Coming from a pagan origin in understanding the nature of the spirit, I feel I’ve been on a journey to openly and honestly understand the religious nature of man both past and present.
I had considered there to be little problem with believing in gods, as I saw them as aspects of a singular and universal [yes those things both together] nature of existence. In fact I saw believing in many gods as beneficial e.g; if I believe in the father nature of spirit in paganism it has more than one aspect, it can be beneficial, understanding and wise like the Dagda [druidic][Caesar; dispater [sky-father]] Saturn or NT god perhaps. Another nature is Tarranis ~ storm god [perhaps similar to Zeus] or OT god. This aspect of the father can be furious demand sacrifice and punish those whom offend it with great awe and terror, we could say it’s a tad fuehrer-like.
In Buddhism, there remains deification of bodhisattva’s which are something like saints. Though not having the vast differences as in paganism, I’d suggest there to be a higher understanding of the spirit, one with no personification or deification whatsoever?
So do we loose something of the greater truth in ‘idolatry’ and deity, or do we gain something through being able to visualise the spirit via various mediums?
Can there be a singular truth which encompasses e.g. both male and female aspects ~ how can one understand spirit as the father without loosing spirit as the mother?
I think that discussion of gods will always be a form of idolatry. Awareness just is without reference. A story: A Buddhist master was once asked if he knew god. His answer: “Well, I did till you asked me.” The talk of gods, the laying on of attributes, is duality. We are caught in the dilemma of attempting to make manifest that which transcends words. This isn’t to say that we cannot discuss the fruits of awareness, but the naming of gods itself is a denial of understanding, and a building of the “golden calf”.
That is, assuming that there really arent a load of gods out there and nothing more than them. Judging on how the ancients mixed their gods up [e.g. late egyptians] I assume that’s not the case.
Perhaps to the initiated deification was always surpassed…
‘Once it is written it is lost’ [pagan druidic saying].
I have often wondered if there is a way of describing things which is let us say the least dualistic possible. Something like what I’d term; ‘the primary port of inclusion’ ~ the place where the transient meets that by which it is transcended. …and in a manner non-specific to any particular religion!?
Well, if there is, we haven’t found it in several thousand years. I think that the best answer so far is the discipline of indirectness. It is the finger pointing at the moon. Some find understanding while others (too many grasp the finger and hold on for dear life) continue to build their idols, altars, and temples.
I’m not sure that you will ever find that many capable. Humans seem to be wired for concreteness. We live or die by our capacity of comparison contrast. Is - isn’t is just a part of being human and that leads us directly into naming and assigning attributes to everything - including notions of gods. A few poke their head through the ceiling here and there, but it is a hit or miss proposition. This is particularly true in western cultures.
I find it more plausible to discuss the effects of awareness rather than what awareness might be or where it comes from. It seems pointless to say that we have no spiritual nature. The vast majority of people in every culture would deny that. But for me, the question is what shall we do with our awareness?
Sure, but Christianity and Buddhism still have those things.
As evolutionary beings that’s no surprise I suppose, to find the spirit we have to kinda break all the rules and go beyond our composition.
I like to think that through the thousands of years we have found some pieces of the jigsaw, and perhaps now it’s time to put them all together. …I am always the optimist.
Good point but why not both? We can ask questions about what awareness is e.g. is it bliss if ‘undiluted’ - let us say? Is bliss an emotion, would we enter nirvana with a silly grin on our non existent faces lols, …and be that way forever. Is it conscious or does consciousness include it, same with perception? Or to cut a long story short; are those things surpassed [as I would think they are] when the duality is removed?!
.
If I’m not wrong, “put them together” has always been the impetus behind the formation of religions. I believe that the scattered pieces are best left scattered lest they become the next idol. I see spirituality, awareness, and religion much as one would view a brilliant cut diamond. Each tiny facet contains our understanding and accrued wisdom, but is always just one perspective, one part of the whole. Each of us gathers our collection of perspectives as they evolve in our life experience. No two collections are alike. I think it best that way. Human experience is too varied, too disparate, to ever “put them together” without creating a new religion which is the direct opposite of what we would have.
Bingo! Which is why I would say that attempting to define awareness or it’s attributes is futile. An observation from Dao De Jing: “The way is broad and level, but people delight in tortuous paths”.
Understanding is awareness and awareness is understanding, but words are duality. This isn’t particularly profound and seems paradoxical because we think and express ourselves in words. I mean, what is a mother to do? If we must speak of awareness, let it be in metaphor just as it has been for millenia. Let it ever be the mystery that it is.
Discussing the how-shall-we-live questions is probably the closest we can come to framing that which is spirituality/awareness. It is the proper use of words.
I have always believed in some manner of ‘skeleton philosophy’ though, I mean, if you had to put all religions together then you’d have to remove all the differences and duality, then as you say we’d loose a lot to that. Hence a ‘skeleton philosophy’ could be the bare bones which don’t try to take anything away but learns from all and connects to them.
In my meditations I get past the words but am left with the concepts, I have no idea how we would or could think without them*. I had always expected that we simply don’t think in nirvana, then what is awareness if its not aware of anything? ~ perhaps you’ll agree that not being aware of any-thing, to not perceive in the singular, this is the awareness we are speaking of.
