• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chirstianity is where I found God in religion.

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think Love, agape Love, which is not self-seeking, nor self-focused (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) is a Love which then by necessity involves another.
I would agree with this in the sense that this Love in its nature is self-giving. It's not that it does not exist, nor cannot exist without involving another, but it's nature is that of self-emptying which is inherently ever outflowing. The creation of the world itself is the result of this outpouring, I tend to think of it that way, not out of a deficiency, but out of abundance. And I think that really defines Agape Love best, Abundance.

I believe this Love is eternally existent in the Godhead as revealed in the biblical scriptures. A Being composed of three Persons who are eternally existent and always expressing Love one for another.
I tend to think of Trinity and Agape as less about three "people" sharing love, but more along the lines of nature of Godhead itself as Source and Flow. Agape is what is inherent to that eternal Being, out of which all creation flows. The Trinity is to me like the sun in its nuclear Core and its radiant Light and heat, which flows out giving Life to the universe. Unlike our sun, this is eternally existing, and ever-creating, before this universe and beyond. In this sense there cannot be one without the other, as the very nature of God is this outflowing creative Being or Self. That's Agape Love in how I visualize it and speak of it.

My perspective is that agape Love can only come from its Source.
I would agree with that. Divine Love is the divine. If one expresses this in their person, they are expressing the divine through them. Realizing that Source within ourselves is through emptying ourselves into God, getting rid of the "false self" as the Buddhist might call it, the little ego self which is always self-seeking and bound to attachments it clings to and subsequently unable to fully release, and realizing the true Self, or "finding God" in Christian terms. This is death and resurrection, in Christian terms, or being "born again". The small self dies, the true Self rises.
 
Last edited:

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Actually, these definitions of love are very much part of the Christian tradition. Good luck with your seeking to find Enlightenment for yourself. That seems a bit of a self-annihilating loop, but best wishes on that path you seek for yourself.

BTW, one of the reasons the Christian path is effective when it is followed, not as a belief system, but as a path to realizing God, is precisely because of its emphasis on Agape Love. I could explain the difference and what that's about, and why it's valuable towards realizing Enlightenment, if you are able to let go of your need to reduce all language to the Dictionary as authority. I somewhat suspect though you believe you have the answers, and all else is error. Are you a former Christian by chance who thinks he's now found the true answers in another belief system as he once had them before in Christianity but found them coming up short of himself? Just curious why your approach to discussion seems like that to me. I could be wrong and there's another reason for this.
Yes, I understand that love is integral to the modern Christian tradition. I understand the differences between agape love and other types of love, having taught them as a teacher within the Christian tradition for almost two decades. And yes, I was formerly a Christian who now finds that Christian dogma falls short.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes, I understand that love is integral to the modern Christian tradition. I understand the differences between agape love and other types of love, having taught them as a teacher within the Christian tradition for almost two decades. And yes, I was formerly a Christian who now finds that Christian dogma falls short.
I sort of suspected. Why do you say the teaching of Agape love, or love in general is a modern Christian tradition? Can you point me to some reference? Also, if you understand this why were you saying I'm shoehorning and redefining language? Obviously you understood this before my posts within the last day or so.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
I sort of suspected. Why do you say the teaching of Agape love, or love in general is a modern Christian tradition? Can you point me to some reference?
In my opinion, Christianity was previously based mainly on fear. Take the Puritans, witch burnings, church taxes, indulgences, endless masses said for the dead, Crusades, etc.
Also, if you understand this why were you saying I'm shoehorning and redefining language? Obviously you understood this before my posts within the last day or so.


I can find no dictionary that defines "love" as "being".
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
If we can ever seem to see past the words we use to what we all feel into, or are immersed within, then we have managed something worthwhile.

I'm wondering how may feel that we need to acknowledge how we talk about God, or the Infinite, the Absolute, or whatever term we choose, is so very incidental to the reality of it that we should just openly say, "I don't believe. I love."?

I would say that you have said something insightful and worthwhile over here.

Words are the language of thought, and it is with the cessation of words and thought, that one might be able to comprehend the Divine or Infinite.

