The infinite

[NikolaiI]

Meher Baba once described God, saying God is infinite peace, power, bliss, and knowledge. This is an idea which I believe some people today don't accept because they don't see it in their lives. They can't feel it with their hands. These people no doubt discount something like the short ditty William Blake said,

"To see a World in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour."

In other words, it slips by their radar - at best it is nonsense. I used to have a similar mind-set. I understand how it would slip by their radar, how it would seem like nonsense. But since that time I have had had experiences which challeneged my previous concepts.

So what is the infinite - what is infinite peace, power, bliss and knowledge? As the Sufis and Vedantists have been saying for millenia, God alone is real. Christians believe God is the creator of the universe, the source of the universe, and Vedantists and Sufis believe God is reality.

As William Blake said, "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite."

This seems hard to imagine and yet it's true. What it feels like is waking up from a dream. All of this is illusion - nothing, in comparison with the infinite. That is God - infinite bliss, peace, and knowledge, which we can experience.

How to explain the idea that when the doors of perception are cleansed, all appears as it is, infinite? There is really no explanation which is a substitute for experiencing it. It's possible to attain 'deathless' or infinite peace. And experiencing that peace, the peace of non-duality, is actually greater than anything else. Any thrill or excitement, any desire - to experience infinite peace is truly higher than any other attainment.

It appears strange but it it is true - anyone can know it, too - anyone can know peace and true grace, and divinity.

[Dodo25]

Wow, that totally convinced me, there is a god after all

[NikolaiI]

Can you say what you mean? For instance, just say "That didn't convince me"? "I don't believe in God"?

If you just say what you mean then there can be communication but if you just say sarcasm then it's hard to reply with any meaning

PEACE,

Nik

[Dodo25]

Fair enough.

It was my way of saying that your post is a lot of hot air I can't make sense of. You state god exists and is infinite and that we can all find that out and experience it. You give no reasons for why you think that, what infinite means in your context, or how we would be able to figure it out.

Even if I accepted, despite the lack of evidence or even arguments, that what you are saying the is truth, I would still not know what to make of it, because it is very vague.

[NikolaiI]

Fair enough.

It was my way of saying that your post is a lot of hot air I can't make sense of. You state god exists and is infinite and that we can all find that out and experience it. You give no reasons for why you think that, what infinite means in your context, or how we would be able to figure it out.

Even if I accepted, despite the lack of evidence or even arguments, that what you are saying the is truth, I would still not know what to make of it, because it is very vague.

Okay. Let me explain. I will be brief.

I had an experience which began in a meditative feeling. This came on me more and more, which in itself was an entirely new feeling. I likened it to states of absorption I had read about. Then came a specific point, which I would never, ever have imagined. It's so far removed from normal consciousness. If I had to describe it in words I would say I experienced for the first time ever non-duality.

This was a specific point and at the same time I experienced a peace beyond any feeling I had ever known. Simultaneously, I felt as though I was suddenly 'awake,' as though previously, I had always been asleep. I know this sounds fantastic - all of these things which Buddhist scriptures such as the Heart Sutra and the Flower Ornament sutra, and the Sufi writers talk about - but I experienced that, in that moment.

Then this peaceful and blissful feeling of awakeness lasted for a few hours, and I had this experience a few other times; but not for a few years.

As Swami Vivekananda says, it is better to be an atheist than a hypocrite. I wouldn't tell you I had this experience if I had not. It was my experience of the infinite that tells me that it is real. The bottom line in all of this is that there is a reality which are connected to; and that there's an infinite peace which we come from and return to. To experience that is to know that all of the rest of it is nothing.

It's a peace which comes with it the knowledge that everything which ever caused anxiety before was nothing. And as I said, I know it sounds fantastic ot the modern, skeptic ear. Feel free to tell me your thoughts.

In accord with this peace, and the knowledge that everything that caused anxiety was nothing - along with this is the feeling of waking up, the realizing that life is a dream. Along with this is the sudden feeling of coming to sanity, no longer mistaking a dream to be real.

As to the question how can you experience it, that is your own to answer.

Thanks for reading.

[Dodo25]

Okay this makes much more sense to me now.

I believe you that you did experience something special. There are some things we don't know about the brain yet, and some meditation techniques might well have effects you described. However, I don't believe this has anything to do with 'God' or 'Nirvana'.

Why am I saying this? Well I'm not ruling it out by definition, I think having an open mind is important. To me, such an experience is only evidence for such experiences, not for a whole metaphysical construct behind it. And since I haven't even experienced it, it seems very fantastic to me, as you have pointed out already.

So in my view there is no sound evidence for your concept, and the concept itself is bad because it is a 'skyhook'.

