Is it Possible to Experience God?

[Ben Dhyan]

Respectfully Ben, if something is beyond conceptualization then how, exactly, has anyone ever heard of it? If your (and others) assertion is correct that it is "beyond conceptualization" it would not be possible for us to know that the state actually existed. We would then, necessarily, have to take whatever we are told with a grain of salt.

Hi YmirGF,

Because 'God' reality is non-dual,..therefore any conceptualization of it implies dualism, i.e. there exists the one that conceptualizes and that which is conceptualized.

You are not being asked to take anyone's word for it, please understand YmirGF, the mortal mind can't really know non-duality conceptually, and those that would make the claim that they do are deluded!

If you think you can, please feel free to start another thread to explain your belief.

 

[Onkara]

I would say that a concept can be known. Knowing that which knows the concept has a quality different to the concepts themselves.

Knowing that which knows is the closest to "the experience of God" in the OP because it is the foundation on which all creation is known. Based on the premise that creation is also "God" or divine in origin.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I would say that a concept can be known. Knowing that which knows the concept has a quality different to the concepts themselves.

Hi Onkara,

Of course concepts have a reality, but the reality for which a concept stands for is not the concept. Concepts are abstract mental constructs that are meant to represent or symbolize reality. That is why in C'han, to still the mind of conceptual thinking is the means of realizing the actual reality directly, but which is normally obscured by the conceptualizing mind which views it through the thinking mind and assuming it's 'seeing' is real, whereas in fact it is maya.

Now of course there is a time and place for conceptual thinking, but not in the context of meditation.

 

[Onkara]

Hi Ben
I cannot help but conclude you are correct of course
I think that you explain that excellently.

 

[YmirGF]

Hi YmirGF,

Because 'God' reality is non-dual,..therefore any conceptualization of it implies dualism, i.e. there exists the one that conceptualizes and that which is conceptualized.

That much is fairly clear even after a cursory glance at various teachings, Ben D. I guess what puzzles me here is the idea that "god" is not a construct in and of itself. Given that this "god" exists in a non-dual "environment" would seem to fulfill the basis of conception.

You are not being asked to take anyone's word for it, please understand YmirGF, the mortal mind can't really know non-duality conceptually, and those that would make the claim that they do are deluded!

That much, I understand, Ben D. What is not clear is how you, or anyone else, could possibly determine something that is allegedly beyond conceptualization.

If you think you can, please feel free to start another thread to explain your belief.

I don't feel a need to explain further than I have in this thread, unless someone asks. This is Phil's thread and it IS located in the General Religious Debates section. Do you have issues with that or do you prefer to sing to the choir?

 

[ellenjanuary]

It's like a black hole. Evidence for its existence is only indirect, like Hawking radiation. It is not a thing of the word for it lies in wordlessness. It is not a concrete thing for it is itself foundation. Not a thing of time and space but of being and place, and when you are there it is not to care of how or why or live or die; it is to see the sea, water to water, sky to sky.

Entropy is the amount of disorder in a system. In a causal entropic universe, explaining phenomenon is an increase of entropy; thus all these words, moving further away from what was, itself unsaid.

 

[YmirGF]

It's like a black hole. Evidence for its existence is only indirect, like Hawking radiation.

Um, no, it's not like that at all, but I applaud your effort to make an allusion.

It is not a thing of the word for it lies in wordlessness. It is not a concrete thing for it is itself foundation.

I am good with the non-dual drivel, ellen. What I have difficulty with is how the assertion came to be. Inescapably, you have zeroed in on an unseemly aspect of this kind of thinking. You are merely asserting that you have special knowledge about something you have zero evidence of. If you, and others who would seem to agree with you, know enough about these things to make such comments, you must have some special knowledge that is beyond that of most other human animals. So, be honest, are you a member of some elite group that knows more than the rest of us? If not, why would you make claims you simply have no hope of substantiating?

Not a thing of time and space but of being and place, and when you are there it is not to care of how or why or live or die; it is to see the sea, water to water, sky to sky.

Entropy is the amount of disorder in a system. In a causal entropic universe, explaining phenomenon is an increase of entropy; thus all these words, moving further away from what was, itself unsaid.

