Anthropomorphic God and Oneness

[paradox]

From the mystical perspective, this "Oneness" is not the merging of two into one, but rather the recognition that no separation exists. Take for instance this quote from the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart,

"The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love"​

In other words, there is no edge where "I" end, and God begins. It is all one eye, one seeing, one knowing, and one love, or another way to put it, one "being".

This is very interesting!

Therefore people who reconciled are God?

 

[Windwalker]

This is very interesting!

Therefore people who reconciled are God?

The language of reconciliation with God is from a dualistic perspective. It sees the 'self' as other to God. That is a normal thing being a human being who has been socialized and taught, "This is you, this is not you", as a young child. This is normal healthy ego development. It is necessary in order to function in a society and navigate the world.

But what happens is we begin to identify with that ego-self, the small 'self' as the reality of who and what we are. It becomes the locus of self-identification. We get wrapped up in this world of the self, protecting it, defending it, building it, exerting it, worrying about it, and all of that. The result is a strongly defined sense of separation from others, from the world, and ultimately from our own true natures, or the true Self.

That is what the story of the Fall is really capturing. We used to be 'face to face' with the Divine, but something happened and paradise was lost. This is the existential crisis of the human being. It's the recognition that there is a higher Self that we yearn for, but are 'thrown out of paradise' into this world of suffering or "sin", that falling short of the Divine.

Plotinus expressed it this way, "Mankind is poised midway between the gods and the beasts." The apostle Paul expressed it this way, "That which I would not do, that thing I do. That which I would do that thing I do not. Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" It's expressing that same thing.

So reconciliation then, from the point of view of those who experience this "oneness" is really better stated as a "realization", or an Awakening, or "Enlightenment". What is realized or awakened to, is that that which we were seeking, was ours all along. It was never other to us, or outside us, or external to us. But it was who and what we already fully have been all along. We "come home" to what never left us in this first place, but was only masked or shrouded by the veil of the illusion of separation, brought about by fear of dying to the separate self.

So from a dualistic perspective, it sees the person and God as two being brought together. But from the nondual perspective, it is simply awakening to the truth of who and what we were, our "original face from before we were born". The separate self is seen now, not as who and what we truly are, as we previously living under that assumption before, but now is recognized as simply a 'construct', a functional identification for the purpose of being in the world. "I have a body, but I am more than my body. I have and ego, but I am more than my ego. I have thoughts, but I am not my thoughts,", and so forth.

Therefore we are "in the world, but not of the world". I think that captures this well. Who we truly are, transcends 'flesh and blood', or the separate egoic self identification as the reality of who we are. That becomes let go of, and the result is Freedom from that 'existential dread', or fear of non-existence.

 

[The Hammer]

The separate self is seen now, not as who and what we truly are, as we previously living under that assumption before, but now is recognized as simply a 'construct', a functional identification for the purpose of being in the world. "I have a body, but I am more than my body. I have and ego, but I am more than my ego. I have thoughts, but I am not my thoughts,", and so forth.

Therefore we are "in the world, but not of the world". I think that captures this well. Who we truly are, transcends 'flesh and blood', or the separate egoic self identification as the reality of who we are. That becomes let go of, and the result is Freedom from that 'existential dread', or fear of non-existence

So while I recognize this. And don't really have a fear of non-existence.

I also still find that there are powers and deities outside of ones realm of perception or lack thereof.

 

[stvdv]

are people who believe in an anthropomorphic god, dualists

Yes, they fall into the category "dualism", but can also fall into the category "special dualism" (and of course many other categories)

 

[stvdv]

can a dualist be one, have oneness, whole, or atonement with an anthropomorphic god?

No

That is called "special dualism"

 

[Aupmanyav]

Stvdv, give him the names of the philosophies which say yes to non-dualism in dualism with Anthromorphic Gods:
1. Vishishta Advaita, 2. Shuddha Advaita, 3. Dvaita Adviata, 4. Acintya Bhed Abheda Advaita, 5. Sankara's Advaita.
(One can check for all of them in Wikipedia)

 

[Clara Tea]

are people who believe in an anthropomorphic god, dualists?


can a dualist be one, have oneness, whole, or atonement with an anthropomorphic god?

Anthropomorphic: Having human characteristics (source: Oxford Dictionary).

Egocentric: Thinks about onesself only. (source: paraphrased from Oxford Dictionary)

More than anthropomorphic, our knowledge is egocentric.

The church "dictated" that the sun orbits the earth. It makes sense, because we see the sun rise and set. Scientists who proposed that the earth (and other planets) orbit the sun, were tortured or killed for contradicting church doctrines.

Yes, we are the center of it all. We are made in God's image. Plants and animals were made by God to feed and serve mankind.

That begs the question, what good is a mosquito? Has anyone noticed that God made us out of meat and juicy tasty blood? Maybe God made us for mosquito food? Maybe the mosquito is the center of the universe???

One of the first things that President W. Bush did in Iraq was take away the requirement that women wear Bhirkas. He figured that if they looked like us, they'd act like us. He figured that it is very restrictive to hide one's face. But from the standpoint of Middle Eastern women, a bhirka is more necessary than a bikini top. . . they'd rather show a boobie than a cheek on the face. Middle Eastern women believe that bhirkas force men to judge them by their character, not by some superficial facial feature.

We are egocentric in thinking that our appearance is right, and everyone else's appearance is wrong.

To tribes in Africa, Guam, and South America, nudity is fine. After all, there are only two main body types (male and female), and most of us have one type or the other.

Who are we to dictate our morality or our religion to others?

Can our religion be wrong? Catholic priests tortured scientists for making virtually any kind of advancement. Some things were considered witchcraft, some were vain (Reverend Savonarolla made a Bonfire of the Vanities, burning paintings, books, etc., because they were arts, so a waste of time, and tools of the devil. Even today, there are Christian groups seeking to ban such books as Catcher in the Rye or the ever-popular Harry Potter series (because it portrays witchcraft). Reverend Jimmy Swaggart, in an obvious attempt to distract followers from his purchase of prostitutes, turned their attention to Batman, claiming that he was Satanic since he struck fear into criminals by impersonating a bat. Yet, Batman is one of the icons of law enforcement in the sci-fi genre.

Did God make us in his image (as the bible says)? Or, did mankind make an anthropomorphized God, and endow themselves with imagined souls?

Perhaps there are more important things than appearance? Maybe actions and deeds are important too? Shall we doll ourselves up with elaborate makeup while others starve?

 

[Clara Tea]

This is very interesting!

Therefore people who reconciled are God?

I suppose that if two people agree, their thoughts are equal on certain topics.

But, it brings up the question of how they arrived at their agreement. It is sort of like requiring courts to pay attention only to the laws of the state that they are in, and not rely on other state laws. This is because the laws derived from different sources and different reasons. Here, in California, we have adverse possession, but that derives from Spanish Colonial Law, through the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, rather than the well known adverse possession laws of English Common Law.

So, how thoughts were conceived also plays a role.

So, we might agree with God, and in some sense, we have the thoughts of God, but we might have derived those thoughts in a way that God did not.

 

[Clara Tea]

To a certain extent, I'd say that "anthropomorphic god" is a redundant expression.

Not that every god is a human-like figure with two arms, two legs, a head, and a face with a long white beard, but IMO the whole point of a god is to put a relatable face on nature, either some aspect of it (i.e. polytheistic concepts) or nature as a whole (i.e. monotheistic concepts).

Opened a bag of jelly beans. Wow...God. Gulp. Uh oh. . . I just ate God. . . I'm in trouble.