Logos and Aum

Windwalker · Dec 8, 2014

Satyamavejayanti said:
Now im not the one to find "sameness" in truth claims, but it may be that some of this first, second and third person experiences to me allies with the Advaita Vadanta view, but the difference i think is that the advaita claim would render second and third person as "avidya, "Mithya" or more popularly "Maya", where only the first person Advaita (Non Duality) is the reality of things (Advaitins can correct me on this).

I should make a qualification about these 3 faces of God, that these are mystical faces apprehensions and not something someone who is unaware of the Divine sees or experiences with conscious awareness. Are the the first two faces Maya, or illusion? In a sense yes. As I like to say God is the face we put upon the Infinite. It still exists in the world of dualities, of separations between subject and object. But they as mystical states of awareness are breaking down that illusion of separateness.

One experiences the Absolute through a 3rd person view, a holistic, web of life, interconnection of all things, a certain pantheistic, monistic view of Reality. 2nd person brings the subject as 'self' into relation with the divine, and 1st person into identification as the divine itself.

Now is 1st person "the reality of things"? There are those that would argue no. 1st person is the Ground of all things, to be sure. But is that "nonduality", as it's popularly called? Is "One, not two" the true reality? Is "One, not two", actually nonduality? The realization of nonduality is that Reality is "Not one, not two". To see that all is One, and not two, is itself a duality. It says that it is "this, and not that". That's separation. That's division. That's duality.

A true nonduality begins by realizing this Oneness, this Emptiness, this Ground of all being, then moves into the world of form, into the world of duality with an awakened awareness of the Self. It sees that each form, each individual is unique in itself and not an illusion, but that it is none other than Emptiness as form, and form as Emptiness. It is "not one, and not two". It is "nonduality" in that it does not say it is this or that. It sees and freely embraces Reality as both, and neither. Again, oneness is duality when it says it is "one and not two" by making it a "this and not that" dualism. It excludes the Reality of duality. Nonduality sees it and embraces it wholly, yet not as an illusion. The illusion is when we see duality as Reality, which would include the subtle duality of "all is one, and not two".

So, is 1st person itself still Maya?

If it perceives all form as illusion, it seems it would be. There's this quote from one of the Upanishads I like that I've heard translated roughly, "And the illumined soul moves freely up and down all these worlds, taking whatever form it wants, eating whatever food it desires, chanting, 'Oh wonderful! Oh wonderful! Oh wonderful!'" To me, that expresses nonduality. Nonduality is the other side of knowledge of the Self, after awakening from slumber, awakening from illusion out of the world of form and duality, and returning into the world Emptiness and Form, chanting "Oh wonderful!", all the way.

Satyamavejayanti said:
Now the only thing i would say here is that i think the realization is not the same from one person to another, i think that the realizations are as diverse as the individuals. The methods are but advise of how to reproduce a experience but the experience and realization itself is varied.

I would say the experience of awakening is the same in the fact that everyone reports it as an experience of waking up out of a world of illusion created by the mind. I think that's pretty universal. How that awakening is expressed by individuals will of course vary. We are after all, both one and two.

Satyamavejayanti said:
I think the good thing about Hinduism is that one group of people can hold the view that the "three headed theistic deity" is up there or here and everywhere, and at the same time other group of people can see the "Mystical", expressions of the observer and the observed, while others may claim many other views, but all can co-exist without the requirement that one view gets subjugated by another or put in a museum and called primitive belief.

Yes, I think that's important. The recoil you have seen from me is trying to shake free this iron grip with theologies that say it is "this and not that". That doesn't allow for the freedom to unfold. A true Integral approach recognizes that seeing God as "up there", an external force outside themselves, is a valid understanding on all our paths up that mountain, where at its peak we all gaze at the single bright moon. The higher the path, the greater and more inclusive the view of all that has come before. But one has to climb the mountain, and not merely jet-pack their ways to the top!

Satyamavejayanti said:
As it goes with our concept of the OM and Logos, what i see is different from what you see, what i experience is different from what you experience, the Unity is our humanity, and our difference is what makes us Human.

I would say our Unity is the Self, realized in our Humanity. I like to make it clear that there is a difference between Unity and uniformity. Uniformity is sameness. I find sameness to lack diversity, and thus deny a higher realization of Reality. Unity is diversity brought together in Consciousness. Satchitananda. Our humanity is united in "Christ consciousness", or Buddha Mind, or Self. It is united in Self realization.

Satyamavejayanti said:
OM TAT SAT

Hari Om Tat Sat.

Satyamavejayanti · Dec 8, 2014

"Windwalker, post: 4054516, member: 41917"]I should make a qualification about these 3 faces of God, that these are mystical faces apprehensions and not something someone who is unaware of the Divine sees or experiences with conscious awareness. Are the the first two faces Maya, or illusion? In a sense yes. As I like to say God is the face we put upon the Infinite. It still exists in the world of dualities, of separations between subject and object. But they as mystical states of awareness are breaking down that illusion of separateness.

Namaste,

By "Seeing", and "Experiencing", i really mean realization of things, and i consider a diversely different reality as real and now, so that is my experience.
Mystical is a funny word, to satisfy my curiosity can you explain what it means to you personally?

A true nonduality begins by realizing this Oneness, this Emptiness, this Ground of all being, then moves into the world of form, into the world of duality with an awakened awareness of the Self. It sees that each form, each individual is unique in itself and not an illusion, but that it is none other than Emptiness as form, and form as Emptiness. It is "not one, and not two". It is "nonduality" in that it does not say it is this or that. It sees and freely embraces Reality as both, and neither. Again, oneness is duality when it says it is "one and not two" by making it a "this and not that" dualism. It excludes the Reality of duality. Nonduality sees it and embraces it wholly, yet not as an illusion. The illusion is when we see duality as Reality, which would include the subtle duality of "all is one, and not two"

.

Again that is strikingly Advaita philosophy, and i must clarify i am not qualified in Advaita philosophy nor do i completely agree with some aspects of it, its just that these talks of Dual, Non Dual, Oneness, Ground of Being, not this-not this (Neti-Neti) ect all remind me of Advaita. That is why I mentioned the Philosophy of the Advaita Vedanta and not because i subscribe to it personally.

So, is 1st person itself still Maya? If it perceives all form as illusion, it seems it would be. There's this quote from one of the Upanishads I like that I've heard translated roughly, "And the illumined soul moves freely up and down all these worlds, taking whatever form it wants, eating whatever food it desires, chanting, 'Oh wonderful! Oh wonderful! Oh wonderful!'" To me, that expresses nonduality. Nonduality is the other side of knowledge of the Self, after awakening from slumber, awakening from illusion out of the world of form and duality, and returning into the world Emptiness and Form, chanting "Oh wonderful!", all the way.

Depends i guess of the individual reading it, Its a Philosophy that I respect, even if I somewhat don't agree with the translation of certain words as they have been done, but that is another matter. And i do agree and understand of what you mean.

I would say the experience of awakening is the same in the fact that everyone reports it as an experience of waking up out of a world of illusion created by the mind. I think that's pretty universal. How that awakening is expressed by individuals will of course vary. We are after all, both one and two.