Let me elaborate on this analogy which was introduced by Daniel Dennett: For instance, evolution is a crane. It is a simple process, that, trough the accumulation of chance, produced the marvelous 'design' and complexity we find in nature. God on the other hand is a skyhook. He too supposedly designed things, yet he is not an explanation, because unlike a crane, he lacks a foundation. He is just magic that pops out of a cloud.

When I compare atheism and theism, atheism offers actual answers that satisfy my curiosity. Theism on the other hand just postulates something incredibly complex, mysterious and unknowble, how is that going to get me anywhere?

That's the main reason why I don't believe in anything supernatural. Again, if the evidence convincingly points towards it, I will be forced to accept it, because I don't want to be close-minded. Yet as long as this is not the case, I have very solid arguments against it, and since believing without evidence is an irrational thing anyway, I could not be more confident about my position.

[bej6s]

if the evidence convincingly points towards it, I will be forced to accept it

Dodo, I was brought up with the beliefs I have and others question how I studied in a science field and am in a biology-based profession if I do not support evolution, since science "proves" evolution. In my opinion, science screams there is a God. I look at the sunrise every morning and every morning, it is different and beautiful. Everyone has a different fingerprint. I study the human body and how it work; even the simplest of processes is extremely complex and relies on specific mechanisms, temperatures, catalysts, etc. I absolutely cannot believe it is logical that all this just came into existence over time by chance. What are the chances??

Theism on the other hand just postulates something incredibly complex, mysterious and unknowble

I agree that theism offers more questions than answers, but that is the point of faith. Forgive me but, I see atheism and evolutionism as faiths aswell. I do not want to lump them together, although they do tend to go hand in hand. Just as you cannot prove there is a god, you cannot disprove His existence. No one was there at the "creation" of the world, so no one can establish how Earth came about. All we have are theories. Theism is logical, based on the principle that God is a being outside of our understanding. If we had all the answers and could comprehend Him, He would cease to be God and a being outside our comprehension.

I could not be more confident about my position.

As am I, despite the fact that I will readily admit my faith is based on something that cannot be proven as fact at this time.

[laidbackperson]

In my opinion, science screams there is a God. I look at the sunrise every morning and every morning, it is different and beautiful. Everyone has a different fingerprint. I study the human body and how it work; even the simplest of processes is extremely complex and relies on specific mechanisms, temperatures, catalysts, etc. I absolutely cannot believe it is logical that all this just came into existence over time by chance. What are the chances??

Very well said, bej6s.

[Dodo25]

@bej6s and laidbackperson,
I would love to respond to your comments because they're wrong in many ways. Yet I think we're already far off topic (probably my fault) and Scher would kill the discussion with topic warnings..

I think Nikolai has made a statement worth talking about in his third post (not in his first) and I wouldn't want to mess up this thread by debating things that educated, free thinking people already know to be true.

So we could either open up a new evolution thread, there has been at least one already, but it ended up in people posting pictures and a lot of (funny) nonsense so that might not be a good idea.. I think I'll just send you PMs and leave it up to you whether you two want to keep discussing the issue.

[andrewoberg]

Cheers for that, Dodo.

In getting things back on topic, I'd like to ask NikolaiI to narrow the field. Nik, did you come at this experience by a Hindu, Buddhist or Sufi route as you mention all three? I don't know much about Sufi philosophy and so would like to have some basic tenets laid out if that was the case. From there I think it'd be helpful to focus on whichever one tradition's view of the infinite we're discussing, just to keep things clear. Of course, common ground between traditions would be fair play too, in my opinion.

[caddy_caddy]

I do believe you Nikolai ; Once I had such an experience . I had no idea of what you're speaking about here because I was 15 years old only . My cousin told me that in one position during the prayer , that is kneeling and your forehead on the ground ,is the closest point to God . And I wanted to be with God or very close to Him simply . It was out of curiosity and love only , nothing else .

I likened it to states of absorption I had read about

I used to focus too much when doing anything so I can reach this state of complete absorption .Idon't know what do you do but for us it is simultaneously physical , mental and spiritual . I can remember as it is happening now ,I was completely absorbed in my prayer so my soul elevated , there was a movement , and entered like in a deep tunal ; It was extremely deep and full of light , extremely big so it terrified me . I don't know for how long I kept there but for one moment I felt that I am with God and if I will open my eyes I will see Him .It was a mixture of awe and fear not as you said peace . And I could'nt open eyes ; rather I was freezed in my position and couldn't raise my head to do the last gestures in the prayer . Maybe this is the infinite you spoke about I call God .
Ironically It was like a chock to me because after that I stopped doing the prayer .

