Personal "God" and self-representation (page 3)

Siddhashunyata

OK here we go ! There seems to be tongue in cheek "tolerance" of the views of James Thomas by some posting on this thread. If I'm wrong I apologize but I'm not bringing this up in a judgemental way. If its so, I'm curious has the idea that God is dead effected your tolerance of testimony based on transendental experience ?

JAVA

The Christian's take on monotheism is somewhat puzzling to me when the Trinity doctrine was added to the theological mix. However, that's another thread, and not intended to highjack this discussion.

I have found that when beliefs and conceptual interpretations (not just beliefs in a god, but all beliefs especially those concerning who I am) are absent, a sense of unity and oneness is more readily apparent. In other words: the less there is of me, the more there is of God.

JT -- Your comments about the feeling of unity and oneness becoming more evident as you empty yourself of beliefs once held is interesting in that you sense more of God, and less of self. Perhaps there is a "God gene" lurking in our DNA after all. Whatever we call it, many people state they feel a spiritual something when they clean their conceptual closets. On the other hand, others might have a different take on where it takes them. How does the saying go; "There is one god, and the sages call it by many names." For some that could include the absence of god, just as it means the opposite to others.

I'm not sure where it takes me; perhaps to a personal crossroad.

Narkissos

As whatever kind of "comparison monkey," I deeply agree with Abaddon's remark on the "human vs. animal" duality, classically built as symmetric to the "divine vs. human" one and related to the "mind-spirit-soul-ego-subject vs. body". It's very hard (impossible?) to think of ourselves consistently as "thinking animals" or "thinking bodies" (even though we may be scientifically convinced that we are nothing else) without reverting to the idea of the "little man/god inside" as another poster put it (in another thread). In the very act of speaking we somehow have to posit "I am not what I am".

My only (overt but friendly) objection to JamesThomas rests on the logical impossibility of speaking of whatever lies beyond language. Language is actually limited, but its limit we can only approach from inside. Whatever might be on the far side of the limit (metaphor alert!) we can't really know, at least inasmuch as knowledge is tied-in with language.

I also feel there is much to ponder in JAVA's idea:

How does the saying go; "There is one god, and the sages call it by many names." For some that could include the absence of god, just as it means the opposite to others.

JamesThomas

"For some that could include the absence of god, just as it means the opposite to others."

Here we go again. What you say Java, makes all the sense in the world within the restrictions of a language of duality. Is this as far as we are willing to go?

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all-self-righteous-son-of-a-bitch (some would say such a concern obviously hasn't concerned me before), from past experience, I would say that there can be what some would call a "spiritual something" felt by belief in a god or some other conceptual idea. However, what I am referring to has little to do with that, as it is what is when there is no dependance on anything. What comes before all gods, all mental and intellectual thought? What is seen when all theology, all psychology, all philosophy, all memories and beliefs in myself as a unique separate entity are silent? What is here then? What is ultimately actual, real and true?

Experiences which first require a belief in some thing, god, or greater or lesser something, are simply mind trips. Some believe that the mind is as far as we extend and there is nothing else. OK, fine, I believed that way too once. However, there is an extremely complex universe -- including the bodies and mind we identify with -- which came into being with absolutely no input from us. It would seem there certainly is an intelligence beyond the human mind. Can this underlying foundation, source and sustenance of all things be realized? If it is here, then it is not dependent on anything, for It, is what all flows from. This, is the indefinable center of all things which I am futilely attempting to point to, which is equally everywhere available and within all. It, is, what we really are; and as our true and natural reality, certainly can be realized.

Often the main blinding factor to discovery of our true Identity is unquestioned beliefs in a god separate and more importantly in our "self" as a fragmented and isolated "me". So, take away everything that can be taken away (conceptual reality), and what remains is the Truth we seek. Not a "truth" which is a product of the mind. Not a truth which can be objectified, spoken or written or seen as anything other than what is seeing.

I am not saying the mind is a bad thing. It's a natural expression of life that is required in practical day to day existence. However, there is That, which comes before. That, which we are commonly ignorant to because we refuse to look deeper beyond the mind into no-thingness.

j

JAVA

If I found a watch on the beach, it's fairly easy say someone made it. The argument goes that humans are indeed more complex than a watch, thus a god or intelligent force had to make humans (and the same goes for the earth, known and unknown universe, etc.). This is evidence to establish that there is a god or intelligent force.

