God and stuff

[rex]

I think that honorific comes with the territory.

[Fa Xin]

8 hours ago, Apech said:

 

That would make God part of the unknown - so you could recognise god as a name/form.

 

What I'm suggesting is that when people refer to god they are using the term to stand for what is unknowable - just as with the Dao - it cannot be named but for the sake of talking we'll call it god/Dao.  There is a big difference of course between god a person and an impersonal Dao.  But logically speaking if the unknowable is absolute then it would be both a person and not a person at the same time.

 

 

 

If it is absolute, would that make it static?

 

And if God/Dao is infinite, wouldn't it be in the realm of possibility to know it? Saying you "cannot know it" would make it finite and place it in a box.  A knowing of the heart, not of the mind.  I'd say if such a knowing is possible, it would be experiential.

 

I have no answers, of course. Just more questions

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Fa Xin said:

 

If it is absolute, would that make it static?

 

And if God/Dao is infinite, wouldn't it be in the realm of possibility to know it? Saying you "cannot know it" would make it finite and place it in a box.  A knowing of the heart, not of the mind.  I'd say if such a knowing is possible, it would be experiential.

 

I have no answers, of course. Just more questions

 

Not really.  Static means standing still.  Only an abstract vision of the absolute might appear still - but this would be an error.  Both eternal motion and eternal peace in the absolute since it is beyond all relative terms.

 

Knowing something means recognising its name and form.  Name is function and form is its substantiality.  If we talk about infinite then it is beyond name since any quality you might give it, it also has the opposite, otherwise it would be finite.  I agree that there is another kind of knowing (i.e. gnosis) but that is different.

 

 

[Fa Xin]

How would gnosis be different?

 

Edit: Nevermind, I see what your getting at...

 

So there’s no knowing the formless? Is that the idea?

Edited September 24, 2018 by Fa Xin

[Apech]

12 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

How would gnosis be different? 

 

 

Well ... if we say that the act of knowing something (whether an external object or something more subtle like a thought or feeling) is about recognising its function, then this comes down as I said to name/form.  The world of the known (or island of the known) is made up of those things which we recognise.  When it comes to the unknowable obviously by definition we can't know it in this way - because if we did we would have objectified it in a definite name/function.  However if we accept that, that which gives us consciousness and thus the power to know in the first place is identical to the 'unknowable' there is then a possibility of turning the circle of attention back on itself so the unknowable recognises itself - and this is what our true nature is.  And this is what I would call gnosis.  Or at least that's the best formulation I can give you for now.  What do you think?

[Fa Xin]

15 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Well ... if we say that the act of knowing something (whether an external object or something more subtle like a thought or feeling) is about recognising its function, then this comes down as I said to name/form.  The world of the known (or island of the known) is made up of those things which we recognise.  When it comes to the unknowable obviously by definition we can't know it in this way - because if we did we would have objectified it in a definite name/function.  However if we accept that, that which gives us consciousness and thus the power to know in the first place is identical to the 'unknowable' there is then a possibility of turning the circle of attention back on itself so the unknowable recognises itself - and this is what our true nature is.  And this is what I would call gnosis.  Or at least that's the best formulation I can give you for now.  What do you think?

 

I think that’s a good definition indeed. I suppose it’s like the paradox of form and formlessness, yin and yang. That God can know itself (gnosis) and yet still remain a mystery that’s continously unfolding. 

[Nungali]

23 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 It's not me that makes that connection of God to creation - it's the Bible etc.

 

... and nearly all other religions .

 

23 hours ago, Apech said:

 

'local collective superego' that's very Freudian.  And I have to say inadequate.  But then I can handle it

 

 

The  term   seems a Freudian   term   to some  .    But societies definitely operate, in this way, via that mechanism, regardless of what term we give that process .  Most give the term  'God'  to that process.   Its a 'feedback system' ;     God creates Man in his image but Man also creates God in Man's image .     

 

Otherwise religions would be the same for different cultures and we  would all have similar systems of mores and taboos .

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, Marblehead said:

That's way too much "Holy" for me.

 

 

 

Then you should go to church occasionally  to boost your level of holiness .

 

 

 

     Sorry  ... I just had a vision of Marblehead in church    

 

 

(Ps. I didnt like it much,  last time I went  .... they poured cold water on me head !      )

[Lost in Translation]

7 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Its a 'feedback system' ;     God creates Man in his image but Man also creates God in Man's image .

 

Oh, this is good! Now I see why European religions feel so 'European', and why Middle Eastern religions feel so 'Middle Eastern', and why Indian religions feel so 'Indian', and why Asian religions feel so 'Asian', and why ..., come on, you get the point!