I don't agree with you that everyone could reach this state . Now if I try I cannot reach this state because I cannot focus anymore and I cannot reach the complete absorption . Moreover people varies in their spirituality .

[aruna29]

Great thought.God is infinite that's why god present everywhere.

[Judas130]

Let me elaborate on this analogy which was introduced by Daniel Dennett: For instance, evolution is a crane. It is a simple process, that, trough the accumulation of chance, produced the marvelous 'design' and complexity we find in nature. God on the other hand is a skyhook. He too supposedly designed things, yet he is not an explanation, because unlike a crane, he lacks a foundation. He is just magic that pops out of a cloud.

If I may comment on your opinions and those of Nikolai's simultaneously, it may do you well to note that Dennett, in attempting to offer a theory of religion and faith, does little more than offer a deconstruction of Judeo-Christian theism, as an institution. This is not the same God Nikolai has described to us here. What that God may be, in the hubris of my Western Christian terminology, seems to act as a synonym. God is a word with an application. The Judeo-Christian 'God' is actually immensely vague. The modern Christian does not accept the Zeus-like figure of the Torah, holding the Christ figure as the anthropological 'Lord', the medium for and the instance of an incomprehensible deity. For Nikolai - or for me, in my interpretation of Nikolai, 'God' signifies a holistic reality, this factual existence. For the scientist, this is word play, this is semantics. But it is not vague at all. Richard Dawkins, in his arrogance, has noted naturalistic pantheism a 'sexed-up atheism' as if seeing reality with a strong sense of the sublime, of nostalgia, spiritual revelation, of what in religious philosophy is noted as the numinous, is wrong. In fact, doing so says no more or less than the scientist who reels off his equations. only, the 'naturalistic pantheist' enjoys it far more, expresses it eloquently and culturally - but i am not labelling or categorising Nikolai as such, as Nikolai is quite explicit when it comes to things conceptual, such as the infinite and, to the arrogant Westerner with his Grecian comprehension of the world and his anthropocentric value systems, all too Oriental. For those scientists - Carl Sagan, for example - who would rather express their findings as well as their sentiment in prose-poetry, they are not 'wrong' to do so and they are not 'right'. There are forms we accept now that will be archaic soon after. We might do well to be apprehensive of considering any 'factual' logical positivist approach to our reality as some normative ethic by which to structure our lives.

Edit: Dennett actually offers a notion he terms 'passing the buck'. Scientists 'pass the buck' to the next figure of authority down the line, they take a leap of faith when they talk about Gravity or Quantum Physics - they say 'i can't actually derive this myself, but others can', and so that leap of faith is made to Einstein or Hawkings. at the end of the chain there are facts and figures. Religious people - again, any subscriber to the Abrahamic religions - 'pass the buck' to their priests, who 'pass the buck' to the higher chain of command, who again do the same to the scholars who interpret the divine inspiration of the prophet or the theologian. at this point, however, one stops and marvels, revels in how little of this is derivable. What we have Outside of this little trope Dennett plays with, is 'Eastern' religious systems, a whole palette of articulation on reality that many in the West have little time for, beyond exotic indulgence. Had Darwinian evolution been introduced to any number of these congregations of faith, it would have been accepted as but another narrative in an already rich tapestry on a similar subject.

When I compare atheism and theism, atheism offers actual answers that satisfy my curiosity. Theism on the other hand just postulates something incredibly complex, mysterious and unknowble, how is that going to get me anywhere?

'Atheism' polarises itself against the postulates of theism and hence defines itself in relation to it. Atheism and Theism are little better than each other, they are two sides to the same coin. One has not gone very far from the postulates of the 'complex, mysterious and unknowable' when we find the Christian Enlightenment values everywhere in Secular and 'Club-Atheism', 'free-thinking' thought, the belief in the progress of 'humanity' through science, the belief in a reason that shall redeem us, the autonomy of the individual identity, the evangelical polemics against organised religion. The Atheist is the homeless Christian. Get rid of the coin.

My one criticism of Nikolai is that I only consider this as temporal, but nevertheless immense.

[S.Amritananda]

The bhakti path winds in a delicate way.
On this path there is no asking and not asking.
The ego simply disappears the moment you touch him.
The joy of looking for him is so immense that you just dive in,
and coast around like a fish in the water.
If anyone needs a head, the lover leaps up to offer his.
Kabir's poems touch on the secrets of this bhakti.

[S.Amritananda]

The self forgets itself
as a frantic dog in a glass temple
barks himself to death;
as a lion, seeing a form in the well,
leaps on the image;
as a rutting elephant sticks his tusk
in a crystal boulder.
The monkey has his fistful of sweets
and won't let go. So
from house to house
he gibbers.
Kabir says, parrot-on-a-pole:
who has caught you?