So, in other words, listening to whatever people say to describe this indescribable aspect of reality is a waste of time. If so, then I can only wonder why people feel a need to explain so much. Is it perhaps a case of them trying to convince themselves of their own paradigms?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Um, no, it's not like that at all, but I applaud your effort to make an allusion.

I am good with the non-dual drivel, ellen. What I have difficulty with is how the assertion came to be. Inescapably, you have zeroed in on an unseemly aspect of this kind of thinking. You are merely asserting that you have special knowledge about something you have zero evidence of. If you, and others who would seem to agree with you, know enough about these things to make such comments, you must have some special knowledge that is beyond that of most other human animals. So, be honest, are you a member of some elite group that knows more than the rest of us? If not, why would you make claims you simply have no hope of substantiating?

So, in other words, listening to whatever people say to describe this indescribable aspect of reality is a waste of time. If so, then I can only wonder why people feel a need to explain so much. Is it perhaps a case of them trying to convince themselves of their own paradigms?

I like that - I am good with the non-dual drivel, ellen. Thing I like about you, Ymir, you ain't shy. I wasn't actually giving drivel, I was drifting away from a place I once was. Writing it down as I went. It's so typical because it's the same kinda thing. Or, no-thing, as the no-people like to describe it.

But, come on Ymir; you know what we're talking about. Just a place of calm and connectivity. I ain't got no special knowledge, I got a piece of inner peace. Concept is one thing, but the words that describe a concept often wall out more then they wall in. If you have a picture in your mind of "chair" and you go to one of these artsy-fartsy furniture shops, and they show you something that looks like a breeding project between noodles and foam; you're gonna go - that ain't a chair. I know that's what I do. I shop at Goodwill, where the concept of chair is well defined.

And if you don't know, nobody's trying to keep you out of nothing; more like trying to be sure you don't get into something that ain't, dig?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I see "God" as representing a conscious universe, and I cannot help but experience the universe as conscious.

 

[spanjo]

If I can only make clear this one thing, it will give us a basis on which to build. Man cannot discover God or his ways by mere mental processes. One must be governed by the laws which control the realm into which he is delving. To become a plumber, one must study the laws which govern plumbing. He must know stresses and strains, temperatures at which pipes will freeze, laws which govern steam, hot water, expansion, contraction, and so forth. One might know much about plumbing and be a complete failure in training children or getting along with men. One might be the best of bookkeepers and yet not know anything of electricity. One might know much about buying and selling groceries and be absolutely ignorant of bridge building.

The spiritual realm, which is just as absolute as is the physical, cannot be understood by the laws of the physical. You do not learn to make electric generators in a seminary. Neither do you learn certain truths about spiritual things in a physics laboratory. You must go to the spiritual laboratory, use the facilities available there, and comply with the governing rules.

He has given the key. You may know. You need not be in doubt. Follow the prescribed procedures, and you may have an absolute knowledge that these things are absolute truths. The necessary procedure is: study, think, pray, and do. Revelation is the key. God will make it known to you once you have capitulated and have become humble and receptive. Having dropped all pride of your mental stature, having acknowledged before God your confusion, having subjected your egotism, and having surrendered yourself to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, you are ready to begin to learn. With preconceived notions stubbornly held, one is not teachable. The Lord has promised repeatedly that he will give you a knowledge of spiritual things when you have placed yourself in a proper frame of mind.

 

[Penumbra]

I see "God" as representing a conscious universe, and I cannot help but experience the universe as conscious.

Can you clarify about how you experience the universe as conscious?

 

[YmirGF]

I like that - I am good with the non-dual drivel, ellen. Thing I like about you, Ymir, you ain't shy.

Why thank you, ellen. Believe it or not I don't try to be objectionable, but rather, I am simply fairly blunt. I expect the same in return, as that is only fair. That said, I have studied several schools of thought over the years and so I am fairly conversant with the non-dualistic concepts that are being referred to. Try to understand that terming it "drivel" is the result of decades of thought on these matters. To be sure, there are some nuggets worthy of consideration but, for the most part, much of what is written doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is of little more value than the thoughts of those who subscribe to the faith-based Abrahamic traditions.

I wasn't actually giving drivel, I was drifting away from a place I once was. Writing it down as I went. It's so typical because it's the same kinda thing. Or, no-thing, as the no-people like to describe it.

