Experiencing God

[sojourner]

We have a perfectly good word for reality, it's "reality". What's the purpose of making up another word when we have one that operates quite well?

Because the word doesn't operate "quite well." It ignores the shared spiritual experiences that are part and parcel of the whole human condition. The mythic language provides a deeper meaning wherein we can interact more profoundly and holistically with reality. Part of whole human experience is to embrace what is perceived as the mythic. The arts and other aesthetic endeavors also provide vehicles for the mythic in human experience. Shall we reduce a Mozart symphony to its constitutent notes and instrumentations, such that the expanse of the experience is nullified?

 

[Orbit]

There are plenty of things that are valid, you just have none of them. At least be honest about it.

Cephus we've danced around this tree before, and I see no reason to dance with you again. You know what I think, and I know what you think. There is nothing else to be said between us.

 

[Windwalker]

I had a good friend of mine tell me this story I think relates. He told the story of this Jewish Rabbi who had a young man come to him and say, "Rabbi I don't believe in God at all". The Rabbi responds asking, "Tell me about this God you don't believe in". The young man proceeds to tell him, "Well I asked God for a lot of things and none of them happened. I did everything I was supposed to do, yet he never did anything I believed would happen. I looked and looked, and saw no evidence for God anywhere, so I don't believe he exists". The Rabbi answered, "The God you don't believe in sounds more like Santa Claus. I don't believe in that God either."

Are we talking about God or Santa Claus?

 

[sojourner]

I had a good friend of mine tell me this story I think relates. He told the story of this Jewish Rabbi who had a young man come to him and say, "Rabbi I don't believe in God at all". The Rabbi responds asking, "Tell me about this God you don't believe in". The young man proceeds to tell him, "Well I asked God for a lot of things and none of them happened. I did everything I was supposed to do, yet he never did anything I believed would happen. I looked and looked, and saw no evidence for God anywhere, so I don't believe he exists". The Rabbi answered, "The God you don't believe in sounds more like Santa Claus. I don't believe in that God either."

Are we talking about God or Santa Claus?

The two are commonly conflated. The resulting arguments on both sides are untenable.

 

[Windwalker]

And exactly how did you discover that God had anything to do with it?

I gave it the name God at the time because of the nature of what the experience was. It was transcendent and infinite in nature. There are a lot of other descriptors I could use such as Absolute, Infinite, Omniscience, etc, but God was a close-enough word sign to describe the referent. Words like car, tree, cloud, dog, house, bunny rabbit, dinosaur, or unicorn bore little resemblance to the nature of the experience and so were inappropriate words. The word works for me because it's the best symbol I've found to describe what was experienced. I guess it's just the way we choose words to describe experiences for everything in our lives.

I mean, you can imagine whatever conception of God that you like, but that no more makes God real, any more than imagining being told the same thing by Harry Potter makes Harry Potter real.

If I actually had an experience of something that the word Harry Potter described better than any other word, I would say that the experience of something that the word Harry Potter describes is real. My experience would have to have enough resemblance of what Harry Potter symbolizes for it to be a valid use of the term. It would therefore be inappropriate of me to speak of my experience as a tea kettle when it bore little to no resemblance to what that word sign points to.

You're certainly welcome to imagine anything that you like

What makes you want to believe I am imagining have experiences that I find the word God is the best descriptor for? Do you imagine you dream at night, or did you actually experience a dream and find the word dream the best descriptor term for the experience? Don't be so arrogant as to deny another the legitimacy of their own experiences because you've not shared such an experience yourself. That's would be highly irrational and anti-reason on your part to assume based on that. It would be comparable to the religious fundamentalist hearing my description of my experiences of what I chose to call God and saying that because it doesn't fit their understanding of God which looks like a man in the sky with a list he's making and checking it twice, that it was Satan. They invalidate another's experience because it doesn't fit into what they believe. Are you doing that here?

but your imagination isn't evidence that the thing you imagined actually exists in objective reality and that's the point.

That's right. Actual experience does however. And when you have multiple people all sharing similar experiences with each other who have no connection with each other outside being human beings, and the words they all use to describe their experiences align with each other, you then are able to begin to move it out of a single subjective experience into a discussion of objective reality. That's the way it works. Love, for instance is an objective truth that way, even though it is not a physical thing you can smell with your nose, taste with your tongue, see with your eyes, hear with your ears, and so forth.

I'm asking how you get from your imagination to determining that this is actually true in reality and there seems to be no answers anyone can provide.

Because it didn't begin with an imagination. It began with an experience.

