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

[lightgigantic]

I do not think BG 5.29 is hyperbole.

I mentioned it to highlight the issue of god not being some disinterested cosmic observer

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".

If you really felt like that, you wouldn't have a platform to manifest offense at being slighted etc. IOW you wouldn't have a shred of anything to pin any values on

But I also don't think I am one with God or that God directly does all my thinking, feeling and acting.

The act of understanding how we wield desire is made tricky for as long as we identify with modes (IOW if we think we are the modes, we can't see them acting through us)

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.

what's doing the looking then?
Or how does this puppet vision make you feel?
Exhilarated ? Relieved? Morose?

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 meant that a person who carries envy, etc is their own worst enemy, despite their seeing their enemies as external .... so even a jiva who has succeeded in this regard can be equipoised in their dealings ... what to speak of god

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?

I was just trying to give some sort of english explanation for the word "rasa" (maybe something like mellow of social interaction). IOW the (pure) relationship between god and the living entity is a two way street that doesn't traffic any pursuits of opulence (since both parties have nothing to pursue in that regard) - Materialistic interactions (the staple diet of this world) are the complete opposite

 

[wynn]

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".

If you really felt like that, you wouldn't have a platform to manifest offense at being slighted etc. IOW you wouldn't have a shred of anything to pin any values on

But I don't feel offended, just confused. I have brought this up several times, but you keep avoiding it.

I would be glad if I would feel offended, because this would at least mean that I am sure of my sense of right and wrong. But this is not the case. Right and wrong seem to be entirely relative for me, like floating somewhere without any anchor.

It suffices that a person yells at me "2+2=5!" and I will begin to seriously consider that they might be right, and think of the dreadful consequences that may happen for me if I fail to believe them.

This bears infinite consequences when it comes to interactions with devotees.
I am finding it impossible to deal with that. I am damned if I stay, damned if I leave.

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.

what's doing the looking then?

There is looking. Just that - there is looking.

Seriously, "I look at a puppet" feels to me merely like a grammatical construct.

I knew a Buddhist once who spoke like that in everyday life.
She didn't say "Thank you", she said "Thanking". "I saw a big red car in the street today" - "Seeing a big red car in the street today."
She formulated everything in an impersonal manner, and a number of things she didn't even talk about. It was rather difficult to talk to her.

Or how does this puppet vision make you feel?
Exhilarated ? Relieved? Morose?

Confused. I am thinking that perhaps it just has to be that way, and that I would be wrong to feel bad about being a puppet; a second later comes the thought that that is appalling. And so on, the two views ambivalently, ambiguously collide.

I was just trying to give some sort of english explanation for the word "rasa" (maybe something like mellow of social interaction). IOW the (pure) relationship between god and the living entity is a two way street that doesn't traffic any pursuits of opulence (since both parties have nothing to pursue in that regard)

So it is a bit like a parent who buys their child various ingredients and desires that the child bake them a cake? The parent provides all the necessities and the know-how, but still they wish that the child do the actual work.

 

[wynn]

Or something as simple as attributing a material cause as sufficient to stagnate spiritual endeavor

Did you have any particular material cause in mind that I may be attributing as sufficient to stagnate spiritual endeavor?

 

[Hapsburg]

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

Which one? I believe in many, many gods.
The ones I worship? Easy enough, as they have traditional appearances ascribed to them. For Cernunnos, I see a bearded man with horns or antlers sprouting from his head, bearing a spear and a scroll; as for Aradia, I envision a dark-haired, pale woman dressed in green, with a crown of interwoven flowers and vines set upon her head.

Now, I don't believe these to be the "real" appearances of those gods in their natural state. I wouldn't even know where to begin conceptualising that, as they exist on an entirely separate kind of reality from our physical existence. The above descriptions are imagery, iconography; traditional anthropomorphisms, perhaps based off the corporal or even mental form they took so as to communicate with humankind.

 

[SciWriter]

X-rays of my brain show nothing.

 

[birch]

I have observed in myself and in others that this kind of internal conflict about God is fairly common. It seems that people who believe in a God of love and compassion sometimes experience private images of God which are disturbing.

notice the assumed air of propriety and wisdom. this person is probably college-educated. the perfect grammar and punctuation that is just essentially expressing retardation.

this is so dumb to be unbelievable. if they would get their nose out of the bible long enough to notice, it would be glaringly obvious. ya think? does this genius think we live in a paradise? have they seen the state of the world? what is even worse on top of it is how dishonest one must be in order to not notice or dismiss the immense amount of scriptures that show that god is not loving.

wtf?

 

[aaqucnaona]

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

Some kind of non-consious force that forms the fabric of reality, like the forces or something - it such a thing exists.

 

[kx000]

My image of God is this. Everything, and nothing. That simple.

