The difference is "is" and "is an appearance in."
I wouldn't. The only relevance the term God has to my worldview is in how others define it.
-
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!
Life before birth
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
The difference is "is" and "is an appearance in."
I wouldn't. The only relevance the term God has to my worldview is in how others define it.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I do not think Ibn-Arabi ever said that humans are Gods. Do you think that he said this? Had he said this, he would have been immediately put to death.
Quoting Wikipedia, ibn-Arabi said "God's essence is seen in the existent human being, as God is the object and human beings the mirrors. Meaning two things; that since humans are mere reflections of God there can be no distinction or separation between the two .."
Do you think there is no difference between you and your mirror image? Whereas one who follows 'Advaita' (non-duality) confidently and unhesitatingly can says that he/she is Brahman. Not only that person, but he/she can say that everyone else and everything else also is Brahman.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The Upanishad does not specify any God, it says 'the existence', or 'that brilliance'. The verse appears in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.3.
"tadaikṣata bahu syāṃ prajāyeyeti tattejo'sṛjata tatteja aikṣata bahu syāṃ prajāyeyeti tadapo'sṛjata"
That Existence decided: ‘I shall be many. I shall be born.’ He then created fire. That fire also decided: ‘I shall be many. I shall be born.’
Chandogya Upanishad, Verse 6.2.3 (English and Sanskrit)
Chandogya Upanishad is strong in Advaita. One turning into many is Advaita. But I have not checked if it mentions Brahman as God. I will check.
Last edited:
Brian2
Veteran Member
Are those pre human spirits immortal?
All these problems are easily solved by postulating that there are no souls. There is no “us” which is independent from that goo between our ears, and its states. States are also important since I am not today what I/she was one hour after my/her birth.
incidentally, what you are saying entails that there are many souls out there waiting for a body. Namely, all possible humans are out there. That must be a possibly not numerable infinity. What about all the neanderthals who suffered a miscarriage? And those sahelanthropus retards? What parents could they possibly find today?
ciao
- viole
idea
Question Everything
Dust to dust. Conservation laws of thermodynamics - everything has always, and will always exist, changing from one form to another. The atoms in our body and energy that beats in our heart was once part of stars, perhaps parts of other people, parts of trees or animals. It was not "us", it was all mixed together before life, and will all be mixed together again after life.
If a raindrop did not evaporate out of the ocean one day, would it evaporate into another cloud on another day? That same group of atoms would probably not evaporate and condense together, it would be a different raindrop - different combination of atoms, different wind to shape it on the way to the ground again, but does it matter? Is one raindrop, one combination of atoms better than another? Should that raindrop keep itself together after it joins the ocean again?
United, mixed back together, coming from the original mixture - we are all made from the same stuff I think. Part of me was perhaps once part of you, we both perhaps have atoms that came from a similar ocean that were separated, and perhaps one day will decompose and get mixed together again. It is a beautiful cycle if you think about it, that we are all mixed together and will continue to be mixed together eternally. No real individuals, no eternal groups of atoms, no eternal separation - we're all the same, all formed from the same stuff, dust to dust.
There is no "us" is a beautiful thing. It means there is no separation, there is no alone. We are all one
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Chandogya Upanishad is strong in Advaita (non-duality). One turning into many is Advaita. But I have not checked if it mentions Brahman as God. I will check.
"What is the origin of this world? Space, said he. Verily, all things here arise out of space. They disappear back into space, for space alone is greater than these, space is the final goal." Chandogya Upanishad 1.9.1
"This is my Self in the innermost heart, greater than the earth, greater than the aerial space, greater than these worlds. This Self, this Self of mine is that Brahman." Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.3
— Chandogya Upanishad, 6.8 - 6.16
A father's (Uddalaka Aruni) advice to the son (Svetaketu):
"Translation 1: This universe consists of what that finest essence is, it is the real, it is the Self, that thou art, O Śvetaketu!
Translation 2: That which is the finest essence – this whole world has that as its Self. That is Reality. That is Atman (Self). That art thou, Śvetaketu.
Translation 3: That which is this finest essence, that the whole world has as its self. That is the truth. That is the self. In that way are you, Śvetaketu." Chandogya Upanishad, 6.8 - 6.16
Chandogya Upanishad - Wikipedia
"What is the origin of this world? Space, said he. Verily, all things here arise out of space. They disappear back into space, for space alone is greater than these, space is the final goal." Chandogya Upanishad 1.9.1
"This is my Self in the innermost heart, greater than the earth, greater than the aerial space, greater than these worlds. This Self, this Self of mine is that Brahman." Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.3
— Chandogya Upanishad, 6.8 - 6.16
A father's (Uddalaka Aruni) advice to the son (Svetaketu):
"Translation 1: This universe consists of what that finest essence is, it is the real, it is the Self, that thou art, O Śvetaketu!
Translation 2: That which is the finest essence – this whole world has that as its Self. That is Reality. That is Atman (Self). That art thou, Śvetaketu.
Translation 3: That which is this finest essence, that the whole world has as its self. That is the truth. That is the self. In that way are you, Śvetaketu." Chandogya Upanishad, 6.8 - 6.16
Chandogya Upanishad - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Are there any spirits?
firedragon
Veteran Member
How do "others" define it?
firedragon
Veteran Member
firedragon
Veteran Member
No problem. God is "The God" which is singular, the necessary being, the cause, the existing, the sustaining, true, natural etc, etc.
So how do "others" define it as you said?
As I said, we can ask them. I don’t speak for others.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well, if you dont know how others define God, how could you deny one definition is not because "others say otherwise"?
What you are trying to do is do an ad populum for the sake of argument which I cannot fathom why. It will never work. Because you will never ever in your life be able to sum up "what others think is God". Never.
I never said I don’t know. I said I don’t speak for others. I’ll thank you to not put words in my mouth.
Anyway, here is something to help you understand: Define God
You’re welcome.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
For me, 'physical energy'.
This is what I think is the general view about God in nearly all the religions, barring Buddhism and Jainism. Don't know about Dao. Life before birth
Last edited:
Also, by your definition of God, Brahman is not God. (Nirguna) Brahman has no qualities or attributes, is uninvolved in transactional reality, and does not sustain it.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Nah. Some link is not necessary because it will never represent each person in the world. It won't even represent every angle of a single theology. Your methodology is way too shallow so it cannot be engaged with.
Try to be a little more sophisticated since you are trying to discuss Hindu philosophy in comparison to a whole world full of philosophies.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Nirguna Brahman can still be God. It is not Aguna or saguna/suguna, it is nirguna. I understand what you speak of. Maybe you should be aware that even Christian philosophers, and many Muslim philosophers have afforded very similar "mirror" of God to use one of the most famous philosophers.
Maybe you should read up a bit on it.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well, you are ill informed.
"Physical Energy" is "The Existence"? that's your inference. No problem.
So why cant this physical energy be God? Is it because you have a picture of another idea of God that you keep speaking about? How do you know if God is not just "physical energy" which you inferred upon the existence?
Psst. Just FYI, YHWH means "he exists". Ironically quite similar isn't it?
Now that's gonna set you off on a different tirade.