God as light

@vajrasattva,

hi there!
all i have are a few clues...

human beings have always clung to the light, being afraid of the dark. ancient people worshiped the sun. in the light nothing is hidden and all can be known.

in mysticism the light represents energy which is the higher vibration of matter, the highest being what one could call 'god'. various colors of that light represent the chakras or energy centers that connect the inner being of light to the physical body.

0 Replies

@vajrasattva,

I dunno actually...but the metaphor of God as light is pretty universal.

Note, however, that in the Daodejing the Dao is called darkness (1)...

0 Replies

@vajrasattva,

salima;81002 wrote:

hi there!
all i have are a few clues...

human beings have always clung to the light, being afraid of the dark. ancient people worshiped the sun. in the light nothing is hidden and all can be known.

in mysticism the light represents energy which is the higher vibration of matter, the highest being what one could call 'god'. various colors of that light represent the chakras or energy centers that connect the inner being of light to the physical body.

This is a very excellent understanding of light at a source of mysticism!

hammersklavier;81012 wrote:

I dunno actually...but the metaphor of God as light is pretty universal.

Note, however, that in the Daodejing the Dao is called darkness (1)...

Assuming that you are talking about the Tao Te Ching, the Tao is considered darkness in a completely different context. The darkness of the Tao refers to the ever elusive nature of the Tao.

"If you think you know the Tao then you do not." Is a Chinese proverb from about the 5th century A.D. This is to show that the Tao is not something which you can know, only something you can experience. Once experienced, the Tao becomes light with which your "soul" is illuminated. The thing with Taosim is that one must not seek the light because you'll never find it. The light becomes apparent once you have sought the truth.

vajrasattva;80959 wrote:

One of the concepts of god used in christian theology is god as light. I have begun to contemplate this and have found it very helpful in meditation. I am not sure why it is effective but it is. So i was wondering if you all could help me to understand this concept more throughly?

Thanks

I like Salima's answer but let me provide one of my own. When you sit in complete darkness, your mind attaches to the darkness. When you sit in the light, your mind attaches to the light. In meditation, our goal is to remove the external and concentrate on the internal. As it is, light gives life, provides heat, reveals paths and nurtures the foundation (earth or soul). So when we are meditating, we find ourselves attached to a worldly perception in order to identify with what we might consider truth. Light is an obvious choice because it gives so much but asks for nothing in return. Thus is our perception of God. A being that gives but is beyond return. A non-contractual being that requires nothing for the gifts given to us.

1 Reply

@vajrasattva,

I was thinking more literaly. God is Light.

In physics light is a particle and a wave. So how can this knowledge be applied to understand the nature of god more?

I have an understanding of it in this sense, but i am having a difficult time verbalizing it.

3 Replies

@vajrasattva,

vajrasattva;81235 wrote:

I was thinking more literaly. God is Light.

In physics light is a particle and a wave. So how can this knowledge be applied to understand the nature of god more?

I have an understanding of it in this sense, but i am having a difficult time verbalizing it.

how about this -
god is energy...energy is the essence of all matter
energy produces waves and forms particles

1 Reply

@vajrasattva,

vajrasattva;81235 wrote:

I was thinking more literaly. God is Light.

In physics light is a particle and a wave. So how can this knowledge be applied to understand the nature of god more?

I have an understanding of it in this sense, but i am having a difficult time verbalizing it.

God, or thereby the definition of God has been created by man and distorted by the creativity of humankind. Physical light is the universal mind which is both a particle and a wave as you have understood in physics. So light, produces or gives the illusion of matter. Matter could be the substance of the electro-magnetic energy of the universal thought of what we call 'God'. God and or Light being dimensionless. When man created the idea of a deity or a God in a heaven above, they did not understand what we understand today in both physics and the composition of matter. Matter is simply mind in motion. God being the Universal Mind and matter being that dimensionless god in motion. God or mind in motion creates a seeming dimension or physical form or reality. We seem to think that these forms or dimensions are attributes of matter but they are not, physical reality that we perceive is an attribute of motion. Motion being mind-in-motion or god-in-motion.

