there is no god but thats ok.

[Sanzon]

May I play the devil's advocate here?

 

I have met Christian people who have been spontaneously healed of medical conditions. One was living off ventolin as a chronic asthmatic. His condition was life threatening. In an instant after prayer, never used it again, nor had another attack. The other was lactose intolerant since childhood. He bought a flavoured milk on the way home from church & never looked back.

 

If God doesn't exist, is belief in Him enough?

 

These things aren't limited to the Christian faith. Other faiths & beliefs have similar happenings.

 

I think I have read somewhere that an external God/dess is a projection, or an archetype/manifestation/anthropomorphisation of an existent universal force. Powerful, but perhaps disappears once reality beyond that point is experienced. Perhaps duality is at its most convincing the closer you get to non duality.

 

Great food for thought.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Sanzon

[Jeff]

 

I believe there was a Jesus Christ. The prototype of a personified Christ was developed by Paul’s followers and aristocratic admirers from the Talmud stories of Yeshua Ben Stada, the locally notorious Yeshua [Jesus] the Notzri [Nazarite]. This Jesus, born in 7 BCE during a Jupiter–Saturn conjunction, had a stepfather known as Joseph and a mother named Mary. On the eve of Passover in 28 CE, he was convicted of sedition by Pontius Pilate and subsequently hanged. His hanging was not the planned means of death, but proceeded because those who were to stone him were late. Since the end of the day was near, which would have postponed his burial until after Passover, the soldiers allowed the alternative death by hanging. Following his death, his followers dubbed him the Passover Lamb.

 

Actually, the term "christ" grew out of Memphite philosophy—literally, the Krst, the anointed ones, like the Risen Horus/Apis. Then in the fifth century BCE, the word Christos, referring to an "awakened one," crept into Greek subculture, and this word can be found in the works of classical writers, such as Aeschylus and Herodotus, the father of history. Curiously, this was the same time in which Siddhartha Buddha, the light of Asia, realized that religion is a man-made fabrication and a direct result or consequence of the desire for things to be other than what they are. According to recent research, many ideas in the New Testament were lifted from Buddhism.

What is the difference between God and Emptiness?

 

Best, Jeff

[Jeff]

Of course there is a God. You only see as high as you stand, however. God may be a BMW, Lady Gaga, your wife, the sun, even yourself. Personally, I think you can see a little God in everything.

What is the difference between God and Tao?

 

Best wishes, Jeff

[thetaoiseasy]

^^^^^^ This is a matter of definitions and semantics -- which is different for everyone. I define it is this way, though. God is the highest energy you can conceive of. Tao is the formless and impersonal void that follows the law of nature. Whether your God is Tao--whether you can conceive God as a non-being-- depends on the development of your mind.

Edited January 29, 2013 by thetaoiseasy

[Vmarco]

What is the difference between God and Emptiness?

 

Best, Jeff

 

God arises from the desire for things to be other than they are; whereas Emptiness is the realization of things as they are.

 

Everything that arises from what is other than Suchness, is illusion,...or in the case of the god meme, a delusion. The realization of Suchness, is to see things as they are. For example, Undivided Light is proof that no god exists.

http://thetaobums.com/topic/19803-what-is-light/

[Vmarco]

Of course there is a God. You only see as high as you stand, however. God may be a BMW, Lady Gaga, your wife, the sun, even yourself. Personally, I think you can see a little God in everything.

 

Yes,...god has many definitions,...and all of them are conditional.

 

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).

 

As for the Judeao-Christian god,....Most Christians believe the God they invoke while spreading their faith, is love. However, in the whole of their Holy Book, the Bible, it only suggests the idea that their God is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. In fact, when viewing the full length and breadth of the Bible, their Patriarch is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. And amazingly, a God who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshiped, obeyed and prayed to.

 

Many believe that their god is light. The late second century apology 1 John, says, "God is light, and in him is no darkness." But what is this light and darkness? Reading further, one finds "darkness is in the past, but the new commandment is true and in the light." 1 John 2:8 refers to the perceived light and dark of duality. The light of the Abrahamic religions, by their own texts, is merely one aspect of Duality’s electrodynamic spectrum, not unconditional, undivided light. Thus, for most, there is no deep understanding life, but only superficial understanding of light and dark? To translate the Christian view of "god is light" is saying "god is yang, and in him is no yin."

