Does a god exist?

[Unveiled Artist]

Yep. This is exactly how I knew

Easy. Interview people individually and have them describe what they are experiencing. If they all give you more or less the same answer, it is likely that they are experiencing something real, and the opposite if their answers don't seem to be describing the same thing.

How I knew the definition of god in a general sense because I live in a god-believing environment. I've not heard any person who believes in god have a strict, naturalistic explanation of its or their existence. Even some Pagans don't say how they define god because they consider it "too personal" or something that "can't be described."

That's why I wonder why people ask for proof of god. Ask people about their experiences. I like your glove example.

 

[Vijay B Menon]

It depends on the religion you follow. I think a Hindu @Vinayaka or similar faith can explain how meditation relates to understanding of god.

In general, medication (sorry, thinking of other stuff--meditation, I mean, lol) can give you a mystic experience that many people interpret as god (experience of gratitude, awe, appreciation, love, and/or so have you).

What differentiates god from simple emotions is anyone can experience love but in many religions who believe in god, they find ways to honor, revere, or worship the experience whether in and of itself or as an external force, ideal, or personified being.

Meditation is a good way to connect with that. That or prayer among other things.

Which means there is an entity called self or a seat. By pondering(other name for meditation) can we become that self. I think thats an exercise in futility
I

 

[George-ananda]

Does a god exist somewhere out there? Or is it the name given to the total silence within us?

As an advaita (non-dual God and creation are not-two) student I do believe gods (lower case 'g') are out there but God/Brahman is the All.

 

[Vijay B Menon]

As an advaita (non-dual God and creation are not-two) student I do believe gods (lower case 'g') are out there but God/Brahman is the All.

I haven't read vedas. But they also talk of an entity called atman. So as soon as an entity comes there is a division.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Which means there is an entity called self or a seat. By pondering(other name for meditation) can we become that self. I think thats an exercise in futility
I

I don't agree with the entity part and meditation has different meanings.

What do you mean by seat and self?

I think you're making god more mystical and complicated than it needs to be (which many people do).

 

[George-ananda]

I haven't read vedas. But they also talk of an entity called atman. So as soon as an entity comes there is a division.

Atman=Brahman pure consciousness best described as sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss). Atman is a ray of Brahman incarnating a finite form.

Is a sun ray not part of the sun?

 

[Vijay B Menon]

I don't agree with the entity part and meditation has different meanings.

What do you mean by seat and self?

I think you're making god more mystical and complicated than it needs to be (which many people do).

Buddhist monks believe that there is a seat of consciousness or unconsciousness within us. The fact is there cannot be a circle without a centre and radius. But this centre has to undivided between the inner and outer. There is a freedom of perception for all.

 

[Vijay B Menon]

I don't agree with the entity part and meditation has different meanings.

What do you mean by seat and self?

I think you're making god more mystical and complicated than it needs to be (which many people do).

Buddhist monks believe that there is a seat of consciousness or unconsciousness within us. The fact is there cannot be a circle without a centre and radius. But this centre has to undivided between the inner and outer. There is a freedom of perception for all.

 

[Vijay B Menon]

I don't agree with the entity part and meditation has different meanings.

What do you mean by seat and self?

I think you're making god more mystical and complicated than it needs to be (which many people do).

Buddhist monks believe that there is a seat of consciousness or unconsciousness within us. The fact is there cannot be a circle without a centre and radius. But this centre has to undivided between the inner and outer. There is a freedom of perception for all.

 

[Vijay B Menon]

Atman=Brahman pure consciousness best described as sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss). Atman is a ray of Brahman incarnating a finite form.

Is a sun ray not part of the sun?

Atman=Brahman pure consciousness best described as sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss). Atman is a ray of Brahman incarnating a finite form.

Is a sun ray not part of the sun?

Atman=Brahman pure consciousness best described as sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss). Atman is a ray of Brahman incarnating a finite form.

Is a sun ray not part of the sun?

I have heard of brahman, atman. So what about shunya. Nothingness. One is infinite and other is null. Which state are we?

 

[George-ananda]

I have heard of brahman, atman. So what about shunya. Nothingness. One is infinite and other is null. Which state are we?

Well, 'shunya' is more a Buddhist term I am not really familiar with.

My thought is that it is unmoving Brahman.

Here is another's thought:

When the mind does not lie low, and is not again tossed about, then that being without movement, and not presenting any appearance, culminates into Brahman. Resting in itself, calm, with Nirvana, indescribable, highest happiness, unborn and one with the unborn knowable, omniscient they say. No creature whatever is born, no origination of it exists or takes place. This is that highest truth where nothing whatever is born.

— Gaudapada Karika, 3.46-48, Translated by RD Karmarkar

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Buddhist monks believe that there is a seat of consciousness or unconsciousness within us. The fact is there cannot be a circle without a centre and radius. But this centre has to undivided between the inner and outer. There is a freedom of perception for all.

That sounds confusing. The Buddhist I practice with say that there is a nature within all of us that is not bias. When we meditate (not ponder), we open to that unbiased nature and if we continue to stay in it, we won't be swayed by things that will create attachment to things that take us away from full understanding and thus relief of suffering.

