nameless
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 05:08 pm
@Dustin phil,
Dustin wrote:
So basically how you would experience and understand an infinite God / Consciousness depends entirely upon your own finite logic and reasoning?

Excellent question.
Forgive me if I ignore your 'limitation' of god by calling It 'infinite'. 'Infinite' is a cognitively meaningless concept. We cannot conceive of it. Nor has it ever been proven to exist (especially as it cannot be conceived), so..
Actually 'jnana yoga' is a 'path' of knowledge/learning. True and sincere mental pursuit can and has led people to mystical experience.
There is no 'understanding' of Consciousness/god... that is what ineffable means.
'God/Consciousness' cannot be 'experienced by an 'individual', as the closer one gets to that 'absolute Oneness', the more the ego of individual 'knower', 'I', must dissolve, as a wave returning to the sea. There is naught that is 'Real/True' but 'God/Consciousness'. We are not more than Perspectives of Consciousness upon the Chaos of Mind.
'It is only by us that God can know Itself.' -Meister Eckhart
Dustin phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 05:53 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Excellent question.
Forgive me if I ignore your 'limitation' of god by calling It 'infinite'. 'Infinite' is a cognitively meaningless concept. We cannot conceive of it. Nor has it ever been proven to exist (especially as it cannot be conceived), so..
Actually 'jnana yoga' is a 'path' of knowledge/learning. True and sincere mental pursuit can and has led people to mystical experience.
There is no 'understanding' of Consciousness/god... that is what ineffable means.


Well I actually agree that words are inadequate to describe something immeasurable. It seems we prefer or use different words based on individual experience, and this sometimes leads to misunderstandings.

nameless wrote:
'God/Consciousness' cannot be 'experienced by an 'individual', as the closer one gets to that 'absolute Oneness', the more the ego of individual 'knower', 'I', must dissolve, as a wave returning to the sea. There is naught that is 'Real/True' but 'God/Consciousness'. We are not more than Perspectives of Consciousness upon the Chaos of Mind.


Okay, so maybe the word "experience," to Meister Eckhart isn't the best word; perhaps express would be a better choice!? So in essence what this person is trying to say, is that after the "I" dissolves there is a sense of oneness or knowing of God / Consciousness.

nameless wrote:
'It is only by us that God can know Itself.' -Meister Eckhart


I can agree somewhat with this statement, but I would also say we are "individualizations" of the One Consciousness (yet one) - and can also know one another this way.
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 07:08 pm
@Dustin phil,
Dustin wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nameless http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
Excellent question.
Forgive me if I ignore your 'limitation' of god by calling It 'infinite'. 'Infinite' is a cognitively meaningless concept. We cannot conceive of it. Nor has it ever been proven to exist (especially as it cannot be conceived), so..
Actually 'jnana yoga' is a 'path' of knowledge/learning. True and sincere mental pursuit can and has led people to mystical experience.
There is no 'understanding' of Consciousness/god... that is what ineffable means.


Well I actually agree that words are inadequate to describe something immeasurable. It seems we prefer or use different words based on individual experience, and this sometimes leads to misunderstandings.

Unless perspectives are very close, so true.
Words in themselves are seductive lies. They have no truth or meaning other than that which you individually 'see'. It's up to us 'pattern seeking perspectives' to discern the patterns of words for ourselves and find 'meaning' in the oddest and sometimes 'maddest' things. Communicating that is easy when perspectives are close..
Words, in themselves, are part of 'creation'. They suffer all the limitations of creation/existence. They cannot possibly be of any but figurative and metaphoric/poetic assistance in 'pointing' at the 'Ineffable', the 'Creator', the 'non-dual/non-contextual'. So 'words' from our limited, ('created' dualistic) concepts can never be taken literally, otherwise the Creator will be limited by having to conform to a 'definition' (become the created).

Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by nameless http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
'God/Consciousness' cannot be 'experienced by an 'individual', as the closer one gets to that 'absolute Oneness', the more the ego of individual 'knower', 'I', must dissolve, as a wave returning to the sea. There is naught that is 'Real/True' but 'God/Consciousness'. We are not more than Perspectives of Consciousness upon the Chaos of Mind.

Okay, so maybe the word "experience," to Meister Eckhart isn't the best word;

I don't know what Meister Eckhart thought. I know what I think. I related my thoughts, not his, other than the quote as a bit of icing on the cake..

Quote:
So in essence what this person is trying to say,

These thoughts and experiences, that I express, are mine. If I take something from another source, I will give attribute. The quote (paraphrase) is his. Thats all. OK? I'm speaking from personal 'reality'.

Quote:
is that after the "I" dissolves there is a sense of oneness or knowing of God / Consciousness.

Yes, pretty close to my intended communication.

Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by nameless http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
'It is only by us that God can know Itself.' -Meister Eckhart

I can agree somewhat with this statement, but I would also say we are "individualizations" of the One Consciousness (yet one) - and can also know one another this way.

I am looking at this pile of words that you have offered to me (us) and can see great meaning, from this perspective.
An (aparent) "individualisation" of Consciousness is what I am calling 'Perspective'; you, me.. Like those blue sparks that jump to your fingers when you touch that toy glass globe.. One Consciousness (globe) many 'sparks', Perspectives of the 'center'; the elephant, Mind (of/is God), Chaos, undifferentiated potential, all possibilities (which are 'actualized/seen' by all Perspectives, hence, all being 'correct'), quantum wave field,...
That is the meaning to the saying;
"To know 'Self', is to know all 'Self' (everyOne)." - Book of Fudd
We are all of (One) Consciousness and can therein find source of empathic 'connection'. All, in the moment, are One, truly, so knowing 'self'... everyone is 'self'...
(This explains, quite neatly, all 'psychic' experiences. Psychic experience only seems odd from the perspectives of there being 'seperate things', as opposed to 'One')
Your words hit the nail on the head, from 'this' perspective. I hope that it is similar from 'that' perspective..
*__-
So therein also lies the truth of;
"All Perspectives (us'ns) are 'correct' (from our unique points-of-view), all are necessarily incomplete (to one extent or another)." - Book of Fudd
Peace
0 Replies
 
soullight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 12:32 am
@Dustin phil,
We only have to connect to each unfolding moment to understand that if there is A God He or She is supreme. I personally believe in a higher force, but in order to avoid conflictions I stay well away from the wild concepts of religion. As I'm sure you can appreciate that their are those who are very temperamental about what they choose to believe.
I would love to write more, but I have to shoot to work.
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 07:18 am
@Dustin phil,
Christ said, "Unless you come as a little child..."

A kid wouldn't to try to explain God as sovereign, love, immutable, and all those other things. They'd just call him father.

But hey, if that's too simple for you...
Dustin phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 04:12 pm
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
Christ said, "Unless you come as a little child..."


I don't think Christ meant, "Unless you come as a immature little child..." Children are often humble.

Solace wrote:
A kid wouldn't to try to explain God as sovereign, love, immutable, and all those other things. They'd just call him father.


Children are always giving their father titles and telling just how great they are.
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 07:22 pm
@Dustin phil,
so it was too simple...
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2008 02:51 am
@Solace,
I have heard that "God is simple, everything else is complicated."
And there is nothing else!
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2008 07:34 am
@Dustin phil,
So, Dustin, you're saying that a child who goes around bragging about his father ISN'T immature and IS humble? Maybe you oughtta rethink that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » GOD IS LOVE!
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/03/2023 at 10:33:52