I don’t care about what people believe. I’m talking about definitions. When someone says “God” do you say “no thats not for me” or do you translate the word into your locally appreciated term?
I’m still surprised at the number of people who HAVE seen through the labels to find the reality of it. Are most people on here understanding that love is God or does this still seem illusive.
No matter the name: Universe, Atman, Brahman, energy, God, love, I AM light, Christ, bliss; whatever. Are we in agreement that we are talking about the something that feels beyond us until we realize that we are that (Love / God / toilet paper roll)?
@healingchime, It has many names, therefore it has many different meanings depending on your own personal beliefs. That’s the beauty of it, and that’s why it’s so insanely stupid that we’ve started wars over it. Personally, I believe just as you do – that we are all one, we are all “it”. We are love, god, light, the universe, etc.
I’m in agreement, definitely. It always throws me off when people rant about how “God doesn’t exist.” I just wonder to myself what they define as God because, really, how do you define this…thing we have so many words for?
I feel like it’s something you just feel… Some greater weird interconnectedness in which we’re all one thing. But I could be wrong because that’s really just me personally and I don’t want to speak for everyone else.
I add that disclaimer because if everyone felt the same way, there wouldn’t be so much..disconnectedness in this world.
You might find “Biocentrism” by Dr. R. Lanza a good read.
I personally believe that God is merely an energy, the driving force behind love and consciousness. The same energy that runs through the veins of our planet, and the sole reason the universe exists. I don’t think “God” judges, or condemns, I think it’s sole purpose is to experience itself and become ever more interconnected.
@healingchime, I think you’re mixing concepts with different meaning & effects with wishful generalization. For example, being with or in Christ is different from realizing Brahman, and realizing Brahman is not same as experiencing “I am light”, also, Brahman =/= God; Brahman = absolute reality, while God = creation, love, judgment, etc.
@healingchime, Truth. Whatever the mind tells or tries to define, no meaningful meaning can be given to something that cannot be conceived with the limited intellect. Going beyond the mind is to find that you are that that goes beyond the mind,
@pornoholic, I’m talking about YOU, the one who always was and always will be. this one has no concepts, no mind, and never was born. Before anything was, you had to be there to name it, or to accept or reject it. I’m talking about the truth that all the paths lead to.
The world presents a web of material definitions, unable to see the root of all conceptuals is the awareness of being alive, the I AM that all religions have found to be present in the human experience. If your @pornoholic name is a true reflection of how you feel about yourself, it would be your trust in passing appearances that creates the potability of separation. Addiction is caused from a fundamental feeling of being a distinct separate part of the world. Once you know you are everything in the world and more, there is no where you must go to be whole. All addicts are trying to get to the other side of a road that does not exist because they believe that some thing will create completeness. What can be discovered in this human experience is that who you are has always been complete. this fundamental reality can be experienced by everyone. It is easy. Not male or female, you the original source are beyond all things. Nothing can be added or taken away.
God is the presence of continuous creative experience. Just because the world is caught in definitions that appear to create separate concepts does not mean they are separate in actuality. If you manage to make contact with your true self, then you can go beyond the mental field into the spiritual unity that exists in all things. I am your true self. The fall of man was simply the propagation of the idea that God and bliss and attainment are out there, and that you are separate. you are that. It’s not my job to convince you, but I can surely point to the truth that bubbles up from within you to create this very experience. How do you know that you exist?
@healingchime, Lovely post. I agree with all that you say. Earlier, I approached your (first) post with a more judgmental, critical frame of mind, as I thought you wrote all that without any real understanding. But all your subsequent explanation in 2nd post convince me about you.