I'd assume, put in how you say it, the thoughts would be our biases and non-thoughts would be detachment. What some Buddhist sects try to accomplish is not to get rid of our thoughts or step away, but in meditation, acknowledge our thoughts without mistaking your thoughts for who you are as a person.

It's not complicated when practiced. However, when you study it, it makes your head swim. It also depends on the suttas and sutras you read. Some are easy to read others are not.

But they don't have to do with god. Buddhism is about understanding. It's full understanding of the nature of life (between thoughts/no-thoughts=detachment from illusions that cloud what The Buddha calls suffering) and when fully understood/enlightened/aware, one ends rebirth (the cycle of being in suffering and kamma), and one actually dies/ends rebirth.

I don't know the cosmology language of Buddhism. If I can make sense of it logically with common sense words that I can apply and see in reality, I can explain it. God-religions, it took me awhile to break it down as I did in my first post. Now that I understand, I know the difference in how people believe and whatever god they define, I know what category to place their definition in to understand it better.

 

[Vijay B Menon]

Well, 'shunya' is more a Buddhist term I am not really familiar with.

My thought is that it is unmoving Brahman.

Here is another's thought:

When the mind does not lie low, and is not again tossed about, then that being without movement, and not presenting any appearance, culminates into Brahman. Resting in itself, calm, with Nirvana, indescribable, highest happiness, unborn and one with the unborn knowable, omniscient they say. No creature whatever is born, no origination of it exists or takes place. This is that highest truth where nothing whatever is born.

— Gaudapada Karika, 3.46-48, Translated by RD Karmarkar

Is that state achievable in this chaotic world?

Well, 'shunya' is more a Buddhist term I am not really familiar with.

My thought is that it is unmoving Brahman.

Here is another's thought:

When the mind does not lie low, and is not again tossed about, then that being without movement, and not presenting any appearance, culminates into Brahman. Resting in itself, calm, with Nirvana, indescribable, highest happiness, unborn and one with the unborn knowable, omniscient they say. No creature whatever is born, no origination of it exists or takes place. This is that highest truth where nothing whatever is born.

— Gaudapada Karika, 3.46-48, Translated by RD Karmarkar

Is this state achievable in this chaotic world where there is fear all the time. Can this state beyond time and space achieved?

 

[Vijay B Menon]

That sounds confusing. The Buddhist I practice with say that there is a nature within all of us that is not bias. When we meditate (not ponder), we open to that unbiased nature and if we continue to stay in it, we won't be swayed by things that will create attachment to things that take us away from full understanding and thus relief of suffering.

I'd assume, put in how you say it, the thoughts would be our biases and non-thoughts would be detachment. What some Buddhist sects try to accomplish is not to get rid of our thoughts or step away, but in meditation, acknowledge our thoughts without mistaking your thoughts for who you are as a person.

It's not complicated when practiced. However, when you study it, it makes your head swim. It also depends on the suttas and sutras you read. Some are easy to read others are not.

But they don't have to do with god. Buddhism is about understanding. It's full understanding of the nature of life (between thoughts/no-thoughts=detachment from illusions that cloud what The Buddha calls suffering) and when fully understood/enlightened/aware, one ends rebirth (the cycle of being in suffering and kamma), and one actually dies/ends rebirth.

I don't know the cosmology language of Buddhism. If I can make sense of it logically with common sense words that I can apply and see in reality, I can explain it. God-religions, it took me awhile to break it down as I did in my first post. Now that I understand, I know the difference in how people believe and whatever god they define, I know what category to place their definition in to understand it better.

That is again a choice between attachment and detachment. Can we channel thoughts towards a choiceless awareness. Do we have the freedom not to give pattern to our thoughts. Is that possible?

 

[Shantanu]

Does a god exist somewhere out there? Or is it the name given to the total silence within us?

God is not a silence within because He is not silent but takes an active part in humanity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To quote Douglas Hofstadter: "Mu"

 

[Vijay B Menon]

God is not a silence within because He is not silent but takes an active part in humanity.

Iam not talking about the dead silence you experience in a sound proof room but that silence where time comes to a halt. It is not inactivity but instant action upon perception.

 

[Vijay B Menon]

To quote Douglas Hofstadter: "Mu"

We are not solving a puzzle. It is a common inquiry and rather a very serious affair.

 

[George-ananda]

Is this state achievable in this chaotic world where there is fear all the time. Can this state beyond time and space achieved?

I don't see the ultimate experience as an experience in which we can also be active in this world. At most a few can get a temporary glimpse in deepest meditation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is again a choice between attachment and detachment. Can we channel thoughts towards a choiceless awareness. Do we have the freedom not to give pattern to our thoughts. Is that possible?

We can, but the point is to choose to detach ourselves from defining our thoughts as if they define who we are as people rather than what we are brought up to be and live in (illusions and suffering).

Do we have the freedom not to give pattern to our thoughts? Do you mean, not to be caught up by our thoughts? Prisoner of our thoughts?

We have a choice in whatever we do; that is why there is Kamma, or cause in affect in everything we do and think.

For some reason, I think this is more of a Hindu point of view than Buddhist. If you're gearing towards an "essence" or something mystical behind the practice, The Buddha taught away from that. A lot of the suttas seem like riddles to me because it's repetitive.

It's hard for me to understand metaphysical talk.