 

[Windwalker]

Whatever goes on in your head, while it might be emotionally important to you as an individual, it means nothing whatsoever to anyone else.

Actually that's clearly untrue when it comes to someone describing their religious experiences to another. It means a great deal to others. It inspires something within themselves. So much so that entire religions are born out of one person's mystical experience. You need to put a finer point on this and admit it means nothing to you personally because you need direct evidence yourself. That's fine, but don't try to bolster that by saying it doesn't mean anything to anyone else when it clearly does.

So when you tell me that you had a dream about something or an internal experience of something, I cannot have that same dream or that same experience and verify it for myself.

Ah, but when it comes to having a dream, that is in fact accessible to you. You just have to follow the injunctions; dim the lights, lay your head on the pillow, allow yourself to fall asleep, etc. Religious experiences are also accessible to you too. You can verify it for yourself too, if you understand the nature of what they are and how they occur. In most cases they just happen spontaneously in seemingly random and arbitrary ways. But there are injunctions you can follow that make the likelihood of them much more probable. A good meditation practice is key to this. When you have your own experience, then you come and share it with others who have had similar experiences and compare notes. I think you'll find your experiences will become verified and validated to you, if that is even necessary for you any longer at that point to find value in them. For the most part, they tend to speak for themselves to you and you won't need others to tell you the truth of it.

Therefore, I have to ask for objective evidence that proves that what you say happened actually happened and has some kind of external validity that goes beyond your head.

If you don't want to listen to qualified practitioners of it who say the same things as one another as peers, then do the experiment and have the experience yourself. Have you ever done anything with that in mind? If so, can you describe what you've done? What was the nature of the experiment? How did you approach it?

That is what I'm not receiving from people who are making these claims. But you are so emotionally invested in your existing beliefs, you're not able to take a step back and examine them critically. That is a problem.

Are you sure you're not describing yourself?

 

[Cephus]

That's patently not what I'm saying, and it's also not what Windwalker is saying. I have said that the spiritual is highly imaginative. That doesn't make it "fake"; it makes it in the realm of the mythic and the imaginative. What goes on in my head is the same thing (or close) that goes on in other peoples' heads, or we wouldn't be able to talk about it in terms that resonate with each other. That's precisely why religions are, by and large, centered in relationships -- because the relationships do serve to corroborate the internal experiences.

No, you can't have had the same dream, but everyone's had dreams of falling, or drowning, or running through molasses. Those are shared experiences, even though they're internal. Just because you haven't had a religious experience is no reason to assume that others haven't and that they're simply "mistaken" about their experieinces. The external validity lies in the shared experience.

And I am saying that you are making no moves to verify the imagination. You are making assertions about the imagination and no matter how many people you gather together that likewise make assertions about the imagination, you have, in no way, verified that the things the imagination has done are factually accurate. I keep pointing this out, you keep making excuses for it.

 

[Cephus]

Because the word doesn't operate "quite well." It ignores the shared spiritual experiences that are part and parcel of the whole human condition. The mythic language provides a deeper meaning wherein we can interact more profoundly and holistically with reality. Part of whole human experience is to embrace what is perceived as the mythic. The arts and other aesthetic endeavors also provide vehicles for the mythic in human experience. Shall we reduce a Mozart symphony to its constitutent notes and instrumentations, such that the expanse of the experience is nullified?

Sure it does. You're just asserting something exists beyond reality and you haven't demonstrated it. Just saying "God is reality" doesn't mean anything because you don't believe God is reality. And yes, Mozart is just a bunch of notes in a particular order. What your experience might be while listening to the symphony doesn't change that. You are asserting that the notes take on some kind of mystical quality because they make you feel a particular way. Those feelings are just electrochemical reactions in the brain. They don't have any existence in the objective world. You're interested in living in your head. I'm not.

 

[Cephus]

Cephus we've danced around this tree before, and I see no reason to dance with you again. You know what I think, and I know what you think. There is nothing else to be said between us.

It's not a dance, it's a retreat. You make a claim, I question your claim, you cling to the claim and wave your arms around like you have some rational reason for your claim. Lather, rinse, repeat. You never come remotely close to actually answering any of the questions because you have no actual answers. It's okay, everyone can see it for what it is.

 

[sojourner]

And I am saying that you are making no moves to verify the imagination. You are making assertions about the imagination and no matter how many people you gather together that likewise make assertions about the imagination, you have, in no way, verified that the things the imagination has done are factually accurate. I keep pointing this out, you keep making excuses for it.

