God is with form or without form?

For anyone reading this. "Gravitational membrane" is a construct of M-theory. M-theory is a possible (perhaps likely) candidate for a theory of everything; but the jury is still out.

See section 1.2 of "Approaching the Planck Scale from a generally relativistic point of view" for a non-mathematical discussion of M-theory (referred to therein as String Theory).
 
Originally Posted by bhaktajan
Q. "How do you KNOW who your real father is?"
A. "Ask your Mother"

IOW, THIS IS HOW knowledge is passed down through an unbroken chain of authorites, person to person.
Click to expand...

So you acknowledge the un-wavering absolute NATURE of the Origin of Knowledge, in the above Maxim? Yes?


OS-jbug said:
A woman, like some other animal, can have sex with differrent partners and herself not know who the father is.

With artificial insemination, and with the genetic information in hand a woman could never know who the father his.
Click to expand...

This response conveys naught.

The maxim is the direct means of Knowledge acquisition ---an un-wavering absolute maxim of the:
NATURE of the Origin of Knowledge. Agree with the Maxim do you?

If a Loose woman is injected into the equation ---the Maxim doesn't apply.

The Point is: Approach the Guru with sincere humility and ask a question ---and you will receive the knowledge.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Do you know anything about Offering of foodstuffs to departed ancestors in Japanese Culture?
 
All gods, devils, angels, demons, etc. are archetypal images embedded deep within our unconsciousness, they are brought to the conscious surface through symbolism.

Can any of these archetypal images take physical form?
Well, that would depend on your understanding of form.

Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.

The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms.
 
EM, good point. Ultimately "the cave" is a pretty comprehensive metaphysic (it is a very valid and likely basic description). THe question then becomes "what is the archetypal form of G!d?" ("archetypal form" meaning in the Platoinic World).
 
radarmark said:
THe question then becomes "what is the archetypal form of G!d?" ("archetypal form" meaning in the Platoinic World).
Click to expand...
Good question! I would venture to guess that G!d will take the symbolic form of whatever religion you have been indoctrinated into?
 
Ah, brava! Now, what if the religion is one that is "deeper" than the particular religion (making more like "the mystical experience of the D!vine one encounters using that particular religion")? Would this "mystical experience" also have an archetypal form?
 
radarmark said:
Ah, brava! Now, what if the religion is one that is "deeper" than the particular religion (making more like "the mystical experience of the D!vine one encounters using that particular religion")? Would this "mystical experience" also have an archetypal form?
Click to expand...
In order for any Thought-Form/Archetype to join in the material/carnal fun of the physical it will need to be realized into Symbol . . . be that human shape, meta human shape, anthropomorphic shape, etc.

I firmly believe WE create(d) these gods, devils, angels, demons and like a meme they grow, are fed by further believers, and transform accordingly to the Collective Unconsciousness as It becomes modified throughout time.

:confused: What the hell did I just say? :D
 
Etu Malku said:
In order for any Thought-Form/Archetype to join in the material/carnal fun of the physical it will need to be realized into Symbol . . . be that human shape, meta human shape, anthropomorphic shape, etc.

I firmly believe WE create(d) these gods, devils, angels, demons and like a meme they grow, are fed by further believers, and transform accordingly to the Collective Unconsciousness as It becomes modified throughout time.

:confused: What the hell did I just say? :D
Click to expand...
You just paraphrased Tao Te Ching 1
 
I think God would be without form. Probably like an energy or force that can't be seen and only felt lol.
 
eternalSoul said:
I think God would be without form. Probably like an energy or force that can't be seen and only felt lol.
Click to expand...

Yet "You" are the one "Feeling".

But Godhead is an impersonal inanimate material element?

Some one can feel God? . . . but cannot guess the winning lottery numbers nor the weather forcast nor the traffic around the corner.

For the novice, God is the work required to serve others in a spirit of communion.

