Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sunstone said:Are we, and the rest of the universe, separate from God? Or are we, and the rest of the universe, God? Why or why not?
Kay said:I believe we are all part of God, but are not God *only*. That is the difference between pantheism and panentheism, or absolute monism or qualified monism.
Our minds perceive us to be separate from God. And to a certain extent, our minds make our own reality.Sunstone said:Are we, and the rest of the universe, separate from God?
All that is is of God. But God is more than all there is. Yet God does not exist separate from what is.Sunstone said:Or are we, and the rest of the universe, God?
No reason why other than that's what makes sense to me.Sunstone said:Why or why not?
Godlike said:There is no seperation, of course, we have been through this many times I believe, only the illusion that seperation creates: the differentiated "I" as an experiencer experiencing the Other "that": put "AM" in between the two words and there may be shed some light of truth.
The problem may be apparent thus: God made Man in His image but seemingly Man has returned the favour. Your projection of what God is cannot be God, anymore than my imaginary alter-ego is the whole of my-Self in Reality.
The rule of thumb, if one can be made, is that whatever about oneself that is changing and impermanent is not God but only a reflection of Him: all those emotions, thought-forms, sensations and ideations are not God in His completeness. What is constant about everything I percive is true to my-Self: that is, the immutable ME or Atman is that constituent of every soul which is one and the same with God on every level and sense. This is not easy to understand: for we are often so distracted and averse to cultivating the required intuitive and reasoning faculties which alert us to it, but in "moments of clarity", so to speak, we have direct connexion with it and I believe no man or woman lives without @ least once having this peace: a free gift and the most priceless and precious.
And then there's the Hindu belief that the universe springs from Brahma's dreaming. (and is but one of a succession of universes dreamed into being).messianicmystic said:In the paraphrase of the Corpus Hermeticum that I mentioned in another thread, it says something like everything that exists is a thought the creator thinks. I would tend to agree with the sentiment that we are as much a figment of God's imagination as he is of ours. I'm reminded of what I believe is a saying of Chuang Tzu. He once dreamt he was a butterfly and said to his disciples the next morning, "Last night, I dreamt I was a butterfly, but how do I know I am a man who dreamt he was a butterfly and not a butterfly who is now dreaming he's a man." Perhaps both are true. Getting to the point, when we dream, there is an us in our dream among other people and/or things, but really everything in our dream is us. In a dream we create others, but when we are awake, others create us, whether these others are people or things like mirrors and light. We cannot experience me directly, we require others to show us me. I believe it is in this regard that we are both one with God and separate from him (or simply seemingly separate), just like others though seemingly separate are inseparable from me whether I'm dreaming or awake.
Sunstone said:Are we, and the rest of the universe, separate from God? Or are we, and the rest of the universe, God? Why or why not?
Why that's Vajravarahi, a tantric deity/bodhisattva. She's a bit of a paradox. The Buddhist ideal is non-attachment, almost ascetic. It is believed that desire causes suffering. But Vajravarahi... well she relieves desire by fulfilling it.messianicmystic said:I would say I agree with all of those conceptions as well. By the way, who is the dancing shadow with the ipod in your avatar picture? That cracks me up.
No desire can be perpetually fulfilled. Therefore all desires lead to suffering sooner or later.xexon said:Indeed. Desire does not cause suffering. Only the unfullfillment of it does.
So...The goal is to have no desires? Or keep creating new desires?lilithu said:No desire can be perpetually fulfilled. Therefore all desires lead to suffering sooner or later.