I recognized that and so blunted my original response. All things considered I was quite taken with your two closing paragraphs. Not bad, really.

But, come on Ymir; you know what we're talking about. Just a place of calm and connectivity.

That is pretty much why I focused in on it. It is just as you say here, so I don't quite follow why some feel a need to make ridiculous attributions beyond that which is apparent. Ascribing this to some imaginary god is based on little more than the ignorance and wishful projections of the writer. I just wish that somehow I could get across the point that our cherished god concepts are quite literally pale shadows or fading echoes of the selves we are too timid to acknowledge and have emerged out of latent memories of that existence. A bit of a leap, I know, but it makes as much sense as what we have been handed thus far.

I ain't got no special knowledge, I got a piece of inner peace.

I understand and applaud your achievement. Welcome to the club. You see, I don't pretend to know or have all the answers and that makes me wary of people who wax on and on - as if they do.

Concept is one thing, but the words that describe a concept often wall out more then they wall in.

I understand and that is also part of makes me so doubtful in these conversations. I fully recognize that people are talking about what they believe. At the same time I am fully cognizant of the fact that their words are imperfect renderings of those beliefs and likewise that those beliefs do not necessarily reflect reality. Where I tend to blow a bolt is when folks use definitive language to discuss that which may well be beyond definitions.

And if you don't know, nobody's trying to keep you out of nothing; more like trying to be sure you don't get into something that ain't, dig?

A head's up to be sure, ellen. The thing is, how sure can you be that I didn't walk in lockstep with most of the writers here for many years? What gets me is that if people believe there is no possibility to describe non-dualistic "existence" then there is virtually no possibility that anyone will ever figure out a way to describe it in any meaningful way. We simply hypnotize ourselves into a reality that is beyond our ability to convey. It becomes a self-fulfilling reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That much is fairly clear even after a cursory glance at various teachings, Ben D. I guess what puzzles me here is the idea that "god" is not a construct in and of itself. Given that this "god" exists in a non-dual "environment" would seem to fulfill the basis of conception.

Hi YmirGF,

Of course the word "God" is a mind construct,..it is nothing more than a concept that is intended to represent absolute reality (please don't retort with a,.. "absolute reality" is also a concept, that's a given). It matters not what label is used,..God, Brahman, Tao, Allah, ****, etc., the point is that no mortal mind can apprehend the one and only absolute reality that these labels represent.

The reality represented by "God" (or the conceptual label of your choice) doesn't exist in an environment (that implies duality), It's simply the WHOLE of all there is.

Now there is a limit to the efficacy of conceptual language to convey what one intends to convey, so if it is obvious to me that you still don't grok what has been conveyed already, then nothing will be gained by our further babbling.

 

[horiturk]

i believe we can experience godliness but not God exactly

 

[atanu]

Hi YmirGF,
--
Now there is a limit to the efficacy of conceptual language to convey what one intends to convey, so if it is obvious to me that you still don't grok what has been conveyed already, then nothing will be gained by our further babbling.

Ya. Just as taste of mango cannot be told.

:drool:I like mangos like no other thing.

...

 

[atanu]

Hi YmirGF,
Of course the word "God" is a mind construct,..it is nothing more than a concept that is intended to represent absolute reality (please don't retort with a,.. "absolute reality" is also a concept, that's a given). It matters not what label is used,..God, Brahman, Tao, Allah, ****, etc., the point is that no mortal mind can apprehend the one and only absolute reality that these labels represent.

Let me throw in my 1 cent.

Many assert that the objective science is verifiable. This concept itself is not verifiable, since the experimenter and verifier both are always in the sole knowledge of one only. There is never a second control observer. All so-called objective knowledge is devoid of knowledge of the Subject itself.

At least in my understanding, scriptures define God as that which is the sole Seer and Knower. In Hinduism, there is Kena Upanishad, which begins with this question. And even in Koran, it is very frequently repeated that Allah Sees All or Allah is the Seer. But because it is repeated so often, readers rarely contemplate on this.

Upanishads further question "How will the knower be known?", "How will the Seer be seen?"

It is easy to label belief in scriptures as blind faith. It is the personal experience however, just as the experience of taste of mango, that the intuitive knowledge is less colored by personal values. Further, the sruti/revelations obtained during samadhi, recoreded as scripture which have also stood the test of time are still better. That is my considered opinion.

