Theist or not: What image of God do you actually have in your mind?

[lightgigantic]

This still doesn't make sense to me.

I still don't know what about me exactly is my "sense of self".

I mean that a sense of self that is drawn up between the extremes of attachment and aversion is not very substantial ... kind of like having a circle of friendship unified by a common hatred

So for instance to have a sense of self based on (or deeply dyed by) "I have shortcomings because person X said Y and Z about me" and/or "person X has faults Y and Z on account of their rude dealings with me" is to miss out on the value of having a self in the first place.

IOW to have a self is to be more than an empty vessel to carry crooked values.

 

[wynn]

I mean that a sense of self that is drawn up between the extremes of attachment and aversion is not very substantial ... kind of like having a circle of friendship unified by a common hatred

So for instance to have a sense of self based on (or deeply dyed by) "I have shortcomings because person X said Y and Z about me" and/or "person X has faults Y and Z on account of their rude dealings with me" is to miss out on the value of having a self in the first place.

IOW to have a self is to be more than an empty vessel to carry crooked values.

I am sorry, but the most that comes up in my mind at the notion of "self" is an empty Venn diagramm. Things may be placed to it, and taken from it, but it seems to have no inherent characteristics.
I imagine it would be good to have something permanently be there.

 

[lightgigantic]

I am sorry, but the most that comes up in my mind at the notion of "self" is an empty Venn diagramm. Things may be placed to it, and taken from it, but it seems to have no inherent characteristics.
I imagine it would be good to have something permanently be there.

If there was no inherent characteristics, how would strong emotional states manifest?

I mean that's part of the problem of material existence - the strong emotional states we manifest are a consequence of inherent characteristics which are sources of trouble (on a very basic level, the prospect of ceasing to exist is awkward for the ego, what to speak when it extends to a sense of lordship or enjoyment over other people's bodies/status/things of this world) ... so a spiritual method seeks to establish a more balanced set of characteristics ultimately through getting rid of the lot (impersonalism) or uncovering the primal ones (personalism).

IOW if you were indeed just an empty vessel, your seasons of anger/disenchantment/etc with others/yourself would be minimal or of no real consequence (after all, if one is just an empty vessel, whatever it is apparently full with, either happiness or distress, is an illusion) ... and you would be the perfect impersonalist

Sometimes such a view is taken of one's self in especially difficult times to cultivate a sense of detachment. This may prove temporarily helpful but ultimately we see that individuals have inherent desire and in this way attachment/aversion casts a wide net over everyone. (So on a very basic level, sattva guna seeks to establish one in a moderate sense of desire/attachment ... which arguably the common playing card of religious principles in general .. whereas as suddha sattva - or the whole sat-cit-ananda thing - is about having such a sense of self that has nothing to do with matter .... and of course the standard trajectory is to try and keep one's self in sattva (as opposed to imagining one is on suddha sattva due to adherence to some rules or regs or philosophical precept or whatever)

 

[wynn]

If there was no inherent characteristics, how would strong emotional states manifest?

The first answer that comes into my mind: by an incomprehensible act of God.

(Although this is probably a reflection of my past attempts to understand what actually happens in eternal damnation. I imagined e.d. would have to involve things such as "knowing that x is wrong, but still believing it to be right, but not being able to change one's mind or adopt new knowledge anymore".
Those whom God wishes to condemn, He first takes away their reason - but I just recently found that this does not seem to be a Biblical quote after all, even though it is often passed as one.)

IOW if you were indeed just an empty vessel, your seasons of anger/disenchantment/etc with others/yourself would be minimal or of no real consequence (after all, if one is just an empty vessel, whatever it is apparently full with, either happiness or distress, is an illusion) ... and you would be the perfect impersonalist

But whatever I feel is of no real consequence.
Per definition, I am infinitensimally small and insignificant. So whatever I feel, or do, whatever happens to me, is insignificant as well.

Whatever I feel, is simply the workings of karma, and these things take place as they do. There is no relevance for me in all this. My existence is entirely formal.

 

[wynn]

IOW - How does an individual soul have any relevance, if it is insignificant?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Those whom God wishes to condemn, He first takes away their reason - but I just recently found that this does not seem to be a Biblical quote after all, even though it is often passed as one.)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Euripides#Misattributed

 

[Michael]

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Whether you are theist or not:
What image of God do you actually have in your mind?