The intellect is not the right instrument to understand the infinite, and one's own consciousness through present moment awareness or deep love, is probably the right instrument in this regard.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In my opinion, Christianity was previously based mainly on fear. Take the Puritans, witch burnings, church taxes, indulgences, endless masses said for the dead, Crusades, etc.
While those elements certainly have been brought into it by people, I would not consider the religion itself to have been, or is currently based on it. That's certainly not what gave birth to the religion in the first place. Those behaviors and practices exist in other religions as well, and they are mainly just primitive cultural elements brought into the religion. You will find that everywhere. I'm of the view that religions reflect the culture back to itself, and that as the culture evolves, as its sensibilities evolve, or devolve, so does the religion. I'm of the mind we should continue to evolve the religion, into Love away from fear and superstitions.

I can find no dictionary that defines "love" as "being".
Why would you expect a dictionary to dig into philosophical, metaphysical, and theological inquiries? If all we needed for understanding the meaning of things was a dictionary, why have any education or those that explore truth and meaning in the first place? In reality as meaning is explored within concepts, the definitions of the words evolve, and when that understanding of the words becomes commonplace, the compilers of dictionaries will include them. The compilers of dictionaries are not specialists in all the fields of all the words that go into them. If they were, it would take several universities full of academic specialists in all the fields putting these together, distilling deeply philosophical meanings into simple one or two line sentences. Dictionaries are fine starting places, but hardly the definers of the meanings of words.

As far as why I say Love is Being, it has to do with both a metaphysical understanding, but primarily a very direct and personal experiential reason. I am firstly a mystic. I have very direct and immediate experience of the transcendent nature of Reality. From that experience I recognize as we pull back that veil of illusion, the illusion of the separate self, what we find is that immanent Love I've been talking about. It permeates and infuses all that is, every molecule of air, every blade of grass, every fiber of all that exists. It radiates from everything, to everything, and through everything in a living, vibrant exchange of the Divine Being. It is the very Nature of Being itself, of God.

Now in Christian writings it says "God is Love". That description is much more than just saying "God loves", but rather it is the Nature of the Divine itself. It also says "God is Spirit", and that too is not saying "a spirit", but rather speaks of the Nature of the Divine. Spirit and Love are inseparable. They are not "attributes", but the Condition of the Being of God itself. Additionally it says "God is Light", which I understand from my own experience as well as plumbing the depths of the divine in deep reflections and contemplation, to be the Source of Illumination, of Truth itself. Likewise, it is not "a truth", not a propositional idea or concept, but the Ground or Source of Being itself. God is Love, Light, Spirit. That is the nature of Being itself, seen through the eyes of the mystic, and experienced in our very Being, before and beyond the veil of illusion.

You are right, you're not going to find these in a dictionary. You're going to find these understandings from those like me who explore the depths of the divine. We are the ones who inform others of the nature of Reality, beyond the veil of illusion. Someday, maybe this will be so commonly recognized it will be included in a dictionary. Imagine that day! That many people aware of these things in their everyday life! That would truly be the "Kingdom of God" on earth, wouldn't it?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I would say that you have said something insightful and worthwhile over here.

Words are the language of thought, and it is with the cessation of words and thought, that one might be able to comprehend the Divine or Infinite.

The intellect is not the right instrument to understand the infinite, and one's own consciousness through present moment awareness or deep love, is probably the right instrument in this regard.
Oh yes, most certainly. I went into some good thoughts you might enjoy in post #66 before this one this morning. But I'll expand a little on that touching on what you bring up here.

Part of the problem with words is that they create boundaries around things. The nature or meaning of things becomes defined within these boundaries of the words we assign to them. Doing this has the effect of limiting thought and meaning to the bounds of that shell we put them in. But words in reality are simply just metaphors, "as if" statements about reality, like trying to see patterns in the night sky and mapping out constellations we can immediately recognize and make sense of that vast open space of random dots.

This is all good and fine and useful in practical ways for us, however the danger and pitfall is when these metaphors, or ways to talk about what is wholly beyond them, become descriptors of reality. They move from pointing to something greater than themselves, to reduce that something to the meaning of the words themselves we assign to them. They move from living metaphors, to dead metaphors.

This is why I make a bit of a big deal about people misunderstanding the nature of words and dictionaries, as I went into in the post before this one. To limit meaning to these, is to truly kill the metaphor, and to also shackle one's own feet to them, creating an obstacle to move beyond them into the realization of that Emptiness itself. There is a quote from the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart I feel truly captures this desire to be freed from such "defined" thinking into that open understanding. He writes, "I pray God make me free of God, so that I may know God in his unconditioned being."