You can't factually demonstrate that you dreamed about a certain thing either -- like falling. But I bet you have dreamed that very thing. And if you have, and if you say so, I tend to believe you, because I, also, have had that interior experience. I'm only making assertions that I have had the experience. I make no assertions about that being "the way the world is." I'm making assertions that that's my truth about the meaning that the world has for me. I don't jump off cliffs, "knowing" that "God will save me" because I have "faith that can move mountains." What I do assert is that faith, for me, is a strong factor.

 

[sojourner]

Sure it does. You're just asserting something exists beyond reality and you haven't demonstrated it.

Did you read my post?? I literally said that "God doesn't exist." Therefore, I'm patently not asserting that "something exists beyond reality." Nothing is "beyond reality." Reality is all there is.

Just saying "God is reality" doesn't mean anything because you don't believe God is reality.

Yes. God is reality. God is existence. That's my truth claim.

And yes, Mozart is just a bunch of notes in a particular order.

No, Mozart encompasses a whole plethora of things that go much, much further than just its constituent parts. I've been a professional musician for over 30 years. Any monkey can be trained to play certain notes in a certain order. That doesn't mean that they're playing the music. A player piano can play notes. that doesn't mean it's playing music. It takes far more than technique to pull the music out of the notes at hand. It takes soul. It takes spirit. It takes feeling. It takes a certain ineffable something that makes one person a musician and not just a (perhaps) well-paid hack. A person who knows the difference between the music and the notes involved knows that Mozart is way more than just the notes. Your statement strikes me as one who "knows" how to thump out a few (mistuned) notes on a cheap bass, and imagines himself to be Jaco Pastorius. Jaco was a musician. The person represented by your statement... is nothing more than a wannabe.

Just so, human beings have more value than simply the sum of their constituent parts. To think otherwise is to exhibit sociopathic thinking. There's a real difference between a human body, a human mind, and a human being. Can you love a human body or a human mind? No. You can love a human being. That's because value is wrapped up in relationship, and relationship takes being into consideration -- not simply "parts." Those relationships have value, and meaning that go way beyond the "parts" involved. One who can appreciate the whole human being and the whole human experience knows the difference.

You are asserting that the notes take on some kind of mystical quality because they make you feel a particular way.

No, I'm asserting that there is aesthetic value that goes beyond "how the music makes me feel." Emotion is only part of the equation.

Those feelings are just electrochemical reactions in the brain.

So? Everything is "just [an] electrochemical reaction in the brain." That doesn't mean that those reactions don't carry meaning for us.

They don't have any existence in the objective world.

They don't? If they're not real, why do you use them to support your argument about reality? I'm pretty sure that those reactions do exist in the real world, and that they can be observed and measured.
Furthermore, the world is more than just "objective." The world is also quite subjective. And that's part of reality, too.

You're interested in living in your head. I'm not.

You're projecting, because you dismiss anything you can't measure, or see, or touch. Talk about living in one's head! Measurements are fine to think about and conceptualize, but human beings also are made to feel emotion. And those emotions can't be discounted just because you can't thing about them or measure them.

 

[sojourner]

It's not a dance, it's a retreat. You make a claim, I question your claim, you cling to the claim and wave your arms around like you have some rational reason for your claim. Lather, rinse, repeat. You never come remotely close to actually answering any of the questions because you have no actual answers. It's okay, everyone can see it for what it is.

The same could be said about your claims. You cling to your "objectivity" and wave your arms around like you have some rational reason for your claim. You constantly pose questions, pretending that the reality of a thing hinges on answering those questions. But you're asking the wrong questions. Nobody cares if a white Oldsmobile tastes different from a red Nissan. You're not getting actual answers because you're not asking appropriate questions. It's okay; everyone can see it for what it is.

 

[Sonofason]

Actually that's clearly untrue when it comes to someone describing their religious experiences to another. It means a great deal to others. It inspires something within themselves. So much so that entire religions are born out of one person's mystical experience. You need to put a finer point on this and admit it means nothing to you personally because you need direct evidence yourself. That's fine, but don't try to bolster that by saying it doesn't mean anything to anyone else when it clearly does.


Ah, but when it comes to having a dream, that is in fact accessible to you. You just have to follow the injunctions; dim the lights, lay your head on the pillow, allow yourself to fall asleep, etc. Religious experiences are also accessible to you too. You can verify it for yourself too, if you understand the nature of what they are and how they occur. In most cases they just happen spontaneously in seemingly random and arbitrary ways. But there are injunctions you can follow that make the likelihood of them much more probable. A good meditation practice is key to this. When you have your own experience, then you come and share it with others who have had similar experiences and compare notes. I think you'll find your experiences will become verified and validated to you, if that is even necessary for you any longer at that point to find value in them. For the most part, they tend to speak for themselves to you and you won't need others to tell you the truth of it.