I guess we disagree about "awakenings" being the same, i think if we don't experience it our self, we may just have to say I don't know and leave it at that.

Yes, I think that's important. The recoil you have seen from me is trying to shake free this iron grip with theologies that say it is "this and not that". That doesn't allow for the freedom to unfold. A true Integral approach recognizes that seeing God as "up there", an external force outside themselves, is a valid understanding on all our paths up that mountain, where at its peak we all gaze at the single bright moon. The higher the path, the greater and more inclusive the view of all that has come before. But one has to climb the mountain, and not merely jet-pack their ways to the top!

Yes agree, "jet-packing" seems dangerous and expensive, if you know what i mean, hence my contention that not all paths are the same, nor not all methods advise the same route, and also remembering that that moon up there is just one of many moons out there, it is our Dharma to be respectful to all the walkers up the mountains, but if someone blows fumes from their "jet-pack", in our faces its our Dharmah to let them know that its not nice.

I would say our Unity is the Self, realized in our Humanity. I like to make it clear that there is a difference between Unity and uniformity. Uniformity is sameness. I find sameness to lack diversity, and thus deny a higher realization of Reality. Unity is diversity brought together in Consciousness. Satchitananda. Our humanity is united in "Christ consciousness", or Buddha Mind, or Self. It is united in Self realization.

As why i think our "awakening" may be diverse, because maybe what we are waking up to is in itself diverse and different yet has the unity of Satchitananda integral to it.

Namsate

Windwalker · Dec 21, 2014

Satyamavejayanti said:
Mystical is a funny word, to satisfy my curiosity can you explain what it means to you personally?

I think as I use the term it would mean any sort of perceptual awareness in which the individual moves further away from the sense of the separate self towards a unitive consciousness. Typically this occurs in various "altered" states of consciousness, which go beyond the average "normal" consciousness of the egoic self-perception, leveling itself within the mean-average consensus consciousnesses of our culture and societies operating in dualistic frameworks. In other words, a state experience of awareness which breaks down the illusion of our normal worlds to see and experience oneself beyond (or before) all that created exclusive reality of our unenlightened developing dualistic minds.

In mystical states, one experiences themselves and the world in radically released ways, which leads to a considerable shift in ones understanding of themselves and the world, not just during such states, but taking that an informing the individual of a greater reality beyond the "normal" as they settle back down into their average-mode consciousness of their current developmental stage. The mystical states open one to and help propel one towards a transformative state of being in which the mystical states accelerate ones growth into a higher average stage of mind towards an ultimate unitive-consciousness, permanently enjoined in the individual - the saint, the sage, etc,

There, that's a mouthful, but I think it summarizes it nicely.

Satyamavejayanti said:
Depends i guess of the individual reading it, Its a Philosophy that I respect, even if I somewhat don't agree with the translation of certain words as they have been done, but that is another matter. And i do agree and understand of what you mean.

I'd enjoy hearing how you would translate it to see what else I may hear in it.

Satyamavejayanti said:
I guess we disagree about "awakenings" being the same, i think if we don't experience it our self, we may just have to say I don't know and leave it at that.

I'd like to explore this disagreement further. Maybe if I give an example it will help clarify what I mean when I say it is experienced and described by mystics in pretty much the same. When you wake up in the morning from sleep, are you able to distinguish the difference between dreaming and waking? And when you speak with all others who share the experience of waking up after a dream state, would you say that pretty much 100% of them would understand what you meant when you describe the experience, because they relate to it through their own experience, even though they might choose a few different words to describe metaphorically the same experience?

If you answer that yes, which I am going to assume you will, than that is exactly what I am saying. A mystical awakening is described the same way, in very similar if not identical language by mystics, because it is in fact the same type of experience, similar to that of waking from a dream state. Except in the mystical state, the dream state is the 'normal' waking state of the conditioned mind, that "illusion" of reality we live in which is constructed by our conditioned mental objects. Again, how people will choose to express that in words will of course be influenced by the relative symbol sets of of their cultural languages, but the descriptions say the same thing. It's experienced as a "waking up", the same as when you wake up in the morning from dreaming. It's like waking up from being asleep, which turned out to be our whole lives where we thought we were in fact awake!

Satyamavejayanti said:
Yes agree, "jet-packing" seems dangerous and expensive, if you know what i mean, hence my contention that not all paths are the same, nor not all methods advise the same route, and also remembering that that moon up there is just one of many moons out there, it is our Dharma to be respectful to all the walkers up the mountains, but if someone blows fumes from their "jet-pack", in our faces its our Dharmah to let them know that its not nice.

I would say that the many moons are faces of one Moon, reflections, refractions of it, showing the way. In other words, I don't believe we end up at different destinations. We come from One Source, we return to the One, which manifests and expresses itself in manifold forms. We of course take different paths, navigating different terrain, utilizing different tools appropriate to the terrain, but that distinction and the distance between terrains becomes closer and closer together the closer to the Summit one approaches.

It is important to understand the religions are not the same, saying and practicing thing identically to each other, but the mystical heart is the same, that center or core of that mountain is present in all the varied terrain amassed around it. It's in the deep structures there is connection, not the surface features upon which the masses traverse. That core can be sensed and felt on the diverse surfaces, but at the peak of the mountain that Core is exposed, and all those from the different paths sit with one another together upon it, celebrating their liberation together. There is no more religion at the Summit.

Satyamavejayanti said:
As why i think our "awakening" may be diverse, because maybe what we are waking up to is in itself diverse and different yet has the unity of Satchitananda integral to it.

What do you see we awaken to that is different? That I don't see. What I do see, again, is the application of that Awakening, to the relative world will of course be diverse. How it is spoken about will be culturally relative. But, and this is my argument, when another mystic hears someone who has such a Realization speak of it in their own way, in their own context culturally and historically, they "hear" that self-same Realization from that other Realizer being expressed. They hear that same Mind in motion. They hear OM, they hear Logos, coming through clearly, shining from the Realized mind into the world.

Satyamavejayanti · Feb 5, 2015

"Windwalker, post: 4073216, member: 41917"]

Namaste,

Sorry for the late reply, i have not been paying attention to my alerts.

Anyways, thanks for the description of Mystic from your perspective, from your generous description i would say it is something to be realized and experienced rather then talked about or explained, so ill take your word for it.

I'd enjoy hearing how you would translate it to see what else I may hear in it.

This was regarding the word "Maya", itself. I don't think the simple translation of "illusion", provides a accurate description of the intent of Maya, specifically if it is used out of Context.

E.G: In the context of "existence" Maya would constitute the non-understanding of a individual about the underlying unity of everything existing, this is not illusion (physical, mental) it is more like not knowing (Avidya) and removing Maya is not necessarily getting rid of it, but more to replace it with Vidya (Knowing). So the world is not illusion of the eyes but Avidya of the mind. So in this context Maya is Avidya about things.