 

What many Taoists fail to grasp is that Yang/Yin, although born of One, and thus effects its motion upon the Tao, is not the Tao.

Lao-zu correctly said, "The Tao gives birth to One. One gives birth to yin and yang. Yin and yang give birth to all things....The Tao gives rise to all form, yet is has no form of its own."

[Vmarco]

one must have duality in order to have no duality?

 

Yes,...both are illusory, and impermanent. There is no One (non-duality) without a Many (duality),...no Here without a There,...no Center without a Boundary. The Tao is beyond the One and the Many, beyond the One and Yang/Yin.

 

The Tao birthed neither the One nor Yang/Yin,...although the One and Yang/Yin were born from the Tao.

[thelerner]

There definitely is a Mother of the Universe, but you don't have to take my word for it -- I didn't know myself till She informed me.

We can have faith or not, but to know God may take silence and grace.

[Jeff]

^^^^^^ This is a matter of definitions and semantics -- which is different for everyone. I define it is this way, though. God is the highest energy you can conceive of. Tao is the formless and impersonal void that follows the law of nature. Whether your God is Tao--whether you can conceive God as a non-being-- depends on the development of your mind.

 

Very true on the definitions and semantics point... But, why do have the concept that "God is the highest energy you can conceive of."? Do you think that is "common" perspective or judgement about the definition of "God"?

 

In Genesis 1, it says "And the earth was without form, and void;"...

 

In John, Jesus says "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

 

In Luke, Jesus says "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

 

If you were speaking to uneducated herders and fishermen, what words would you use to describe "Tao"? All traditions seem to have "outer" and "inner" forms.

 

To me, it seems the question/difference really seems to only hang on your point of "impersonal". Would you agree?

 

Best, Jeff

[Jeff]

God arises from the desire for things to be other than they are; whereas Emptiness is the realization of things as they are.

 

Everything that arises from what is other than Suchness, is illusion,...or in the case of the god meme, a delusion. The realization of Suchness, is to see things as they are. For example, Undivided Light is proof that no god exists.

http://thetaobums.com/topic/19803-what-is-light/

 

"God arises from the desire for things to be other than they are"

 

Where did you come up with that definition/concept of God?

 

"Emptiness is the realization of things as they are."

 

This one is also pretty vague... And would require someone to be "beyond mind", with perfect "clarity" for someone to "know".

 

Maybe a different question... Do you believe that "Buddhas" exist as the "beings" described in all Buddhist texts?

 

Best wishes, Jeff

[thetaoiseasy]

.

Edited October 17, 2013 by thetaoiseasy

[Vmarco]

^^^^^^ This is a matter of definitions and semantics -- which is different for everyone. I define it is this way, though. God is the highest energy you can conceive of. Tao is the formless and impersonal void that follows the law of nature. Whether your God is Tao--whether you can conceive God as a non-being-- depends on the development of your mind.

 

That doesn't jive. I can buy into an idea that god is the "highest energy one can conceive" however, the Tao is beyond all energy.

 

To best "conceptualize "the Tao, visualize reaching the so-called speed of light,....Einstein showed that not only do space and time change as speed increases, so does mass. In the case of mass, however, the change is an increase rather than a decrease; the faster something moves, the greater its mass becomes. The cerebro-centric say if an object were ever to reach the so-called speed of light, its mass would become infinite. However, to move an infinite mass would take an infinite amount of energy–more energy than there is in the entire universe. Thus, how does any phenomena ever attain the speed of light. It doesn't!

 

When reaching the so-called speed of light,...time stops, mass ceases to be, and motion/energy no longer exists.

 

The Tao has no energy. Think of the Tao as the still center of a horrific hurricane. The Tao is stiller that that,...it is causeless fulcrum upon which duality effects its motion (energy). Motion/energy is within time. The Tao is timeless,...dimensionless, unconditional, changeless, causeless Presence.

[thetaoiseasy]

.

