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!
From my Advaita Vedanta perspective we need to drop the illusion of separateness to realize ourselves as God.Any thoughts?
That is right only when vyavaharika and paramarthika are one and the same. While I remain a family man I stay within vyvaharika.From my Advaita Vedanta perspective we need to drop the illusion of separateness to realize ourselves as God.
God is so perfect when you realise God.If you want it to be that way, sure, why not? Given that god concepts are, essentially, man-made concepts, it is not unreasonable to assume communication with the divine would have to originate with the individual.
Would you say that it is defined as emptiness?Not in words, not in intellect, but in experience, deepest of deepest meditation, beyond time, beyond form, beyond space, dissolved into light. Only the rarest of souls have 'attained' that which cannot be described, where there is no 'I'.
I can't say a thing, it's not in words. I have heard it 'described' as emptiness ... and yet that emptiness is the fullness of everything'. Hard to use words about something that is beyond words. So I'll stop at this. But I will say there is no question whatsoever that this little 'I' ego most certainly hasn't realised God.Would you say that it is defined as emptiness?
Thank you for your answer. Only after one realises Nirguna God does the ego disappear not the other way round.I can't say a thing, it's not in words. I have heard it 'described' as emptiness ... and yet that emptiness is the fullness of everything'. Hard to use words about something that is beyond words. So I'll stop at this. But I will say there is no question whatsoever that this little 'I' ego most certainly hasn't realised God.
I wouldn't know.Thank you for your answer. Only after one realises Nirguna God does the ego disappear not the other way round.
No worries.I wouldn't know.
God will never seek to manifest Himself to human beings as Real because He is Nirguna (Paramatma): it is the jiva that has to approach God to experience advaita.
Any thoughts?
Sex (He) and intention (seek) are gunas, and "approach" is problematic as one can't approach oneself.Thank you for your answer. Only after one realises Nirguna God does the ego disappear not the other way round.
I should have said 'It' for God in paramarthika (absolute truth) because God is Nirguna (Empty); only in vyvaharika illusion created through maya is God is both male (Sri Krishna) and a female (Durga).Sex (He) and intention (seek) are gunas, and "approach" is problematic as one can't approach oneself.
"God" as generally conceived is a personage, an entity separate from oneself, with separate consciousness, intention, likes and dislikes, siddhis, &c. A God may be a personified animal, statue, rock or pretty much anything -- as long as it's conceived of as a conscious, independent, personified entity.
Energy fields, spacetime, light, physical branes, scientific laws, Brahman, philosophical principles and such may exist/be 'real', but they are not personified, so are not Gods.
The "goal," as you say, is an advaitist awareness; a merger with the featureless Reality underlying the universe. Religious folklore depicts aspirants 'approaching' or 'bowing to' sages or Devas. and doing all sorts of yogas to achieve Unity.
This is all very colorful, but what it boils down to appears to be, or at least begins as, a neurological abnormality; a DMN desynchronization, L. temporal seizure, or maybe a global synaesthesia.
The field, I think, would benefit from more study.
Do you not want to be perfect in what you do?Do we even need Gods? Are they really the best tools for the job? Could we make more rapid progress without them?
My take, for what it's worth, that in order to see God within ourselves, it helps to see God somewhere. For the mystic bhaktar, that somewhere is in the sanctified murthy.Do we even need Gods? Are they really the best tools for the job? Could we make more rapid progress without them?
How are you defining "perfect?"Do you not want to be perfect in what you do?
OK, for one best suited to the path of bhakti, a God or murti is useful, but for others, like those of a jnani nature, Gods or images may be useless distractions.My take, for what it's worth, that in order to see God within ourselves, it helps to see God somewhere. For the mystic bhaktar, that somewhere is in the sanctified murthy.
OK, for one best suited to the path of bhakti, a God or murti is useful, but for others, like those of a jnani nature, Gods or images may be useless distractions.
For myself, I have no desire to see a God, either within or without. Becoming a God might be a step in the right direction, but I prefer to keep my 'eye on the prize' and focus on the achievement of actual Unity, Samadhi, enlightenment or whatever you'd call it, in the simplest, most straightforward way possible, without all the mumbo-jumbo and ceremony.
Nice, but I do not think it is that rare.Not in words, not in intellect, but in experience, deepest of deepest meditation, beyond time, beyond form, beyond space, dissolved into light. Only the rarest of souls have 'attained' that which cannot be described, where there is no 'I'.
"Jñeyaḥ sa nitya-sannyāsī, yo na dveṣṭi na kāṅkṣati;That is right only when vyavaharika and paramarthika are one and the same. While I remain a family man I stay within vyvaharika.