Concrete definitions for spiritual words

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm thinking you might be on to something.

Thank you. Yeah. It's pretty interesting. I would like to look more into it but when I google it is kind of one-sided. I wonder what this type of study is called.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wow!

 

[allfoak]

Thank you. Yeah. It's pretty interesting. I would like to look more into it but when I google it is kind of one-sided. I wonder what this type of study is called.

You are beginning to see the reality that God is in all and is all and that nothing that exists, exists outside of the mind of God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are beginning to see the reality that God is in all and is all and that nothing that exists, exists outside of the mind of God.

Yes. I related it to when I practiced Buddhism where he says our "god" experiences are from the mind; and, to attach and depend on these experiences will lead away from enlightenment.

What you said is somewhat pantheism, I think. I share that view. I was back and forth with Buddhist thought because The Buddha doesn't see things in a mystical or pantheistic light (well, Theravada. Mahayana some sects do).

What surprised me was the definition of deity. I want to find other sources that support that definition. It would make more sense in how people say god/life/energy (if so be) as a deity because they are using symbols (bible, jesus, to physical prayer, and offerings) that relate or mirror ways to connect to god.

I wonder if you call this a mystic revelational understanding?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are beginning to see the reality that God is in all and is all and that nothing that exists, exists outside of the mind of God.

That get's me thinking. Do you think maybe, according to the OP, some religious are mistaking god for deity? Making life into symbols rather than keeping it at a mystic experience that, in earthly terms if one likes, can be explained by energy (say how we experience emotions and the "communion" feeling of being around people of like-mind)?

 

[Aussiescribbler]

2. God is energy. Now this got me a bit since god(s) are defined differently. But the majority definition in addition to Christianity is a spirit, consciousness, being, or so have you that is everything, eternal, or whatever (or not and), that can't be explained created nor distroyed. Whatever details is based on culture and religion.

What I found interesting is energy cannot be created nor destroyed. We and everything is made up of energy. It can have no solid form like lightening. It could be invisible. It can cause emotions like sending neurons through nerves to cause feelings (maybe even religious feelings) in parts of the brain like the temporal lobe (something I looked up since I had a temporal lobotomy) that controls feeling, memory, and the like.

This makes me think of the psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich, who said :

“I know that what you call 'God' really exists, but not in the form you think; God is primal cosmic energy, the love in your body, your integrity, and your perception of the nature in you and outside of you.” Listen, Little Man

“Full sexual consciousness and a natural regulation of sexual life mean the end of mystical feelings of any kind. In other words, natural sexuality is the deadly enemy of mystical religion. The church, by making the fight over sexuality the center of its dogmas and of its influence over the masses, confirms this concept.”

My understanding of his view is that mystical feelings occur when the individual is afraid or otherwise uncomfortable about the natural flow of energy in the body, and that, in a sexually repressive society, this occurs most often when the flow is erotic in nature. The consciousness of the individual relocates what they feel as a bodily sensation into something mystical which is completely dissociated with the body.

This fits fairly well with my own pantheistic views. I see God as a concept to describe the creative principle of the universe which allows more complex organisations of matter to come into existence, for instance through the process of evolution. I also see God as synonymous with love, because it is love which allows individual humans to integrate to form complex, relatively orderly, societies. But all of this could be understood as a process of energy organising itself.

I also wonder if energy is not intrinsically conscious. What is consciousness? We have thoughts and feelings, but consciousness is not just thoughts and feelings. It is possible to be conscious - to have a sense of awareness - while experiencing no thoughts or feelings. As I understand it, this is what the practice of mediation aims for, and this is often called "universal consciousness". Thoughts and feelings require nerves. Energy flows through nerves when we have thoughts and feelings. What if the consciousness resides in the energy and the nerves are what is needed to shape raw consciousness into patterns - thoughts and feelings - which are meaningful to us?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This makes me think of the psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich, who said :

“I know that what you call 'God' really exists, but not in the form you think; God is primal cosmic energy, the love in your body, your integrity, and your perception of the nature in you and outside of you.” Listen, Little Man

“Full sexual consciousness and a natural regulation of sexual life mean the end of mystical feelings of any kind. In other words, natural sexuality is the deadly enemy of mystical religion. The church, by making the fight over sexuality the center of its dogmas and of its influence over the masses, confirms this concept.”

My understanding of his view is that mystical feelings occur when the individual is afraid or otherwise uncomfortable about the natural flow of energy in the body, and that, in a sexually repressive society, this occurs most often when the flow is erotic in nature. The consciousness of the individual relocates what they feel as a bodily sensation into something mystical which is completely dissociated with the body.

This fits fairly well with my own pantheistic views. I see God as a concept to describe the creative principle of the universe which allows more complex organisations of matter to come into existence, for instance through the process of evolution. I also see God as synonymous with love, because it is love which allows individual humans to integrate to form complex, relatively orderly, societies. But all of this could be understood as a process of energy organising itself.