 

[Balerion]

My image of God is this. Everything, and nothing. That simple.

Don't forget "that nonsensical."

 

[wynn]

Some kind of non-consious force that forms the fabric of reality, like the forces or something - it such a thing exists.

That kind of god really must be tough to believe in, like beliving in hailstorm or radiation. No wonder you are atheistic.

 

[Enmos]

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

As an atheist with a (somewhat) Christian upbringing this is the 'picture' I have of god:
Some sort of invisible force with human-like characteristics; something like a non-physical 'wind' that has the ability bring forth and then manipulate the physical universe.

So I don't have an actual picture in my mind.

 

[Syne]

The nothing from which quantum fluctuations occur.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

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

God is pure spirit so he does not "look like" anything. Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity, took on a human nature in addition to his divine nature so did take on a human body, so he looked like a human being, specifically a 1st century Jew. Artists are free to picture God in any way their imagination takes them but don't confuse human creativity and subjective ideas with an absolute reality.

 

[elte]

Right now I am thinking of God as an evolved energy being. However, I don't know how such a person could remain existentially organized and able to think and act.

 

[HectorDecimal]

I had a vision of God once. He was shaped like a giant neuron, centralized within countless synaptic connections, in a sea of stars and nebular, spectral light.

 

[wynn]

God is pure spirit so he does not "look like" anything. Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity, took on a human nature in addition to his divine nature so did take on a human body, so he looked like a human being, specifically a 1st century Jew. Artists are free to picture God in any way their imagination takes them but don't confuse human creativity and subjective ideas with an absolute reality.

And you know what absolute reality is and we owe it to you (and God?) to take your ideas for granted?

 

[wellwisher]

In my opinion, 90% of what is attributed to God, can be explained in terms of projection from the personality firmware within the human brain. This is the operating system of the human brain which defines our human nature. The projection of the operating system, onto a God figure tells us something about the hierarchy of the brain. This projection puts the conscious mind lower than the operating system, since the conscious mind is part of the operating system but not all of it.

In terms of mapping the human psyche, the visible tip of the iceberg is the persona or mask of the ego. This is the outward mask we show the world. The persona may include a style of speaking, tattoos, particular fashion sense, etc. The ego is more than its mask. The ego also includes things of a personal nature, which close friends are aware of. The ego also contains our working knowledge and opinions.

Below this tip of the iceberg, as we go below, is the personal unconscious. This contains subliminal and repressed memories connected to consciousness. These can be retrieved with hypnosis. It also contains routine and habit based subroutines. Often this layer is easier for others to see, with most people unconscious of it. For example, a person may have a odd gesture they do when excited. They don't notice it, but others do. This is from the personal unconscious.

Below the personal unconscious, we enter the collective unconscious where the operating system of human nature resides. This is less individual and more in common with other humans. The interface of the operating system with the personal unconscious is called the shadow.

Picture the shadow as sort of the caveman within, connected to human animal instincts and impulses of a collective nature. The shadow layer is often where the devil is projected; spontaneous and impulsive with the strength of instinct. The church will require you repress it so one can become conscious of it via the building potential which will differentiate it. Atheism tends to merger with the shadow. The shadow is the layer where atheists project/see only evil in religion, but nothing that counts as good. They are scared of their own shadow projection.

As we go deeper, there are other aspects of the personality firmware. The next level is connected to the anima in the male and the animus is the female. The anima is the female side of a male and animus the male side of a female. The bitchy women is usually connected to her animus layer. The moody male is connect to his anima layer. When men and women argue these two layers often will appear. These layers can also merge with the shadow layer. The half human and half animal figures of mythology was a projection of this firmware merger.The male would no longer be just moody but would gain an instinctive overreaction; lunge out.

As we go even deeper we come to the firmware connected to the paternal and maternal aspects of the collective personality firmware. A new mom or dad will often have this firmware, activate, to help them via this natural drive. There are other attributes in this layer symbolized by the wise old man and mother nature connected to extrapolated thought processing. The symbol of mother nature is a projection of this layer.

Below this, in the center of the operating system, is the inner self. Whereas the ego can control the persona or mask, the inner self controls the operating system. It will use the many layers of the collective unconscious as its many masks. The two lovers shifting from arguing and hate to love and affection have the inner self active so they can collect cross programming data. There is a stagger in male-female firmware that benefits via the cross programming. The mother teaches the son to care so his anima can make use of her maternal firmware for better programming.

Manifestations of the inner self and personality firmware activations, especially at the highest level layers, can give an experience that is often attributed to God. This is because the dynamics are very compelling. There is still that 10% that is not fully explained this way.

 

[river]

pure life energy , amorphous in shape

and goes in the Universe as it likes ( Star Trek the next generation had a episode on this , but going much further back the old Roller Ball movie did as well )