas I am saying that in real terms there are no divisions – quantum energies have no edges and can appear from nothing...[/font][/size][/color]

You are hanging your hat on a theory - and theories evolve - there is string theory which allows very much for fuzziness.

Your take on the paradox is interesting, but more to do with perspectives. I am saying that parody is a function of existence – a principle that defies any kind of logic and is beyond logic..

And I am saying it is impossible to have a neutral point of view - there is only persective available to us. Even intuition is not removed from our condition. We intuit something and feel it from our pov. Christians feel Christ's forgiveness and grace, Hindus feel Krishna's and so on - near death experiences about along these lines. That isn't to suppose that there isn't anything else - just that whatever else there is isn't part of the human condition. Rather like Einstein - I remove the object viewer. All are relative, but there are absolutes, so there are diverse views on the absolutes and the forms they take vary according to circumstance, but in non-arbitrary ways. If I were to hang my hat on a theory that is.

One can elaborate from a point of view by adopting succeedingly distinct pov. But one cannot simulateously have all pov's. Light itself has something like a neutral pov but even that isn't the same as things in themselves. People simulate this by hoping paradigms within a sentence but for me it just disolves into a kind of confusion, where the effort is more important that what is said and the point of communication dwindles to a kind of nothing.

I see the Baha’I scriptures believe similar to me that heaven and hell are polarities, and one is the lack of the other. The only difference is that of universal balance – that as reality has both within it, so do we & so to spirit – perhaps even god in some way?

There are at least two forms allowing for evil - one is evil being a means of demonstrating good, while the other is to note when something seems evil but is only discomfort fundamentally, meant to make one grow.

"O Supreme Pen, We have heard Thy most sweet call in the eternal realm: Give Thou ear unto what the Tongue of Grandeur uttereth, O Wronged One of the worlds!

Were it not for the cold, how would the heat of Thy words prevail, O Expounder of the worlds?

Were it not for calamity, how would the sun of Thy patience shine, O Light of the worlds?

Lament not because of the wicked. Thou wert created to bear and endure, O Patience of the worlds.

How sweet was Thy dawning on the horizon of the Covenant among the stirrers of sedition, and Thy yearning after God, O Love of the worlds.

By Thee the banner of independence was planted on the highest peaks, and the sea of bounty surged, O Rapture of the worlds.

By Thine aloneness the Sun of Oneness shone, and by Thy banishment the land of Unity was adorned. Be patient, O Thou Exile of the worlds.

We have made abasement the garment of glory, and affliction the adornment of Thy temple, O Pride of the worlds.

Thou seest the hearts are filled with hate, and to overlook is Thine, O Thou Concealer of the sins of the worlds.

When the swords flash, go forward! When the shafts fly, press onward! O Thou Sacrifice of the worlds.

Dost Thou wail, or shall I wail? Rather shall I weep at the fewness of Thy champions, O Thou Who hast caused the wailing of the worlds...."

"O SON OF MAN ! My calamity is My providence, outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but inwardly it is light and mercy. Hasten thereunto that thou mayest become an eternal light and an immortal spirit. This is My command unto thee, do thou observe it."

 

[_Z_]

Smkolins: interesting. Please don’t think I am being argumentative for the sake of it – just stuff that’s going around in my mind at present. Your answers have been intelligent and profound – I have listened!

Yes the paradox is revealed in such notions, the mind goes beyond our words yet sometimes one only listens to the voice of the mind and not the silence that is screaming for acknowledgement.

Yes there are many scientific theories around & most will be surpassed at some point, but I’ll hang on to the philosophical notion of ‘indivision’ as I believe it to transcends science! I still believe that there is room for both of our understandings if the principle is true, I am developing my ideas & probably always will be.

Yes I see your point on perspectives relative to the human condition [similar to what Dauer was saying], I suppose to have any theory of what god is [if at all], then we must go beyond this. When I look at the night sky & consider the universe it is not all that human after all! I was perceiving things form a everything is in everything angle which would include the human nature [and all natures], yet this is probably only a tiny fragment of ‘IT’.

I’ll have a good long think on this aspect.



I think we have somewhat similar ideas on the nature of evil and its temporary nature as being infinitesimal compared to gods beyond infinite!

"O SON OF MAN ! My calamity is My providence, outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but inwardly it is light and mercy. Hasten thereunto that thou mayest become an eternal light and an immortal spirit. This is My command unto thee, do thou observe it."

Are we all included in the ‘son of man’ part? Is it a way of saying; move away from the base natures, from darkness & distance from divinity, towards lightness clarity and nearness within the universal oneness of my [gods] heart.



Btw. This is very humanlike! If god is essentially not human then would he ask anything of us, is it then for us to better ourselves for our own purposes?

Z