Light are corpuscules which are the mind substance of what we call God and these are effected by the electro-magenetic energy creating motion. Motion then creating or giving the illusion of creation of our physical universe of what we see as matter. We call this electricity and magnetism which is essentially the sexed opposites of light.

If we take this a step further and to explain the confusion, light, as found at the very core of every nucleus of every atom of every particle in existence are given the illusion of appearance by the magnetic reaction of electricity to seek out it's like kind or higher pressure. This seeking out is restricted by magentism and any sort of resistance in this fashion creates heat and in this process, the electricity involved transforms into our physical reality of matter. This is where we understand that like will always seek out like or 'Birds of a feather flock together'. To better get a grip on this, take a look at Walter Russell's interpretation. Here's a little bit:

Quote:

Light cannot be seen, it can only be known. Light is still. The sense of sight cannot respond to stillness. That which the eyes "feel" and believe to be Light is but wave motion simulating the idea of Light. Like all things else in this electric wave universe the idea of Light cannot be produced. Electric waves simulate idea only. They do not become idea. When man sees the light of the sun he believes that he is actually seeing light when the nerves of his eyes are but "feeling" the intense, rapid, short- wave vibrations of the kind of wave motion which he senses as incandescence. The intensely vibrant electric current mirrored into the senses of the eyes fairly burns them. They cannot stand that high rate of vibration. The eyes would be destroyed by such a vibration but light would not be the cause of that destruction. Fast motion, simulating light, would be the cause. It would be like sending a high voltage electric current over a wire, so fine that the current would burn it out. Read More

This understanding of it is why I keep saying over and over and over again on the forums - Perception. Perception creating the reflection in which light does not travel it merely reflects itself repeatedly giving it the illusion of travel. Light is still and light in omnipresent and omnipotent and we're not talking at all about man-made or incadescent light.

So now back to God being light. God truly ends up being our perception of God. The fact is we are in control of our reality and God or the idea of God is so distorted and altered by the creative minds of man's own separation from God that it's the blind leading the blind out there. Seriously. We are so far from the truth of a God that it's almost mind blowing at how absolutely stupid and disconnected we are.

I'd like to add that the bible also has mentioned light many times and especially in Job. Take a look at Job and understand the difference in what we understand today about physics. I don't like referring to the Bible often about this because most of this crap was written by men who thought the world was flat and worshiped the Sun. Besides, the bible can easily be debunked in so many ways. Thus, leading back to man's interpretation or better yet, man's perception of light and perception of God.

God is light. Man is light. Everything is light and in light there can be no evil unless WE bring evil into it with our creative thought process of turning thinking mind into the illusion of matter which is the process of like seeking like in a electro-magnetic sense.

So, after all that, my perception of God is light... can you excuse me now so I can pray and worship my light bulb. LOL. Just kidding.

0 Replies

@vajrasattva,

vajrasattva;81235 wrote:

I was thinking more literaly. God is Light.

In physics light is a particle and a wave. So how can this knowledge be applied to understand the nature of god more?

I have an understanding of it in this sense, but i am having a difficult time verbalizing it.

Light is interesting because it illuminates all except itself.

It has energy but no mass. Its speed is constant in any frame of reference,but what it is, is not known. Sometimes it acts as if it was a wave and sometimes it acts as if it is a particle - it all depends upon what you are trying to discover about it, but you cannot see it as both a wave and particle at the same time. It is necessary for human existence, since the food we eat depends upon light. It effects our moods.

When I wish to feel healthier and better I imagine the light within me.

For me, light is a building block of consciousness. It gives life and lets us observe what life creates.

Light is fascinating. :bigsmile:

Rich

0 Replies

@vajrasattva,

vajrasattva;80959 wrote:

One of the concepts of god used in christian theology is god as light. I have begun to contemplate this and have found it very helpful in meditation. I am not sure why it is effective but it is. So i was wondering if you all could help me to understand this concept more throughly?

Thanks

I am going to disagree a little with all those who've posted thus far in one way. According to what everyone seems to say, the idea of God as light is either a metaphor for various views on goodness, consciousness, happiness etc., or somehow has something to do with photonic light (matter).