But, let say we use the rope in the mist mistaken as a snake analogy, here avidya does not play a role, the rope exists and so does the snake we are given knowledge of both in the analogy, the Maya is the clouded judgment which skews perception and causes two real things to be mistaken for one or the other. Maya here is mistaking one for another due to external factors which cloud our perception.

And "illusion", can be used in some contexts as well, but to use it in every conversation is unclear and non-intelligible in my opinion.

But lets not deviate from the conversation.

When you wake up in the morning from sleep, are you able to distinguish the difference between dreaming and waking?

I guess in some instances where the experience is similar we can say the "awakening" is similar, but mystical awakening, not a everyday occurrence nor is it regular action, and if our experiences are different, maybe what we wake up to is different, so i think if we don't experience it our self, we may just have to say I don't know.

I would say that the many moons are faces of one Moon, reflections, refractions of it, showing the way. In other words, I don't believe we end up at different destinations. We come from One Source, we return to the One, which manifests and expresses itself in manifold forms. We of course take different paths, navigating different terrain, utilizing different tools appropriate to the terrain, but that distinction and the distance between terrains becomes closer and closer together the closer to the Summit one approaches.

Well the point i was trying to make taking the example of the moon, is that there is a entire universe full of moons, we classify them all as moons but they are all vastly different from each other, just because we say that there is one moon does not mean there are no other "Moons", out there to be realized.

This is what i see as being different, We may have one source and we may return to that one source, but the entire procedure in between is required, and those are not all the same, nor do they all work, nor do they all yield the same results.

What do you see we awaken to that is different? That I don't see. What I do see, again, is the application of that Awakening, to the relative world will of course be diverse. How it is spoken about will be culturally relative. But, and this is my argument, when another mystic hears someone who has such a Realization speak of it in their own way, in their own context culturally and historically, they "hear" that self-same Realization from that other Realizer being expressed. They hear that same Mind in motion. They hear OM, they hear Logos, coming through clearly, shining from the Realized mind into the world.

I agree that "the application of that Awakening, to the relative world will of course be diverse", and would add that the procedure and requirements prescribed prior to achieving the awakening may also be diverse, and as i said some work some don't, we need to discern what has worked and what is incomplete.

What is realized by a Christian who believes in the Logos?, and what is realized by a Hindu who does Mantra Dhyana on the OM?, in my opinion the realization of both is different, why? Because the process prescribed, the procedure used and the previous awakenings recorded do not match. And what is realized by a Christian "Mystic" who meditates on the Logos, that awakening may be similar to the Hindu who does Dhyana on OM. What i see the problem is that the Logos is claimed by Mystics and Christians, both have vastly different perceptions of this one word, which is fine, but one is said to yield one result by the process called faith and belief and the other acknowledges awakening using process of contemplation and Dhyana.

But where does that leave the OM, does it mean anything to a Christian who believes and has faith in the Logos? it may be equated as "same" by many mystics but i think the mystics first need to realize the implications on their "awakening", if the Logos is anything the Christians believe it to be. If Logos is God, one wakes up to God or sees unity with God, but according to Christians can one become God?, but OM on the other hand once realized not by belief or faith but yoga, removes God from the Mind and brings about a transformation of the Mind-not mystical transformation IMO but actual mental transformation in perception, cognition, knowledge, understanding, feeling, emotion ect which results in control of the senses which in turn influences action/Karma. Now mystics may see some similarity and would agree with this but would a Christian agree that this is what the description of the word of God/ or Logos is, or will a Christian agree that by chanting Logos in a Hindu way they will become God?

In saying that these are the same, i don't wish to be doing any Himsa on a Christian (Whatever sect), That is why i focus on the particular differences, i don't want to put everything in one Box labeled "Same".

Dhanyavad.

Windwalker · Feb 6, 2015

Satyamavejayanti said:
This was regarding the word "Maya", itself. I don't think the simple translation of "illusion", provides a accurate description of the intent of Maya, specifically if it is used out of Context.

I was more asking about the translation of the Upanishad which says, "The illumined soul moves freely up and down all these worlds..... chanting Oh Wonderful! Oh Wonderful! Oh Wonderful!" But I do like your discussion of maya here.

Satyamavejayanti said:
E.G: In the context of "existence" Maya would constitute the non-understanding of a individual about the underlying unity of everything existing, this is not illusion (physical, mental) it is more like not knowing (Avidya) and removing Maya is not

Satyamavejayanti said:
necessarily getting rid of it, but more to replace it with Vidya (Knowing). So the world is not illusion of the eyes but Avidya of the mind. So in this context Maya is Avidya about things.

I would completely agree. I have issues with those who say the material world is an illusion. It's not the fact of it, but the perception of it which qualifies as an illusion or not. It is the separate-self sense of the mind that creates this illusion of separation.

Satyamavejayanti said:
I guess in some instances where the experience is similar we can say the "awakening" is similar, but mystical awakening, not a everyday occurrence nor is it regular action, and if our experiences are different, maybe what we wake up to is different, so i think if we don't experience it our self, we may just have to say I don't know.

My point was that even though what you and I see, think, perceive about the world as we wake up in the morning will naturally be different, what isn't different is that you and I know the difference in states of conscious awareness itself between sleep and waking. We describe that the same ways, such as saying we were not consciously awake. Our descriptions of that are not going to be all over the place and contradictory. Right?

So it is with the saints and sages, the mystics. They describe this as a "waking up" from the "normal" state of waking consciousness, as radically distinct as the difference between sleep and waking in the morning. I have and do experience this myself, and I hear it described this way in others. So its not some different reality, some different phenomena. The descriptions are as much the same between individuals as you and I describe being awake in the day versus being asleep at night. That's the same, and it's unimportant that you and I differ as people. It is awakening to a condition of being, from a state of relative sleep.

Satyamavejayanti said:
Well the point i was trying to make taking the example of the moon, is that there is a entire universe full of moons, we classify them all as moons but they are all vastly different from each other, just because we say that there is one moon does not mean there are no other "Moons", out there to be realized.

Is there a Ground Consciousness, despite many diverse expressions of that Consciousness? When the poet speaks metaphorically of "gazing at the single bright moon", it is obviously not a literal depiction of celestial bodies which one could then argue their a myriad moons out there, but rather a metaphor to that single Source. Beneath and beyond it all, there is Unity. As we stand gazing into that Ground, into that Source, we are the same, and it is that same Light upon all of us, in all our diversity, that illuminates our individual paths. There is no different Destination. There is no different Source. We are talking about moving beyond the relative plane to the Unitive Ground of Being.

If someone awakens to That, what is seen is that same Light, despite how after the fact we all speak about it in our relative tongues, the language of our relative lives. It's the same Light that shines on all lands, and all tongues.

Satyamavejayanti said:
This is what i see as being different, We may have one source and we may return to that one source, but the entire procedure in between is required, and those are not all the same, nor do they all work, nor do they all yield the same results.

Have I ever once said otherwise?

Satyamavejayanti said:
I agree that "the application of that Awakening, to the relative world will of course be diverse", and would add that the procedure and requirements prescribed prior to achieving the awakening may also be diverse, and as i said some work some don't, we need to discern what has worked and what is incomplete.

Of course, I agree.

