the word God

[zenzero]

Friends,
In reality God has been addressed by different names, terms depending on language, culture etc. It also makes no difference what god is referred to by. and makes no difference even if god and satan are not mentioned/ referred to also as for enlightenment they are not necessary.
Silence in whatever language or name remains that, Silence.
Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
In reality God has been addressed by different names, terms depending on language, culture etc. It also makes no difference what god is referred to by. and makes no difference even if god and satan are not mentioned/ referred to also as for enlightenment they are not necessary.
Silence in whatever language or name remains that, Silence.
Love & rgds

 

[ranjana]

however when engaging in religious discussion with others who are not aware of the transcendent, it may sometimes be appropriate to be diplomatic and rather than contradict them outright, engage them at their present conceptual level and try to convey the more subtle understanding.

sounds pretty dualistic? as in, one understanding is correct and the other is wrong? wouldnt the subtlest understanding be that everything is as it should be, including people's understanding of god. it is perfect and interesting... even what you would perceive to be wrong is actually god unfolding.

i dont mean to argue, i am just putting a thought out there!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

sounds pretty dualistic? as in, one understanding is correct and the other is wrong? wouldn't the subtlest understanding be that everything is as it should be, including people's understanding of god. it is perfect and interesting... even what you would perceive to be wrong is actually god unfolding.

i dont mean to argue, i am just putting a thought out there!

First of all, there is nothing that can be said of non-dualism except that the non-dualism that can be spoken of, is not the REAL non-dualism!

If that is understood, then it is follows that all discussions among mortals occur in the realm of a dualistic mindset domain.

Concerning the quote, you appear to be making a judgment and assigning 'right understanding' to one, and 'wrong understanding' to the other. Please reread the quote, there is no judgment of right or wrong implied, just a recognition that people are not all on the same level of understanding.

For example, the school teacher understands how to read and write fluently, and attempts to pass this understanding on to the young students who have some understanding, but do not yet know how to read and write fluently. Would you judge the teacher's understanding as correct and the student's wrong?

Then you ask the question, "wouldn't the subtlest understanding be that everything is as it should be", well would not that approach result in the students remaining illiterate for the rest of their life?

As for your, "even what you would perceive to be wrong is actually god unfolding.", who said anything about perceiving anything wrong?

i dont mean to argue, i am just putting a thought out there!

Understood ranjana, good for you, that is what the forum is all about.

 

[zenzero]

Friend ranjana,
Another perspective of God.
In nature everything has their own qualities and accordingly its aura spreads.
e.g. a rose and a violet, would appeal differently to different people.
Neither the flowers are wrong nor the people perceiving it in their own ways.
The flower which is part of nature is always open to meet you [anyone] but for that meeting to take place, one has to free the mind of any perception and these perceptions are formed due to thoughts.
Once we free the mind of thoughts, it becomes free of all perceptions then we meet TRUTH through the flower or anything in exsitence which is God or the WHOLE.
Love 7 rgds

 

[Guitar's Cry]

"God" is the symbol I grew up with used to denote an important concept in my awareness. That concept has been a puzzle that while untangling has afforded me many insights into my experience of life.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Guitar's Cry,

"God" is the symbol I grew up with used to denote an important concept in my awareness.

Truly,
When the awareness is not *My Awareness* BUT becomes just *AWARENESS* then there is neither God nor *I* all that remains is Awareness or Consciousness.
Love & rgds

 

[ranjana]

For example, the school teacher understands how to read and write fluently, and attempts to pass this understanding on to the young students who have some understanding, but do not yet know how to read and write fluently. Would you judge the teacher's understanding as correct and the student's wrong?

