If the universe is God, and God is love...

[Nom de Plume]

Interesting rig veda quote.

Yeah, it is. Hinduism—a compilation of dozens of religions grouped under one name for the convenience and ease of Westerners—is, by far, the most coherent, consistent, profound, ancient, comprehensive, scientific, diverse, elegant, and immense extant religious philosophy to have been ever devised. I'm irreligious, but learned Sanskrit via autodidactic study just to be able to read the texts of such geniuses as Abhinavagupta, Aryabhata, Kapil, Panini, Guatama Siddhartha, et al as they were indited and intended.

I enjoy some of your posts]

Some!?!? Ah, well. I'd prefer all, but some is better than none. Thank you.

... and the verbiage deployed in them...

Deployed...like Sarin gas from the perspective of many Bluelighters. In earnest, I do hope the lexically-challenged are merely more vocal and obstreperous than average, and not a delegation of the majority of these forums' members.

but if your intention is to help spread wisdom to others,

There's an Arabic proverb that I believe is germane and sums up my belief succinctly :

اتق الأحمق أن تصحبه إنما الأحمق كالثوب الخلق كلما رقعت منه جانبا صفقته الريح وهنا فانخرق


"Be aware of the idiot, for he is like an old dress. Every time you patch it, the wind will tear it back again."

i think the arrogance and the thinly-veiled insults won't help. Please keep posting the interesting stuff, but i'd suggest leave out the self-importance as it doesn't speak much for your spiritual or intellectual development .

I mean no offense. It's, from my perspective, innocuous banter and persiflage. That speaks of my writing style and provides a cursory coup d'oeil into the personality behind the writing, but nothing about my "spiritual" (whatever that is) and intellectual development may be logically inferred from it.

I feel it behooves me to say again that I'm not being some petulant, sardonic bully, or even, as you imply, some supercilious, curmudgeon of a passive-aggressive who gets his kicks from salting his comments with thinly-concealed contumely and vitriol.

No. Instead, I'm joking. But don't think you're the first to think I'm not when I am. In real life, I feel it may be of some benefit to wear a shirt exclaiming "It was a joke!" in large bold font! But would it be read by others as the joke itself, thus invalidating any claims of jest as the joke for me to them may be claiming raillery when none was intended? Or, as per intention, as the caveat for the joke they missed and took to heart? I dunno.

I, like most people, enjoy being liked. As a consequence, I try to comport myself in ways that engender my being liked and well-received in other people. To do this, I don't put on airs or affectations, but try to avoid gratuitous negativity, which insults, diaphanous or opaque, are a species of. I do apologize if I seem offensive or haughty. I'll try to tone it down.

Thanks for the advice, by the way.

 

[Vurtual]

Thanks for the reply (and not noticing the arrogance and self-importance contained in mine ). Jokes are one thing, though if someone's not involved in it, the joke's on them, which isn't all that funny. It was more the appearence of arrogance and superiority which i felt was a mismatch to some of the wisdom of the vedas about the importance of self and others. Fair enough if it's just a writing style of some sort, but most people wouldn't guess that.

Anyway keep writing either way

 

[Ninae]

Bcause there is only ONE here and sometimes you like to play around with hurting yourself if the return is large enough.

 

[Br1ngTh3Ra1n]

Because God isn't the universe neither love

 

[ebola?]

The following will prove lengthy, convoluted, and even circular at times, because I am going to attempt to press against the limits of language and even cognition...

Sounds like you're describing God as Emptiness, which I find apt.

Me too, though since I think of myself as more of an atheist than a 'theist', I would say that God/the universe/creation/being is void. What does this mean? I can't say with complete accuracy or adequacy, as this 'void' inheres prior to the set of distinctions that make language possible. This 'void', this 'grounding' (set of preconditions, initial context, etc.) of all being is 'logically' prior to the very distinction between existence and nonexistence, the set of axiomatic distinctions necessary for logical analysis, indeed the very distinction between objects of consciousness and the context which conditions their existence.

How is what I'm putting forth different from pantheism? Well, we can also identify this void as generative of conditions of possibility for being; this 'background' structures what possibilities may be realized as any given situation unfolds, as potentialities are made actual. Thus, as such, this void does not "exist" per se, despite structuring the whole of what does exist. This paradoxical relation between void and existence as it reveals itself to conscious agents is indeed paradoxical, as this relation runs deeper than our ability to discriminate phenomena so as to resolve contradiction per creative logical transformation; void and its relation to existence may be experienced, and we may point vaguely in its direction, but it cannot be described adequately. In this way, this void is fundamentally generative, as it presents reality immediately as mired in contradiction, and it is through our ability to create that the latent possibilities for resolving such apparent contradiction, through both understanding and physical transformation of the world, come to pass, but it is also by virtue of how this void structures our existence that we appear as conscious agents in the first place.

