"It" Makes a Difference

[ThePainefulTruth]

I've been referring to God as "It" (not an It) instead of He or Him for a few years now, and I think it's had a significant impact on my view of what God is, or being an agnostic, what God might be, if It exists. When you take away the anthropomorphic qualities of gender, maleness or a patriarch, it also removes the attitude we have towards the man made concepts of God; while heightening the mystery of whatever personality and motivation God (for me, the embodiment of Truth) might have.

Humans, being animals, have an unavoidable compulsion to think of life as having gender and sex, which a creator deity would have no need of. And neither would we if there is some sort of disembodied hereafter. This has brought about, for the first time, a true understanding of transcendence--a word that always left me puzzled. I would always think, transcendent from what to what, and for what purpose. As asexual entities, our attractions would be based on spiritual and intellectual qualities, transcending the physical. I find that somewhat confusing and abhorrent, because I can't truly conceive of that happening, and in a way, don't want it to. But on the other had, I group it in with all the other bridges I'm going to cross when I come to them category, which could be for the best--if there's anything but oblivion after this.

 

[Valjean]

I generally think of a non-anthropomorphic God as Nature.

 

[George-ananda]

As a non-dualist (God and creation are not-two), I don't think of God as a He/She or It. I have come to think of God as All consciousness that pervades everything. Anthropomorphic thinking can occur only in dualistic thinking.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I generally think of a non-anthropomorphic God as Nature.

And if that nature embodies a conscious will, that nature would then be pandeistic.

As a non-dualist (God and creation are not-two), I don't think of God as a He/She or It. I have come to think of God as All consciousness that pervades everything.

Wouldn't that conscious creation be "pronouned" as It? And the second sentence there is a statement of agreement with pandeism or panendeism (here used in opposition to the hearsay concepts of pantheism and panentheism.)

Anthropomorphic thinking can occur only in dualistic thinking.

Why? If we can invent a dualistic god, why not a monotheistic or non-dualistic god? In fact, isn't that what the Hebrews did with their pantheism? That God said "I am that I am" which is to say It would not be limited by further description, including gender, or as anything less than everything. In fact I think that harkens back to something much earlier than the theistic God it was morphed into by latter day Hebrews/Jews. The Shema Yisrael, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord" is another powerful remnant of that earlier theology.

 

[George-ananda]

And the second sentence there is a statement of agreement with pandeism or panendeism (here used in opposition to the hearsay concepts of pantheism and panentheism.)

'Hearsay'? Here I thought Advaita came from the teachings of many advanced souls that took incarnation to illuminate us further. I hope it didn't just originate with kids speculating about God at a high school lunch table.

In Advaita, Brahman is always One and infinite consciousness. In His creative aspect he overlays Maya (Illusion in Hinduism) onto Himself and creates this drama of the universe. At the end of the drama, Maya is overcome and all realize they are One. It is all the play of Brahman.

 

[Unification]

'Hearsay'? Here I thought Advaita came from the teachings of many advanced souls that took incarnation to illuminate us further. I hope it didn't just originate with kids speculating about God at a high school lunch table.

In Advaita, Brahman is always One and infinite consciousness. In His creative aspect he overlays Maya (Illusion in Hinduism) onto Himself and creates this drama of the universe. At the end of the drama, Maya is overcome and all realize they are One. It is all the play of Brahman.

Would the "play" be theatrical as in an act? A dramatic play strikes as being false/impure/vain... an act and not the pure/real thing. I would think that anything dramatic or of an act/pretend would be not of "God/Brahman."

I can see it as that there are many characters(human beings) acting and pretending to be something their true nature or character is not, without knowing and lacking awareness but not on the accord of "God/Brahman" but under the controls of their false mind and other minds. Until a being is liberated from their acting/pretend/false character.

 

[George-ananda]

Would the "play" be theatrical as in an act? A dramatic play strikes as being false/impure/vain... an act and not the pure/real thing. I would think that anything dramatic or of an act/pretend would be not of "God/Brahman."