If we are going to relate this to Buddhism, then we move beyond the early Theravada approach into the latter teachings of Nagarjuna in the 2nd turning of the wheel of Dharma. He was a proponent of taking what we thought about the nature of reality and deconstructing it, in order to liberate the mind beyond its holding onto those thoughts, ideas, and concepts, conflating these maps of the territory with the terrain itself. That is a necessary thing that has to happen when we think the world and reality is defined by our thoughts and ideas and language descriptors we use. This is the illusion of the mind. We live inside this world of words, mistaking these symbolic mental objects with the reality itself they merely are meant to point to.

Once we are able to enter into this Formless reality, beyond beliefs, beyond words, then we can use words again! But this time, we hold them with open hands and fluid understandings. Now they become recognized and related to as these living metaphors. The Reality they point to is known in us directly, experientially, and our minds are illuminated by That which surpasses the words. We don't mistake the words or thoughts about the experience with the "In itself" which transcends any comprehension, and they are now more effective in communicating that Truth into the various relative truths that the mind can hold.

The mind cannot hold Infinite Truth, it can only reflect it in bits and pieces, contextually laid out in very two-dimensional maps. But what we can do is apprehend the Divine in our Being, and that is where Light is shed upon all our words and thoughts using them that allows us to recognize the true nature of Reality. It is both Absolute, and relative. Words live in the relative domain, the Absolute is the Ground of all Being, preceeding and transcending the relative.
 
Last edited:

buddhist

Well-Known Member
While those elements certainly have been brought into it by people, I would not consider the religion itself to have been, or is currently based on it. That's certainly not what gave birth to the religion in the first place. Those behaviors and practices exist in other religions as well, and they are mainly just primitive cultural elements brought into the religion. You will find that everywhere. I'm of the view that religions reflect the culture back to itself, and that as the culture evolves, as its sensibilities evolve, or devolve, so does the religion. I'm of the mind we should continue to evolve the religion, into Love away from fear and superstitions.

Why would you expect a dictionary to dig into philosophical, metaphysical, and theological inquiries? If all we needed for understanding the meaning of things was a dictionary, why have any education or those that explore truth and meaning in the first place? In reality as meaning is explored within concepts, the definitions of the words evolve, and when that understanding of the words becomes commonplace, the compilers of dictionaries will include them. The compilers of dictionaries are not specialists in all the fields of all the words that go into them. If they were, it would take several universities full of academic specialists in all the fields putting these together, distilling deeply philosophical meanings into simple one or two line sentences. Dictionaries are fine starting places, but hardly the definers of the meanings of words.

As far as why I say Love is Being, it has to do with both a metaphysical understanding, but primarily a very direct and personal experiential reason. I am firstly a mystic. I have very direct and immediate experience of the transcendent nature of Reality. From that experience I recognize as we pull back that veil of illusion, the illusion of the separate self, what we find is that immanent Love I've been talking about. It permeates and infuses all that is, every molecule of air, every blade of grass, every fiber of all that exists. It radiates from everything, to everything, and through everything in a living, vibrant exchange of the Divine Being. It is the very Nature of Being itself, of God.

Now in Christian writings it says "God is Love". That description is much more than just saying "God loves", but rather it is the Nature of the Divine itself. It also says "God is Spirit", and that too is not saying "a spirit", but rather speaks of the Nature of the Divine. Spirit and Love are inseparable. They are not "attributes", but the Condition of the Being of God itself. Additionally it says "God is Light", which I understand from my own experience as well as plumbing the depths of the divine in deep reflections and contemplation, to be the Source of Illumination, of Truth itself. Likewise, it is not "a truth", not a propositional idea or concept, but the Ground or Source of Being itself. God is Love, Light, Spirit. That is the nature of Being itself, seen through the eyes of the mystic, and experienced in our very Being, before and beyond the veil of illusion.