I already know what you say – from family elders (Hindus & Buddhists), from books, from ‘satsang’ discourses, people from other religions, etc. So, I know that and a lot more on spirituality & metaphysics. But the problem is – all this knowing failed to convince me, and I’ve ended up being a so called loser in every sense of the term. What I need is a ‘direct experience’ of all that I know. That is the only thing that will truly convince me about oneness and thus liberate me from my own uncontrollable egoistic outer-self (mind). I have tried meditation, prayers, Krishna, Jesus and all, but nothing touched my core. I’m agnostic now but haven’t completely given up on meditation yet. Guess the thing will happen when my time or death, whatever comes first. Until then no relief from miserable existence of duality.
Too many I’s in my post…lol!
@pornoholic, Thanks so much for your honesty. Guess all I have to say is: there is nothing you have to do or believe or experience to be. Simply be. If you do feel stuck, it sounds like ayawaska might be helpful for you. There are plenty of recipes online and you can get all the ingredients for less than $40 or $50 (plus they are legal ingredients until you ‘cook’ them). I found the ayawaska experience to be very refreshing and I try to get one in about once a year. There was a reason our paths crossed, and it has to do with the potential of light that is common in everyone. Let it shine!
@healingchime, Interestingly, only yesterday I was thinking about importance of such stuff in spirituality. There was one ‘Soma’ mixture mentioned in the 1500 BC Indian-Vedas (known as ‘Homa’ amongst Persian-Zoroastrians), that was considered to be the holiest drink ever with health and esp. spiritual benefits. The original ingredients are now unknown. Many modern historians (not all) consider it to be a hallucinogenic mix. So, I was thinking like “Man, how could a ‘drug’ inspire a whole culture of ‘consciousness’ based spirituality?! Must be something innit.”
Thanks so much for your advice. I’ll definitely be on lookout for ayawaska – deserves a try!
I’m such a big fan of Buddhism and this idea that its all one and its all amazing almost seems to denigrate so much of the individual wisdom an unique insight that is in Buddhism, starting with the one straight from the horses mouth that…
the Buddha was just a man
(the beatles just a band, Led Zepplin just a band, the beach boys just a band, the sex pistols just a band oh and when I say hey thou shall not say ho!)
Sorry that just seemed to fit:
@chemicalspike, great metaphor with the bands. Bands play music, but the music remains a mystery. But I have a question, does each band, being ‘just a band’ degrade the music in any way?
Lets think about a field of grass. Is a single blade degraded by being of the same genetic material as the neighboring blades of grass? No, it remains fully grasslike no matter if it is surrounded by a million or a billion other kinds of grasses. The uniqueness of the grass is not taken away by talking about the whole field of grass, or the forest nearby. The realities of the macro and the micro are just aspects of how zoomed in we are looking.
Is the trunk equally valuable to every leaf of the canopy that it bears? And does the fact that the roots supply nutrients to the whole tree, in any way, make the details of the leaves vanish? All things in the unity of the One, have their place.
It is easy to think of it as a macro or micro issue. Are we looking at the leaves or the trunk. But what if we see the whole tree? If each religious expression is like a branch, is there a common trunk from where they spring? The answer is YOU. You are the trunk. Thats why, I say: Love = God = Brahman = Christ = Buddha = YOU!
Pretending that acknowledging the common trunk somehow destroys some valuable aspect of the religions is only a kind of mental inflexibility. If we accept that both a macro and micro world can exist together, we can see the unity in the tree, and it makes the details all the more beautiful.
Actually that metaphor was more of a joke to do with the song I linked to it doesn’t actually reflect my point, poor choice of words there.
I think I get what you are trying to say with the whole everything is you phrase but it isn’t really a useful phrase in as much as I am not the Buddha, the Buddha was an individual with much to teach but I am not him, I am myself. He was so valuable in what he taught and his discoveries and there is so much there that is good but he is not me. Also Buddha was not Christ and he was not an avatar of the ultimate reality Brahman, these are distinct individual concepts which might retain value to those that wish them but to compound them into buddhism or the image of the buddha would be to lose the value that is inherent within Buddhism and the wisdom of the man that was just an individual in his own right that had so much to teach. Don’t ignore and devalue that wisdom and teaching for the sake of a metaphor that says we’re all cool and important. Thats true but we’re not christ and we’re not Buddha.
