Are we God - or some expression thereof?

[InChrist]

Because he was a "Catholic" like me? I feel we've been here before InChrist. This is not the thread for that IMHO

He was a convert from atheism to Catholicism. He embraced the Catholic form of Christianity very seriously, becoming a Trappist monk. In his later life he became a great promoter of dialogue among religions. In this hw never once abandoned Christ, nor the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation, salvation through Christ etc.

He was one of the 20th century's greatest Christian mystics IMHO.

More than a Catholic, he was a panentheist who denied and compromised the biblical faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

“Thomas Merton has influenced New Age thinking more than any person of recent decades. Merton penned one of the most classic descriptions of New Age spirituality I have ever come across. He explained:

"It is a glorious destiny to be a member of the human race, ... now I realize what we all are .... If only they [people] could all see themselves as they really are ...I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other ... At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusions, a point of pure truth ... This little point ...is the pure glory of God in us. It is in everybody."
FROM A TIME OF DEPARTING BY RAY YUNGEN (quoting Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander (1989 edition, 157-158)”
Excerpt: Thomas Merton - Contemplative, Mystic, Panentheist


“I picked up another book, Thomas Merton's Ways of the Christian Mystics, and flipped through its miniature pages. Published by Shambala, a prolific producer of occult literature, it told of a "sacred journey" with "origins in prehistoric religious cultures and myths." Myths instead of truth? I felt sad but not surprised. Few spiritual teachers have done more to blend the biblical meaning of sacredness with eastern mysticism than Merton, the popular Catholic author who died in Asia searching the depths of Tibetan Buddhism. Yet thousands of Christian women search his books for simple paths to intimacy with God.

Merton’s little book echoes the theme of universal oneness. "Our pilgrimage," he wrote, is "to the stranger who is Christ, our fellow-pilgrim and our brother." He suggests some of the potential strangers: the Inca, Maya or aborigine who is "no other than ourselves, which is the same as saying that we find Christ in him." No matter which gods he or she worships?

"Yes," cry a chorus of contemporary voices. Respected guides such as Thomas Merton have opened the door to countless spiritual alternatives by tearing down the biblical separation between the holiness of God and the unholy spirits behind pagan religions. It may sound compassionate to blend the two and trust that both paths lead to the same destination, but it’s not true. They are incompatible. God withdrew His presence from His holy temple back in Old Testament days. His people had profaned it by worshipping their Canaanite gods and goddesses inside its walls. Having lost God’s blessing and protection, the nation that had been the envy of its neighbors was soon destroyed by immorality, greed, famine, and war.”
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Excerpt: A Twist of Faith Chapter 2: Sacred and perfect am I


Since Thomas Merton believed that all religions lead to God and he said..."I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity ... I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can." (David Steindl-Rast, "Recollection of Thomas Merton's Last Days in the West" (Monastic Studies, 7:10, 1969) and also believed that everyone has god within then I believe he most definitely did abandon Jesus Christ and the orthodox doctrines of biblical faith.

 

[Open_Minded]

Since Thomas Merton believed that all religions lead to God and he said..."I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity ... I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can." (David Steindl-Rast, "Recollection of Thomas Merton's Last Days in the West" (Monastic Studies, 7:10, 1969) and also believed that everyone has god within then I believe he most definitely did abandon Jesus Christ and the orthodox doctrines of biblical faith.

InChrist - the topic of this thread is: Are we God - or some expression thereof?

This is not a discussion about "True Christianity". If you want that go elsewhere.

Merton answered the question if he believed everyone has God within them. Other thn that your post off topic.

 

[Maya3]

InChrist - the topic of this thread is: Are we God - or some expression thereof?

This is not a discussion about "True Christianity". If you want that go elsewhere.

Merton answered the question if he believed everyone has God within them. Other thn that your post off topic.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure how this thread turned into a Christian debate?

Maya

 

[InChrist]

InChrist - the topic of this thread is: Are we God - or some expression thereof?

This is not a discussion about "True Christianity". If you want that go elsewhere.

Merton answered the question if he believed everyone has God within them. Other thn that your post off topic.