Just as no one exactly knows the deep sleep yet everyone articulates "I had a refreshing sleep", the revelations are capable of acting as pointers. The address is not the destination, but the address is useful. Similarly, though taste of mango is not describable, yet metaphors may help.

But, Hindu scriptures do query "How the knower will be known?".

...

 

[YmirGF]

Hi YmirGF,

Of course the word "God" is a mind construct,..it is nothing more than a concept that is intended to represent absolute reality (please don't retort with a,.. "absolute reality" is also a concept, that's a given). It matters not what label is used,..God, Brahman, Tao, Allah, ****, etc., the point is that no mortal mind can apprehend the one and only absolute reality that these labels represent.

I understand that, Ben. What I am having difficulty "grokking" is how the concept initially emerged if indeed this inherent reality is beyond conception/mental comprehension. Also, don't you think it is especially convenient to insist that this is something that cannot be explained or distilled via the mental process?

As an olive branch, I would say that it is a combination of the two. One can experience deeper aspects of reality, but there is always a lag until the mind catches up with experience. My own experience in this area is that it is due to the overwhelming amount of data that one encounters during times of expanded awareness.

The reality represented by "God" (or the conceptual label of your choice) doesn't exist in an environment (that implies duality), It's simply the WHOLE of all there is.

Not exactly, Ben. In this case, "god" would be its own environment, as it is everything, if is logical to conclude that everything is a part of this alleged "god's" environment. Amusingly one could also conjecture that if indeed "god" is everything then it follows that the environment it surrounds itself in would be nothingness. That might be a bit problematic however for deists... all that is exists in nothingness... Talk about making something out of nothing, lol.

Now there is a limit to the efficacy of conceptual language to convey what one intends to convey, so if it is obvious to me that you still don't grok what has been conveyed already, then nothing will be gained by our further babbling.

I guess what gets to me about your writing, Ben is that you describe things AS IF they were realities and almost completely ignore the fact that much of what you are discussing are simply assumptions about reality. Perhaps I am a knit-picker, but if we want to have discussions about reality that is fine. If we want to have discussions about nebulous, somewhat meaningless concepts such as "god" then you do need to brace yourself. I don't expect to be given a free pass and I am certainly not inclined to give one to others.

 

[YmirGF]

There have been so many people from completely opposite metaphysical viewpoints that have claimed to have experienced god, so some or all of them have incomplete or incorrect information about their experience.

My conversation in this thread with Ben would certainly seem to validate your observation.

I'm sure I experience what other people call experiencing god all the time - I just don't label it as such. As human beings, we're not as varied as people like to think, and we all share pretty much the same range of emotions/experiences - we just decide to call them different things.

Based on other peoples' descriptions of experiencing god, I have no difficulty identifying with what they're experiencing, but simply see no reason to deify it.

Exactly. I tend to think that folks who do this are still skimming the surface of inner reality, even if that "surface skimming" seems like swimming in very deep waters to the observer.

Via psilocybin and dimethyltryptamine.

A bit radical.... lol... sadly, many have no need for that kind of intervention as their imaginations are much more powerful than any drugs.

This means it is possible to experience.

When the seer becomes one with seen, & after coming back from that state Seer is can say that it is possible to experience God.

_/\_Chinu.

And so... we are simply taking their word for it... Not terribly impressive...

Therefore the responses to your question will be as diverse as the relative range of experiences and beliefs held in the mind of the participants...mine included...and yet they each, regardless of apparent contradictory and conflicting viewpoints, constitute a valid and real expression of God.

Unless, of course, you are YmirGF, then your views don't count, because he just doesn't get it.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Unless, of course, you are YmirGF, then your views don't count, because he just doesn't get it.

Don't give me that. You get it. You just get more outta giving it to someone else.

 

[YmirGF]

Don't give me that. You get it. You just get more outta giving it to someone else.

Well, I did mean what I said that I was quite taken with your descriptions of the water, sky etc... They do rekindle some rather fond memories of transcendence.


Ohhh... I watched "A Perfect Murder" with Michael Douglas, Viggo Mortensen and of course, your cherished Gwyneth the other night and I have to admit she does have a rare charm.