• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Experiencing God

psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Muffled said:
I believe that is not so strange. If it is God providing the vision then He is capable of providing that which a person can relate. My vision of God was of an old man sitting on a throne in a Greek Temple. This does not fit into my pre-conceived notions of God but I certainly can relate to it.
Click to expand...
God isn't a man, God is just another name for the Source of all there is, the cosmos is God, but because many couldn't understand this they reduced the Source into an idol of worship.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Muffled said:
I believe the sleep of a living human being does not have to be the same thing as the sleep of a spirit.

I believe it still has to go through the mind or we would not be aware of it.

I believe there is an area of the brain that is not conscious that controls bodily functions. That is why a person in a coma doesn't die.

I believe this sentence is too confusing to be understood so say it differently.

I believe the mind is conscious and it is not spirit.

I believe there is no evidence to support this view.

I do not believe the mind is dual but singular. Granted the mind shares its consciousness with the spirit but the spirit is not part of the mind.

I believe there is no evidence that it is arbitrary.

I believe this concept is totally suppositional.
Click to expand...

You seem to be filled with your beliefs. Do you understand the difference between what you believe and what you know?
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
psychoslice said:
God isn't a man, God is just another name for the Source of all there is, the cosmos is God, but because many couldn't understand this they reduced the Source into an idol of worship.
Click to expand...

Yes, via projection of the ego, otherwise known in psychological circles as Idolatrous Love, one of the Five Egotistical States of Apparent Love of Others:

1. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO

This is idolatrous love, in which the ego is projected onto another
being. The pretention to divinity as 'distinct' has left my organism and is now
fixed onto the organism of the other. The affective situation resembles that
above, with the difference that the other has taken my place in my scale of
values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, and am against everything that
is opposed to them. I no longer love my own organism except in so far as it is
the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments
towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my
life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on
the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order
to immortalise his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to
my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with
joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the
rest of the world. If the idolised being rejects me to the point of forbidding
me all possession of my Ego in them, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

from: Zen and the Psychology of Transformation, by Hubert Benoit
 
Jedster

Jedster

Flying through space
Milton Platt said:
The more the merrier. I am an atheist and so am met with a lot of beligerent behavior at times because I question beliefs and many people think religion should be exempt from criticism for some reason. I try to maintain the high ground by not becoming emotional and attacking the person rather than the idea. Some cannot separate the two. Granted, it is difficult at times.

Your friend should take the same road. It leads to more productive dialog.
Click to expand...

So, I printed out the messages concerning my friend and showed him. Here is his response, which I copiously wrote down(hope that grammar is correct :)).
I couldn't convince him to come here at present but he agreed to make a statement about himself. Here it is:
I was in the church for 28 years and studied the Bible for 33 years. I have also taught theology.
When I first came across scriptures from the Vedic tradition, in particular the Bagavad Gita,, I found thet the B.G. served as almost a commentry on Paul's letters.
It was like reading between the lines of the New Testament.
I may sound strange, but I can hold 2 opposing views with equal conviction.
It is like having a mind-palace. Sometimes I go into the palace of Christianity & sometimes into the palace of Paganism. I am mostly eclectic.
I cannot help the gods, goddesses & prophets I have seen in visions. I did not invoke them, nor did I desire their appearance.
I believe that the only way in this life and the next, is love.
Love being infinite power that holds & sustains the universe & all mankind.
The secret is to transcend all scripture & behold the glorious light in one and all.

Our problem arises when we put labels on ourselves. We must move beyond calling ourselves Christian, Buddhist, Hindu etc.
We live in an infinitely wonderful universe and I just love to play and explore all the nooks and crannies.

I am not searching for the meaning of life. I am exploring the wonders of the cosmos because I believe I am in the experience of the meaning of life.
At present I am busy writing and may visit the forum in the future. In the mean time may Peace & Kindness fill Milton Platts life.
I would call myself a Paganised Christian. If I am a hypocrite, I am an honest one.
Love is the only way. Selah
CRC
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
psychoslice said:
Well the Source is all there IS, the cosmos is doing what it does, it is generating everything that is within the cosmos, no need for a stupid god.
Click to expand...

Hi psychoslice.

I would agree that the cosmos is the Source, but only in the sense of the character being none other than the actor behind the mask, the cosmos is none other than the Source manifesting Itself as the Cosmos. Once again, I reiterate Vivekenanda's insight here:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

The Cosmos comes and goes, but The Absolute, The Source, is Unborn, Uncaused, Ungrown, and does not come and go.
 
Last edited:
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
psychoslice said:
Well the Source is all there IS, the cosmos is doing what it does, it is generating everything that is within the cosmos, no need for a stupid god.
Click to expand...

So is the Source the cosmos plus something else, or only the cosmos or something else besides the cosmos? Do you imply the cosmos and/or source is an intelligent agent or merely the sum of natural forces?

