Definitions of God

[Apech]

These are from a 12 Century text called The Book of the Twenty Four Philosophers which probably has its origin in a 3rd Century book from Alexandria. It is included in the corpus of Hermetic Literature.

 

1. God is the monad that begat a monad and turned it back on itself as a single blast of heat.

 

2. God is the infinite sphere whose midpoint is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.

 

3. God is that which is whole in all its parts.

 

4. God is the spirit that begat a word and, in the process, remained entirely by itself.

 

5. God is that greater than which cannot be imagined.

 

6. God is that in comparison to which each being is only one quality and each quality is nothing.

 

7. God is the ground without ground, the process without change, the end without end.

 

8. God is the love that conceals itself all the more, the more we hold on to it.

 

9. God is that to which alone all is present that belongs to any time.

 

10. God is that whose ability is not reckoned, whose being is not enclosed, whose goodness is unbounded.

 

11. God is that which is beyond being, alone with itself in superabundance, self sufficient.

 

12. God is that whose divinely effective might and wisdom equals his will.

 

13. God is the eternity that is active in itself, without division and without quality.

 

14. God is the opposite of nothing by means of his being.

 

15. God is that whose path to the form of truth and whose path to unity is goodness.

 

16. God is the only being that, because of its priority, words do not express and that, because of its dissimilarity, even spiritual beings do not know.

 

17. God is the only self-knowledge that suffers no predicate.

 

18. God is the sphere that has as many circumferences as points.

 

19. God is the eternally moving, that remains unmoved.

 

20. God is the only being who lives on his intellect.

 

21. God is the darkness in the soul that remains after light.

 

22. God is that from which all that is exists, without being divided, and through which it exists, without his being changed, and in which it exists, without his being mingled with it.

 

23. God is that which the spirit alone knows in ignorance.

 

24. God is the light that illuminates without refracting; it comes over, but in things, it is only in the form of God.

 

From the book : The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus by Florian Ebeling trans. David Lorton Pub. Cornell University Press.

 

amazon link

 

... a brilliant book if you are interested in in the Western Mystery Tradition.

 

the definitions themselves are worthy of some contemplation (even if you are Buddhist or atheist) ... I find some of them quite powerful.

[Aetherous]

I love #2.

[Apech]

I love #2.

 

This man Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching such things .

[hagar]

I love #2.

 

 

Interesting how the hermetics tried to define God positively. Most mystics does the opposite, through negations, like Moojis reading of the Advahuta Gita here

 

h

[Birch]

Number 19 reminds me of something. Who was it by?

[Apech]

Number 19 reminds me of something. Who was it by?

 

They are all quotes from this 12 century book. The thing is that many people quote from it like Maester Eckhart and others so you may have read it in their writings. But the original text is a hermetic text which mixes ideas from the ancient world (esp. Egypt and Greek Philosophy esp. Neo-Platonism.

[Apech]

I am drawn to this one:

 

21. God is the darkness in the soul that remains after light.

 

What does it mean?

 

 

[Birch]

They are all quotes from this 12 century book. The thing is that many people quote from it like Maester Eckhart and others so you may have read it in their writings. But the original text is a hermetic text which mixes ideas from the ancient world (esp. Egypt and Greek Philosophy esp. Neo-Platonism.

 

Thanks Apech. Funny old game this defining 'god' business.

[Fū Yue]

I am drawn to this one:

 

21. God is the darkness in the soul that remains after light.

 

What does it mean?

 

 

 

 

Hmmm... looking behind your self, what do you see?

[Koanu]

Hmmm... looking behind your self, what do you see?

 

I see nothing behind me but that's because I am alone at the moment. But when I look in myself I don't see another person or a divine being. I see a soul calmly flowing in my body. Reacting to the emotions around me. I see myself as a god. I don't need someone else to be god especially one I never met.

[Apech]

I see nothing behind me but that's because I am alone at the moment. But when I look in myself I don't see another person or a divine being. I see a soul calmly flowing in my body. Reacting to the emotions around me. I see myself as a god. I don't need someone else to be god especially one I never met.

