Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,820 Year: 4,077/9,624 Month: 948/974 Week: 275/286 Day: 36/46 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature of a GOD?
lfen
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 18 of 32 (127994)
07-27-2004 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by portmaster1000
07-22-2004 5:08 PM


I sometimes get a feeling of ennui from a sense of being hemmed in by the restrictions of western religious ideas theist and atheist that seem almost all pervasive in these forums.
Aside from myself I scarcely ever hear mention of the Tao here, or of the Buddha nature, the Godhead, or non dual conceptions of the universe.
I find the religions of the near east to be so primitive, simplistic, and naively literal compared to the expansive views from the east. The Old Master, Lao Tzu (which is what Lao Tzu means) was so semantically modern in his understanding when he said the truth is nameless but in order to speak of it he had to call it something so he called it the Way, but the way that can be named is not the true way. He compared this not to a father giving commands but to a mother giving birth. The Way (The Tao) is the mother of the universe, of the ten thousand things.
Speech and thought emerge from silence. It is in the silence, the void that birth occurs. One myth from India has the universe to be but the dream of a single breath of the supreme god. The god exhales the universe and then inhaling brings it to an end only to begin it again in the next exhalation.
Perhaps it was language that birthed the human ego and it projected itself back onto the cosmos in the image of language using deities?
Jiddhu Krishnamurti speaks of the self as being thought, being something known, impermanent, ephemeral. For him truth lay beyond thought.
Thought is a tool. The ego seeks its security in building systems with this tool that it believes will protect and continue it. But the ego has only a conditional existence and eventually it subsides and disappears. Into what does it subside? What are we to make of this? Ramana Maharshi believed the highest speech was silence and was his preferred method of teaching. Even the Judeo Christian tradition has intimations of this in the "be still and know that I am god."
Thought gives rise to the ego and both have their functions, but that which was prior to the ego is prior to thought.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by portmaster1000, posted 07-22-2004 5:08 PM portmaster1000 has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 19 of 32 (127996)
07-27-2004 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by 1.61803
07-23-2004 12:06 AM


Re: Decartes' matrix
Ah 1.etc
Can there be a thought without a thinker is a better question.
I would suggest this as an even better question, "Can there be a thinker with out a thought?"
The non dual answer is that the thinker is the thought. The thinker is the thought stream and there is no thinker apart from thought. There is just the thought that there is a thinker.
peace,
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by 1.61803, posted 07-23-2004 12:06 AM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by General Nazort, posted 08-04-2004 3:47 PM lfen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024