 

I made this same assertion using different lingo on friendly Christian forum I stumbled upon. I wasn't intending to be rude but... crickets.

[Lost in Translation]

12 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Its a 'feedback system' ;     God creates Man in his image but Man also creates God in Man's image .  

 

Oh, my God, - Jack Nicholson was right, I really can't "handle the truth!" 

[Marblehead]

53 minutes ago, Nungali said:

     Sorry  ... I just had a vision of Marblehead in church    

That would have been a nightmare.

 

[Gerard]

On 24/09/2018 at 6:26 AM, Nungali said:

 

'God' is  the   local mores and taboo systems   projected into  the   local collective superego,  then personalised ,  externalised , elevated and  deified 

 

Bingo! The Hindu and Hebrew traditions are responsible for this. The eaiest way to control people/keep them in fear.

 

*Fear is one of the main traits of humanity!

 

*Something we share with the animal kingdom, generally speaking.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Gerard

[Gerard]

On 24/09/2018 at 7:20 AM, Apech said:

  So your personal practice doesn't involve thinking?

 

Honestly, why bother. Still the Mind and the 'waters' will let you see what's at the bottom.

[Gerard]

On 24/09/2018 at 6:44 AM, Lost in Translation said:

 

I really, really, really want to believe in something. I think that would be very comforting. But I return to "I don't know" and must allow that to suffice.

 

Easy:

 

BELIEVE IN YOURSELF (far from

the Ego aspect) as in being an intimate part of the greater 'reality.' From that moment on, you'll never 'fear' anything and believe in anything, especially the creation and God part. Control is something that is carved deeply on us since early childhood ---> parents, school, society. 

 

We are far greater than that.

 

You are the entire reality! :)

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, Gerard said:

 

Easy:

 

BELIEVE IN YOURSELF (far from

the Ego aspect) as in being an intimate part of the greater 'reality.' From that moment on, you'll never 'fear' anything and believe in anything, especially the creation and God part. Control is something that is carved deeply on us since early childhood ---> parents, school, society. 

 

We are far greater than that.

 

You are the entire reality!

 

This sounds nice but I don't know what it means.

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

Honestly, why bother. Still the Mind and the 'waters' will let you see what's at the bottom.

 

'Mind', 'waters' and 'the bottom' are concepts.  So you are thinking.

[Gerard]

Mind is what you really are...hence is not a concept.

 

Water and bottom are only analogies  so to speak. You should well know this by now!

 

.............

 

You don't know. Well, practice in earnest a method you believe in -proven that it works, or you'll be wasting your time. Good luck!

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, Marblehead said:

That would have been a nightmare.

 

 

You seemed agitated and restless .  I dont know why you were there though. ... hang on a minute   < looks in crystal ball >  ... you seem to have to be accompanying someone for some reason ,  you aren;t happy about it,  but are putting up with it .

 

Oh wait .....  , that was in your  future .  

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

Bingo! The Hindu and Hebrew traditions are responsible for this. The eaiest way to control people/keep them in fear.

 

*Fear is one of the main traits of humanity!

 

*Something we share with the animal kingdom, generally speaking.

 

 

"Fear God " !      That's what some of the Christians say .  I always thought that was pretty strange .

 

But what would I know ,  I am a Thelemite at heart     ;

 

" Every man and every woman is a star.

 

Come forth, o children, under the stars, & take your fill of love!

 I am above you and in you. My ecstasy is in yours. My joy is to see your joy.

 

I love you! I yearn to you! Pale or purple, veiled or voluptuous, I who am all pleasure and purple, and drunkenness of the innermost sense, desire you. Put on the wings, and arouse the coiled splendour within you: come unto me!

 

 I am the blue-lidded daughter of Sunset; I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky.

 

 

 

 

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Gerard said:

Mind is what you really are...hence is not a concept.

 

Water and bottom are only analogies  so to speak. You should well know this by now!

 

.............

 

You don't know. Well, practice in earnest a method you believe in -proven that it works, or you'll be wasting your time. Good luck!

 

'Mind is what you really are' - is a concept ... several in fact.

[Apech]

I am sensing a lot of deophobia on this thread.  is the word god really so triggering?

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

is the word god really so triggering?

Apparently it is.  I don't like the word because of the connotations it includes.

 

 

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Apparently it is.  I don't like the word because of the connotations it includes.

 

 

 

 

I told God what you said and this was his answer:

 

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

I told God what you said and this was his answer:

That's what I'm talking about.  The other God would say, "I love you anyway."

 

 

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

That's what I'm talking about.  The other God would say, "I love you anyway."

 

 

 

 

he usually does say that but when I said your name ... it was armageddon!