Satyamavejayanti said:
What is realized by a Christian who believes in the Logos?, and what is realized by a Hindu who does Mantra Dhyana on the OM?, in my opinion the realization of both is different, why? Because the process prescribed, the procedure used and the previous awakenings recorded do not match.

I don't agree. The reason I don't is because the means and the methods do not create the experience of Liberation. Freedom is not a product of the path. Freedom is Freedom, and all who realize it experience it as it is, regardless of what tools they used to cuts their chains, or what road they escaped from their prison was. The terrain traveled does not define Freedom. How that Freedom is then expressed and understood relatively will of course become part of the individual experience of their path. But there is no such thing as "freer that free".

Satyamavejayanti said:
And what is realized by a Christian "Mystic" who meditates on the Logos, that awakening may be similar to the Hindu who does Dhyana on OM. What i see the problem is that the Logos is claimed by Mystics and Christians, both have vastly different perceptions of this one word, which is fine, but one is said to yield one result by the process called faith and belief and the other acknowledges awakening using process of contemplation and Dhyana.

This is going to get a little deep here and I'm going to pick up this in another post later on as I have time to devote to it. For now, look over what I posted and we'll pick this up after I finish my response later. As always, I value our discussions.

Windwalker · Feb 7, 2015

Satyamavejayanti said:
And what is realized by a Christian "Mystic" who meditates on the Logos, that awakening may be similar to the Hindu who does Dhyana on OM. What i see the problem is that the Logos is claimed by Mystics and Christians, both have vastly different perceptions of this one word, which is fine, but one is said to yield one result by the process called faith and belief and the other acknowledges awakening using process of contemplation and Dhyana.

It's saying the same thing. I see these as different words for the same process, actually. I had a more conventional explanation taught to me of what "faith" was as a Christian which in most regards is assumed to mean a 'belief' about something, or placing a hope or expectation in something "above", in God, as it were. My understanding of what faith is now that I engage in mystical states through meditation is a tad bit more developed in that context.

I'll share this of my own thoughts and understanding through experience of this "faith" in meditation (or you could use the word prayer, if you wish - it really is a type of meditation as well). As a regular meditator I can tell you there are two primary keys to a helpful practice. First is intention. It is through intention that you keep yourself present in mind, in body, in spirit, bring yourself back again and again as you stray away into discursive, distracting thoughts. Through this intention you remain intent on entering into this Light, through its many doors, beyond the fears that stand at the various gates you pass through as you move deeper and deeper within.

It is through intention you overcome the world, so to speak, of your own illusions about yourself and the world, to allow Light to fill your mind and your being. You leave behind the world and become fully immersed within that Light, that Emptiness, that Formless All which becomes your being. And it is then you enter into the world awakened, and that Intention becomes that of Life itself, flowing radiating out to all that is, offering Light and Life and Love, which is received and returned. That intention, is faith.

Second part of meditation is to have no expectation. To look for a desired outcome, is to put your own ideas as the Goal, as God. You do not know what that is, because you are not yet awakened to it. So how is it then having a mental image of it is possible? And if you sit down expecting what arose yesterday to be there today, you are not open. You are reaching to your idea. To sit through intention or faith, without expectation, puts you in receiving mode. It is your job to come to the classroom and be prepared to learn, but to listen requires Silence.

I'll add one last part of meditation as a third principle, and that is practice. It's not something you do once in a while, but regularly like exercise in order be transformed by it. One doesn't go to school once every three months for a class, doing nothing in between. If you go every day, there will be a radical change to the mind that occurs. And so with meditation, to the mind, the body, and the soul and spirit. All of that of course is dependent on the first principle, and that is intention, or faith. Intention without action is ineffective. It's as the Bible says, "Faith without works is dead". In other words, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It's not true intention without action.

Satyamavejayanti said:
But where does that leave the OM, does it mean anything to a Christian who believes and has faith in the Logos? it may be equated as "same" by many mystics but i think the mystics first need to realize the implications on their "awakening", if the Logos is anything the Christians believe it to be. If Logos is God, one wakes up to God or sees unity with God, but according to Christians can one become God?

Here's where I want to spend some time.

I believe one may approach God through different means, say they have this mental image of God in mind as they pray and meditate, but as you move further and further within, it all begins to dissolve in that Light. What was "believed" becomes so illuminated that the very nature of that belief itself is transformed in the understanding of the person that is nature becomes wholly transcended. I cannot tell you how many, many times, endlessly it seems, sayings from the Bible which I had heard as a young man became something radically illuminated with actual depth now that there was this immersion in Light through meditation.

It is not some "meditate on this idea" approach, but was really more a matter of as Light filled the mind as I journeyed within that this "thought" popped out that contained that Illumination which allows it to be seen and held by the mind, or to encapsulate that "revelation", as it were in a simple short saying. What strikes me to this day is how those who repeat those same words, without this sort of spiritual illumination, are in effect hold a stone in their hands talking about it as some truth they project upon it that is their own minds, beliefs, and values. But they become in that Light of Spirit, these multi-prismed jewels, reflecting and refracting Light ceaselessly in endless and myriad ways, like Indra's web.

They are not static truths, but Living Spirit. And this is true of any Wisdom, in any religious tradition. Without the illumination of Spirit, they are like rocks on a mantel that one thinks holds special powers, things you "believe in". Without that interior Light, entered into through faith, or intention, they are unseen by the mind, they remain hidden in stone.

So my point is, if one is on this path of ascension towards the Source, through whichever Avatar, or Symbol, or practice which reflects and refracts that Light to them, at a certain point these all fall away. God falls away. And what remains is that Light, the Source. This is what the mystic awakens to. These images of the subtle realities, or the gross realities, are relative, forms of the Divine. I am saying they all will emerge beyond the symbols into the Formless itself. Then its understood what the forms are.

Satyamavejayanti said:
but OM on the other hand once realized not by belief or faith but yoga, removes God from the Mind and brings about a transformation of the Mind-not mystical transformation IMO but actual mental transformation in perception, cognition, knowledge, understanding, feeling, emotion ect which results in control of the senses which in turn influences action/Karma.

The Christian mystic as well leaves God behind (much at their own bodily peril if they declare this openly to the church, I'll add!

). Meister Eckhart said, "I pray God to make me free of God, so that I may know God in his unconditioned being". I could provide many quotes from him which speak of this identification of Self with and as God, which means that what was held by the mind as God is no more, it ceases to be. So its the same thing as you say above here. And absolutely, the result is exactly as you describe it. I can say this from experience.

Satyamavejayanti said:
Now mystics may see some similarity and would agree with this but would a Christian agree that this is what the description of the word of God/ or Logos is, or will a Christian agree that by chanting Logos in a Hindu way they will become God?

The average Christian is taught a radical dualism, that God is up there, and they are down here. The institutional church "Kicked Jesus upstairs", as Alan Watts put it. I agree that they are not taught that to seek the path to God will result in their very self dissolving into God. But those who do go that inner path, do find that is what happens. My point is, that people if they do the inner work, move through faith or intention into the Core of who they are, will find this "God beyond God", regardless of what image they held previously.