Edited October 17, 2013 by thetaoiseasy

[Vmarco]

In John, Jesus says "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

 

In Luke, Jesus says "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

 

If you were speaking to uneducated herders and fishermen, what words would you use to describe "Tao"? All traditions seem to have "outer" and "inner" forms.

 

 

Best, Jeff

 

Sure, god could be associated with "spirit"....the in-breath/out-breath of duality. However, there is "spirit" in the Tao. Spirit is born from the Tao, but there is no Tao in Spirit. Spirit is simply the yang/yin motion to return to the Tao,...which it can never do,...because a condition cannot enter the Unconditional.

[Vmarco]

^ I agree with you, actually. When you reach the max of energy, there is no energy anymore. When you can longer conceive of energy, that is when you return to Tao.

 

Yes,...it is like that. The Suchness of the Tao is beyond energy.

[Vmarco]

I'm a bit hesitant to post, because the terminology between belief systems is so different. But if I may...

 

To me, Jesus does not speak of Tao. Jesus is still speaking of the formed - albeit a higher refinement of form. When Jesus says "God is spirit," he is talking about formed energy. Spirit is highly refined yang energy.

 

This begs the question. From where does high refined energy called "spirit" arise? It comes from the unformed. This is the level of non-being, the impersonal void from which all arises and returns. That's what I call Tao.

 

Awesome,...presented in a way that shows the Tao as easy. As for spirit, it arises as a consequence of the perceived separation from the Tao,...a motion or energy to return to Source,...which it can never do,...because the perceived separation never really existed.

[Jeff]

I'm a bit hesitant to post, because the terminology between belief systems is so different. But if I may...

 

To me, Jesus does not speak of Tao. Jesus is still speaking of the formed - albeit a higher refinement of form. When Jesus says "God is spirit," he is talking about formed energy. Spirit is highly refined yang energy.

 

This begs the question. From where does high refined energy called "spirit" arise? It comes from the unformed. This is the level of non-being, the impersonal void from which all arises and returns. That's what I call Tao.

Interesting concept on what Jesus is "describing"... In the original Jewish tradition, the "highest aspect of God" was never named and could not be named (beyond Form). Also, Genesis describes the concept of "light" and the "word" which would seem to be equivalent to your definition of "spirit".

 

Your statement above, does seem to state that your concept is that the "highest level" is "impersonal Void" and that energy/spirit arises out of the impersonal Void. Is this correct?

 

Also, do you believe that there are such "beings" as immortals or Buddhas?

 

Thanks again, Jeff

 

(edit - removed "also")

Edited January 29, 2013 by Jeff

[Jeff]

Sure, god could be associated with "spirit"....the in-breath/out-breath of duality. However, there is "spirit" in the Tao. Spirit is born from the Tao, but there is no Tao in Spirit. Spirit is simply the yang/yin motion to return to the Tao,...which it can never do,...because a condition cannot enter the Unconditional.

 

Hi Vmarco,

 

Thanks for your comments above, but I had hoped to discuss Buddhism with you. I am trying to understand the perceived framework relative to the concept of "God". Both you and Thetaoiseasy seem to have "defined" or conceptualized "God".

 

If you could answer my previous question, it would help...

 

Do you believe that "Buddhas" exist as the "beings" described in all Buddhist texts?

 

Thanks, Jeff

[Mokona]

 

Interesting concept on what Jesus is "describing"... In the original Jewish tradition, the "highest aspect of God" was never named and could not be named (beyond Form). Also, Genesis describes the concept of "light" and the "word" which would seem to be equivalent to your definition of "spirit".

 

Your statement above, does seem to state that your concept is that the "highest level" is "impersonal Void" and that energy/spirit arises out of the impersonal Void. Is this correct?

 

Also, do you believe that there are such "beings" as immortals or Buddhas?

 

Thanks again, Jeff

 

(edit - removed "also")

I always thought it was easier to notice them as perceptions open up after enough practice. Mostly becuase you'll find all sorts of things looking at you.

[Jeff]

I always thought it was easier to notice them as perceptions open up after enough practice. Mostly becuase you'll find all sorts of things looking at you.