And I am responding to the thread topic...Are we God - or some expression thereof? and Merton's view. According to the biblical perspective there is One true Creator God and this Creator God is not within humans and humans are not the Creator of heaven and earth.

 

[Kalidas]

I believe he cares for us but not in the human emotional spectrum. I do not think god has the same errant emotions which lead to strife. If god can have all of the love people claim then why is it they limit his emotions only to love? People love assigning good attributes to god but if he has love then why not have anger?
Why would anyone want an angry god or a god who has the human emotional spectrum that has anger within it.
God's emotions to me would be a mono-emotion and could not be equated with platonic or filial love. His emotions would have to be fully logical yet fully caring and involved.
Do not forget that human beings die horrible deaths daily so to say god is purely love is quite an understatement. I believe he loves us but not in the way we like to think of.

I myself am very similar and I equate myself as a philanthropist and I dislike all human contact. My views towards humanity is cynical and bleak yet I have the most inert love of living things even if they die. I am not trying to equate myself with god but this sort of emotion would explain his nature better.
My form of philanthropy is to leave mankind alone. It is very hard to describe this feeling I can assure you

I agree. God is not just the "good" but also the "bad" heck even "good" and "bad" are human ideas that would not apply to God at all.

 

[Open_Minded]

And I am responding to the thread topic...Are we God - or some expression thereof? and Merton's view. According to the biblical perspective there is One true Creator God and this Creator God is not within humans and humans are not the Creator of heaven and earth.

That's your position. You've stated it - now (seriously) end it. Every single thread you participate it - you twist the discussion around and try to get folks involved in a debate about "TRUE religion". Do it elsewhere - not in my thread.

 

[Maya3]

I agree. God is not just the "good" but also the "bad" heck even "good" and "bad" are human ideas that would not apply to God at all.

God is the energy that is within us and everywhere. Our emotions and our bad or good deeds is due to our karma and our physical make up.
So you are right that it does not apply to God.

Maya

 

[Windwalker]

The entire challenge for us lays in seeing the separate self, in a mind thinking in strict duality. In a dualistic reality there is self and the other. In nonduality such strict distinctions dissolve. In nonduality there is "Not one, not two".

Who puts God in a dualistic framework? Who defines God? Who is speaking of God? Who is using language? Answer, the separate, dualistic self. In a dualistic reality, God is other. In nonduality, the dualistic reality is but one face of the All.

How are we speaking? That dictates the response to the question.

 

[Maya3]

The entire challenge for us lays in seeing the separate self, in a mind thinking in strict duality. In a dualistic reality there is self and the other. In nonduality such strict distinctions dissolve. In nonduality there is "Not one, not two". [/qupte]

Not one? Isn't everything the one? One without a second?

Who puts God in a dualistic framework? Who defines God? Who is speaking of God? Who is using language? Answer, the separate, dualistic self. In a dualistic reality, God is other. In nonduality, the dualistic reality is but one face of the All.

How are we speaking? That dictates the response to the question.

You are/The Self is, thinking it's separate from God.

Maya

 

[Open_Minded]

The entire challenge for us lays in seeing the separate self, in a mind thinking in strict duality. In a dualistic reality there is self and the other. In nonduality such strict distinctions dissolve. In nonduality there is "Not one, not two".

Not one? Isn't everything the one? One without a second?



You are/The Self is, thinking it's separate from God.

Maya

Maya - I think what Windwalker is saying (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that Our Idea of God "dictates the response to the question".

 

[Windwalker]

The entire challenge for us lays in seeing the separate self, in a mind thinking in strict duality. In a dualistic reality there is self and the other. In nonduality such strict distinctions dissolve. In nonduality there is "Not one, not two". [/qupte]

Not one? Isn't everything the one? One without a second?

It's a Zen thing (I agree with):

"The “Not Two” is not just “One”. The “Not Two” means: it is not two and it is not one either.