If you don't want to listen to qualified practitioners of it who say the same things as one another as peers, then do the experiment and have the experience yourself. Have you ever done anything with that in mind? If so, can you describe what you've done? What was the nature of the experiment? How did you approach it?


Are you sure you're not describing yourself?

You are utilizing an impressive line of reasoning. And I sure do appreciate it. You're definitely on to something here.

 

[Muffled]

Games are fantasy and god is fantasy, no difference.

I believe you can not prove that.

 

[Muffled]

Sure it does. You're just asserting something exists beyond reality and you haven't demonstrated it. Just saying "God is reality" doesn't mean anything because you don't believe God is reality. And yes, Mozart is just a bunch of notes in a particular order. What your experience might be while listening to the symphony doesn't change that. You are asserting that the notes take on some kind of mystical quality because they make you feel a particular way. Those feelings are just electrochemical reactions in the brain. They don't have any existence in the objective world. You're interested in living in your head. I'm not.

I believe if one does not live in one's head one is just a zombie. Even a monkey can eat and ****.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe you can not prove that.

Since we often can't prove that fantasy isn't fantasy, so what?

Demonstrate to me that dragons and wizards aren't real.

 

[godnotgod]

Have you ever been burned by a fire that wasn't there?
Have you ever had a light shined on you, but there was no light?
Have you ever heard a sound that you doubted was a real sound?

I'm not talking about dreams.

Experiences via sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch are experiences in perceptual reality, in Time and Space. The experience of the divine nature is that of Ultimate Reality, which is beyond all perceptions. It is an experience outside of Time and Space, and therefore only accessible in this timeless present moment. It is what caused Yeshu to declare:

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

He is saying that he is not a product of history, as Abraham was; not subject to birth and death; that his Being comes out of the living present moment, which is not in Time or Space.

It is the crucial difference between existence, which is rooted in Time and Space; and Being, which is rooted in The Absolute.

Existence is karma-driven; ie; 'cause and effect';
Being is Way-driven; Unborn; Uncaused. Unconditioned.

 

[Reflex]

Since we often can't prove that fantasy isn't fantasy, so what?

Demonstrate to me that dragons and wizards aren't real.

Tis a shame "staff members" can't be ignored, as this kind of reasoning is too juvenile to warrant attention.

 

[godnotgod]

... Mozart is just a bunch of notes in a particular order. What your experience might be while listening to the symphony doesn't change that. You are asserting that the notes take on some kind of mystical quality because they make you feel a particular way. Those feelings are just electrochemical reactions in the brain. They don't have any existence in the objective world. You're interested in living in your head. I'm not.

The 'notes in a particular order' are not the music; they are a skeletal, symbolic description of the music. The actual music does not exist until there is a listener who is an active participant, causing the notes to be actualized as music. There are auditory symbols contained in the music that can only be understood when attention is focused on the sounds (and intervals of silence) one is hearing. IOW, the listener is the interpreter of a musical idea the composer is trying to transmit via notation, pattern, frequency, intonation, interval, etc.

But the analogy to the experience of the divine nature is not quite the same as it is for music, since that experience is beyond all symbols and descriptions.

I think you misunderstand the word 'mystical'. It simply means 'the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single reality'.

Better yet, it is the realization that there never was any separation between observer and observed to begin with; that both are one and the same, as they always have been, 'observer' and 'observed' being merely concepts in the mind.

This includes 'God', as 'God' can never be an object. IOW, you and I are That very undefinable Thing, pretending we are not That.

 

[godnotgod]

We have a perfectly good word for reality, it's "reality". What's the purpose of making up another word when we have one that operates quite well?

When you are asleep, dreaming that you are a dragon slayer, if someone were to ask you if you really were a dragon slayer, you would without question answer in the affirmative. But upon awakening, the answer to that same question would without question be in the negative. So what is 'reality' on one level of conscious awareness is fiction on the next higher level. Our everyday level of conscious awareness, being the Third Level known as 'Waking Sleep', or 'Identification'*, seems real to us, and the world we live in we call 'reality'. However, from the POV of the next higher level of conscious awareness, that of Self-Transcendence, or 'Self-Remembering', the world is illusory, and our identity fictional, a drama in a script written by others. But we don't know that until we awaken. So what we think is 'reality' turns out to be a fiction, and the awakened state on the next and higher levels is True Reality.

*The First Level is dreamless sleep; the Second is dream-sleep.