And here is the dilemma for all of us. You say that God has no physical form but he has a mind and this concludes in personhood. Perhaps you are correct and perhaps not. That it is your conceptualization of that which we call God is accepted, and from that you construct a universe. That is accepted as well.
Am I allowed the same privileges? What you’re suggesting is that there are as many ‘experiences’ of God as there are human hearts and minds. So, back to ineffable. It isn’t that spiritual experience is negated, but that each experience is as unique as each human heart and mind, and while we can say that “God is like…” and even find general vague agreement, our personal experiencing is just that: unique and personal.
While you may know God personally for yourself, it is in the declaring of knowing “the one true God” and the “one path to salvation” that others should follow that strikes at the very understanding of the unique and personal nature each brings to their own understanding of God. No one may know God for another.
The wisdom presented in all religions about how shall we live is fertile ground, but our spiritual relationship with that which is, can only be held in silence.
If you ask me if I know God, your question evokes all my experiences within my spiritual realizations, but I can’t share them with you. They are an experience, not an explanation. No matter how much agreement we may share in saying “God is like…”, such words cannot convey the experience, and God remains ineffable.
Our self importance makes us forget this. We feel an attraction but cannot categorize it. It is one thing to say that the higher is beyond the limits of our understanding but it is another to deny the possibility of us becoming like Mohammed and striving to change and move closer to the mountain so we can begin to “understand.” But this requires one to admit that they are not what they think they are and it is possible to change and move closer which is so unpleasant that the better alternative has become for Mohammed to stay clear of the mountain and bask in la la land instead.
The real issue lies with those who would suggest an ‘objective’ knowing of that which lies beyond their tiny perspectives and the tiny collection of signs and symbols they would use to encompass reality. It may satisfy their intellectual ego, but undestanding begins in not understanding. Of course this falls on deaf ears, because to accept not knowing would mean accepting that they are much less than they think they are.
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
I can’t believe that after all this discussion we end up back at the beginning again, the claim of “ineffable” superiority over any other view. Those who claim objective knowing are told that they have a “tiny perspective”, a “tiny collection of signs”, an “intellectual ego”, “deaf ears”, and need to accept “that they are much less than they think they are”. Plus, we are all supposed to accept the fact that “understanding begins in not understanding” simply because you have said that it is so.
Could it be possible that those who believe in an objective knowing have actually considered the concept of an “ineffable God” and rejected it because it doesn’t explain anything, is of very little value, and as a guiding spiritual philosophy is actually pretty dumb. Or must those who believe in the ineffable always be correct when they speak to lesser mortals?
Nope you can believe anything you wish for yourself. That’s what I’m doing. But for me to claim that because you believe what you believe is somehow “la la land” deserves a response. My POV is no more ‘authoratative’ than yours. The issue isn’t individual belief for one’s self, but the incessant whining that comes from being challenged when other refuse to ‘see’ things from a single POV.
(your sarcasm is noted)
And I thought you had chosen to “unknow” rather than know. I’m not sure I would refer to this as “believing”.
I didn’t use the term, but I agree with Nick.
I agree that no-one can claim to an authoratative POV. But the whining that you refer to comes more often from the “unknowers” than the “knowers”.
I’m quite happy to have you tell me your POV and reject it as trivial new age banality. On the other hand you get all uptight if I tell you that following the Jesus of the NT is the only true path for your life as well as mine. I’m not sure how you reconcile this touchiness with your making disparaging comments about those who actually believe in a God who can be known. Seems like you want to have your ineffible cake and eat it.
Again, I really could care less about your personal beliefs any more than you care about mine. But I assure you, try to tell me how I am, who I am and you’ll receive a rebuff proportional to any claims you may choose to make about me or what I believe. This is sensitivity only to the extent that I won’t be pushed around by those who would claim to know what is ‘best for me’. It is about open discourse, not any single point of view that has to disparage another in order to find supremacy. That you believe that there is only one way to find God is your opinion only. You might consider that some folks might not react kindly to being told that their path is ‘wrong’, or that they just don’t understand. If you’re not sure, ask Nick.
If saying back off is considered whining then include me in that group. Oddly, there are probably only a half dozen people in this forum that would concur with the unique pov that their way is the only way.
I have nothing to reconcile, Ned. You’re welcome to believe anything you want, but having respect for other points of view is what is at issue. There is no backlash for having personal beliefs unrtil you step across the line of disrespecting the beliefs of others.
The real issue lies with those who would suggest an ‘objective’ knowing of that which lies beyond their tiny perspectives and the tiny collection of signs and symbols they would use to encompass reality. It may satisfy their intellectual ego, but undestanding begins in not understanding. Of course this falls on deaf ears, because to accept not knowing would mean accepting that they are much less than they think they are.
Take this from the point of view of Tibetan Buddhism rather than Christianity now because the word is too volatile. Buddha apparently has objective knowledge and incarnates onto this plane of existence for the benefit of mankind.
The Buddha, below the level of the Ineffable, then leads his followers to higher consciousness, a higher level of existence which by definition must include higher or more objective knowledge. The laws of the universe exist as the Dharma or objective knowledge.
The soul of the Christ returns as well and establishes new Apostles.
So even though as we are, the idea is to come to grips with our nothingness, as human beings, the spiritual calling is to grow in the direction from which this descent originates. This is conscious evolution. La la land is the gradual acceptance of the divide between our nothingness and our potential and losing our human assimilation to develop but instead to become content in imagination. To know our nothingness is not to be oblivious but in the denial of the attraction of imagination, to objectively allow for the feeling of genuine human need to develop in the direction of the return to human origin in the evolutionary direction leading to the Creator.
People believe whatever they want. I just present a hated option because it does not flatter egotism since from this perspective, Man is low man on this conscious universal Totem Pole.
A projection of opinion. There is nothing mentioned that suggests either objective or subjective knowledge simply by virtue of reincarnation.
Conjecture. “… must include higher or more objective knowledge” is opinion, not fact.
Your opinion of the paths others may take is your opinion only. That you derisively call it la la land says more about your intolerance of any views than your own, than any views held by others.
You didn’t present an option, you presented unsupported opinion.
Righteousness than coincides with the dharma. It is the truths of what “holds” the world together. This is their opinion, their belief.
If Buddha does reincarnate, it is in accordance with the dharma. Do we understand it? Can we function in accordance with it? Can we align with it? NO. Of course it is opinion but a very reasonable opinion if you accept the reality of Buddha.
I am speaking here of imagination. Perhaps you do not discriminate theoretically between spiritual realities and imagination. You can imagine that at the moment you have a million dollars or you can actually have it. It will be one or the other. You either have it or only imagine you have it. La la land is imagination in relation to the reality of spiritual experience. This has nothing to do with paths of others or intolerance since all paths are subject to the intrusion of imagination.
One option is the acceptance and contentment with the imagination of La la land and the other option in relation to it is striving attentively for the conscious spiritual experience. My opinion is that we have these options. Perhaps not, but I’ve experienced enough to lead me to believe in a higher reality.
Of course the option exists to forget the whole thing but I am assuming an interest.
Buddha, Matayama Gautama Siddartha, never stated any of those suppositions, never.
Buddha did not create a religion, and had no intention of ever creating one. He was wholly and entirely for enlightenment, and against the worldly materialism that he viewed as being the prime mover of all suffering.
Just as with the bastardization of many other great philosophical life theorists, other people took his words, and decided to use them for their own egoistic agendas.
Anything posted or posited as being from “Buddhist religion” or “Buddhist schools” is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion, and further subjective by the reading and interpretation of those opinions, to suit the reader’s needs.
Thee are always a slew of experts that know the intentions of Buddha, Jesus, and whoever else and create such a mish mash of what appears to me as utter nonsense. But the question is what is our task in front of a level of being that for us is truly ineffable and the continued attack from all these “experts” that further confuse us? There has got to be more than just star gazing and turning off. How to experience life from a perspective that is higher, more conscious, then our usual so as to create a beginning or foundation for our understanding?
Gautama never asked/required for his words to be put into a book.
He taught in the natural manner, of speaking in common terms with common people, in the hope that he could aid them in averting suffering.
There is no indication he did anything that would have even remotely been suspect of intent to relegate his wisdom to religiosity.
Being enlightened, institutionalising wisdom would be antithetical, and spurious. Not to mention that an enlightened individual would know that words written are immediately left without meaning, in the hands of others.
How amusing! You question Mastriani’s interpretation, but talk of “objective” knowing of Christianity and what God (through the Son) intended. By all means scoot out a little further on that limb…
Nick,
There is such a way. In fact there are a number of such ways, but it begins in accepting our limitations and seeing what is without projecting what we want it to be. There is no higher or lower, no nearer or further. What is just is. The more words thrown at it. the more obscure it becomes. This isn’t star gazing or turning off. It is scraping away all the ego-laden “I know”.
You missed it a mile. The world is flat? Nope. I can physically verify whether it is or not. Can I ‘know’ an objective God.? Well I can’t. Perhaps you can. Show me the body.
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated, is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
As I have said tentative, Quanzi, over and over and over and over again. Again. Reiteratively. Redundantly.
Corporeal beings are limited. Limited in form. Limited in understanding. Limited in intellect. Limited in existence. Limited in believability. Limited in ability. Limited in durability. Limited …
If this is incorrect, then there are a few requests:
Of yourself, I wish to see you take flight.
Of yourself, I wish to see move a mountain.
Of yourself, I wish to see you swallow the oceans.
Of yourself, I wish to see you bring down the heavens.
Of yourself, I wish to see you end all suffering.
Of yourself, I wish to see you return the natural order.
Of yourself, I wish to see you abolish all inequality.
Of yourself, I wish to see you lay low all leaders, of all nations.
Of yourself, I wish to see you feed all creatures, that none know hunger.
Of yourself, I wish to see you end all manner of pestilence and disease.
If you can manage even one of these in a thousand thousand lifetimes, I recind any commentary, publicly, regarding your person being limited.
Accepting limitation is the first step in allowing us to be aware that there are directions we need to move to better our attributes, to the efficiency of all. Those who refute limitation, are slaves to ego, and that bodes ill of any progress.