[SIZE="3"]I think it is interesting that in the interpretation of things spiritual, we often interpret literally when we should look at something figuratively, and (as in this case), we interpret figuratively when we should be thinking literally. What I mean is, the reason some say God is light is because the essence of all existence, including God, is a type of light (NOT photons, which are themselves a form of this most basic, existential light-stuff).

For example, in samadhi meditation, where one withdraws from the senses and experiences the essence of one's own consciousness, light is what one experiences. You can be in total darkness, or even blind, and you can still experience that your consciousness is a vibrant light. That is why, in fact, that practicing experiencing this inner light is an actual technique of samadhi (and "listening" to the vibrancy of consciousness is a second technique).

When one withdraws from the senses and experiences consciousness at its core, then a second thing can happen, and that is one's own consciousness joins a greater realm of light. If you thought your own consciousness was bright, wait until you experience how incredibly bright the greater realm is.

Those who experienced this sort of union with the greater realm are those who knowingly (i.e., from actual personal experience) came to believe the greater realm is "God" and that God is light. To them light isn't a metaphor or electromagnetic radiation, it is what they experience when merged with the greater realm.

So it is most definitely not photonic light! It is homogeneous, non-particlized, not moving at all . . . it rests in almost perfect stillness, which is why one must be perfectly still oneself to experience it. Now the reason I said "almost" is because the whole greater realm very, very subtly "breathes." It is massive throb or pulse that moves the entire realm gently back and forth (which is why some have named that pulse the "holy breath").

As Icon pointed out, experts like to call all this "mysticism." I think that is a shame really because it predisposes the inexperienced to look at it as somehow abnormal or not for everyone. I dispute that most vigorously when I hear it because how can experiencing the essence of our own consciousness be weird? In fact, it seems to me that trying to explain what consciousness is (as goes on all the time in philosophy or science forums, as well as in the intellectual/scientific community), without first taking the time to turn inward and experience what we really are at our core, is why most discussions end up being little more than exercises in pure speculation.

In conclusion, I would like to answer your query how I think it should be answered. If you want to know something about that light the inwardly experienced have talked about, the only way you can investigate and actually come to know anything about it is to learn how to experience essence-light yourself.[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;81268 wrote:

So it is most definitely not photonic light! It is homogeneous, non-particlized, not moving at all . . . .

I see no reason to create the distinction. We all see light in our own way. None, I feel, and more distinctive than another. Just different. Einstein's light every bit as fascinating as a meditative light. I can find no hierarchy in light. It travels at the same speed in all frames of reference.

Rich

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;81244 wrote:

how about this -
god is energy...energy is the essence of all matter
energy produces waves and forms particles

[SIZE="3"]Here's the problem, mixing up physics with spiritual principles too often results in mush. Energy is not a substance in physics, it is nothing more than a concept to help measure movement (or, as usually it is put, work done).

Energy cannot be an "essence" since it has absolutely no existential qualities. Here's a short essay I've posted before at physics site to help explain energy:

Is energy creation's "essence," at the root of all existence? As a term energy was probably first applied in the seventeenth century (borrowed from Aristotle's energeia) to help explain the quality of motion, or "vis viva" in things. Today people who are spiritually inclined may speak of energy as well when referring to properties of consciousness, life, God, the soul and ethereal peculiarities.

Unfortunately the popularization of the energy concept has led to considerable misconceptions about it. Science writer Paul Davies writing in his book Superforce explains, "What made it appealing was that energy is always conserved, never created or destroyed." Davies goes on to say, "When an abstract concept becomes so successful that it permeates through to the general public, the distinction between real and imaginary becomes blurred. . . . This is what happened in the case of energy. . . . Energy is . . . an imaginary, abstract concept which nevertheless has become so much a part of our everyday vocabulary that we imbue it with concrete existence."

If we are to be accurate with our terms, then it must be understood that energy is more of a calculating tool than anything actual. The thermodynamic principle that states energy is "never created or destroyed" is really meant to support calculations that gauge and record the path of movement power.