Well, here is how my finite mind best understands it.

Brahman is infinite pure consciousness. He has a creative aspect (much like why do humans create art/plays that don't have a practical value). In this play He separates Himself from Himself and experiences through finite forms. In the second act, He returns Himself to Himself by overcoming the ego-identification with the finite form. It is a play with drama in the middle and a happy ending in Nirvana/Moksha for all. The joy is in the experiencing of ever expanding consciousness until Liberation.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

'Hearsay'? Here I thought Advaita came from the teachings of many advanced souls that took incarnation to illuminate us further. I hope it didn't just originate with kids speculating about God at a high school lunch table.

Pretty much one and the same.

In Advaita, Brahman is always One and infinite consciousness.

Where did that revelation come from?

In His creative aspect he overlays Maya (Illusion in Hinduism) onto Himself and creates this drama of the universe. At the end of the drama, Maya is overcome and all realize they are One. It is all the play of Brahman.

That sounds more like pure fiction that hearsay. But then I s'pose most if not all revelation starts out that way.

 

[George-ananda]

Where did that revelation come from?



That sounds more like pure fiction that hearsay. But then I s'pose most if not all revelation starts out that way.

In Hinduism/Advaita, wisdom comes from the direct experiences of many masters and not from sudden 'revelation'. You seem a bit too cynical (your own self-description) to even consider that they might have something to tell us from their experiences.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

In Hinduism/Advaita, wisdom comes from the direct experiences of many masters and not from sudden 'revelation'. You seem a bit too cynical (your own self-description) to even consider that they might have something to tell us from their experiences.

And with nothing but their say so for believing them, justly so. And what experience, their interpretation of their subjective meditative experiences? Does revelation not being "divine" make it any more rational?

 

[Valjean]

Knowledge is the result of direct experience in expanded states of consciousness.
Seers may attempt to describe these experiences, and their descriptions may entice others to seek their own experiences, but, unlike abrahamic prophets, seers don't expect others to take their word for it.
Effective spiritual instruction would be in yogas -- techniques to alter one's own consciousness and experience Reality personally.
Proper gurus are guides, not prophets.

 

[George-ananda]

And with nothing but their say so for believing them, justly so. And what experience, their interpretation of their subjective meditative experiences?

I consider many things than in forming my worldview; paranormal phenomena, explanatory models for phenomena, the teachings of all of man's wisdom tradition, etc. Note I said "consider" and not blindly accept or cynically reject..

Does revelation not being "divine" make it any more rational?

Considering the direct experiences of others as well as considering revelations can be a rational process.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Effective spiritual instruction would be in yogas -- techniques to alter one's own consciousness and experience Reality personally.
Proper gurus are guides, not prophets.

What does altering your consciousness even mean? I could take some LSD, or a nap, and they would alter my consciousness, but it wouldn't have anything to do with either changing or understanding reality.

I consider many things than in forming my worldview; paranormal phenomena, explanatory models for phenomena, the teachings of all of man's wisdom tradition, etc. Note I said "consider" and not blindly accept or cynically reject.

What paranormal phenomena? Explanatory models is just a more involved phrase meaning theories. And cynicism arises when we see people blindly accept revelations as holy teachings. It's nothing but hearsay.

Considering the direct experiences of others as well as considering revelations can be a rational process.

Yes, but accepting the hearsay of others with no corroborating objective evidence is irrational. Without that you'll believe any lie or misperception you're told.

 

[George-ananda]

What paranormal phenomena?

Overwhelming evidence to those that consider such things with open-minded skepticism as opposed to closed-minded cynicism.

Explanatory models is just a more involved phrase meaning theories.

Isn't creating theories part of the rational process?

And cynicism arises when we see people blindly accept revelations as holy teachings. It's nothing but hearsay.

Because some 'people blindly accept revelation as holy teachings' certainly should not make us think that is how all beliefs are formed.

Yes, but accepting the hearsay of others with no corroborating objective evidence is irrational. Without that you'll believe any lie or misperception you're told.