God exists is three aspects [within & outside of the material world of Time and Space]:

a] The Void [aka, brahman],

b] The life force of each individual nucleus & each individual soul [aka, param-atma],

c] The Transcendent Personage of Godhead [aka, Bhagavan].

Remember:
God lives where NO Time exists ---aka, eternal.
God lives where He is the sole & unique King ---aka, kingdom of God.
God lives where No Birth & death exists.
God lives where His personal pastimes are paramount.
God lives where all personal opulences spring forth from his personage.
God lives where all individual souls are Liberated from the material world.


Remember:
The material world is a place of sufferring combined with the temporal illusion of enjoyment.

The Spirit Soul & Life is meant for joy.

Passing Time is an illusion also.

Illusion exists as a component of the structure of the material world.

The individual soul is eternal ---yet, now it's situated in a place [material world] where the circumstances cause one to forget the "Long term Facts of existence" inlieu of the present desire to enjoy whimsically.

The good news is that "temporal time" is abundantly available to the soul to surjourn within the material world ---and also, The good news is that the soul arrived in the material world via leaving the Spiritual Transcendent Kingdom of God ... so status quo for the soul is "to get back home, back to godhead" where the soul had originated from.

But now, "we are spirits in the material world".

God's form is spirit in the Spiritual transcendent sky [outside the material world's enclosure]; and God's form, when He advents in the material world, is still transcendent to the 'laws of material Nature' ---That is why God is above the forces of nature.

In regards, God's attributes, "the forces of nature" are born of a Person inorder to make way for the spirit souls to engage in pastimes of Love with him.

In the case of us souls here in the material world:
We are seeking how to re-unite with personage of Godhead ---this requires the desire to do so by the soul in question.

If you ask a kid wheater he wants to go to heaven or have some candy ---his anwser depends on the kids orientation.

Good luck kids,
Bhaktajan
 
Saguna Brahman is God with attributes, Nirguna Brahman is God without attributes.

Dharmakaya is with, Sunyata is without.

Whenever we encounter such opposite statements, truth is always something between, many traditions try to explain this particular duality. The problem is only that mind wants a definitive answer, and the problem with this is there isn't one.
 
casanovapt2 said:
God is everything.

wow, how did I just belittle God like this?!

:|
Click to expand...


Got IS everything, yet no-thing.

All arises and has its being in God, and God knows itself through all that arises.

Yet still God is eternally transcendent of it all.
 
In the Western religions, and also in Islam, God is acknowledged to exist beyond His creation (1 Kings 8:27; Job 11:7-9; Isaiah 66:1-2). And if Creation is to encompass all form and matter in the universe, it might stand to reason that from this point of view, God has no form.

This viewpoint is articulated as well in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. For example, St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite says, “God is beyond all senses and sensory things, and beyond all shape, color, dimension, and place, since He is in every respect without form or figure, existing everywhere, and is above everything, so, also, is He beyond every image”.

Of course, in human language, God is referred to as having "hands" or "eyes", but this might be thought of as being more metaphorical than a physical description.
 
Greetings Vessariò, and welcome aboard.

Vessariò said:
This viewpoint is articulated as well in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
Click to expand...
Indeed. In those days apophasis, 'the way of negation' (Gk apophēmi, 'to deny') and kataphasis, 'the way of affirmation' stood side by side, although there is a tendency (somewhat elitist) to regard the former as superior to the latter.

John Scottus Eriugena (9th century) argued that both should be regarded as equal, and employed together in a dialectic approach.

In the Western tradition, Dennis the pseudoAreopagtite (St Denys in the East) is regarded as the founder of Christianity's apophatic expression. An Eastern saint, but nowhere near as significant for the East as he is for the West.

Vessariò said:
Of course, in human language, God is referred to as having "hands" or "eyes", but this might be thought of as being more metaphorical than a physical description.
Click to expand...
Quite. Denys discusses this issue at length in The Divine Names. The same applies to characteristics predicated of God, such as good or merciful; vengeful or jealous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top