Your description of "God" in 10 words or less

[Aupmanyav]

God is EMPTINESS or NOTHINGNESS.

No, Zenzero, it does not mean that. There is nothing like God. Nasadiya Sukta or the so-called 'hindu creation hymn' (RigVeda 10.129) describes the situation just before the big-bang, near infinite energy was concentrated in near nil space. There was never emptiness or nothingness only (otherwise, we would not have been discussing these things here). Space and energy are always there (Zero-point energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It says (Ralph Griffith's translation at www.sacred-texts.com):

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Aupmanyav

Nasadiya Sukta or the so-called 'hindu creation hymn' (RigVeda 10.129) describes the situation just before the big-bang, near infinite energy was concentrated in near nil space.

According to my understanding,..."1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it." implies a THAT which is beyond the faculty of a discriminating mind to conceptualize.

IOW, the Tao that can be described is not the unknowable Tao.

Once the concepts of time, big bangs, energy concentration in finite space, etc. arise, then the duality mindset is on a slippery downward slope towards the maya of the ten thousand things.

The Oneness is beyond time,...birthless, deathless, yet is the source of all there is and all that isn't.

All creation theories including the so called scientific big bang theory are not a description of God, ie. Oneness, but are just a part of the endless babbling of the mind that has fallen from the Oneness and is trying to understand itself through duality.

IOW, creation and destruction, big bangs (if you like) have always been and will always be, in infinite numbers, in infinite space, for all eternity,..there never was a beginning to creation, but there is a beginning to a specific creation in a circumscribed volume of infinite space in a specified period of eternal duration, as well as the destruction cycle.

There is nothing that can be said of God/Tao for it is transcendent to creation but immanent in it as dualistically inclined mind consciousness.

In the first verse of the Tao Teh Ching, it is said that the Tao that can be described is not the unknowable Tao, and it follows from there to the end with considerable description of the mysterious working of the Tao. So the first verse says all that can be said about the Way, but the next 80 verses are about the workings of the Way.

The piece you quoted from the Rig Veda 10.129 follows the same format with the first line introducing the reader to the ineffable THAT behind creation, and then proceeding to describe the processes of creation.

God is unknowable, but that does not mean that the voluminous writings about the theories and workings of God are without merit, just so long as they are not interpreted as being God or even a description of God.

"If all the water in the oceans was ink, and all of the trees on earth were pens, one could not write but an insignificant number of the sayings of Allah."

 

[zenzero]

Friend Aupmanyav,
Personally have no inkling of what the author of those lines from Nasadiya sukta in rigved meant. After all anything written tends to be distorted due to the nature of individual mind to perceive in ts own color.
However the question was to describe god in less than 10 words and personally god is that emptiness/nothingness to me and perceived those lines as similar statements.
Ofcourse friend ben d, has explained that Tao de ching has the verses too which points towards that nothingness/emptiness.
However, these are only pointers towards our inner journey which is most important and which can be taken only through meditation.
The final merging takes place only when the mind is totally free and so even buddha declared " Kill me, even if I come in the way.* meaning even if we have a picture of buddha/god that too has to be dropped besides you know that Ramakrishna Paramhansa had to drop his Kali to be totally free.
Love & rgds

 

[Aupmanyav]

Zenzero, I have given one word options as answer to the OP in post 13. You are a theist, that is why you have no inkling of what Nasadiya Sukta says. At one place it says that Gods are later than the creation of the universe, at other place it says that perhaps Gods also do not know how the universe came to be. Nasadiya Sukta is an out and out atheist verse . I am glad that even when RigVeda verses were being written, there was some one who was an atheist. Nasadiya Sukta is like a 'Kohinoor' in RigVeda, clear and brilliant, grade-D (Colorless) IF (Internally Flawless). Nasadiya Sukta does not proclaim nothingness, it enquires about what was.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Aupmanyav,
Thanks once again for your explanation.
However find Buddha to have an edge over other religions because he was neither a theist nor an atheist. He remained in the center from where both the poles are equi-distant. Personally though appear to be more theist but gradually trying to be in the center.
Love & rgds

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Aupmanyav said..

Choose any, superstition, ignorance, fear, etc. 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma' (All universe is Brahman). 'Ekameva Adviteeyam' (Only one and no second).

Excuse my obtuseness, but it is not quite clear what you mean to convey here.

Are you implying that 'Ekameva Adviteeyam' (Only one and no second), ie. the non-conceptual reality behind the concept of non-duality, is not?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, Ben, at present we cannot visualize the situation just before big-bang (infinite energy, nil space). At one time we found it difficult to visualize relativity also. I hope future generations will be able to understand.

Add time, and the non-duality apparently breaks but truth remains the same. I am not a theist so I would not say 'God, i.e., Oneness', though I would stick to Oneness.

An old question with me - Is there truly a creation or destruction? Or it is just our perception of the play of force fields? I would not go beyond what is known as 'planck's time', non-mathematically 1x 10 raised to power -44 sec. That is, as scientists call it, a singularity (in common language - we do not presently know).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Excuse my obtuseness, but it is not quite clear what you mean to convey here.

Are you implying that 'Ekameva Adviteeyam' (Only one and no second), ie. the non-conceptual reality behind the concept of non-duality, is not?

Yes, it is that. If there is non-duality, then there is no God. Conceptual or non-conceptual, we do not presently know, a singularity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you for your response Aupmanyav, glad that we can agree on oneness.
Must admit to be quite interested in science, and the goings on within and among the ten thousand things too, so it is somewhat of a bi-polar world experience for me as a mortal.

However, like zenzero, a faith/intuition abides within that with correct meditation practice, the possibility exists for the cessation of mind thinking processes,... and through grace, perchance to realize 'enlightenment' (Whatever that is?).

 

[zenzero]

Friend Aupmanyav,

es, it is that. If there is non-duality, then there is no God. Conceptual or non-conceptual, we do not presently know, a singularity.

This is the truth we all understand and strive for as ben d, mentions.
Love & rgds

 

[koan]

Zero, Zilch

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

God in ten words: An easy and unjustified explanation for the nature of everything.

 

[islam means peace]

Your question is What does your's tell you God is? it can be answered as below
The translation[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] of Surah Ikhlas (Holy Qur'an 112:1-4) is:
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only! Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.

 

[mr.guy]

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

 

[Mind_Zenith]

The Law of the Universe, which is Enlightenment. :rainbow1:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

if (God) { God != X, for all X }​

 

[Brahman]

Consciousness.

 

[The Wizard]

The unexplainable, unpredictable and mysterious patterns of GOODNESS (8 words).

 

[katiafish]

Unity

 

[blackout]

everything