God Exist

[NikolaiI]

Got any proof for that?

Reality must have a source, no? Just as a tree has roots, so must reality have a root, correct?

If reality has a source; where can anything within reality go, outside of reality, except back to the source? Therefore, where can anything in reality go except for the source? Where is the dissolution, the death which ends us, which the naturalist/atheist speaks of?

Where can anything go except for to its source? And then further, how can the source exist less than what comes from it? In other words, how can the source exist less than the unvierse?

What I am saying, is that nothing dies.

[lichtrausch]

Reality must have a source, no? Just as a tree has roots, so must reality have a root, correct?

If reality has a source; where can anything within reality go, outside of reality, except back to the source? Therefore, where can anything in reality go except for the source? Where is the dissolution, the death which ends us, which the naturalist/atheist speaks of?

Where can anything go except for to its source? And then further, how can the source exist less than what comes from it? In other words, how can the source exist less than the unvierse?

What I am saying, is that nothing dies.

What does this have to do with what you originally said?

[NikolaiI]

What does this have to do with what you originally said?

I said, God is the source and root of reality. I also said God is infinite, infinite peace, bliss, power, and knowledge - my post just now was about the first, the source and root of reality. The argument was meant to say that reality has a source.

There are two ideas I am writing from and about. One is as I said, that God is the source and root of reality. The other is the idea that duality is a fallacy. It is false to think that I have an existence separate from the world, from the universe. And yet in ordinary experience, everything concretizes the idea that I am separate. But if I can intellectually assent to the idea that in reality, I am not separate, this lends importance to finding out what this means on more levels, to realizing this.

The idea that although, in ordinary experience, I feel I am separate from the universe - that is, I am always seeking, and am not possessed of, do not realize, my potential, absolute, perfect, and infinite peace - then overcoming this duality by means of meditation is the source of mysticism.

There is the Hebrew name, YHWH, which we have been taught to mean, "I am." And yet every being in the universe is. Before all the twists and turns from the original source, from all the turns away from the self, every being originally is, "I am," their source is God. Before the conditioning taught us, "I am the body, I am the senses, I am the mind, I am a dog, I am a tiger," or "I am a human," there was the "I am." Our source is the unbounded, "I am."

[backline]

...There is the Hebrew name, YHWH, which we have been taught to mean, "I am." And yet every being in the universe is. Before all the twists and turns from the original source, from all the turns away from the self, every being originally is, "I am," their source is God. Before the conditioning taught us, "I am the body, I am the senses, I am the mind, I am a dog, I am a tiger," or "I am a human," there was the "I am." Our source is the unbounded, "I am."

Well put.
I have experienced this (unity) in meditation.

There is a meditative state where I experience a lot of what the ancients were saying to us in texts.
Many will argue on and on about various texts and teachings, but once I experienced the "reality" of their symbolic descriptions, it gave me a much different perspective on what they were talking about, and some common ground with various people who have experienced the same "reality."

[atiguhya padma]

Backline,

When you say "I have experienced this (unity) in meditation" does the "I" refer to the unity experiencing its own existence? Is it a present abstraction (your personal "I") recounting a past experience (unity)? And if so, is it possible for the personal "I" to be present and conscious within the unity? In fact can there be a within? Can there be a mechanism for experience without fracturing the unity? Your statement seems confusing to me.

AP

[backline]

Backline,

When you say "I have experienced this (unity) in meditation" does the "I" refer to the unity experiencing its own existence? Is it a present abstraction (your personal "I") recounting a past experience (unity)? And if so, is it possible for the personal "I" to be present and conscious within the unity? In fact can there be a within? Can there be a mechanism for experience without fracturing the unity? Your statement seems confusing to me.

AP

OK I didn't express that too well.

What I was referring to was an experience in meditation where I found myself beyond divisions of "I" as a separate entity from being. In that state I recognized "I am," which was what I was alluding to. I was conscious that I was conscious in the present moment. In these states I not only seem to experience "being," in a way without seeming connection to past or future, but upon reflection later I recognized that others seem to have spoken of this state of being in various ways from ancient times.
I therefore see the experience as a possible "root" or "source" for much of what passes for "experiencing the mind of God; God's Love; unity with creation and all beings," what have you.

I was attempting to share an experience of "being" as the basis for what others may express as spirituality.

[atiguhya padma]

I'm still not sure I understand. Is the "experience" of being the same as being? I suspect there are two states at play here. 1) conscious experience 2) being. The first seems to me like cutting a knife through the second. I think that conscious experience is the separator. Conscious experience sets up divisions, boundaries. For instance, if you say to me that you have experienced total unity with reality, unless I experienced it too, and my experience was identical, in fact the very same experience and therefore unidentifiable as mine, then I would be led to conclude that either there was something missing from your account or that I am not anything to do with reality.

I think I understand your statement about experiencing the mind of god, or unity with creation and all beings, if by that you mean you had an unusual and profound experience, but that was all. If you mean that for a brief moment you were one with god or one with nature, all being etc, then that I don't understand. Its like empathy. When people tell me they have felt the pain of others, I assume they mean they have managed to recreate an experience of simulation, not that the very same pain that someone feels is the very same identical pain of the empathiser, ie there is one pain and two subjects that feel that one pain.

[backline]

...I think I understand your statement about experiencing the mind of god, or unity with creation and all beings, if by that you mean you had an unusual and profound experience, but that was all...