For example, the energy concept can help describe what happens in a mechanical system, say when electricity moves an electric motor. Fuel is burned and produces energy, which is transferred to and moves a generator, which is transferred to electrical energy, and then back to kinetic energy as it moves the motor. If one adds up all the movement power used, plus that lost to heat, it will total the amount of movement power, or energy, started with.∗ So there was no energy created in the process and none was destroyed by the process; the power of movement was simply transferred from one thing or condition to another.

What I argue is that there must be something even more basic than either God or physicalness, of which both are forms. As I said in my last post, I think it is a type of vibrant light substance that makes up everything. "Energy" is what results when you compress that basic stuff . . . as it decompresses it moves other compressed forms (e.g., atoms/particles) in its path and we call that "work." If you think about it, that is exactly how we get energy, we decompress atoms.

One reason people don't like the idea of something more basic than God is because of religious beliefs that state God has always existed, is all powerful, etc. But the people who invented those ideas didn't really know if it was true, they just did it out of reverence, not actual personal experience (I mean, how can anyone know God has existed forever???). My suggest stems from logic. It is far easier to model creation with a single essence substance as the foundation of everything, than to try to explain how either everything is purely physical-mechanical, or how two things of entirely different natures (like God and matter) somehow interact.[/SIZE]

---------- Post added 08-04-2009 at 12:01 PM ----------

richrf;81269 wrote:

I see no reason to create the distinction. We all see light in our own way. None, I feel, and more distinctive than another. Just different. Einstein's light every bit as fascinating as a meditative light. I can find no hierarchy in light. It travels at the same speed in all frames of reference.

Rich

[SIZE="3"]Yes, there is a very good reason to create a distinction. But first, I said nothing to disparage photonic light, or Einstein's theories about it. Like you, I find it extremely interesting. Also, keep in mind I did say photonic light is a form of the more basic substance, and so they are not so very different except in one way.

The way they are different is that photonic light is in "form," while essence light is formless. The form photonic light (and all matter) takes is that of compression. Study the wavelengths of light and you will see the shorter the wave length, the higher the energy (as observed in the oscillation rate). As light "stretches" (as what has happened with the earliest light of our universe) it oscillates ever slower. According to the model I am suggesting, what defines a photon is the degree it is compressed more than the more basic light essence field it is compressed within. When photonic light loses all its compression, it will blend in with the more basic field and be indistinguishable.

Anyway, the reason I said there is a good reason to create a distinction is because if we don't then we can't talk about what people experience when they turn inward. I know it is not photonic light because I experience it all the time; it is an "ocean" of still light, not traveling particles. Photonic light can be seen with the eyes, but the more basic essence light can only be seen with one's soul.[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;81272 wrote:

Here's the problem, mixing up physics with spiritual principles too often results in mush.

For some maybe, the distinction is essential. For me, I enjoy seeing and feeling the unity.

Quote:

Energy is not a substance in physics, it is nothing more than a concept to help measure movement (or, as usually it is put, work done).

Yes, it is a concept.

Quote:

Energy cannot be an "essence" since it has absolutely no existential qualities.

For some yes. For others, maybe. For others no. For others, it is no problem however one wishes to treat it. Dealing with uncertainties is an aspect of life.

[QUOTE]Unfortunately the popularization of the energy concept has led to considerable misconceptions about it. [/QUOTE]

This assumes that there is someone who has the proper conception and can thus pass judgment and call a point of view a misconception. Is that you?

[QUOTE]If we are to be accurate with our terms, then it must be understood that energy is more of a calculating tool than anything actual. [/QUOTE]

This is one point of view. I disagree. Energy is very real and I feel it everyday when I am awake. Not so when I am asleep.

Quote:

"Energy" is what results when you compress that basic stuff . . . as it decompresses it moves other compressed forms (e.g., atoms/particles) in its path and we call that "work." If you think about it, that is exactly how we get energy, we decompress atoms.

Yes, I agree. It is all the same. It is just manifesting itself in a different way.

