Do you want to say that GOD, being omnipresent, is present in all things and beings in different quantities as sunlight is present or even not present in dark? If so, how he can be considered as omni-potent?
Religion-for self or for GOD?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
Do you want to say that GOD, being omnipresent, is present in all things and beings in different quantities as sunlight is present or even not present in dark? If so, how he can be considered as omni-potent?
Naturally, when we are moving owards HIM, it can be biggest satisfaction/enjoyment.
Angels/Good/Imbalance >>> GOD/Balance <<< Devils/Bad/Imbalance=Good deed/Love
Angels/Good/Imbalance <<< GOD/Balance >>> Devils/Bad/Imbalance=Bad deed/Sin/Hate
Last edited:
The free online dictionary defines one use of nature as: "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world" I think Kumar uses Nature as 'Ultimate Nature' in this context. Even 'Our Ultimate Nature'
My judgements on what is good or bad in the world (e.g. fickle, unjust, transitory) are based on my limited individual perpective. It is only by giving up this perspective, and trusting that there is a higher eternal spiritual purpose and reality (God/Ultimate Nature) that I can find the necessary peace of mind when all about is chaos.geeser said:
From the eye of the storm (which is my eternal Self), I can observe the seeming madness of the World without being caught up in it. From this stable platform alone is it possible to be truly helpful. Otherwise I am part of the problem, not the solution.
More like misunderstandings... theology (our understanding of the nature of God) progresses just as science or philosophy does. The OT reflects the understanding of the time. It's the basis for belief just as "The Origin of Species" is about evolution. However, that doesn't stop refinements (e.g. Goulds 'punctuated equilibrium') and new interpretations. Christianity is a major reinterpretation by Jesus.geeser said:
I think the evidence is huge that he existed - however that's another topic! Jesus was an 'enlightened' man, at One with God/'Ultimate Nature' - something we all have potential to be (eventually). From this perspective He reinterpreted the Old Testament, and the Judeic religion of the time to emphasise God as Love. The message of the resurrection is that God/'Our Ultimate Nature' is accessible to us all here and now if we want to find it.geeser said:
Your thoughts and beliefs are what I find as TRUE statements, because you are aware of our "limited individual perspective" towards what God really is. I couldn´t put these thoughts into better words than you did in the above paragraph. So cheers dude.
Like Osho said in the end of the book: "The Mustard seed" -> were he gives an incredible and excellent interpretation on the Gospel of Thomas:
"In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said:
"Whoever finds the true interpretations of these words shall not taste death"
And the same I say to you: if you are able to taste your soul, you shall not taste death. If you know your soul, you will never know death.
And that which can save you is already here, but it is a mustard seed. Help it grow. And the first aid you can do to it, is let it die. Do not cling on the seed, because the seed is a bridge, not the goal. Help it die, disolve, so the life within hidden in it be freed, and the seed turns into a great tree.
The seed is small, but the tree will be very big. Almost invisible is the seed- ¿And the tree? the tree will become a great shadow. Millions of heavenly birds will take shelter in this tree.
The truth not only saves you, it also saves others through you. The truth not only becomes a liberty to you, it becomes a door to the liberty of others as well. If you become a light, not only your life will be enlightened, you become a Christ.
I don´t want you to become Christians - that is useless, that is a lie. I would like you to become Christs. And you can be Christ, because you have the same seed."
"In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said:
"Whoever finds the true interpretations of these words shall not taste death"
And the same I say to you: if you are able to taste your soul, you shall not taste death. If you know your soul, you will never know death.
And that which can save you is already here, but it is a mustard seed. Help it grow. And the first aid you can do to it, is let it die. Do not cling on the seed, because the seed is a bridge, not the goal. Help it die, disolve, so the life within hidden in it be freed, and the seed turns into a great tree.
The seed is small, but the tree will be very big. Almost invisible is the seed- ¿And the tree? the tree will become a great shadow. Millions of heavenly birds will take shelter in this tree.
The truth not only saves you, it also saves others through you. The truth not only becomes a liberty to you, it becomes a door to the liberty of others as well. If you become a light, not only your life will be enlightened, you become a Christ.
I don´t want you to become Christians - that is useless, that is a lie. I would like you to become Christs. And you can be Christ, because you have the same seed."
That's what the Mormons teach.
What a clever way to discredit the teachings of a Hindu Teacher, compare it to the teachings of a Religion born in America, the very same people that convicted him, and made of him a fugitive in about 20 countries, until he finally passed away.
Maybe you think mormons also believe the following:
Osho claimed that the greatest values in life are (in no specific order) awareness, love, meditation and laughter. He said that enlightenment is everyone's natural state, but that one is distracted from realizing it – particularly by the human activity of thought, as well as by emotional ties to societal expectations, and consequent fears and inhibitions.
He was a prolific speaker (in both Hindi and English) on various spiritual traditions including those of Buddha, Krishna, Guru Nanak, Jesus, Socrates, Zen masters, Gurdjieff, Sufism, Hassidism, Tantra and many others. He ensured that no "system of thought" would define him, since he believed that no philosophy can fully express the truth.
An experienced orator, he said that words could not convey his message, but that his basic reason for speaking was to give people a taste of meditation:
“ I am making you aware of silences without any effort on your part. My speaking is being used for the first time as a strategy to create silence in you.