There's tons more I can add to this, but I'll save it for that 1000 page book I'm planning to write soon!

Satyamavejayanti said:
In saying that these are the same, i don't wish to be doing any Himsa on a Christian (Whatever sect), That is why i focus on the particular differences, i don't want to put everything in one Box labeled "Same".

Dhanyavad.

And it's not the same, now. Of course it's not. But that Light through them all, in whatever shape of form was made, is the same. The form is different, the Source and Goal, are the same when we are talking about inner transformation, the esoteric, and not the exoteric.

P.S. You can respond now.

Satyamavejayanti · Feb 8, 2015

"Windwalker, post: 4156615, member: 41917"]

Namaste,

Quite a bit of writing of here mate, i don't think i have the mental capacity to analyze all that you say, ill try to give my POV as simply as i can, being such a complex subject and you being such a knowledgeable person i feel i am getting out of my league here. Forgive me if i veer off the subject.

My point was that even though what you and I see, think, perceive about the world as we wake up in the morning will naturally be different, what isn't different is that you and I know the difference in states of conscious awareness itself between sleep and waking. We describe that the same ways, such as saying we were not consciously awake. Our descriptions of that are not going to be all over the place and contradictory. Right?

I understand what you mean, from a general perspective the act/Karm of waking and sleeping is similar in this context, and not having this "awakening" myself yet i will have to leave the discussion in your hands.

Is there a Ground Consciousness, despite many diverse expressions of that Consciousness?

IMHO, maybe or maybe not. I'm not sure. The unity I understand is more material in nature, but not material in a physical sense only, although it includes all physical existence and realities, its the underlying/grounding Prakriti to be more precise, it is diversity that is unified, and the "consciousness" bit is what i would call Purusha, which i think is what your speaking of, but this (Purusha) is something to be realized individually before we (Purusha) can wake up and realize our Dharmah with Prakriti, but i think what we call "consciousness" is just a effect of Purusha coming into contact and evolving in/with Prakriti, that is why i don't really know if there is a "ground Consciousness", of everything.

I don't agree. The reason I don't is because the means and the methods do not create the experience of Liberation. Freedom is not a product of the path. Freedom is Freedom, and all who realize it experience it as it is, regardless of what tools they used to cuts their chains, or what road they escaped from their prison was. The terrain traveled does not define Freedom. How that Freedom is then expressed and understood relatively will of course become part of the individual experience of their path. But there is no such thing as "freer that free".

Well, as i said previously i don't consider all paths leading to the same conclusion, of course that freedom is not the product of the path but what im saying is the paths are important to get us to that freedom, but there are different freedoms that have different paths, Some one gets freedom from sitting in jail meditating (Freedom from depression), others by praying 7 times a day (Freedom from responsibility), it requires a certain path, a particular way of seeing and doing things, but there are many paths that do lead to that freedom and many that don't. IMO that freedom cannot be said to mean/be the same for one individual to another, why, because as i consider Prakriti to be diverse in nature, one realizes one aspect/reality of it, but another using another method sees something different, not that the Prakriti is different but the reality of Prakriti and the realization is diverse and different. IMO that is why in Hinduism in particular we have many names and descriptions of that, such as, Moksha, Mukti, Brahmahgyana, samadhi, Atmagyana ect. all have a similar tinge of expression but the reason different names are given is because the paths were different and maybe there are slight differences in the realizations themselves, otherwise those that experienced these awakenings would have called it the same name, but the paths make a difference so there has to be some context that needs to be appreciated and distinguished from one another.

Satyamavejayanti · Feb 8, 2015

="Windwalker, post: 4158633, member: 41917"]

What about those who do not Believe in GOD/light ect? Will the practice of meditation as you describe still take them to the light, or make them realize the source as being one?

I tend to take the words of Patanjali as advise, "Yoga is not black and white", its not like we do one thing and get the results of that one thing, its got a lot of gray areas, Samadhi has a lot of gray areas, what to say then of Moksha.

So my point is, if one is on this path of ascension towards the Source, through whichever Avatar, or Symbol, or practice which reflects and refracts that Light to them, at a certain point these all fall away. God falls away. And what remains is that Light, the Source. This is what the mystic awakens to. These images of the subtle realities, or the gross realities, are relative, forms of the Divine. I am saying they all will emerge beyond the symbols into the Formless itself. Then its understood what the forms are

.

What you describe is a vary traditional Hindu view, this is the basic metaphysics of many Dharmic traditions, this is as old as Dharmah itself, but the Dharmah traditions themselves come to different conclusions, different destinations, and some do it with all forms of images or the Murti as a means to attain this awakening, and for Hindus the Avatar/Deva/Devis never really fall away, they merge in the nirguna to make it saguna, that is why some say Brahman is nirguna and saguna, this is Brahman that some describe, not the Brahman of light (Saguna) nor the Brahman of Dark (Nirguna) but their integral unity. So what we "awaken", to could be Nirguna or Saguna depending on the process we take.

The Christian mystic as well leaves God behind (much at their own bodily peril if they declare this openly to the church, I'll add! ). Meister Eckhart said, "I pray God to make me free of God, so that I may know God in his unconditioned being". I could provide many quotes from him which speak of this identification of Self with and as God, which means that what was held by the mind as God is no more, it ceases to be. So its the same thing as you say above here. And absolutely, the result is exactly as you describe it. I can say this from experience.

The average Christian is taught a radical dualism, that God is up there, and they are down here. The institutional church "Kicked Jesus upstairs", as Alan Watts put it. I agree that they are not taught that to seek the path to God will result in their very self dissolving into God. But those who do go that inner path, do find that is what happens. My point is, that people if they do the inner work, move through faith or intention into the Core of who they are, will find this "God beyond God", regardless of what image they held previously.

Question:

This "unconditioned God", that as a Mystic one may dissolve into, is it anything like what is described in the Judea-Christian texts, or more akin to the eastern view of the divine?

There's tons more I can add to this, but I'll save it for that 1000 page book I'm planning to write soon!

cant wait, ill buy it. lol

And it's not the same, now. Of course it's not. But that Light through them all, in whatever shape of form was made, is the same. The form is different, the Source and Goal, are the same when we are talking about inner transformation, the esoteric, and not the exoteric.

As i have said and i feel i will frustrate you by repeating, as i/we have not experienced this, may sa well say we don't know and leave it at that...

Being · Feb 9, 2015

Windwalker said:
I would completely agree. I have issues with those who say the material world is an illusion. It's not the fact of it, but the perception of it which qualifies as an illusion or not. It is the separate-self sense of the mind that creates this illusion of separation.

Isn't it the "separate-self" itself that is the basis of the illusion? So, whatever the separate-self perceives will also be illusion. In your subsequent post, you mention the notion of "God" that is taught to most Western Christians is that which is "up there" while we are "down here." I call it God-as-Other. It is a false perception because it is being perceived by the separate-self. Whatever we perceive as reality, depends first on our sense of self. If we are being deluded by a separate-self, then we will perceive reality as being separate from true self, and therefore also "God" as being separate from true self.