Then you ask the question, "wouldn't the subtlest understanding be that everything is as it should be", well would not that approach result in the students remaining illiterate for the rest of their life?

first of all, thank you for the challenging engagement; but i see a difference in understanding reading and writing, which is entirely the realm of the mind, and is therefore entirely knowable, to the understanding of 'God' which is absolutely beyond the understanding of mind, and therefore not knowable in the same sense. The only knowing as i perceive, is found deep in the stillness of meditation, as you alluded to before.

and yes i can see there are depths of understanding, but is not all that understanding of the same ocean? Is it not all god? i was only responding to your statement

it may sometimes be appropriate to be diplomatic and rather than contradict them outright

and thinking that contradicting someone would imply they were wrong.

well as i write this, i know that i subscribe to 'wrong thinking' in many cases, as has been blessedly pointed out to me by my teacher.... so i cant say there is no such thing as wrong thinking that doesnt need correction. i just am inclined to begin tackling the ignorance from the perspective that ignorance is an illusion that arises from God, or how ever one would describe it.... nothingness, the One, the source... essentially that you cant condemn anything as it is all the same being. Please dont think I am saying you are condemning anything!! I am again just writing my understanding, which is wonderful to receive feedback about.

thank you everyone!

 

[ranjana]

Neither the flowers are wrong nor the people perceiving it in their own ways.

ah this is exactly what i was trying to say, only much more poetic! that the subtlest understanding of all has no sense of right or wrong. only perfection which is all there is, and that realization is essentially real love. but our minds are not capable of becoming this subtle (this word is so haughty, at least my connotations with it!) or refined.... though we can go far with refining the mind, it still cannot conceive of no right/wrong. am i wrong?

it is like bed d wrote, that all discussions that among mortals
occur in the dualistic mindset domain. how can we ever transcend this limitation except to sit in acute awareness of the eternal stillness... and then attempt to talk about it!!! and that is one of the things that makes me incredibly happy to be alive!!!

 

[zenzero]

Friend ranjana,
This is exactly what consciousness is about.
Forget the words we use. As all words are finally useless as they are just few tools available for our use developed by us. Us here means *humans*.
Each one of us is always raising our own consciousness and also that of the surrounding which includes those with whom we live, we reach.
By such questions and answers we dive deep within our own consciousness the no-mind by stilling our mind temporarily and this stilling becomes bigger and bigger by constant practice which is otherwise called sadhana / meditation.
So, in a way we can transcend time/space for fleeting moments together by such interactions which when more people of the same understanding joins in it becomes a buddha field a field where the no-minds joins for bigger and stronger fields. This is what every enlightened people have been trying since eternity and will keep trying till eternity as that is all life is about. keep doing one's karma without any desire.
Love & rgds

 

[Ben Dhyan]

first of all, thank you for the challenging engagement; but i see a difference in understanding reading and writing, which is entirely the realm of the mind, and is therefore entirely knowable, to the understanding of 'God' which is absolutely beyond the understanding of mind, and therefore not knowable in the same sense. The only knowing as i perceive, is found deep in the stillness of meditation, as you alluded to before.

What and who is this 'I' that sees the difference you refer to?
When Enlightenment is, the 'I' is no longer present to create a subject/object relationship.

and yes i can see there are depths of understanding, but is not all that understanding of the same ocean? Is it not all god? i was only responding to your statement and thinking that contradicting someone would imply they were wrong.

Yes. all understanding is of the same 'ocean', but neither 'understanding' nor the 'ocean' is the unknowable Oneness, ie. God.
Contradicting someone is just that, an act of contradicting, it is neither correct nor wrong. One just supposes that wise souls are more tactful, not because they deem contradicting someone as being ethically wrong, but because it is not as conducive to the conveying of understanding as sensitive tact is.

well as i write this, i know that i subscribe to 'wrong thinking' in many cases, as has been blessedly pointed out to me by my teacher.... so i cant say there is no such thing as wrong thinking that doesnt need correction.

Conceptual thinking is not right nor is it wrong, just be aware that only when the mortal mind ceases thinking will the illusionary dualistic reality give way to Enlightenment.

i just am inclined to begin tackling the ignorance from the perspective that ignorance is an illusion that arises from God, or how ever one would describe it.... nothingness, the One, the source... essentially that you cant condemn anything as it is all the same being. Please dont think I am saying you are condemning anything!!