Yes: "as-if."
I believe what is actually happening to me in these meditative states is that my brain's left hemisphere becomes quiet, and I am experiencing consciousness in my right hemisphere.

Then later upon reflection of the experience, I try to assign meaning with words.

[NikolaiI]

OK I didn't express that too well.

What I was referring to was an experience in meditation where I found myself beyond divisions of "I" as a separate entity from being. In that state I recognized "I am," which was what I was alluding to. I was conscious that I was conscious in the present moment. In these states I not only seem to experience "being," in a way without seeming connection to past or future, but upon reflection later I recognized that others seem to have spoken of this state of being in various ways from ancient times.
I therefore see the experience as a possible "root" or "source" for much of what passes for "experiencing the mind of God; God's Love; unity with creation and all beings," what have you.

I was attempting to share an experience of "being" as the basis for what others may express as spirituality.

I agree with this. For me, the source of what I would call mysticism is every living being's unity with the universe. I've been reading Vivekananda a lot recently; it's really good food for the soul. What he says, with which I agree, is that the universe is one. I do not have a separate existence from the universe. In other words, I am a reflection of the universe. Now, it is one thing to say this, agree with it, but that is almost nothing. We are still experiencing, as Einstein termed, "an 'optical delusion' of consciousness," in which we are separate. Anyway, as for me, I would say the source of mysticism is realizing, really realizing, the truth of unity.

[billl]

atiguhya, thanks so much for the great insights and questions. By drawing the distinction between conscious experience and being, you helped to describe how language can sometimes get misused in this sort of conversation--maybe because there's no language that could be used to accurately describe the ineffable states. Anyhow, you're addressing something that doesn't usually get addressed.

I don't know how it started, but somehow we learned to think that we are 'separate' in some sense. We have an 'ego'. Is it a mistake? Did the 'arrival' of spoken and written language somehow set us on some sort of exaggerated course? Beats me.

I think the illusion of separateness is a gift. I love all the drama, and the special connection that I have with certain people, certain places, certain things. The price is suffering, of course--and we all pay it. I think it's not always fair, and that some people are suffering much more or much less than they ought to, compared to others, but maybe that imperfection is another price we pay for the boundaries that hold beauty in position for us to behold it, and keep our paths and problems and learnings different, unique, and surprising.

And look at what humanity has done (good and bad, ugly and beautiful). We are different than the other creatures and plants, all of them living in the moment--and would it really be right to wish ourselves back to a time before all of our thinking started to get some traction?

I've glimpsed unity, and vanished into a state where I was what I perceived, and no longer the perceiver. It's a powerful experience, and hard-earned (At least it is when I'm actively intending to get there!). However, listening to and reading the words of others, I know there's plenty more stops on the meditation train that I haven't made it to yet. I really admire the commitment (and even bravery) of some of the monks that are helping to make the world a better place. But it's become clear to me that separateness is really taking a beating, lately, as if there were only a ying, and no yang, in this whole debate.

[Mr. Dark]

I said, God is the source and root of reality. I also said God is infinite, infinite peace, bliss, power, and knowledge - my post just now was about the first, the source and root of reality. The argument was meant to say that reality has a source.

There are two ideas I am writing from and about. One is as I said, that God is the source and root of reality. The other is the idea that duality is a fallacy. It is false to think that I have an existence separate from the world, from the universe. And yet in ordinary experience, everything concretizes the idea that I am separate. But if I can intellectually assent to the idea that in reality, I am not separate, this lends importance to finding out what this means on more levels, to realizing this.

The idea that although, in ordinary experience, I feel I am separate from the universe - that is, I am always seeking, and am not possessed of, do not realize, my potential, absolute, perfect, and infinite peace - then overcoming this duality by means of meditation is the source of mysticism.

There is the Hebrew name, YHWH, which we have been taught to mean, "I am." And yet every being in the universe is. Before all the twists and turns from the original source, from all the turns away from the self, every being originally is, "I am," their source is God. Before the conditioning taught us, "I am the body, I am the senses, I am the mind, I am a dog, I am a tiger," or "I am a human," there was the "I am." Our source is the unbounded, "I am."

So what is the source of the source of reality?

[NikolaiI]

So what is the source of the source of reality?

Good question - I don't know. It never occurred to me. Seeing your last post on this thread, I am guessing you do not agree with my understanding.

[Mr. Dark]

Good question - I don't know. It never occurred to me. Seeing your last post on this thread, I am guessing you do not agree with my understanding.

I sure don't. To suggest that all things have an origin would require the originator of those things to have an origin as well. I just don't see much to gain from using God to explain the universe when God is unexplainable him/itself. It's a nonanswer.

[NikolaiI]

I sure don't. To suggest that all things have an origin would require the originator of those things to have an origin as well. I just don't see much to gain from using God to explain the universe when God is unexplainable him/itself. It's a nonanswer.

Would it? Isn't it true that all things have a source? Can you think of anything which does not have a source?

And I do not use God to explain the universe. I am saying, the universe has a source; reality has a source. Infinite Being is the root of reality. God is just another word for that.

The material universe is relative; its source is absolute. In relation to that absolute, the relative is but a dream.

You don't believe in a higher power, or an absolute; believe me, that is okay. The majority do not. I'm not here to argue, and I understand the view that there is no source, no absolute, no Infinite. I held that view for most of my life.

[blazeofglory]

You and me and this universe in togetherness is God manifest.