Quote:

My suggest stems from logic. It is far easier to model creation with a single essence substance as the foundation of everything, than to try to explain how either everything is purely physical-mechanical, or how two things of entirely different natures (like God and matter) somehow interact.[/SIZE]

Yes, I agree. I do not see the distinction between all that exists. I see everything as a continuum: consciousness -> energy -> solid matter.

But for some, they might like to think of God as light. E.g., "Light illuminates. God illuminates." I can see this perspective, though it is different from mine. Sometimes there are more similarities than differences, once a discussion begins. Sometimes not.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;81278 wrote:

For some maybe, the distinction is essential. For me, I enjoy seeing and feeling the unity. . . . Yes, I agree. I do not see the distinction between all that exists. I see everything as a continuum: consciousness -> energy -> solid matter.

[SIZE="3"]
We might agree all is one, but in philosophy and science discussions, it creates a communication problem not to be careful with distinctions. I am sure you have seen, as I have, a great many discussions deteriorate into one big confused mess because people are talking about different meanings for the same word or concept (the concept of subjectivity is one example I've seen again and again). On the other extreme, I have also been part of discussions where some anal expert won't allow the slightest divergence from formal or technical meanings, and that is no fun either.

My own approach is to strictly conform to proven or obvious science concepts, and to use all science terms and concepts as they are used in the practice of science. That way I don't needlessly get into debates about meanings, plus I demonstrate that I have a solid understanding of scientific principles and knowledge.

But if we obey the science side, then we have a right to insist on the same sort of respect to spiritual principles. For example, science types constantly demand people make their inner experience available for external observation and testing, yet one of the most basic principles of an inner practice is that such experiences are only available to the individual experiencing them. Now, that doesn't mean an inner claim can't be verified, because any investigator can repeat the inner methods and find out for himself the veracity of the claims.

So I am not suggesting that you or anyone (including myself) shouldn't understand, love and pursue knowledge of oneness, I am only suggesting that the nature of philosophical and scientific discussion is to define and distinguish so we can talk about how things (i.e., "forms" of oneness) are both unique and also may fit into some all-encompassing whole. Without careful definitions, nobody knows what the others are talking about, or how well they understand the thing/principle works that they are philosophizing about (such as energy and light).[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@vajrasattva,

Clarifying question here, if I might:

As discussed, when "Oneness" is spoken of in the context of this thread, are we referring to the interconnected/interdependent nature of all parts of our world - matter, life, substance, etc?

Or are y'all referring to "Oneness" as something beyond this interrelated, symbiotic connectedness?

Thanks

0 Replies

@vajrasattva,

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

I think even the ancients understood light (particularly the sun) to be the source of all life. In this primitive notion they were fundamentally correct for without the sun there would be no life (as we know it) on earth. Sun worship thus makes some degree of sense and later when monotheism develops giving god credit for creating light (the sun) also seems logical.

There is is one act of creation prior to the creation of light and that is to bring order from chaos. It is of interest that the biblical wording does not imply creation of the universe ex nihilo (from nothing) but of bringing order to the primordial void.

Light and darkness are also used metaphorically to symbolize good and evil. Again the metaphor is deeper than it first appears in that darkness is the absence of light. Darkness has no being (ontology) of its own. Light always vanquishes darkness. In this sense mystics have always considered evil to be the absence of good and have not personified evil.

Light metaphorically then gives life and vanquishes evil. The hallmark of a loving god.

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;81289 wrote:

We might agree all is one, but in philosophy and science discussions, it creates a communication problem not to be careful with distinctions.

I guess it depends upon the parties involved. David Bohm, and eminent quantum physicist often wrote about the unity of everything. This is my preference, because if everything is united, then any arbitrary division is simply that, and arbitrary division. Probably because it is easier to find a job in society, when someone has categorized their skills.

{QUOTE]My own approach is to strictly conform to proven or obvious science concepts,[/QUOTE]

Hmmm ... is there one. I haven't found one. There are mathematical equations that seem to do a good job of predicting, but insofar as concepts are concerned, I think for the most part they are still that - concepts.