However, if true God is being-itself or "ground of being," -- as Paul Tillich believed -- then we are never separate from, but always one with "God" in essence, through Christ (as the Christian mystic sees it). And we are actually one with God even when we are being deluded by the notion of separate-self and consequently God as Other. Tillich said that the being of God is being itself. And since we are being (verb), then we are one with God, which is being itself. but our perception is faulty. Tillich believed that Christ's being restores the individual from existence to essence. Perhaps that equates to a right alignment of perception, which meditation facilitates. The main element of my meditative practice was the focus of intention upon Christ in the sense described here. (For me, prayer, meditation, and contemplation were essentially the same in nature. However, I dd also thought there were different types of praying; and so I sometimes fell sway to the delusional understanding of prayer based on the separate-self and God as Other.)

And so, our being is an expression of God -- even an expression of God perceiving itself rightly (or, truly) as one whole and not a separate-self. The Western form of Judeo-Christianity inherently incarcerates people in the illusion of separateness because it postulates a God as Other. Tillich proposed that true God is "God Above God." He did not mean God as separate, but as transcending all our religious, theological, philosophical, psychological notions of God as Other. My understanding of Tillich's view is that we can never fully comprehend true God. I'm unclear as to whether Tillich believed we can apprehend God in order to know God. (I'll leave that point for later.) But it seems to me that the knowing of true God would actually be the unknowing of all concepts of God, as the mystics have said. (I used to have a copy of the book The Cloud Of Unknowing among my collection of hundreds that are now gone. But I first gathered this impression from reading that book decades ago.)

So it is with the saints and sages, the mystics. They describe this as a "waking up" from the "normal" state of waking consciousness, as radically distinct as the difference between sleep and waking in the morning. I have and do experience this myself, and I hear it described this way in others. So its not some different reality, some different phenomena. The descriptions are as much the same between individuals as you and I describe being awake in the day versus being asleep at night. That's the same, and it's unimportant that you and I differ as people. It is awakening to a condition of being, from a state of relative sleep.

I used to experience this directly, when I was younger. I also recall the profound sense of liberty that accompanied and ensued from it. Elsewhere you stated that meditation must be practiced regularly in order to achieve (or maintain) this sense of mystical awakening. It has been a long time since I practiced meditation regularly. (Primarily it was during my 30s, when I was exploring Christian mysticism, much of which was Celtic. I pursued meditative practice again to a lesser extent during my 40s, while I was "deconverting" from Christianity. That is a term I don't prefer, mainly because in retrospect, my experience seems to be more of an evolution beyond than a turning against.)

And I understand your point. I have found, however, that there is a cognitive understanding from familiarity that remains with me, like a memory of an experience. That is, I can recognize (even if not experience directly) the sense of this awakening, even when I am not in a meditative state. It is similar to immediately recognizing someone you know well, such as a family member, whom you see in person only occasionally or even after a long period of time has passed, and changes in their physical features have occurred. It is not the process of the awakening, but it is the sense of the effect of that process.

And I came to discover the means to recalling the liberation accompanying the mystical awakening that comes via meditation. That is a liberation of mind, even if not of spirit also. I discovered this liberation of mind through Jungian ideas. As I mentioned, it is not the same as the experience of the awakening, but it is a recollection or a recognition of the experience. However, I probably would not have appreciated the Jungian POV as such, during my 40s, without my first having had the direct mystical experiences during my 30s. It was the deeper pursuit of "Christ" that led me into my direct mystical experiences. And it was later, with the help of Jungian thought, that my extrication and detachment from the tether of the religious view of Christ occurred (unforeseen and therefore unplanned). This has afforded me the opportunity to reapproach the idea of Christ in a transcendent sense -- free from the limiting and distorting effects of western religion's illusory perception of reality and free of the tether to both the religious Christ and the historical Jesus. Or I am finding that I no longer need that identity, persona, ego mask, Archetype, etc. to facilitate me. I am transcending it.

Is there a Ground Consciousness, despite many diverse expressions of that Consciousness? When the poet speaks metaphorically of "gazing at the single bright moon", it is obviously not a literal depiction of celestial bodies which one could then argue their a myriad moons out there, but rather a metaphor to that single Source. Beneath and beyond it all, there is Unity. As we stand gazing into that Ground, into that Source, we are the same, and it is that same Light upon all of us, in all our diversity, that illuminates our individual paths. There is no different Destination. There is no different Source. We are talking about moving beyond the relative plane to the Unitive Ground of Being.

I am pondering this in terms of Jung's Collective Unconscious..

And now I am wondering that the emergent, or higher, states of subconscious, conscious, and superconscious are not different (separate) states of awareness at all. Rather, they are all together, with the unconscious, a manifestation, or an expression, of the inherent dynamic process of awakening within the whole. It is the shining of the light and the perceiving of the light. It is the illuminating. It is the whole, being aware of and knowing itself. Perhaps they all together are a self-expression of the being-of-being.

The awareness of the Unity is evidence of the Unitive Ground of Being. Or, our awareness of the Unity is the Unitive Ground of Being manifest. Perhaps we do comprehend it, in a moment of that awareness or awakening to it. However, the being-of-being eludes all our words and mental constructs. It transcends all our mental constructs. Notice, when you experience the awakening moment that you have an understanding which transcends all words and concepts. But you know it is real; real beyond all concepts and contructs of "reality" -- even real beyond knowing. This is the difference between transcendant unknowing and not-knowing (ignorance).

It is also not Gnosis. While Gnosis may facilitate reaching or achieving this awakening, then even Gnosis must be relinquished. Otherwise, it becomes a delusionary sense of separateness. (I'll save further comments about that for another occasion.) In a similar sense (as I referred to previously), I had to cut the tether to the Christ of religion. It was not enough to leave the religion itself. (Or as I also described it earlier, to evolve beyond it.) That was the umbilical cord preventing the completion of my birth. In retrospect, I see now that I needed to return to the context itself in order to complete this task. Sometimes, we need to do certain life-tasks that co-operate with the mystical or transcendent awakening. And some life-tasks are so huge that it can take decades to finally achieve them. Our internal and external dispositions are in a synergistic relationship.

Being · Feb 9, 2015

Windwalker said:
It's saying the same thing. I see these as different words for the same process, actually. I had a more conventional explanation taught to me of what "faith" was as a Christian which in most regards is assumed to mean a 'belief' about something, or placing a hope or expectation in something "above", in God, as it were. My understanding of what faith is now that I engage in mystical states through meditation is a tad bit more developed in that context.

I've had occasion to reflect on "faith" recently. In the Bible, the book of Hebrews states:

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen (or not yet seen).

And in my previous post in this thread, I referred to the Jungian concept of the various levels of awareness: the (collective) unconscious, subconscious, conscious, and (my added state, which I regard as the transcendent) the superconscious. I described them all as being interconnected, synergistically perhaps, as the manifestation or expression of the being-of-being knowing itself as One whole. My point here is that the biblical description of faith seems like a description of this process. And it reminds me of quantum physics, the states of flux in the vacuum wherein subatomic particles appear and disappear, but also by their activity contribute to the structure and processes of matter reality.