So where does love fit in? As I claimed earlier, it seems quite odd to me to apply characteristics specific to incomplete, flawed conscious agents to the sum body of conditions of possibility for existence; it's only from a context that produces agents with the ability to lack and want that emotions emerge to function both in motivating even the most basic actions and as the carrier of our understanding of these actions (eg, what would interaction be without ethical (and directly empathetic!) concerns, and what import would ethics hold if there were no emotions to appease or defy?). Thus, it seems to me like a god who feels would simply be "too small". At the same time, realization of our deep, deep interconnection in some unified whole that produces consciousness as such entails cultivation of an orientation of acceptance and global benevolence that appears similar to 'love as such'. I dunno...my emotional cognition is a bit underdeveloped. I'll also note that when we use mythology as an interpretive vehicle, we in general run the risk of further anthropomorphizing, and indeed in general reifying, what we believe to be our gods, even by the very act of speaking about them as unitary, discrete entities set in temporally intelligible relations, much less narratives holding human interest.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

No. Instead, I'm joking. But don't think you're the first to think I'm not when I am. In real life, I feel it may be of some benefit to wear a shirt exclaiming "It was a joke!" in large bold font! But would it be read by others as the joke itself, thus invalidating any claims of jest as the joke for me to them may be claiming raillery when none was intended? Or, as per intention, as the caveat for the joke they missed and took to heart? I dunno.

I think people might have misinterpreted your prior joke because in deriding the insight and even raw efficacy of human description, its not clear whether you were including your own efforts. Insofar as you were, people can join in the joke with you.

ebola

 

[Foreigner]

The following will prove lengthy, convoluted, and even circular at times, because I am going to attempt to press against the limits of language and even cognition...



Me too, though since I think of myself as more of an atheist than a 'theist', I would say that God/the universe/creation/being is void. What does this mean? I can't say with complete accuracy or adequacy, as this 'void' inheres prior to the set of distinctions that make language possible. This 'void', this 'grounding' (set of preconditions, initial context, etc.) of all being is 'logically' prior to the very distinction between existence and nonexistence, the set of axiomatic distinctions necessary for logical analysis, indeed the very distinction between objects of consciousness and the context which conditions their existence.

How is what I'm putting forth different from pantheism? Well, we can also identify this void as generative of conditions of possibility for being; this 'background' structures what possibilities may be realized as any given situation unfolds, as potentialities are made actual. Thus, as such, this void does not "exist" per se, despite structuring the whole of what does exist. This paradoxical relation between void and existence as it reveals itself to conscious agents is indeed paradoxical, as this relation runs deeper than our ability to discriminate phenomena so as to resolve contradiction per creative logical transformation; void and its relation to existence may be experienced, and we may point vaguely in its direction, but it cannot be described adequately. In this way, this void is fundamentally generative, as it presents reality immediately as mired in contradiction, and it is through our ability to create that the latent possibilities for resolving such apparent contradiction, through both understanding and physical transformation of the world, come to pass, but it is also by virtue of how this void structures our existence that we appear as conscious agents in the first place.

So where does love fit in? As I claimed earlier, it seems quite odd to me to apply characteristics specific to incomplete, flawed conscious agents to the sum body of conditions of possibility for existence; it's only from a context that produces agents with the ability to lack and want that emotions emerge to function both in motivating even the most basic actions and as the carrier of our understanding of these actions (eg, what would interaction be without ethical (and directly empathetic!) concerns, and what import would ethics hold if there were no emotions to appease or defy?). Thus, it seems to me like a god who feels would simply be "too small". At the same time, realization of our deep, deep interconnection in some unified whole that produces consciousness as such entails cultivation of an orientation of acceptance and global benevolence that appears similar to 'love as such'. I dunno...my emotional cognition is a bit underdeveloped. I'll also note that when we use mythology as an interpretive vehicle, we in general run the risk of further anthropomorphizing, and indeed in general reifying, what we believe to be our gods, even by the very act of speaking about them as unitary, discrete entities set in temporally intelligible relations, much less narratives holding human interest.

ebola

"God" is just a placeholder for any number of synonyms, like the Universe, Nature, Oneness, etc.

Emptiness and love are not mutually exclusive. We live in an empty oneness, and love by its very definition is connection and truth. When you recognize the emptiness, you feel love -- not attached love, or human every-day notions of love, but a love for the void that stares back into you as you stare into it. It's like being reunited with a long lost partner who is so identical to you in its nature that you feel like you're home again. Only thing is, it's a partner who never really left, you were just projecting other things onto it.

Emptiness does not mean no connection. It means that everything arises and dissolves without any input from a self. It's all connected but there's no one in here making it happen, no one doing it. It's a no-self process, which is rather compatible with atheism, but it's taken to the next level which is that not only is there no creator doing it, there is no you doing it either.

 

[ebola?]

"God" is just a placeholder for any number of synonyms, like the Universe, Nature, Oneness, etc.

But all of these pointers seem to aim in distinct directions, some of the conceptual paths emanating therefrom partially overlapping more than others...but the crux of the matter is that "god" must by definition fail to point to that which it 'intends' to signify...so in this sense, these words can never "just" be placeholders, as a peek under the use of any such term will reveal quite quickly that they fail to mark the 'location' of interest.