You say it is mental inflexibility I say it is clarity. Imagining yourself as part of a greater thing is self aggrandisation rather than the perfect clarity of just who you are.
I’ll quote my favourite piece of writing on buddhism as I so frequently do to highlight this point.
“Existential psychology has some similar concepts here, as well. Our lack of “essence” or preordained structure, our “nothingness,” leads us to crave solidity. We are, you could say, whirlwinds who wish they were rocks. We cling to things in the hopes that they will provide us with a certain “weight.” We try to turn our loved ones into things by demanding that they not change, or we try to change them into perfect partners, not realizing that a statue, though it may live forever, has no love to give us. We try to become immortal, whether by anxiety-driven belief in fairy-tales, or by making our children and grand-children into clones of ourselves, or by getting into the history books or onto the talk shows. We even cling to unhappy lives because change is too frightening.
Or we try to become a piece of a larger pie: The most frightening things we’ve seen in this century are the mass movements, whether they be Nazis or Red Guard or Ku Klux Klan or… well, you name them. If I’m just a little whirlwind, maybe by joining others of my kind, I can be a part of a hurricane! Beyond these giant movements are all the petty ones — political movements, revolutionary ones, religious ones, antireligious ones, ones involving nothing more than a style or fashion, and even the local frat house. And note the glue that holds them together is the same: hatred, which in turn is based on the anxiety that comes from feeling small.”
I think people are too stubborn to admit that they believe in God. The word God is a generic term that most people picture to be a man in the sky who judges and loves and blah blah blah. Instead, they try to say that God is energy or love or something else just as long as it is in THEIR OWN terms. Classic example:
Person 1: Why are you so angry?
Person 2: I’m not ANGRY… I’m UPSET.
So yes @healingchime I think most people are talking about the same thing but too stubborn to admit it.
Sorry Healing Chime but I don’t get this vague almost nonsensical broad terminology. This again appears to be the thought process that we’re all bigger than we are, that we are magical when in actual fact we don’t need to make things up and be part of the massive bigger picture.
We are enough by ourselves. We aren’t broken, we don’t need fixed, we don’t need to be bigger than we are to have meaning, we don’t need to be matched with gods or equivalent to gods in fact we don’t need to be anything. What we are is OK, its good and ultimately the most important thing is that we contain everything we need to be complete and happy. We are everything we are and everything we need to be. No need to go wishing after other things or imagining massive ideas.
Terms, concepts and language are important. They create difference, they seperate ideas and create important divisions between those ideas and some ideas are better than others or more beneficial so its important to have these distinctions for our advancement. So it is important to stress whether you are a believer or not that God is an idea, it has meaning and it isn’t just everything up to and including the turd on the street. It like Buddha are very individual concepts pertaining to particular thoughts ideas or people and its OK to seperate them.
In the very same way this site suggests ways to feel good and bad, those terms aren’t interchangable if they are to retain any value as descriptive terms for us to talk to each other.
@chemicalspike, Who is it that doesn’t get something? As a person, you can define youself according to any words you choose. As consciousness, you are free from every container as the divine principle filling all things with life, and then what words can describe you or contain you. All this feeds into you. Who is that one?
For one who is truly empty as you have suggested, how are they different from anything else? Or is there a particle still trying to fight for survival? When searched for, the individual cannot be found. What is left is the immeasurable ocean of being, containing everything and allowing every potential to be. It is the nature of being to know this, to be this, and to spread this light, everlasting magnificent self-knowing that you are! I am even you! For how could I exist for you, apart from your mind?
Did I say empty? I said complete. It is you who seeks to attach more meaning, more conceptual weight to find deeper meaning than what is.
I can only assume this comes from a deep underlying feeling that we are empty, that there needs to be more and that we are broken.
We aren’t. We’re perfect and we’re not empty. You don’t need anything more than you are (and you/I/We aren’t gods, we don’t have to be, its enough to be human).