Ignorance is the ego mind itself,... if and when the mind ceases it's endless babbling that obscures the REAL, GOD is.

I am again just writing my understanding, which is wonderful to receive feedback about.
thank you everyone!

Ranjana, the concept God can be discussed forever but it will not ever of itself bring the disciple to Enlightenment. It may be very rewarding, enjoyable and even essential for the reaching of the final state of unfoldment, but enlightenment will never be realized through mental activity. Only when the the ego mind is still, will the duality of subject/object, me/God, be dissolved and lo,...GOD. (whatever that is? )

 

[ranjana]

definitely time to go meditate!!!:rainbow1:

thank you i look forward to replying further when my mind returns! seems it is quieting down right now and that is definitely a good sign that words will not carry my meaning right now.

good night, again, thanks for the engagement! it would seem you and zenzero are very adept at making me want to go further!!!

 

[zenzero]

Friend ranjana,
Yes, good night and do carry the consciousness in your sleep every night.
It may get lost by morning but again pick it up as soon as you wake up before starting the day again.
Love & rgds

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

In fact, God has MANY names and titles, in many languages, and any of these are equally acceptable!

Just a few of these names (in various languages) are: God, Boje, Jehovah, Dieu, Wankantanka, El, Gott, Yahweh, Dios, Allah, Bog, Adonai, and Pavardegar.

And ANY of these are just fine!

Best,

Bruce

 

[ranjana]

Friend ranjana,
Yes, good night and do carry the consciousness in your sleep every night.
It may get lost by morning but again pick it up as soon as you wake up before starting the day again.
Love & rgds

greatest practical advice. it is a promise i made to my teacher before I left india!

 

[zenzero]

Friend ranjana,
As a friend and as a fellow traveler, share whatever is available at the disposal.
More as we go along.
Love & rgds

 

[Japaholic]

“God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.”—Joseph Campbell

 

[Elessar]

Thank you Elessar, will always try to remember to use G-d when discussing G-d with you.

BTW, agree with you that G-d is not the same as Universe, or Creation, etc., however when engaging in religious discussion with others who are not aware of the transcendent, it may sometimes be appropriate to be diplomatic and rather than contradict them outright, engage them at their present conceptual level and try to convey the more subtle understanding.

Where my present understanding may differs from yours at this time, is that while G-d is transcendent to Creation, G-d is simultaneously immanent in it, ie. G-d is unambiguously omnipresent.

1. No problem, I am not offended when it it spelled out - I just don't do that.

2. Well, yes, I suppose this is true. I understand the intent, and the point.

3. G-d is absolutely not part of Creation, as he is G-d, but it is true that he is omnipresent, in addition to being omnipotent, omniscient, and all those other cool things.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

3. G-d is absolutely not part of Creation, as he is G-d, but it is true that he is omnipresent, in addition to being omnipotent, omniscient, and all those other cool things.

Hi Elessar,
In the context of my present understanding of G-d being omnipresent (and that by definition includes being present within His creation), just wonder what you make of these NT sayings.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Now it is my understanding that the spirit of G-d itself is not G-d, but it would imply that the Spirit of G-d is immanent in the mortal tabernacle. Now G-d being immanent in his creature/creation doesn't necessarily mean that G-d is directly active in nature, but remains forever transcendent.

and similarly...

Luke 17:21
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Now the same reasoning applies here, the Kingdom of G-d is not external to man in a dualist spacial sense, IT is immanent within man, but is not necessarily directly active and remains forever transcendent.

 

[Japaholic]

A bitter, 72-year old ex-docker becomes the ever-compassionate Buddha. A Cypriot minicab driver becomes St Francis of Assissi. The 22-year-old Glaswegian checkout girl is the divine mother. I love everybody. My spirit is free. I am limitless in space, time and matter, simultaneously the planet Neptune, part of the structural support to Vauxhall Bridge. I am your left breast, I am Stepney, I am Peru, I am divine and so are you.

Written by Jah Wobble