I also wonder if energy is not intrinsically conscious. What is consciousness? We have thoughts and feelings, but consciousness is not just thoughts and feelings. It is possible to be conscious - to have a sense of awareness - while experiencing no thoughts or feelings. As I understand it, this is what the practice of mediation aims for, and this is often called "universal consciousness". Thoughts and feelings require nerves. Energy flows through nerves when we have thoughts and feelings. What if the consciousness resides in the energy and the nerves are what is needed to shape raw consciousness into patterns - thoughts and feelings - which are meaningful to us?

I'll have to chew on this a bit. Interesting. The first quote I agree with. The second one, I can see what you're saying I think.....

 

[allfoak]

I wonder if you call this a mystic revelational understanding?

 

[allfoak]

That get's me thinking. Do you think maybe, according to the OP, some religious are mistaking god for deity? Making life into symbols rather than keeping it at a mystic experience that, in earthly terms if one likes, can be explained by energy (say how we experience emotions and the "communion" feeling of being around people of like-mind)?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Cool

 

[miodrag]

2. God is energy.

Define energy. One definition says that energy is the ability to perform work. There may be other definitions, where energy is described as some property, again. A property of what or whom? Defining something with it's single property may be misleading and insufficient. Is "fire is heat" a good definition? God is not energy but the source of energy - some say energent or energetic, maybe in attempt to attach the meaning "generator", something that generates at the word's end. This expression is as useful as "God is love". There are no definitions of God, only descriptions and a general convention on what these descriptions are referring to. Definition means "to get to the bottom of something", literally "to the end" since finis means end or boundary. Since God is limitless by convention, there cannot be a definition of God, only descriptions from different perspectives. Your proposition which links God with energy does not come from the proper perspective.

A perspective worth mentioning is given in Isha Upanishada, which says that God is perfect and complete; all His emanations are also perfect and complete; He remains complete even when He produces complete emanations. Emanations may here refer to His energy, like the Universe (or more precisely: material world, since you already introduced material/spiritual world dichotomy) or His avatars etc. Basically, God can create another God, who will not be a different God, but Himself in another independent form. In this process God does not delegate some godly power to another Self, leaving the original powerless, instead balance remains the same regardless of what or how much He emanates. In other words, in material world we understand that 1-1=0 , but in the spiritual world and concerning God, 1-1=1. This reminds us of a concept of cornu copia - it remains full regardless how much we draw from it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Define energy. One definition says that energy is the ability to perform work. There may be other definitions, where energy is described as some property, again. A property of what or whom? Defining something with it's single property may be misleading and insufficient. Is "fire is heat" a good definition? God is not energy but the source of energy - some say energent or energetic, maybe in attempt to attach the meaning "generator", something that generates at the word's end. This expression is as useful as "God is love". There are no definitions of God, only descriptions and a general convention on what these descriptions are referring to. Definition means "to get to the bottom of something", literally "to the end" since finis means end or boundary. Since God is limitless by convention, there cannot be a definition of God, only descriptions from different perspectives. Your proposition which links God with energy does not come from the proper perspective.

A perspective worth mentioning is given in Isha Upanishada, which says that God is perfect and complete; all His emanations are also perfect and complete; He remains complete even when He produces complete emanations. Emanations may here refer to His energy, like the Universe (or more precisely: material world, since you already introduced material/spiritual world dichotomy) or His avatars etc. Basically, God can create another God, who will not be a different God, but Himself in another independent form. In this process God does not delegate some godly power to another Self, leaving the original powerless, instead balance remains the same regardless of what or how much He emanates. In other words, in material world we understand that 1-1=0 , but in the spiritual world and concerning God, 1-1=1. This reminds us of a concept of cornu copia - it remains full regardless how much we draw from it.

I'll have to think about this. Thank you for the fresh perspective.

 

[YmirGF]

You are beginning to see the reality that God is in all and is all and that nothing that exists, exists outside of the mind of God.

I certainly once subscribed to this idea but have now left it far, far behind. What is not realized, at first, is that it unwittingly introduces some rather complex notions into the mind of the believer. For example, if all is One, where does your mind end and the mind of god begin? In theory there is no actual division - any yet, clearly, in reality, there is. That realization produces some uncomfortable secondary realizations. If all is One, who am I, becomes a difficult question to answer. If you are an illusory construct, then are you a vehicle for god's expression? If we are not illusory constructs are we expressions of god or mini aspects of god..... etc...

That said, I've never been a fan of so-called "revelation". I see revelation as being half baked realization.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I certainly once subscribed to this idea but have now left it far, far behind. What is not realized, at first, is that it unwittingly introduces some rather complex notions into the mind of the believer. For example, if all is One, where does your mind end and the mind of god begin? In theory there is no actual division - any yet, clearly, in reality, there is. That realization produces some uncomfortable secondary realizations. If all is One, who am I, becomes a difficult question to answer. If you are an illusory construct, then are you a vehicle for god's expression? If we are not illusory constructs are we expressions of god or mini aspects of god..... etc...