 

Interesting. Someone once said 'the God you don't believe in doesn't exist' ... meaning that most people's idea about God is wrong and should be discarded. That's why I find these definitions interesting because even in the Middle Ages they had some pretty profound/obscure ideas about God = ultimate reality as against the rubbish which the church spouts even today. I think they were engaged in deep contemplation of 'that which really is' and called this God.

 

Hermeticism was a mixture of the ideas of the ancients (which in themselves were transmissions from something even older) and the neo-Platonic Greek philosophers.

 

Thinking in terms of God is not natural to me but if I look at it the way this book does then I get closer to something meaningful.

[Taomeow]

I am drawn to this one:

 

21. God is the darkness in the soul that remains after light.

 

What does it mean?

 

I think roughly the same thing as Laozi's "Know the white but keep/cherish the black." Or, "learn yang, return to yin." Or, "experience is the light but permanence is the darkness." Or, "light is a manifestation of god, darkness is god." Or, "after you flip the switch off, the light is gone, the tao remains."

 

Nice one. Reminded me of something I read in a book written by an African shaman who was kidnapped by a Jesuit priest as a small child and educated in the white man's boarding school for "reforming the savages." Eventually, some nine or ten years later, he escaped and returned to his native village. He remembered very little of his early upbringing and had a solid colonial education. His own people couldn't understand him more often than not, but the biggest riddle was his keeping some candles lit in his room at night right until he went to bed. His relatives and neighbors were trying to find out the reason for his avoidance of darkness. They puzzled over it and couldn't fathom it. "Darkness is the heart and soul of life -- why must you rip it out? Why are you violent like that?"

[Apech]

Yes TM that's interesting ... I found this by a western master:

 

The Deep Darkness is absolute silence, absolute power, capable of all things, infinite actuality hidden in potentiality until self-expressed. It is absolutely undefined, yet contains all and is able to activate all. In this Deep Darkness is the secret of absolutely free decision, for there is here no formal or other conditioning factor. Here is the source of all role-choosing of the Sons of Light.

[Apech]

Anyone got any thoughts on this ...?

 

1. God is the monad that begat a monad and turned it back on itself as a single blast of heat.

[Birch]

Anyone got any thoughts on this ...?

 

1. God is the monad that begat a monad and turned it back on itself as a single blast of heat.

 

I don't like it very much. Suicidal

[Vmarco]

These are from a 12 Century text called The Book of the Twenty Four Philosophers

 

Here's some definitions from my Oxford dictionary

 

God (god), n.,

1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).

2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).

3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).

4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol (conditions).

5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (conditioned).

6. A very handsome man (condition).

7. A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).

8. Used to express disappointment, disbelief, frustration, annoyance (conditions).

 

 

I like this one from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

 

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

5. Evil exists.

6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.

7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

 

Of course as a Buddhist I'm more inclined towards the Buddhist view:

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/beyond-belief02.pdf

[goldisheavy]

These are from a 12 Century text called The Book of the Twenty Four Philosophers which probably has its origin in a 3rd Century book from Alexandria. It is included in the corpus of Hermetic Literature.

 

 

 

From the book : The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus by Florian Ebeling trans. David Lorton Pub. Cornell University Press.

 

amazon link

 

... a brilliant book if you are interested in in the Western Mystery Tradition.

 

the definitions themselves are worthy of some contemplation (even if you are Buddhist or atheist) ... I find some of them quite powerful.

 

16 contradicts 3 and 17.

[goldisheavy]

I am drawn to this one:

 

21. God is the darkness in the soul that remains after light.

 

What does it mean?

 

 

 

You can't see yourself. God can't see itself. Whatever God sees is not itself. So this being unable to see itself is darkness, but God still knows oneself without seeing.

 

The known is contextualized by unknown. So for known to be what it is, it must be encased by uknown. Out of all the ways of knowing, you currently know this way. Then this way. Then this, and so on. But all ways of knowing are options, selections. They are always partial. Even if your knowing became impartial, it would forsake the partial knowing, thus still remaining partial. So the unknown is always there and can't be eliminated.