Siddhashunyata

Java, although James Thomas is able to answer for himself I would like to add that he is speaking about what happens when "thinking" stops and the mind simply perceives. It is possible to discuss that perception( and the inelligence that goes with it) and also to discuss its meaning however if one of the parties has not experienced that perception then communications is impaired. In my opinion we are experiencing that impairment here in this thread. It would be interesting to find out who has experienced the perception JT is speaking about but still questions the validity of his statements? In line with the theme of the thread we might ask when God died for you(whomever), did the death of transendentalism die for you and did that make you more tolerant or less tolerant of diversity?

JAVA

In line with the theme of the thread we might ask when God died for you(whomever), did the death of transendentalism die for you and did that make you more tolerant or less tolerant of diversity?

It seems that JT and I are not only in different pews, but different churches by injecting Transcendentalism thinking into the discussion. The idea that the mind can apprehend spiritual truths directly without the influence of our senses, and institutions (like religion) is not something I can say I've experienced. The God of the WT died for me not too long after exiting the sect. I believe the loss of that god has made me (and perhaps most of us) more tolerant of diversity. However, as can be seen from other posts, my thinking is more in line with the philosophy of Locke, and less like Immanuel Kant and Emerson. On the other hand my mind enjoys reading Emerson, but I don't think that puts me in the Transcendental camp.

Sorry JT, I didn't pick that up, and thanks Siddhashunyata for the clarification.

jst2laws

Narkissos

Karen Armstrong give an interesting history of mans spiritual evolution, even suggesting why cultures change their perspective of God. She worked from two anchoring premises:

1 In the beginning, Man created God.
2 When our religion no longer "works for us, we change it".

The later would agree with JamesThomas, that we change, we grow up in our human consciousness, and no longer need the former concept of god. Then we take the next step, philosopize a new deity that fits us.

Zen,

in Acts 17:28 paul quotes a pagan pantheist who seems to sum it up nicely
in HIM we live and move and have our being

You made me look it up. Barnes says:

sentiment is found in Plautus (5, 4,14): "O Jupiter, who dost cherish and nourish the race of man; by whom we live, and with whom is the hope of the life of all men" (Kuinoel)

Also

For we are also his offspring -

This precise expression is found in Aratus ("Phaenom.," v. 5), and in Cleanthus in a hymn to Jupiter

As a JW I read those scripts and thought, what a coincidence, Paul found some Greek poets who agreed with divine truth. Now, with a broader perspective, Paul's comments in I Tim 3 about "all scripture" being inspired results in a new perspective on what he meant by "scripture" as well as what he meant by "inspired", especially considering there was NO new testament when he made the comment.

Thanks for the lead, Zen.

Jst2laws

Narkissos

he is speaking about what happens when "thinking" stops and the mind simply perceives.

Is there a "mind" without "thinking"? Isn't what you call "simply perceiving" actually the result of a hypercritical mind activity, deconstructing its usual patterns of thinking associated with everyday perception?

It is possible to discuss that perception( and the inelligence that goes with it) and also to discuss its meaning

To discuss would lead one back into language (if one has ever left it actually).

however if one of the parties has not experienced that perception then communications is impaired. In my opinion we are experiencing that impairment here in this thread. It would be interesting to find out who has experienced the perception JT is speaking about but still questions the validity of his statements?

This reminds me another thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/86016/1.ashx

jst2laws

Narkissos,

Is there a "mind" without "thinking"?

I'm not as far along on this as others but I will give you my take. Refering to the word "thinking" and stopping it, to me, simply means the automatic programs, all the computing process that are going on like the 20 to 50 applications running in backround on your computer at this moment. They are controling your computer more than your input through the key board.

By shutting down thinking that is eating up your mental processor time, you take over the mind. Now you have all the resources at your control to percieve what your thinking mind was too busy to pay attention to. If that sounds too much like JT, try stopping your mind once and see how hard it is to control the processes. It takes a lot of practice. That's the stage I'm at.

Jst2laws

Personal "God" and self-representation

Share this