So my point is, if one is on this path of ascension towards the Source, through whichever Avatar, or Symbol, or practice which reflects and refracts that Light to them, at a certain point these all fall away. God falls away. And what remains is that Light, the Source. This is what the mystic awakens to. These images of the subtle realities, or the gross realities, are relative, forms of the Divine. I am saying they all will emerge beyond the symbols into the Formless itself. Then its understood what the forms are.

Perhaps all of matter reality is an expression of existence, or more particularly of pure consciousness, which equates to Source (as you describe above). Do you also view this Source as the same as Logos? (I apologize for not being fully aware of all the previous 5 pages of discussion in this thread, although I did try to read through some of it.) I think at some point I want to describe my evolution beyond the (generic) "God" to a mystical "Christ" which was distinct from the Christ of Christian religion and from the historical Jesus. Why I view this as significant is because (I read that) early in this thread there was an exchange of questions concerning the physical manifestation (incarnation) of the Logos as Jesus (of Nazareth), and how this could not be consistent with Logos being equated to OM because OM does not have any physical manifestation as an Avatar (Jesus being an Avatar). I hope I have grasped the sense of the point. What immediately came to my mind was the concept of the mythopoetic. That is, the expressions of the Logos do not in themselves define or limit the essence of the Logos. The physical manifestations, such as the incarnation of Logos as (or in) Jesus Christ, are evidence of the expression of the innate dynamism of the Logos. (I will try to refine my description in subsequent remarks.)

The Christian mystic as well leaves God behind (much at their own bodily peril if they declare this openly to the church, I'll add! ). Meister Eckhart said, "I pray God to make me free of God, so that I may know God in his unconditioned being". I could provide many quotes from him which speak of this identification of Self with and as God, which means that what was held by the mind as God is no more, it ceases to be. So its the same thing as you say above here. And absolutely, the result is exactly as you describe it. I can say this from experience.

Yes, this must happen. I referred to Paul Tillich's concept of "God Above God" in my previous post. But I think that Tillich was still tethered to historic Christian religion and its theology, which prevented him (in his writings, at least) from experiencing this awakening. But maybe he did and simply didn't describe it in his writings. I think the understanding may be present behind his notion that Christ restores the Human from mere existence back to original (Divine) essence. Tillich's professional context and public persona may have hindered him from further literary expression of this idea. But maybe it is there in less direct terminology, such as in his more sociological and less theological comments.

The average Christian is taught a radical dualism, that God is up there, and they are down here. The institutional church "Kicked Jesus upstairs", as Alan Watts put it. I agree that they are not taught that to seek the path to God will result in their very self dissolving into God. But those who do go that inner path, do find that is what happens. My point is, that people if they do the inner work, move through faith or intention into the Core of who they are, will find this "God beyond God", regardless of what image they held previously.

I will tell you what happens. What this dualism does to an individual who passionately devotes oneself to pursuing Christ, within this context of Christianity, is that it either keeps the person enslaved to the illusion of separate-self and God-as-Other (and with much angst and even anguish), or it eventually expels the person from that context altogether. However, leaving that context is a birthing process, including all the requisite pain and trauma. And at some point the umbilical cord must be cut, the tether must be severed. Otherwise it will stretch and tear and fray over time, and eventually break with a painful snap, like a seizure. That's my experience. And in that, the ego selves, separate-self and God-as-Other dissolve. This "very self dissolving into God" I take to mean the dissolving of separate-self and God-as-Other, the realization of Unity (Oneness), and the recognition of authentic self.

The dualistic version of Christ, as presented within the context of Christian religion, hinders Unity, represses the authentic self, conjures false (ego) selves, and causes the person distress and grief (as symptoms of the separateness). Christian religion, by its nature, imprisons the individual in existentialist alienation and despair. (Tillich said that Christ transforms individuals from existentialism to Humanism.) The dualistic Christ consumes the person. The wholistic (or holistic?) Christ facilitates the integration of the individual and the emergence of the authentic self. (That is Jung's Individuation process, facilitated by what he called the Aion, the highest Archetype, exemplified by Christ.) Since, in my understanding, Christ was already beyond (generic) "God," for me the last (ultimate) Archetype to be confronted was not God, but Christ. And Christ should lead to authentic self. So, at some point, even Christ must be transcended. All that remains is authentic self. And perhaps this is a Universal authentic self, or Perfect Self. Perhaps this is what we experience in the awakening and in the Ground of Unity: the One Perfect (authentic) Self.

And maybe the One is not a self, but we as the apparent selves are the effects of the expressions within the innate dynamism (Life) of the One, the being-of-being. We selves are like notes in the whole composition, each vital in the performance and without any of which the whole would not be the whole. I tend to wax poetic, and since many analogies abound, I will stop here, lest I talk myself into a circle.

Windwalker · Feb 10, 2015

Being, these are wonderful posts from you I am looking forward to exploring. But I'm unsure how to proceed with them in this thread as it takes us in a bit of a different direction than the topic of the thread itself which is exploring the points where OM and Logos meet and diverge. I fear if I go deep here with these points we will be in a whole new discussion that doesn't touch much on that anymore.

I think what we should do is start another topic and reference these points in it. I'll put a link to it in this thread when I do, for those interested in following it or discussing in it themselves. I can start the topic as I've had time to respond to these things, or you can in the meantime start a new topic and move these posts over there as is with referencing to here with my quotes (that's a better idea). I'm really looking forward to rolling up my sleeves for a deep-dive discussion with you on all these points.

Being · Feb 11, 2015

Windwalker said:
Being, these are wonderful posts from you I am looking forward to exploring. But I'm unsure how to proceed with them in this thread as it takes us in a bit of a different direction than the topic of the thread itself which is exploring the points where OM and Logos meet and diverge. I fear if I go deep here with these points we will be in a whole new discussion that doesn't touch much on that anymore.

I think what we should do is start another topic and reference these points in it. I'll put a link to it in this thread when I do, for those interested in following it or discussing in it themselves. I can start the topic as I've had time to respond to these things, or you can in the meantime start a new topic and move these posts over there as is with referencing to here with my quotes (that's a better idea). I'm really looking forward to rolling up my sleeves for a deep-dive discussion with you on all these points.

@Windwalker

Please feel free to start a thread on anything I've mentioned that you find interesting. I might like to discuss what the Logos is, with respect to what "God" is. Perhaps the concept of (the Greek) nous is similar to Logos. Maybe we can discuss the biblical Johannine mystical (or even Gnostic) understanding of Christ as the Logos manifest. Maybe nous is the self awareness of the Logos, and nous is the awakened consciousness (superconsciousness?) that Christ spoke of. Maybe the incarnation of Christ, or even the Christ Consciousness, is a function of the nous of the Logos. The self-awareness is innate, and it naturally expresses itself; hence, self-creativity as incarnation. Maybe that's what some New Testament and Gnostic Christian writers were trying to say.

Most of my comments in this thread are a description of how my POV has developed. When I was younger (in my 20s and 30s), I used to read and study a lot more, and have discussions with people in the real world. I've forgotten a lot of the formal terminology, and I don't articulate the concepts as efficiently as before.