[Apech]

16 contradicts 3 and 17.

 

Yes that's interesting. But of course I am not sure that the definitions were ever meant to be non-contradictory hence the 24 Philosophers with their different definitions which they were meant to debate.

 

@Vmarco

 

Yes I know you prefer to say God does not exist and that is perfectly reasonable if you conceive of God is a certain way to start with. The reason that I found this 12 century text so interesting is that some of the definitions are far from the usual concept of God and more like statements about ultimate reality. It is not so interesting to think about whether you or I or anyone actually agrees with them or with the idea of God at all as it is to think that in the 12 Century (and probably 3rd Century) people were thinking like this anyway. They were not all dogmatists and some were actually struggling to conceptualize the ultimate in a meaningful way. This was happening in the midst of an intolerant Catholic 'regime' which actually burned these thinkers at the stake (e.g. Bruno) as heretics.

[Apech]

You can't see yourself. God can't see itself. Whatever God sees is not itself. So this being unable to see itself is darkness, but God still knows oneself without seeing.

 

The known is contextualized by unknown. So for known to be what it is, it must be encased by uknown. Out of all the ways of knowing, you currently know this way. Then this way. Then this, and so on. But all ways of knowing are options, selections. They are always partial. Even if your knowing became impartial, it would forsake the partial knowing, thus still remaining partial. So the unknown is always there and can't be eliminated.

 

Thank you GiH I like that ... very helpful.

[Apech]

I don't like it very much. Suicidal

 

Really? God commits suicide ... well I suppose if you were Christian you could say God incarnates as Christ and crucifies himself which is a kind of suicide. But then this text is Hermetic and not strictly Christian. To me the 'single blast of heat' suggests a high level energetic interaction rather than suicide tho'.

[z00se]

What about different gods?

 

My developing different centres or praying to different gods you can become an elite warrior with a close relationship with your awareness, become as compassionate as christ and forgive everyone, or have insight into the future.

 

Isn't a god just a source of power? Or moreover, just a source?

[C T]

Really? God commits suicide ... well I suppose if you were Christian you could say God incarnates as Christ and crucifies himself which is a kind of suicide. But then this text is Hermetic and not strictly Christian. To me the 'single blast of heat' suggests a high level energetic interaction rather than suicide tho'.

Im curious about the mention of 'high level' -- why is it 'high level'?

 

My interpretation of 'turning back on itself' suggests a movement, and all movements generate heat, even the movements of thought. Some thoughts move more than others, and those that become primarily significant gather so much heat that they become 'things' or concretize, forming emotional waves, which could set off chains of events if not allowed to 'cool' off, or in spiritual parlance, not pacified or dissolved at the point of arising. In lieu of this, it could be that the observer who stated that (no.1) saw creation as issuing forth from one single majestic thought (which he calls 'God')? IDK... God must have been very excited at some point.

[Jetsun]

Many religions say that you shouldn't make any images of God, I think the most important aspect of this teaching which many don't understand is that you shouldn't make any mental images of God. All the definitions and negative deductions may just be attempts to make mental images which don't help you as it is a concept which can only be understood through the heart and not the mind. It's just a thought.

[Apech]

What about different gods?

 

My developing different centres or praying to different gods you can become an elite warrior with a close relationship with your awareness, become as compassionate as christ and forgive everyone, or have insight into the future.

 

Isn't a god just a source of power? Or moreover, just a source?

 

Yes the current thinking (among scholars of this stuff) is that Hermeticism arose from a fusion of Ancient Egyptian/Mesoptamian/Persian religion, Greek Philosophy and Jewish mysticism ... but since the author (or pseudo-author) is Hermes Trismegistus and is an Egyptian then the 'main' inspiration is pagan polytheism so many gods is ok. The Medieval people who studied this suggested that the writings predict the trinity and the Early Christian Fathers absorbed this stuff but its not really Christian or even monotheist.