Emptiness is not phenomena, it is the nature of phenomena. The phenomena is not emptiness, it is the manifestation of emptiness. So they are not one! The emptiness and phenomena depend on each other, the emptiness belongs to phenomena, and phenomena is emptiness’ phenomena. So they are not two!
​

(from here: Zen Thoughts 128 - Not two - China Culture Center )

You are/The Self is, thinking it's separate from God.

Maya

And it is, and it's not. Nonduality is paradoxical, to the dualistic paradigm. God is beyond paradigms altogether.

 

[Windwalker]

Maya - I think what Windwalker is saying (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that Our Idea of God "dictates the response to the question".

Yes, but even more fundamental than that, with what set of eyes are we seeing? Our eyes, or God's eyes.

Oh, how I love Meister Eckhart!! To quote his words speaking in a nondual expression of God,

"The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love."​

:bow:

 

[Maya3]

It's a Zen thing (I agree with):

"The “Not Two” is not just “One”. The “Not Two” means: it is not two and it is not one either.

Emptiness is not phenomena, it is the nature of phenomena. The phenomena is not emptiness, it is the manifestation of emptiness. So they are not one! The emptiness and phenomena depend on each other, the emptiness belongs to phenomena, and phenomena is emptiness’ phenomena. So they are not two!
​

(from here: Zen Thoughts 128 - Not two - China Culture Center )



And it is, and it's not. Nonduality is paradoxical, to the dualistic paradigm. God is beyond paradigms altogether.

Thank you for explaining.

Maya

 

[Open_Minded]

Yes, but even more fundamental than that, with what set of eyes are we seeing? Our eyes, or God's eyes.

Oh, how I love Meister Eckhart!! To quote his words speaking in a nondual expression of God,

"The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love."​

:bow:

:yes:

The words of Eckhart do ring true ....

 

[Maya3]

Yes, but even more fundamental than that, with what set of eyes are we seeing? Our eyes, or God's eyes.

Oh, how I love Meister Eckhart!! To quote his words speaking in a nondual expression of God,

"The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love."​

:bow:

According to Advaita, the one who sees is God/You looking through the eyes.

Maya

 

[John Martin]

Well the thread title about says it all ...

Are We God or Expressions of God?

We can answer this question according to the theological system that we hold:
From the point of dualistic monotheism: there is only one God and this God creates this universe(out of nothing). There is an essential difference between God, creation and human beings. Human beings are not God; they are not expressions of God. There are mere creatures of God, finite beings and remain finite even after their death in the presence of God.( Madhva system in India hold similar views)
From the point of Qualified Non-dualistic monotheism(Ramanuja, Hinduism): there is only one God. Creation and human beings are not creatures of God but manifestation of God. Creation and human souls are like a body of God. They are not created but emanations from God. There is subtle essential difference between God, creation and human souls. Human souls after death do not merge with God still keep their separation from God. According to this system human souls are manifestations of God but not one with God.
According to Non-dualistic Monotheism( advaita, Shankara): There is only one God. The creation, names and forms are unreal, non.eternal. Human soul is essentially one with God. In this sense human soul is God. It merges into God as a piece of ice merges into water. There will not be any separate identity).
According to Dualistic-non-dualistic Monotheism( dvaitadvaita, Nimbarka): there is only one God. Human souls are both different and non-different from God. It is like the Sun and its ray. A ray of the Sun is different from the Sun and at the same time it is not different. So also human soul is one with God in one level and different from God in another level.
Abrahmic religions( except mystical traditions) are very dualistic. They believe that human beings are mere creatures of God.
Christianity has two views: one for human beings and one for Christ.Human beings are mere finite creatures of God. Jesus Christ is not a creature but the Son of God( manifestation of God) and also one with God.He is God. Catholic Church says that human beings are creatures of God but Christ is fully divine and fully human. it is similar to dualistic and non-dualistic monotheism( dvaitadvaita of Nimbarka in Hindusim).
Jews and Muslims say that there is only one God and all human beings are creatures of God. Jesus Christ is not the son of God or God but he is also a human being, a creature. It is a blasphemy to say that Jesus is the son of God or God. The advaitic system, visitadvatic system and dvaitadvaits systems of Hindusim would not have any difficulty to accept the claims of Jesus. Only dvaita system of Madhava would not accept Jesus claims.