Logos, OM, and other terms are relative to their respective religions, philosophies, and cultures. But the concept conveyed transcends those boundaries. And it seems to me that we are the Logos, or the OM, expressed. Trying to comprehend the Logos or the OM is trying to comprehend ourselves. We will always have to settle for analogy or metaphor. But that itself is creativity. And maybe being creative in those ways is the proof of the Logos and the OM. We don't (need to) comprehend it. We are it. We simply "be."

Maybe.

lovemuffin · Feb 11, 2015

From the Johannine point of view, how would you understand the relationship between Logos and Spirit? It seems like you are viewing John's theology almost entirely through the lens of Logos, but it was also John's gospel in which Jesus said that it was good for us that he (the Logos) is going away, so that the Spirit would come. I'm curious what your thoughts are.

Being · Feb 11, 2015

well named said:
From the Johannine point of view, how would you understand the relationship between Logos and Spirit? It seems like you are viewing John's theology almost entirely through the lens of Logos, but it was also John's gospel in which Jesus said that it was good for us that he (the Logos) is going away, so that the Spirit would come. I'm curious what your thoughts are.

@well named
Hello. That's a fascinating question. I'm interested in discussing it, but as @Windwalker suggested, I am probably straying too far off the OP topic here. We could start another thread. Which subforum DIR would you suggest? Christian Theology? I've been discussing some ideas in the Gnostic DIR. I have done some thinking on the what the Logos of God is, from a biblical POV and a mystical POV. Jesus sending the Spirit (whom Paul calls "the Spirit of Christ") may be the manifestation of this nous or the Logos in the believer.

But we should probably take it off this thread.

I will tell you in advance that my Christology had evolved to transcend Theology. That is, I was no longer Trinitarian in my views. I came to understand "Christ Above All" (including Christ Above God) and "Christ In All." But again, I am off topic here. I asked some questions along these lines in the New Age DIR, but I didn't get any replies from anyone there who holds to a such a high Christology. I figured if I were to post it in Christian Theology DIR, I would get replies of orthodox views. I'm not interested in debating anything. I'm just curious about other people's views that are non-typical. Here is the link if you want to read my OP there.
Christ Above All | ReligiousForums.com

But again, this is all off topic here, so let's take the discussion elsewhere. We can continue it on my thread there in New Age DIR, or I can start a new thread in a different DIR. Where do you think is best?

Peace,
Being

lovemuffin · Feb 11, 2015

Being, your existing thread seems appropriate. I hadn't seen it before. Cheers

lovemuffin · Feb 11, 2015

Re: logos and aum

There's a verse from the poem The Cherubic Wanderer that always reminds me of Om:

No one speaks less than God, without time or place
From all eternity he utters only a single word.

Open_Minded · Feb 11, 2015

This may not be right on topic with the OP, but it is a comparison between the verses relating to Logos and a poem from the Tibetan tradition.

I put it together some years ago, when I was leading an interfaith meditative group.

The color coding basically shows the parallels.....

Ouroboros · Jun 3, 2015

Windwalker said:
That sound of the universe itself, OM, is the same as Logos. "He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." The Logos is the energy of creation, manifesting the Infinite and timeless into the finite.

And another view that I've been thinking about lately, inspired by Heraclitus, I've been thinking of Logos as the laws of nature. From chaos, the laws of nature (logos) had to become to create order. The three forms of God. Chaos, Logos, Cosmos. Chaos is the infinite energy. Logos is the infinite wisdom, knowledge. Cosmos is the realization, Big Bang, us, Creator and creation. Which leads to the thoughts of spirit, son, and father in the Christian tradition.

Satyamavejayanti · Jun 3, 2015

well named said:
Re: logos and aum

There's a verse from the poem The Cherubic Wanderer that always reminds me of Om:

No one speaks less than God, without time or place
From all eternity he utters only a single word.

Namaste,

Been a while since i posted here, it seemed the topic is going astray, but you seem to bring it back on track.
What i gather about the Logos in general just by my conversation in this thread, is basically the Logos is God's word, or the mystical interpretation would be sound of creation to be meditate upon (see windwalkers descriptions, for more accuracy), but also that Logos is linked closely with Jesus Christ and the Christian God, and no conversation on the Logos strays far from the Judeo-Christian Myths, which is reasonable as the Logos is considered the Word of a God and the word uttered by God for the purpose of creation. Now all this is fine by me, the Mystical interpretation of Lodos is similar to some interpretations of OM, but OM has a vary different meaning, well actually OM does not even have a meaning it is (Anirukta) without a meaning signifying nothing and everything at the same time, again similar to the mystical interpretation of the Logos, but in Hinduism this is a traditional view. The OM was never uttered at the beginning as a word by some God to initiate creation or to have a beginning, it even is not a singular word it is made up of 3 sounds of AA, UU and MM joint together and their are many different concepts associated with what each of these sounds represent.

Ouroboros said:
And another view that I've been thinking about lately, inspired by Heraclitus, I've been thinking of Logos as the laws of nature. From chaos, the laws of nature (logos) had to become to create order. The three forms of God. Chaos, Logos, Cosmos. Chaos is the infinite energy. Logos is the infinite wisdom, knowledge. Cosmos is the realization, Big Bang, us, Creator and creation. Which leads to the thoughts of spirit, son, and father in the Christian tradition.

Do you know if we also think of OM as the "Laws of nature", that does not lead to any Avatars, nor specifically to any Devta or Devi, nor any God or Gods. It would equate to reductionist to think of OM as "Laws" in the first place, Laws require a Administrator and also definitions of the specific Laws, which in turn will lead to a meaning to OM, therefore OM cannot be considered as Law because of the lack of a governing authority or a definition of AUM, and that makes OM more inclusive to different spiritual definitions while still retains its Anirukta status. This is probably one more difference between OM and Logos.

Windwalker · Jun 3, 2015

Satyamavejayanti said:
The OM was never uttered at the beginning as a word by some God to initiate creation or to have a beginning, it even is not a singular word it is made up of 3 sounds of AA, UU and MM joint together and their are many different concepts associated with what each of these sounds represent.

Greetings my friend. It's nice to see the thread having a life of its own, back once again.

It has been one of my favorites on the site. As for the above, to continue our ongoing comparisons between OM and Logos, likewise Logos was not a moment in time to initiate creation nor have any beginning. It is always the Manifesting of God, never a time before or after. John 1 speaks of Logos as already in the beginning of creation as the Manifestor of God. Creation is simply a manifestation of the Manifestor. I am personally fond of the multiverse theory that universes are always being created, like Brahma who blinks every 432,000 years and a new universe is created. Creation is a continual action, not a historical event. So Logos is always Creation, moment to moment, without beginning, without end.

I would be intrigued to know more from you of the different concepts the sounds of AA, UU, and MM represent. Again, good to hear from you again.

Logos and Aum

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Being

Being

Veteran Member

Being

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος

Being

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος

Nothing is Separate

Coincidentia oppositorum

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member