You are right, you're not going to find these in a dictionary. You're going to find these understandings from those like me who explore the depths of the divine. We are the ones who inform others of the nature of Reality, beyond the veil of illusion. Someday, maybe this will be so commonly recognized it will be included in a dictionary. Imagine that day! That many people aware of these things in their everyday life! That would truly be the "Kingdom of God" on earth, wouldn't it?
Thanks for sharing. I too have experienced incredible feelings of metta during my meditative journeys into the first jhana; this love is said to be characteristic of the heaven of Brahma (the self-proclaimed "creator god" in Buddhism). Higher heavens & their corresponding jhanas go beyond metta, however.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thanks for sharing. I too have experienced incredible feelings of metta during my meditative journeys into the first jhana; this love is said to be characteristic of the heaven of Brahma (the self-proclaimed "creator god" in Buddhism). Higher heavens & their corresponding jhanas go beyond metta, however.
Of course, yes. What I was and am describing is not what you encounter in the 1st Jhana. It's hard to explain this. If you take the 8 Jhanas and understand those as the "path of ascension", with the 8th being the highest, what I am describing falls into the path of descension, bringing the fullest awareness of the 8th and opening into all the lower Jhanas with that awareness being held. From the many to the One, and from the One into the many. This is nonduality. It's far more than just the initial bliss you encounter in meditation, as truly valuable as that is. To put it good phrase to it, it's both Freedom and Fullness. Not escaping this world into God, but God entering into the world in your fully conscious Awareness. In Christian terms, it's Incarnational.
 
Last edited:

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Of course, yes. What I was and am describing is not what you encounter in the 1st Jhana. It's hard to explain this. If you take the 8 Jhanas and understand those as the "path of ascension", with the 8th being the highest, what I am describing falls into the path of descension, bringing the fullest awareness of the 8th and opening into all the lower Jhanas with that awareness being held. From the many to the One, and from the One into the many. This is nonduality. It's far more than just the initial bliss you encounter in meditation, as truly valuable as that is. To put it good phrase to it, it's both Freedom and Fullness. Not escaping this world into God, but God entering into the world in your fully conscious Awareness. In Christian terms, it's Incarnational.
I have no problem calling the highest state "Consciousness" or "Being", or even "Freedom" or "Fullness"; I just wouldn't call it "Love".
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have no problem calling the highest state "Consciousness" or "Being", or even "Freedom" or "Fullness"; I just wouldn't call it "Love".
I suppose how that manifests to us is individual. There is always an interpreter present in these moments, at least in the moment you think about it afterwards. And the ironic thing, is what is was for you at one time, is not in the next. I'm of the mind to understand that "it" is not one thing. When we imagine it is, we are encountering our own thoughts. All descriptions, all thoughts are in themselves, relative, including the conception of Emptiness itself, as you assert.
 

DennisTate

Active Member
I believe Jesus, who said " If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them." So "love your enemies too". Now how would I have any enemies if I didn't have different beliefs? And how would I get any credit if I didn't have enemies? Not a problem, there are a great many people on the Earth to disagree with, and "love" despite being enemies on account of belief.

An online friend of mine introduced me to the writings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov several years ago......
the thought has crossed my mind that Rabbi Nachman, in spite of his not knowing Rabbi Yeshua-Jesus may be
another fulfillment of this promise.....

John 14:12

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."

Nachman of Breslov - Wikiquote

When a person falls from his level he should know that it’s heaven-sent, because going down is needed in order to go up, therefore he fell, in order that he arouses himself more to come close to Hashem. Advice for him - Begin anew to enter into service of Hashem as if you have never yet even begun (Ibid)




"Know! You need to judge every person favorably, even someone who is completely wicked, you need to search and find any little bit of good. By finding in him a little good and judging him favorably you actually bring him over to the side of merit and you can return him in teshuva "(LM 282)

"Whoever breaks free from the lust for food can become a miracle worker. But someone who is stuck in this desire it is a sign that he is a liar. Even a Tzaddik who already freed himself from all desires and then falls back into the desire for food, it must be that something false left his mouth. It also shows that there is Judgment upon him from above and it is a sign of poverty." (LM 47)
.....(This sure reminds me of Matthew chapter 4)......
 

Dantedeven

Member
I am happy for you. I also found God. I had a vision right before i read the Bhagavad Gita that left me in awe and wonder. I tried to reason with it to explain it but i failed. I could not understand what it was that i just saw and heard. Then i read the bhagavad gita. And that vision was explained to me in detail by the Bhagavad Gita the first time i read it. It was such an intense experience. But I had the same with the bible. I believe in the bible as mankind's constant guide until the end of times. But the Bhagavad Gita is just literally showed me something that i didn't know then my intuition said read this book completely and that book just literally explained what i saw moments earlier.
 
Top