*oh wait, no I do think without concepts to for just a short time, so I think I do know that state of statelessness.
Strange how we could call that love or freedom too and in each case mean the same thing.
Damn my mind for questioning which I’d prefer, nirvana or a nice cheerleader such is why many of us wont make it ‘til the sun goes supernova anyways.
On that note in a more serious context, have you ever wondered if ‘nirvana’ is the before and after state? That life is but a single expression? That religion and everything doesn’t really matter bar that, as in the end everything returns to its original state?
Meditation: Stilling the mind. There are way too many practices attached to meditation - most of which aren’t meditation itself, but ABOUT meditation. I would say that meditation begins the moment “I” disappear and become the watcher. There is no consciousness of self, just being as opposed to being as.
Yes, in moments of rare sensitivity one can be that understanding. More often, it is an intellectual understanding which isn’t the same thing. The notion that everything returns to it’s original state is quite old. Hericlitus was one of the first greek thinkers to make that observation. Taoist thinking revolves around that concept. The “ten thousand things” come into being, mature, then return to the flow. Even earlier Indian philosophies made note of the cycles of birth and death being one.
Oh, if I were you, go for the cheerleader. You never know, she might help you find nirvana.
For sure but that’s advanced meditation & not many people can achieve that ~ at least not at first.
The watcher or observer ~ if we are meaning the same thing, involves perception which to me is still part of the duality [?], a singular focussing. This is why I study by looking at ‘what things are’ which is a particular discipline I know. So the description of ‘awareness’ if we remove all the areas of such singularity of being [individualising aspects], is itself a meditation.
…all schools end up at the same place though eh!
Indeed the ‘original self’ is from what I can tell as old as spirituality itself, mayans, Toltec, druids, I think most ancient cultures knew about it.
What I was alluding to is the idea that, hmm, imagine if science discovered nirvana or some manner of space/void + mind, then we’d have; ‘void > life > void’ [0 > 1 > 0] in its simplest construct. This kinda flips the whole thing upon its head and I have to wonder what karma and dharma would then mean? for sure generally speaking dharma is always the way to be, to not bring harm etc, however history, destiny and living, generally don’t conform to such things.
Equally if [0 > 1 > 0] then karma is non applicable and thence not a valid purpose in life.
Sometimes I think the point is not to reach anything heavenly but rather to achieve life, ‘the void wants to be’, to express - we could say? Almost as if life is bubbling up from the deep just continually trying to be.
This however does not negate the need for religious practice of course, but it does suggest we each have a story to be told and hence lived.
.
I would suggest that the watcher and nirvana are the same state of being where all of our dichotomies are seen, not as two sides of a coin, but the coin itself. I can’t hold the understanding for more than a few minutes, but it is much like what others have described. It is one thing to have heightened awareness of all things, but to see and sense the harmony of all is to me, that which you would call nirvana. I say to sense harmony, because there is no emotion involved, just… being.
This sounds nonsensical and I express it poorly (like so many others). It’s difficult to find words for places of no words.
You seam to be experiencing it directly which is a different school to how I see it.
I seam to always end up with nothing left; no observer, no thought, no being etc. at this point perhaps we are seeing the same thing just expressing it differently.
Although innumerable beings have been led to nirvana
no being has been led to nirvana
Before one goes through the gate
one may not be aware there is a gate
One may think there is a gate to go through
and look a long time for it
without finding it
One may find it and
it may not open
If it opens one may be through it
As one goes through it
one sees that the gate one went through
was the self that went through it
no one went through a gate
there was no gate to go through
no one ever found a gate
no one ever realized there never was a gate
Right! So my contention that nothing of the individual enters nirvana was correct. In Druidry we have a similar thing called ‘caugant’ [divine infinite], in which it is said that no-one may enter.
As no-one can enter, I think we have to take it that by this it is meant that nothing of the individual may enter, and that includes anything we can think of as a singularity.
There would be no perception, no thinking, no singular experiencing e.g. of bliss. It may be a blissful state or should we not say a stateless bliss.
Its not really that difficult to grasp intellectually, no great mystery.
The letting go of “I” - “me” is intellectually understandable, but intellect must be let go as well and that isn’t quite as easy. The ego is strong, and when we sense it leaving, we fight like hell to hang on.
That’s pretty close as far as words can take us. Now, as soon as you can forget that, nirvana becomes possible.
I meant that the process of eliminating every aspect of mind that individualises is intellectually perceptible, but otherwise agree. …good point there.
Book; ‘The clear light of bliss’ [geshe kelsang gyatso [I think I got that right]] describes this very well, the process of shutdown as we die and of opening up to a purer awareness coinciding with that. …as we were speaking of earlier about how the different aspects of mind [perception, consciousness etc] stop being ‘centralised’* and are replaced with something more than what they are.
In that way* its very much like a spiritual anarchism ~ that’s how I see it anyway.
I think that the best answer so far is the discipline of indirectness. It is the finger pointing at the moon. Some find understanding while others (too many grasp the finger and hold on for dear life) continue to build their idols, altars, and temples.
If we must speak of awareness, let it be in metaphor just as it has been for millenia. Let it ever be the mystery that it is.