That said, I've never been a fan of so-called "revelation". I see revelation as being half baked realization.

Just as god doesn't have to be so complex to describe the nature of the word, calling revelation realization is no different.

Hence the OP. Keep it simple.

If we're talking about the sun, say sun.

If we're talking about the euphoria feeling when in communion, say that instead of holy spirit.

God doesn't need to be an entity. Some call him love. So just say love.

Life is simple. Why [do we] make so much complication and debate over common sense words. Revelation can be translated to, I don't know, epiphany. Or it could be, like The Buddha says, just basic understanding of the nature of life/rebirth/suffering.

Why does it have to be so complex and mystical to be "real." The Buddha taught concrete understanding of words. He did believe in gods. He did believe in mystical experiences. He attributed these things to concrete sources.

Why do we- and I mean we -make things so complicated.

Life is simple.

 

[YmirGF]

Just as god doesn't have to be so complex to describe the nature of the word, calling revelation realization is no different.

Hence the OP. Keep it simple.

If we're talking about the sun, say sun.

If we're talking about the euphoria feeling when in communion, say that instead of holy spirit.

God doesn't need to be an entity. Some call him love. So just say love.

Life is simple. Why [do we] make so much complication and debate over common sense words. Revelation can be translated to, I don't know, epiphany. Or it could be, like The Buddha says, just basic understanding of the nature of life/rebirth/suffering.

Why does it have to be so complex and mystical to be "real." The Buddha taught concrete understanding of words. He did believe in gods. He did believe in mystical experiences. He attributed these things to concrete sources.

Why do we- and I mean we -make things so complicated.

Life is simple.

You are an able wordsmith, @Carlita
Words are important. I'm all for making things much less complicated but saying god is simple is simply not true. It's a very complex idea and pretending it is simple is a bit disingenuous. The problem with making everything simple is that you will end up with something that is essentially meaningless.

 

[allfoak]

I certainly once subscribed to this idea but have now left it far, far behind. What is not realized, at first, is that it unwittingly introduces some rather complex notions into the mind of the believer. For example, if all is One, where does your mind end and the mind of god begin? In theory there is no actual division - any yet, clearly, in reality, there is. That realization produces some uncomfortable secondary realizations. If all is One, who am I, becomes a difficult question to answer. If you are an illusory construct, then are you a vehicle for god's expression? If we are not illusory constructs are we expressions of god or mini aspects of god..... etc...

That said, I've never been a fan of so-called "revelation". I see revelation as being half baked realization.

and the answer is....

What you describe is a paradox.
All paradoxes are reconcilable.

If we live within the mind of God then there is nothing that is separate from God.
What is difficult to understand is who we are in relation to that fact.

God is in us and we are in God.
We will one day become like God but never can we become God.
God is the All.
We are a creation in the mind of God.
God experiences Self through our souls.
Our souls experience self through our bodies.
Our bodies experience self through the senses.
This is God's schoolhouse.
As we learn about ourselves God learns about Self as well.

This is why it is so important for us to heed the call of the ancients to Know Thyself.

The Gospel of Thomas
Translated by Thomas O. Lambdin

These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.

(1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death."

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

(4) Jesus said, "The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same."

(5) Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."

Gospel of Thomas (Lambdin Translation) -- The Nag Hammadi Library

 

[YmirGF]

and the answer is....

What you describe is a paradox.
All paradoxes are reconcilable.

If we live within the mind of God then there is nothing that is separate from God.
What is difficult to understand is who we are in relation to that fact.

God is in us and we are in God.
We will one day become like God but never can we become God.
God is the All.
We are a creation in the mind of God.
God experiences Self through our souls.
Our souls experience self through our bodies.
Our bodies experience self through the senses.
This is God's schoolhouse.
As we learn about ourselves God learns about Self as well.

This is why it is so important for us to heed the call of the ancients to Know Thyself.

The Gospel of Thomas
Translated by Thomas O. Lambdin


Gospel of Thomas (Lambdin Translation) -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Or perhaps we should simply drop our silly ideas about god. Like, if you want to keep things really, really simple...

 

[allfoak]

Or perhaps we should simply drop our silly ideas about god. Like, if you want to keep things really, really simple...

If it makes you feel better then by all means do so.
I would not want you to feel silly.

I would like to keep my silly ideas.

 

[Blastcat]

Hey! Wasn't supposed to be funny. Have you ever looked into how you believe in things?
Not everything is meant to be debated.

Sheesh. Oh. Read the reply above.

You're having fun with words.
I do poetry, too.

Fun is great.
Merry xmas

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You're having fun with words.
I do poetry, too.

Fun is great.
Merry xmas

Huh?

It's just something I observed and found interest in. It's in definition format for better reading. Whether I believe what I posted is besides the point. I never said I did or didn't. Why are you guys belittling it? It's not even in debate. If you have nothing productive, why post?