So the question who we are,mainly depends what type of theological system we believe in.
Prophetic religions believe in a creator God.Hinduism does not believe in a creator God. So they proposed various systems to describe the relationship between God, creation and human beings. Of course no one system can explain it satisfactorily. it is the integration of all of them that gives a satisfactory answer.
1. At one level we are all finite human beings
2. At another level we are all manifestations of God
3.At another level we are all one with God
4. At one level we are all the three in harmony.
We need to grow from level one to level three and then come back to level one as long as we live in this world of time and space.

 

[Vouthon]

Are We God or Expressions of God?

We can answer this question according to the theological system that we hold.

I think that this is very true and it feeds into what Windwalker was saying as well. Our answer to the question posed is pre-conditioned by our religious (or not) formation

One thing I would point out though is that although the Abrahamic religions would be classified as dualistic if one were to use the Indian classification, they do recognize that at the highest contemplative state from the point of view of the individual person, there is no perceived distinction between the soul and God.

You did mention "except from the mystical traditions" however in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism the "mystical tradition" cannot be divorced from standard theology, because most of the great theologians were also great contemplatives and their theology was both informed and shaped by their mystical experiences, as well as vice-a-versa (theology also helps mystics understand their experiences in a framework).

Abbot John Chapman explained this:

"...Theology as we know it has been formed by the great mystics, especially St Augustine and St Thomas. Plenty of other great theologians - especially St Gregory and St Bernard, even down to Suarez - would not have had such insight without mystic super-knowledge..."

- Abbot John Chapman OSB (1865 – 1933), Catholic priest, theologian & Benedictine monk

Therefore traditional Christianity, in its mystical theology, does recognize a difference-in-no-difference between the soul and Godhead. I see it to be an artificial distinction to perceive a "mystical tradition" independent of the traditional Christian religion as a whole. In practice, theology has always been informed by contemplation/mysticism and vice-versa. It must thus be said that Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christianity as a whole recognize a difference-in-non-difference.

 

[Windwalker]

According to Advaita, the one who sees is God/You looking through the eyes.

Maya

Exactly. And we can see as "me", and we can see as God. We are, God incarnate. The only thing missing is awakening, and opening our eyes and seeing. We are, in the wholly separate self, asleep. After we awake, we are Emptiness and Phenomena.

Which of the Upanishads says this?

"And the illumined soul moves freely up and down these worlds, assuming whatever form it likes, eating whatever food it desires, chanting, 'Oh wonderful! Oh wonderful! Oh wonderful!"​

This to me is inhabiting nonduality, I am both, I am neither, I am nothing, I am all. We move freely up and down these worlds, the gross, the subtle, the causal, assuming whatever form we desire. And it is all wonderful.

 

[InChrist]

That's your position. You've stated it - now (seriously) end it. Every single thread you participate it - you twist the discussion around and try to get folks involved in a debate about "TRUE religion".

I do not twist the discussion, but address specific points. You brought up the point I was addressing by stating that Thomas Merton was a Christian.

Do it elsewhere - not in my thread.

[/quote]

Is this an expression of transcended ego? I thought this was a forum and the debate threads therein open to difference views. But since this is YOUR thread and you are god, then if you seriously don't what to see my perspective which disagrees with yours I will refrain from posting in YOUR thread.

 

[Open_Minded]

Is this an expression of transcended ego? I thought this was a forum and the debate threads therein open to difference views. But since this is YOUR thread and you are god, then if you seriously don't what to see my perspective which disagrees with yours I will refrain from posting in YOUR thread.

Well ... lucky lucky me ... since I am the thread author I get to decide when someone is going off topic. And since you have a habit of dragging every thread I've ever seen you in back to your idea of "TRUE" Christianity - I get to tell you when to end it. It'll be a pleasure not to have to deal with your "TRUE" Christian babble. Thank you for standing down from this thread.

However - do feel free to respond to Windwalkers queries of you in another thread I authored. I'm sure he'd appreciate a response - whether it's "babble" to me (or not) is irrelevenat. At least in that thread it's somewhat on topic.