Why then don't I believe everything I hear? Because I consider all my collected wisdom about the world and make a rational judgment on likelihood of particular phenomena on a case-by-case basis. Your 'believe everything' or 'believe nothing' approach may work for you but I am a little more refined in my deliberations.

 

[arthra]

I've been referring to God as "It" (not an It) instead of He or Him for a few years now, and I think it's had a significant impact on my view of what God is, or being an agnostic, what God might be, if It exists.

Unfortunately in our language an "it" is just that...an "it".. has no personality ... no nobility... very little significance. Try referring to your love one as an "it" and see how far you'll get!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Unfortunately in our language an "it" is just that...an "it".. has no personality ... no nobility... very little significance. Try referring to your love one as an "it" and see how far you'll get!

Yes, I resisted using "It" for a long time. But the only alternatives available involve gender. The language is limited but it looks like we'll have to make do for now--unless you've got a more reasonable suggestion.

 

[arthra]

Yeah "It" doesn't make it for most of us... Our language has limits but I think we address the Supreme Being in many ways better than "it".

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yeah "It" doesn't make it for most of us... Our language has limits but I think we address the Supreme Being in many ways better than "it".

Yeah usually He, or sometimes She. I guess since man invented the revealed gods, they can call them anything they want. I tried just using God all the time but it doesn't always work and is often clumsy.

 

[Meriweather]

Yes, I resisted using "It" for a long time. But the only alternatives available involve gender. The language is limited but it looks like we'll have to make do for now--unless you've got a more reasonable suggestion.

How about considering using a noun, rather than a pronoun, which would provide a much larger selection base? While some nouns suggest gender, others do not. Three that immediately popped into mind were Majesty, One, or even Yahweh. Or, consider coining a new word.

I think taking Spanish all through school cured me of gender issues. In Spanish, there is no "it". Everything has a gender, be it animate or inanimate, and therefore gender becomes no big deal, just something everything has.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

How about considering using a noun, rather than a pronoun, which would provide a much larger selection base? While some nouns suggest gender, others do not. Three that immediately popped into mind were Majesty, One, or even Yahweh. Or, consider coining a new word.

I think taking Spanish all through school cured me of gender issues. In Spanish, there is no "it". Everything has a gender, be it animate or inanimate, and therefore gender becomes no big deal, just something everything has.

But that's sort of the point, gender for spiritual, non-reproductive beings would be superfluous, and even an unnecessary hindrance to more complete spiritual/mental interactions. It's hard for any human to imagine, much less dispassionately evaluate, such an existence without gender. But if God is One, which I think is certain if It exists at all, that preempts gender out-of-hand.

As for "It" itself, I've tried other routes. Intentional coining a word is usually a fluke rather than by intent. I attempted to coin the word "veritology" for the study of the nature of Truth, but it was quickly co-opted by more than on crank religious groups, reducing it's usefulness to nil. The dictionary in our modern world is under continual assault even, or especially, on well established words. It's most commonly observed in political correctness and in academic psychobabble.

I tried just using "God", but text becomes rapidly stilted and artificial doing so. Of your suggestions, "One" comes the closest to being suitable, but it soon suffers from the same thing as just using "God" in every instance does. We need a pronoun there for the same reasons we need pronouns elsewhere, and over time, using "It" has actually grown on me if for no other reason than it continues to emphasize the necessary genderlessness of God, if It exists.

And something occurred to me, what do we call an embryo before it's sex is determined. We sometimes force our hopes on things by referring to it as a him or her, but more often than not we call it, "it". Just because we degenderize something doesn't mean we're demeaning it or disrespecting it. And with God, we aren't removing It's gender, we're just coming to accept the terminology we should have used in the first place--though I know it's hard what with the millennia behind referring to God ("Our Father, who art in heaven") in the masculine. Of course I'm not suggesting believers should say "It, who art in heaven...."

BTW, how do you refer to something inanimate, like a rock, in Spanish? And how would you translate, it's raining?