Emptiness and love are not mutually exclusive.

mmm...I didn't want to intimate such but rather point to how bizarre it is to infuse...a body of phenomena so alien to the conditions under which we operate very human experiences and qualities, like emotions as we know them. Now I can see why realization of dense interconnection could lead to loving care for all existence, as we in a more literal sense ARE this totality of existence (experiencing itself via the illusions of selfhood and fragmentation of this totality). But why would this body of existence necessarily be suffused with love, at its essence?

you feel love -- not attached love, or human every-day notions of love, but a love for the void that stares back into you as you stare into it. It's like being reunited with a long lost partner who is so identical to you in its nature that you feel like you're home again. Only thing is, it's a partner who never really left, you were just projecting other things onto it.

See, this is what I find intriguing, as I have experienced things of this sort in...'some' states. But I don't want to be hasty in ascribing aspects of my encounter with the mystical to "being as such"...in that being as such is absolutely beyond our ability to truly comprehend it. I have no idea whether the grounds of being would be permeated by some emotion, or if this would even be at all intelligible.

ebola

 

[Foreigner]

But all of these pointers seem to aim in distinct directions, some of the conceptual paths emanating therefrom partially overlapping more than others...but the crux of the matter is that "god" must by definition fail to point to that which it 'intends' to signify...so in this sense, these words can never "just" be placeholders, as a peek under the use of any such term will reveal quite quickly that they fail to mark the 'location' of interest.

No... there is no "location". That's mind trying to go from here to there. There is always stillness happening. A mind that is doing X Y Z to be still is doing it as an arisement from stillness. To use an analogy, it's like a wave arising from the ocean, and then that wave tries really hard to be the ocean again, even though it already is. In other words, while you're thinking about being still, stillness is already happening. When you go to work, go hang out with friends, etc.... stillness is happening. You can choose to be aware of it or not, but it's there. It's the ground, default state. I'm using the word "stillness" to describe it as a semantic location, but the experience of it is anything but. There is no location, you are already there.

mmm...I didn't want to intimate such but rather point to how bizarre it is to infuse...a body of phenomena so alien to the conditions under which we operate very human experiences and qualities, like emotions as we know them. Now I can see why realization of dense interconnection could lead to loving care for all existence, as we in a more literal sense ARE this totality of existence (experiencing itself via the illusions of selfhood and fragmentation of this totality). But why would this body of existence necessarily be suffused with love, at its essence?

Love spontaneously arises from emptiness. It's not a value judgment or a moral, it's merely a natural fact. We can talk about it in terms of neuroscience, spirituality, psychology, or something else... however you want to examine it, it's what happens. I think you are looking at this issue semantically and are wondering why anyone would arbitrarily ascribe love and connection to this phenomenon. It's like gravity, or anything else. It just happens. It's nature.

Is it really so alien though? Most people who are not so mind oriented are content. Suffering arises from the grasping mind. And by suffering I don't mean pain. I mean the constant dissatisfactoriness that takes place when we assume a relationship between everything and 'ourselves', especially in terms of wants/desires, and some notion that everything we have is somehow permanent because we need it to be.

The basis of the connection I'm describing is that nothing can exist on its own. Nothing has its own substance. It relies on something else to be defined. Likewise, in the absence of definition, it is empty. It's yet another manifestation of duality. It relates to everything in its environment yet is completely without 'label' on its own. It's not all connected by some magical new age cord - though, scientifically speaking, there is no real separation at the quantum level - but by a constant relational interdependence through the intervention of mind.

See, this is what I find intriguing, as I have experienced things of this sort in...'some' states. But I don't want to be hasty in ascribing aspects of my encounter with the mystical to "being as such"...in that being as such is absolutely beyond our ability to truly comprehend it. I have no idea whether the grounds of being would be permeated by some emotion, or if this would even be at all intelligible.

Well, it's certainly beyond words anyway. However, it's a state that is comprehensible... but it's not something you arrive at by building upon notions. It's a release process. You shed attachment after attachment until you naturally sink into the void. The whole idea is that this state of being is already within you, you don't have to go find it anywhere, or have it taught to you. What you need to learn is how to let go. When you think you've let go of everything, it goes even deeper, until eventually nothing is left. When you think the ground can't get any lower, it becomes a crater, and then the ground caves in until eventually you are in a state of utter groundlessness. This kind of freedom is completely without support for any "self" you thought you might have. Eventually the letting go can be terribly painful because you come face to face with the non-reality of what you thought everything was, including your loved ones, and notions of what it means to be alive. I imagine that enlightenment must be a state where all you experience of the world is emptiness without self, all the time, and thus there is no subject-object relationship anymore. But... I'm not anywhere near enlightenment so who knows.

I do agree though that most people don't get this. Even most "spiritual" people don't want to go there. They enjoy the transient bliss of their spiritual activities, but when they come anywhere close to the void and have to face their non-realness, it's a step too far and they turn back. The point of all this is not to feel good, but to get at the truth. The truth that is evident in this process, as it emerges, has literally no mercy. It will tear your mind limb from limb until you forcibly surrender all your delusional egos and attachments. I think there's a point where you can decide to turn back, but for myself I feel that there was eventually a tipping point where it just became a fire that started to consume everything despite my resistance. That's kind of the territory you get into eventually. Anyway.