 

Hi Mokona,

 

I understand what you are saying, but my question for Thetaoiseasy is a little different. The "beings" you are talking about are at the astral/mind level. In buddhist terms, it would be "apparent reality" or before the "Void". Buddhas (and I believe Immortals) are defined as beings that have "seen beyond" or "transcended" apparent reality.

 

Best, Jeff

[Taomeow]

We can have faith or not, but to know God may take silence and grace.

 

I'll have to take your word for it. Never argue with things I can neither prove nor disprove. I have no "faith." Everything I know about Mother of the Universe comes from a real-life shamanic experience. It wasn't faith based, and it wasn't silent.

 

As for grace, I am not sure I know what that is. Love that is timely, love without procrastination, love that does not keep the party in need of it in suspense -- is anybody coming for me, does anyone know I need them?.. Mommy?.. Daddy?.. If grace is no waiting time between needing someone big and powerful to take you in their arms and help, soothe, accept, approve, love, and someone actually doing that... well, then every little baby knows how little of that is available. So the baby whose mommy and daddy didn't show up when the need was urgent will later have to make up the kind of mommy and daddy who always do, always did, and always will, anytime now. That's faith...

[Vmarco]

Do you believe that "Buddhas" exist as the "beings" described in all Buddhist texts?

 

Thanks, Jeff

 

I don't know, but have no reason to doubt it. I suppose the myriads of Buddhas and Arhats mentioned in the sutras would have the appearance of being like gods to a 3rd dimensional, sentient being, but I see them all as equal. Kind of like many thangka painting with little high or over selves.

 

For me, I don't pay too much attention to that stuff,...but focused more on Dependent Origination and the nature of Emptiness. I'm a big fan of the Heart sutra.

[Vmarco]

Hi Mokona,

 

I understand what you are saying, but my question for Thetaoiseasy is a little different. The "beings" you are talking about are at the astral/mind level. In buddhist terms, it would be "apparent reality" or before the "Void". Buddhas (and I believe Immortals) are defined as beings that have "seen beyond" or "transcended" apparent reality.

 

Best, Jeff

 

I love this story of "immortals"

 

 

There’s a story in the Buddhist scriptures of a talented monk who wanted to find out the answer to the question, "Where do the four elements cease without remainder?" Through meditation he reached the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, who did not know the answer. Next he went to the thirty three gods in a higher Desire Realm heaven, but none of these rulers knew either. He then asked King Sakka (Indra), the king of these gods, but Sakka did not know the answer. Up and up he went asking all sorts of gods at each and every higher level. Finally he came to Great Brahma, the Creator, Uncreated, Knower of All.

 

When the monk finally achieved an audience with Great Brahma, Brahma appeared in all his majesty and glory announcing, "I am Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be." The monk then humbly and respectfully asked his question, but all Great Brahma did was repeat, "I am Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be."

 

The monk eventually got frustrated and said, "I know you are "Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be," but I asked you a question about where the four elements cease without remainder. The Great Brahma replied, "Listen little monk, don’t embarrass me. All these other gods are listening and think I know everything. If you want to know the answer to a question like that, don’t ask me. I don’t know the answer. For a question like that, you have to go ask the Buddha."

[Jeff]

I don't know, but have no reason to doubt it. I suppose the myriads of Buddhas and Arhats mentioned in the sutras would have the appearance of being like gods to a 3rd dimensional, sentient being, but I see them all as equal. Kind of like many thangka painting with little high or over selves.

 

For me, I don't pay too much attention to that stuff,...but focused more on Dependent Origination and the nature of Emptiness. I'm a big fan of the Heart sutra.

 

Thanks. From your description above, it sounds like you don't really buy into most of it. Current Buddhist/Dzogchen teachers, like C.N.Norbu are pretty specific on the topic. If you are interested, the Lankavatara Sutra is an excellent overiew.

 

I would definitely agree with you on the Heart sutra... If one moves beyond "mental understanding" and truly "realizes" that

 

Void is Form and Form is Void.

 

Then, that is pretty much all you need...

 

Best, Jeff

[thetaoiseasy]

.

Edited October 17, 2013 by thetaoiseasy