I honestly don't have any image of God, I think that God is so far beyond my comprehension that it would be silly to think any mortal image could be a possibility, it seems sort of blasphemous and profane to do so anyway. Not to mention any depiction of God is strictly prohibited in my religion.

 

[wynn]

I honestly don't have any image of God, I think that God is so far beyond my comprehension that it would be silly to think any mortal image could be a possibility, it seems sort of blasphemous and profane to do so anyway. Not to mention any depiction of God is strictly prohibited in my religion.

Then how do you worship God?
How do you have a realtionship with God?

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Then how do you worship God?
How do you have a realtionship with God?

Why would I have to conceptualize God into an image to worship and or have a relationship with?

 

[NMSquirrel]

if i died and seen that i would think i was in heaven..:drool:

 

[wynn]

Why would I have to conceptualize God into an image to worship and or have a relationship with?

Because you yourself have an image - you have a name, a form, qualities, people you associate with, activities.

 

[lightgigantic]

if i died and seen that i would think i was in heaven..:drool:

probably explains why you're here and not there

 

[wynn]

if i died and seen that i would think i was in heaven..:drool:

And I am supposed to rely on people like you to tell me about God?!?

That certainly explains my confusion!

 

[lightgigantic]

But whatever I feel is of no real consequence.
Per definition, I am infinitensimally small and insignificant. So whatever I feel, or do, whatever happens to me, is insignificant as well.

Whatever I feel, is simply the workings of karma, and these things take place as they do. There is no relevance for me in all this. My existence is entirely formal.

IOW - How does an individual soul have any relevance, if it is insignificant?

the infinitesmal aspect is simply one of potency, or the ability to acquire opulence (which of course is the standard yard stick we use to garner success in this world). In this regards we are totally useless since we always rely on elements outside of our selves to acquire opulence - hence it becomes an external pursuit.

Because of our behavior (ie treatment and attitude to other living entities that are beneath us - which btw is a consequence of our mad desire to lord it over material nature), we tend to become glum at the prospect of partaking in such a relationship when the shoe is on the other foot (IOW we are the one that is beneath).

God however has no need to strive to lord it over nature (since its his constitutional position), which explains why he doesn't partake of the same attitude that we have towards inferior living entities. IOW envy of those greater than us is partnered with contempt for those beneath us as well as a sort of contentiousness with one's peers.

Actually god interacts (and enjoys) with us on the platform of desire, as opposed to material acquisition, which is probably how we would imagine we would interact with others if we were god.

In this sense BG 5.29 is not hyperbole and 6.6 remains insurmountable

 

[wynn]

I do not think BG 5.29 is hyperbole. I do not see how I have any real individuality, because all the individuality that I seem to have, is transient. I just don't see anything that that I could really call "me" or "mine".

But I also don't think I am one with God or that God directly does all my thinking, feeling and acting.
I feel like a puppet on strings - where the puppet is basically a dead shell, it only appears alive if one looks only at the puppet, ignoring there are strings that make it appear alive.

(I deliberately argue for personalism with other theists and other posters, even though I do not have realization of it, in the hopes that something would click in my mind. In case you wondered whence my apparent duplicity in the way I talk to them and the way I talk to you.)

I don't understand your reference to BG 6.6. Do you mean that controlling the mind by efforts other than KC is impossible?

I also don't understand what you mean by "Actually god interacts (and enjoys) with us on the platform of desire" - that we desire something and God sees to it whether the desire deserves to be granted? Would that not merely be the mode of passion then?

 

[Michael]

Here's some images of the Greatest of the Japanese Goddesses Amaterasu.

................and taking the form of a wolf in the video game Okami:

 

[NMSquirrel]

And I am supposed to rely on people like you to tell me about God?!?
That certainly explains my confusion!

and that is how humans screw it up..your attitude EXPECTS a christian to be perfect..christians are just as screwed up as you are..only most don't admit it..

 

[Cris]

lg,

the infinitesmal aspect is simply one of potency,

For sure, and everything is relative. It is an accurate perception of our individual size and impact compared to the size and potency of the universe. It isn't derogatory, just realistic. Something like a grain of sand compared to all the sand in the world, or a drop of water in the ocean.

or the ability to acquire opulence (which of course is the standard yard stick we use to garner success in this world).