Quote:

and to use all science terms and concepts as they are used in the practice of science. That way I don't needlessly get into debates about meanings, plus I demonstrate that I have a solid understanding of scientific principles and knowledge.

Science may try to usurp a term such as light, but I think it is something for all of us to think about and play around with. Now, we can talk about the character of light and call it something like light stuff, if we wish, or we can call it a photon. Doesn't matter to me, it is the same thing no matter what we call it.

Quote:

But if we obey the science side, then we have a right to insist on the same sort of respect to spiritual principles. For example, science types constantly demand people make their inner experience available for external observation and testing, yet one of the most basic principles of an inner practice is that such experiences are only available to the individual experiencing them.

I agree, and that is part of the discussion. If a scientist doesn't want to talk about internal experiences, that is fine with me. No one is insisting that a scientist who doesn't want to talk about things like love, dreams, etc. to talk about them if they do not want to.

Quote:

Now, that doesn't mean an inner claim can't be verified, because any investigator can repeat the inner methods and find out for himself the veracity of the claims.

Well, I think it depends upon what one means by verified, but it is not a big deal for me anyway. Most of what science calls verified, is largely up for discussiona and is constantly being revised. So, if a scientist wants to call something verify, then the word has to be understood, because nothing that I know of stays constant.

Quote:

Without careful definitions, nobody knows what the others are talking about, or how well they understand the thing/principle works that they are philosophizing about (such as energy and light).[/SIZE]

Well, I think this is true even with careful definitions. No one knows what light is. No one can define it. Some characteristics of light are interesting, but no one can say why light behaves the way it does. So, we all just discuss it, becuase it is part of every day life. I don't think in terms of division. For me, the universe exists as it is, and it should make sense from all perspectives.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-04-2009 at 06:31 PM ----------

prothero;81300 wrote:

Light metaphorically then gives life and vanquishes evil. The hallmark of a loving god.

This is certainly one interpretation. However, in Eastern philosophy, dark is considered a partner of light and one cannot exist without the other. There is no vanquishing going on.

In Jungian psychology, the Shadow, is considered the other part of who we are, and part of life is discovering and accepting that part.

So there are variations.

Rich

1 Reply

@vajrasattva,

"What I argue is that there must be something even more basic than either God or physicalness, of which both are forms. As I said in my last post, I think it is a type of vibrant light substance that makes up everything."..............................LW

sorry, LW. i wasnt trying to be scientifically correct, i was only suggesting an allegory for the purpose of understanding the way i relate to god. you are saying god is a 'form' of something else? i had thought of god as being formless, though now that i think of it, certainly energy is a form and can be measured...

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;81322 wrote:

This is certainly one interpretation. However, in Eastern philosophy, dark is considered a partner of light and one cannot exist without the other. There is no vanquishing going on.

In Jungian psychology, the Shadow, is considered the other part of who we are, and part of life is discovering and accepting that part.

So there are variations.

Rich

I think that is why light as a metaphor for god is more common in western theology than eastern theology. Some of course argue that eastern religion is more a form of monism (a philosophy) than monotheism (a religion).

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;81333 wrote:

I think that is why light as a metaphor for god is more common in western theology than eastern theology. Some of course argue that eastern religion is more a form of monism (a philosophy) than monotheism (a religion).

Yes, I think you make a very good point.

The Dao, the beginning, is said to be undefined, and from it came duality (Yin/Yang, Dark/Light). Daoism, is just one part of Eastern philosophy, but I would agree with the way you describe it.

However, light, in the sense that it illuminates all, can be a very nice metaphor for the inner God (God in the Spinoza sense) within us that is exploring, learning, and creating.

Rich

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;81335 wrote:

However, light, in the sense that it illuminates all, can be a very nice metaphor for the inner God (God in the Spinoza sense) within us that is exploring, learning, and creating.
Rich
Rich

There are points where east and west meet especially in the western mystical tradition but overall I think the western notion is of a divine which is both more defined rationality and more defimed morality. The notion is more one of good and evil, sin and salvation instead of suffering and enlightenment. In the west the problem is sin in the east the problem is suffering.

2 Replies

God as light

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know