From whence do you gain this knowledge or is it just a belief?
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
godnotgod said:
Hi psychoslice.

I would agree that the cosmos is the Source, but only in the sense of the character being none other than the actor behind the mask, the cosmos is none other than the Source manifesting Itself as the Cosmos. Once again, I reiterate Vivekenanda's insight here:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

The Cosmos comes and goes, but The Absolute, The Source, is Unborn, Uncaused, Ungrown, and does not come and go.
Click to expand...
Yes and that is what I believe, the Source or Consciousness is never born, all arises from it, but again no need to confuse it and call it God, thats not a good label at all.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
psychoslice said:
Yes and that is what I believe, the Source or Consciousness is never born, all arises from it, but again no need to confuse it and call it God, thats not a good label at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, it creates all sorts of problems, primarily those of God being an 'other' separate from oneself, along with that of a need for a God to provide freedom from Metaphysical Anxiety:

"The fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that Buddhism has no God or gods before whom people bow down in return for peace of mind. The spirit enmeshed in the Buddha’s teachings refuses to offer a god in exchange for freedom from anxiety. Instead, freedom from anxiety can only be found at the point where the Self settles naturally upon itself."

Excerpted from “From the Zen Kitchen to Enlightenment” by Dogen and Uchiyama
 
Last edited:
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Milton Platt said:
So is the Source the cosmos plus something else, or only the cosmos or something else besides the cosmos? Do you imply the cosmos and/or source is an intelligent agent or merely the sum of natural forces?

From whence do you gain this knowledge or is it just a belief?
Click to expand...

If I may.....

The Source and the Cosmos are not different. Let us use the metaphor of Gold in its formless state to signify The Source, and gold chain to signify the Cosmos; at no time is the gold chain not gold; it is always gold, no matter that it can be fashioned into chain, or some other form. In the same sense (although admittedly, all metaphors are limited), The Cosmos is, at all times, none other than The Source itself, manifesting Itself as the illusory 'Cosmos', albeit an illusion of a much higher order than your everyday garden-variety illusion we are all accustomed to, in the sense that those illusions vanish, but the illusory Cosmos does not vanish.

There is no 'something else', since The Cosmos, or The Universe, if you will (signifying Everything that IS, including Space, and all multiverses, etc.), is not just an absolute; it is The Absolute, as there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared.

The Source is not an agent of Intelligence; it is Intelligence itself: Pure Abstract Intelligence, out of which, as psychoslice has said, Everything emerges.

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”
Kalu Rinpoche

 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
godnotgod said:
If I may.....

The Source and the Cosmos are not different. Let us use the metaphor of Gold in its formless state to signify The Source, and gold chain to signify the Cosmos; at no time is the gold chain not gold; it is always gold, no matter that it can be fashioned into chain, or some other form. In the same sense (although admittedly, all metaphors are limited), The Cosmos is, at all times, none other than The Source itself, manifesting Itself as the illusory 'Cosmos', albeit an illusion of a much higher order than your everyday garden-variety illusion we are all accustomed to, in the sense that those illusions vanish, but the illusory Cosmos does not vanish.

There is no 'something else', since The Cosmos, or The Universe, if you will (signifying Everything that IS, including Space, and all multiverses, etc.), is not just an absolute; it is The Absolute, as there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared.

The Source is not an agent of Intelligence; it is Intelligence itself: Pure Abstract Intelligence, out of which, as psychoslice has said, Everything emerges.

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”
Kalu Rinpoche
Click to expand...

At work and can't watch the video at the moment. So are saying the universe is an intelligent thing, or an intelligent thing became the universe. I prefer to just use the term universe, which makes more sense. I see no evidence to support intelligence in any way with regard to the universe.

Your quote from Kalu Rinpoche is nonsensical and has no explanatory power.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Milton Platt said:
At work and can't watch the video at the moment. So are saying the universe is an intelligent thing, or an intelligent thing became the universe. I prefer to just use the term universe, which makes more sense. I see no evidence to support intelligence in any way with regard to the universe.

Your quote from Kalu Rinpoche is nonsensical and has no explanatory power.
Click to expand...

No. The Universe is not a 'thing' that 'became' anything.

I understand Rinpoche perfectly.

Are you intelligent?
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Milton Platt said:
I see no evidence to support intelligence in any way with regard to the universe.
Click to expand...

This, coming from a being that is wholly an outcome of the Universe, and which supports you both inside and out on the level of 100%.

What level of intelligence would you require to accomplish even a tiny bit of what the Universe is capable of?...or even that of a blade of grass, which can synthesize its own food?
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
psychoslice said:
God isn't a man, God is just another name for the Source of all there is, the cosmos is God, but because many couldn't understand this they reduced the Source into an idol of worship.
Click to expand...

I believe God is willing to represent Himself as a man even though He is not one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top