Perhaps for a few, but opulence is not a good generalization. This seems to be more about your perceived jaundiced view of others rather an accurate assessment of reality. Opulence implies excess and greed, whereas most simply want to have sufficiency, and where most do not have enough (i.e. most are dependent on others for income and sustenance, etc). But we are physical beings with needs for housing, clothing, food, medical care, etc. These needs must be satisfied regardless of any perceived spiritual needs.

In this regards we are totally useless since we always rely on elements outside of our selves to acquire opulence - hence it becomes an external pursuit.

Hardly useless since as physical beings we need all those things that are necessarily external.

Because of our behavior (ie treatment and attitude to other living entities that are beneath us - which btw is a consequence of our mad desire to lord it over material nature),

Again you are attempting to generalize for everyone but I know few who practice this mindset. We are the most advanced intelligence on the planet and we have managed to harness much of nature to our benefit - these are facts. But "lording it over material nature" is a curiously prejudiced perspective.

we tend to become glum at the prospect of partaking in such a relationship when the shoe is on the other foot (IOW we are the one that is beneath).

How can there be any such tendency? There is no recorded history of any intelligence superior to ours although your suggestion of becoming depressed is most likely true for theists who fantasize about a superior intelligence. Such is the effect of being deluded.

God however has no need to strive to lord it over nature (since its his constitutional position), which explains why he doesn't partake of the same attitude that we have towards inferior living entities.

Just pure fantasy.

IOW envy of those greater than us is partnered with contempt for those beneath us as well as a sort of contentiousness with one's peers.

Banal speculation based on erroneous conclusions generated by a negative and jaundiced perception of reality.

Actually god interacts (and enjoys) with us on the platform of desire, as opposed to material acquisition, which is probably how we would imagine we would interact with others if we were god.

Just more pure fantasy.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

For sure, and everything is relative. It is an accurate perception of our individual size and impact compared to the size and potency of the universe. It isn't derogatory, just realistic. Something like a grain of sand compared to all the sand in the world, or a drop of water in the ocean.

then you are in agreement with me

Perhaps for a few, but opulence is not a good generalization. This seems to be more about your perceived jaundiced view of others rather an accurate assessment of reality. Opulence implies excess and greed, whereas most simply want to have sufficiency, and where most do not have enough (i.e. most are dependent on others for income and sustenance, etc). But we are physical beings with needs for housing, clothing, food, medical care, etc. These needs must be satisfied regardless of any perceived spiritual needs.

actual the use of the word opulence holds a significance in this discussion that you're probably not privy to. Another word for god is bhagavan which can be translated as the possessor of all opulences in full (they being further categorized as wealth, intelligence, fame, strength, beauty and renunciation). As part and parcel of god, we partake of the same nature as god so we aspire for some or all of these opulences - the point is simply that if we use opulence as a means to measure worth and value (which is the common materialistic yardstick) it places god in an entirely separate league to us (which in turn gives rise to a sense of discomfort at the prospect of existing under the shadow of god - a sentiment commonly expressed by the materialistic)
My suggestion is simply that this is not an intrinsic way to measure our worth.

Hardly useless since as physical beings we need all those things that are necessarily external.

hence a sense of lordship that arises from them is useless (since they are external)

Again you are attempting to generalize for everyone but I know few who practice this mindset. We are the most advanced intelligence on the planet and we have managed to harness much of nature to our benefit - these are facts. But "lording it over material nature" is a curiously prejudiced perspective.

Oh c'mon - how many people have to die in Bangladesh to make the news compared to how many in America?

Or how come human beings warrant a special charter of rights, 10% of which that aren't even dreamt of being applied to other species?

How can there be any such tendency? There is no recorded history of any intelligence superior to ours although your suggestion of becoming depressed is most likely true for theists who fantasize about a superior intelligence. Such is the effect of being deluded.

Even if you want to pretend that there are no affirmations (or even atheistic critiques) of the prospect of living under god, the history books are literally one chapter after another about one society subjugating another

Just pure fantasy.

so says the atheist party line, sure.

Banal speculation based on erroneous conclusions generated by a negative and jaundiced perception of reality.

Actually this precept is commonly understood to contribute to rendering corporate structures dysfunctional ...
:shrug:

Just more pure fantasy.

Just more atheist sound-bites
:shrug: