I agree with Demon that the name of God the Absolute is unknown. More— it transcends language. Every word appears as a simultaneous affirmation and negation of being itself which is absolutely unitary. Thus God as a concept is produced only by an act of the denial of the ultimate reality which it seeks to affirm. God could be known only in absolute silence. But this cannot be a silence which exists in opposition to sound. Therefore, the so called names of God with the greatest resonance are those which simultaneously affirm and deny themselves like I AM THAT I AM and AUM.
@Felix How do either of these deny themselves?
Aum is the approximation of what is heard by yogis as the dominant cosmic vibration. Like an onomatopoeia of God, or at least of the cosmos.
I am that i am seems purely affirmative to me. “I am the fact of my existence and nothing besides.” The being of being.
A refers Consciousness of the waking state.
U refers to Consciousness of the dreaming state
M refers the Consciousness of deep sleep
In reality, those are not three different consciousnesses, but rather the One Consciousness that is transcendent while also immanent in all three. Thus, AUM represents negation and affirmation.
When God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, Moses asked Him for a name to tell those to whom he was sent. God replied “Tell them I am who I am”. Which is a kind of non-answer on one hand. But, on the other, it implies that God is Being Itself beyond all question.
That’s disappointing, I always thought the ‘that’ was grammatically meaningful, since the name pertains to Kether in the tree of life, the unconditioned being.
I just read that A is Brahma, U Vishnu and M Vishnu. I guess there are different interpretations.
Why disappointing? The symbol is a both negation and an affirmation as is the Tree of Life and all symbols of nondual reality.
Disappointing because I am that I am suggests pure being without attribute, corresponding to Kether. Which is indeed non dual…
but is the Tree itself non dual? It has the polarity between the pillars of Mercy and Severity… though the polarity is not exactly between affirmation and negation, but between expanse and restriction.
Here is the explanation in the Mandukya Upanishad. Notice the fourth which I neglected to mention as it is silent.
Brahman is all, and the Self is Brahman. This Self has four states of consciousness. 3 The first is called Vaishvanara, in which One lives with all the senses turned outward, Aware only of the external world. 4 Taijasa is the name of the second,
The dreaming state in which, with the senses Turned inward, one enacts the impressions Of past deeds and present desires. 5 The third state is called Prajna, of deep sleep, In which one neither dreams nor desires. There is no mind in Prajna, there is no Separateness; but the sleeper is not Conscious of this. Let him become conscious In Prajna and it will open the door To the state of abiding joy.
Prajna, all-powerful and all-knowing, Dwells in the hearts of all as the ruler. Prajna is the source and end of all. 7 The fourth is the superconscious state called Turiya, neither inward nor outward, Beyond the senses and the intellect, In which there is none other than the Lord. He is the supreme goal of life. He is Infinite peace and love. Realize him!
Turiya is represented by AUM. Though indivisible, it has three sounds. 9 A stands for Vaishvanara. Those who know this, Through mastery of the senses, obtain The fruit of their desires and attain greatness. 10 U indicates Taijasa. Those who know this, By mastering even their dreams, become Established in wisdom. In their family Everyone leads the spiritual life.
M corresponds to Prajna. Those who know this, By stilling the mind, find their true stature And inspire everyone around to grow. 12 The mantram AUM stands for the supreme state Of turiya, without parts, beyond birth And death, symbol of everlasting joy. Those who know AUM as the Self become the Self; Truly they become the Self.
Ok thats interesting.
I don’t really see how any of it is negation, though. It seems all affirming to me.
It is the apophatic or negative way of uncovering the Absolute.
I don’t see that pointing to the the All and the all-powerful etc is apophatic…?
The absolute is covered with a veil of illusion. Negation removes the veil.
The gospels say that when Jesus died on the cross the veil that separated the Holy of Holies from the inner court was rent in two. On the veil were the cherubim that blocked the way to the Garden of God to the fallen couple. Christ opened the way.
Likewise the veil of illusion separates the impure mind from pure consciousness. When the mind is stilled, pure consciousness, the light of the world, alone shines.
Ive practiced Zen for many years and was proficient at transcending the veil - seeing many truths beyond reason, performing small supernatural feats, and counting Jesus among personal friends (he is like that) and yes it was deep concentrated stillness that got me there, but I would not call it negation. Rather to be beyond affirmation and negation. Negation is still part of a dualism, yes/no.
If I had to choose, I would rather see pure stillness as affirmation than as negation. Everything is embraced, everything is ultimate reality. Overwhelming love is the result.
Sadly I got into western philosophy, which distracted from that splendid way of life. All these hierarchies, constructions, concepts, names… all muddling the source.
I don’t know how it got a hold of me… ah yes it was an appeal to my emotional vulnerability, a friend who upheld nazism through Nietzsche. I wanted to clear Nietzsche, whom at first glance I saw as clean, noble, from nazism. That effort became protracted and trapped me.
The negative way and the positive way are both means of realizing nondual consciousness which is beyond both.
As I understand them Vedanta and Buddhism for all their semantic differences are two paths to the same destination.
Curious to ask. Aren’t you tired of lying? Instead of asking yourself who should properly and accurately be called God, you turn to those who lie about God and make a living off that lie. Neither religion nor atheism is capable of tying two words together meaningfully in the concept of God. Here’s the true definition, and with this, stop the argument. The existing (precisely existing) God is the understanding of the Universe as a personality. Literally, matter, space, and time—personality, intelligent and omnipotent. Now, you’d want to ask why. But that’s a question for rational people, not those whose minds are destroyed by faith
If this is addressed to me, please note that I will ignore any further posts from you that accuse me of lying. God language is optional for me, but I am comfortable with expressing my philosophy through that interpretative lens within the limits. Theistic language breaks down when God is viewed as outside or other than anything.
Consider the possibility that the physical and the phenomenal are two different aspects of a single encompassing kind like the way that matter and energy turn out to be two aspects of a single kind. If so, a variety of monism is true, and it cannot be a materialist monism. The universe always appears as an object in or to consciousness. Matter means nothing outside of sensory experience. Consciousness is the Absolute.
The direction is correct, but there are mistakes. Consciousness is not the Absolute. The Absolute is static and complete. That’s why the Absolute does not exist. Consciousness is viewed as a process of thinking. Energy is utter nonsense, invented by physicists. And they are unable to define what it actually is. Matter means nothing at all without space and time. Because the three forms in their combined application define existence. Give a definition of what or who God is. What he should be, in your opinion – that’s ridiculous.
Are you aware of your thinking or is your thinking aware of you?
I am aware of my thoughts as I am aware of these words on the page. I am equally aware when thinking stops. So, thinking depends on awareness. Awareness exists independent of thought.
Thoughts are a product of the perception of realities. That is, awareness is impossible without an environment. This is why the question of primacy doesn’t make sense. I’ve already answered. People are tools. The independence of the tool is conditional. You don’t truly realize, otherwise, there would be no mistakes. It only seems to you that you are aware. The thing is, the tool of knowledge (people) needs the illusion of freedom and independence so that they don’t run off too soon, into death.