This is not a teaching, a doctrine, a creed. That’s why I can say anything. I am the most free person who has ever existed as far as saying anything is concerned. I can contradict myself in the same evening a hundred times. Because it is not a speech, it has not to be consistent. It is a totally different thing, and it will take time for the world to recognize that a tremendously different experiment was going on.
Just a moment … when I became silent, you become silent. What remains is just a pure awaiting. You are not making any effort; neither am I making any effort. I enjoy talking; it is not an effort.
I love to see you silent. I love to see you laugh, I love to see you dance. But in all these activities, the fundamental remains meditation."
Osho is one of only two authors whose entire works have been placed in the Library of India's National Parliament in New Delhi. The other is Mahatma Gandhi.
Kumar
“
So the sunlight is obviously an energy of the sun, and the sunlight also obviously doesn't have the same potencies of the sun. The reason is that the sun exists outside of the (omnipresent) sunlight - in the same way, while everything in this world is ultimately a part of god, god exists outside of all the sum parts of this world.
“
god, being transcendental, is beyond empiricism - that said god (the prime force behind all forces) can still be known by the proper performance of religious principles
you get the general idea from scripture
by making him happy with us (in other words acting in such a way that god wants to see you, rather than acting in such a way that one hopes to see god - what to speak of acting in such a way where one doesn't want to see god and god wouldn't want to see us)
not quite - I meant to use the sunlight as an analogy for omnipresence in the daytime (being a gross analogy, I hoped that we could work with the general understanding that the sunlight is omnipresent in the day time, on account of our ability to see)
So the sunlight is obviously an energy of the sun, and the sunlight also obviously doesn't have the same potencies of the sun. The reason is that the sun exists outside of the (omnipresent) sunlight - in the same way, while everything in this world is ultimately a part of god, god exists outside of all the sum parts of this world.
Circular reasoning. Therefore, invalid. No evidence for [insert favorite god] so just claim that [insert favorite god] is beyond the scope of evidence. Pure and utter poppycock.
first of all you have to establish that empiricism has the monopoly on evidence - given that the foundation of empiricism are the (completely fallible) senses, it seems you are the one floating in a tub of poppycock
That's complete and utter rubbish, typical of postmodernist thought. Empiricism has been shown to be reliable (the very keyboard you're typing on was developed through empirical data and I can empirically test whether you've typed on it by merely looking at the post you typed, etc. Of course, you can always quip back that you didn't type your post, but spoke it in a speech recognition software package, etc., but this doesn't devalue my example in the least)
What other form of knowing is there that has provided anything useful or utilitarian for humanity?
What other form of knowing is there that has provided anything useful or utilitarian for humanity?
once again, you have misunderstood - empiricism has its uses no doubt, but it is also inherently limited
(BTW its not post modern, its philosophy - compare rationalism for a humble introduction
The belief that supernatural knowledge is as good as empirical knowledge is postmodernist mumbo jumbo.
actually you are just illustrating your bias - the link to rationalism is mostly referenced to science
Is HE not indicated as "indescribable"? Probably, we can feel HIM/HIS presence but can't describe.
May HIS prime desire be to move towards HIM or towards perfect balance alike perfect "nature's balance", perfect health--homeostatis, when all things and beings are in perfect harmony?
actually you are just illustrating your bias - the link to rationalism is mostly referenced to science
So you link to "rationalism" and this is supposed to give your assertion validity? Right. I'm not talking about rationalism. You're suggesting that there are irrational ways of knowing that don't include empiricism. That's the postmodernist mumbo jumbo.
:cheers: Cheers WS! We think along the same lines (obviously great minds etc..?
). I love the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas... and Osho's comment! IceAgeCivilizations said:
I'm glad to hear it is taught in mormonism IAC! Universal truths are taught in many religious traditions... I've never rated the mormons before, but maybe they too have their wisdom.
SkinWalker said:
I'd argue that theology and our knowledge of God is (at least in part) empirical i.e. based on experience.
It is direct personal experience of the divine in us, as well as experiences of answered prayer etc. that is the basis for much religion. The teachings of any great spiritual teacher (e.g. Jesus) are a form of knowledge based on their direct personal experience of God.Wikipedia said:
However, logical empiricism (logical positivism) - the attempt to produce a methodology of meaning based purely on observation and logic, is a movement that failed for a number of reasons. Not least was the difficulty of defining sufficient and necessary conditions to include as meaningful everything we call 'science', but exclude everything regarded as 'supernatural'.
By the way... You cannot experience God using science, it's the wrong tool for the job. You also can't experience the smell of strawberries by rational argument.
Only by love can you know God, and by a leap in the dark....
indescribable or unattainable by our own powers of inquiry - he is however revealed by his own mercy , eg
Iso 16: O my Lord, O primeval philosopher, maintainer of the universe, O regulating principle, destination of the pure devotees, well-wisher of the progenitors of mankind, please remove the effulgence of Your transcendental rays so that I can see Your form of bliss. You are the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead, like unto the sun, as am I.
I don't know how familiar you are with the usage of brahman, paramatma and bhagavan
SB 1.2.11: Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.
but basically god as unknowable refers to brahman, god as perceiving his presence as you indicate is paramatma and god as the knowable (not completely knowable, yet knowable enough) is bhagavan
these two things are exactly the same since god is the personification of perfect harmony (or more specifically, the object that requires connection to in order to be harmonious)
one step at a time - I was just illustrating how your assertions that empiricism has the monopoly on all truthful propositions is not founded in philosophy