Prayer - What is it to you?

[YmirGF]

Part One:

As I commented earlier, Windwalker, that is certainly a lot to chew on, no wonder you needed some time to martial your thoughts. If I may, I’d like the address the last comments from Aurobindo first and say that is more or less how I approached my own situation. The years of time and decades of decoding my own inner evolution is extremely difficult to render into bight-sized snippets suitable for posting on RF. I know I do come across as somewhat dismissive and that is with good reason, but it is also only a half-truth, as there were so many wonderful ideas that led me to where I eventually stood that, to an extent, I do have to pay some homage to them. That is what I meant by the laying aside of that ill-fitting, cherished old sweater, though I should have added frayed, worn out and possibly moth-eaten, for good measure.

Fortunately, I was enmeshed in very few dogmatic traditions, so the work of clawing through those dogmatic beliefs was much easier than it might be for others at similar junctures. That said, it was still a deeply moving and often cathartic adventure and nowhere near as simple a process as that sentence might seem to imply. Such an adventure is not for the faint of heart, to be sure. Deconstructing a worldview is not something to be taken on lightly as belief structures are like fragile houses of cards. Religious types may well view such an endeavor as “purification of the soul”, though it is a misplaced term, as it isn’t the “soul” that needs “purification”, but rather, it is the mind and the belief structures that one needs weed through. It is the mind that needs to divest itself of ideas that no longer apply.

Perhaps subconsciously you were asking to have your thinking challenged because you doubt it yourself.

My doubt is becoming somewhat legendary on RF, Windwalker. I assure you, there was nothing subconscious about it. I do rather like the push back and find it quite stimulating.

I can appreciate why you might set aside the theistic framework, considering the representation of it you just offered here, calling it for the purpose of "solace and meaning". If that is all it is, then I agree with you in the need to move beyond that. I don't believe that is all it is.

I wasn't intending it to be just that aspect, Windwalker.

Two important points here. First, yes, those who are the most ardent of atheists, relying on arguments of reason and logic to "debunk God", are actually only debunking people's various ideas of God. When you have the sort of experience you are referring to, questions of the existence of "God" are really made a non-question at all. What is the only remaining question is how to talk about it. The questions of proofs between atheists and fundamentalists are non-questions to me. Both are arguing out of their heads, not any personal experience.

I agree on this bit. These conversations get so weird, so quickly, because people are often simply stating positions with little or no direct experience. And yes, when you see the culmination of your belief standing there in front of you, or laying there, as in my case, there is only the questions on how to portray the timeless event.

That said, I left something out of my previous post that is a very important point. Hopefully, I’ll figure out how to clarify that point before we are done, so you can appreciate where I am coming from. *grins both mysteriously and mischievously*

And that becomes the second point. The description of God to you, is not the understanding of all people who espouse theism. The use of deity forms can be in fact quite advanced, beyond simple emotional solace that "someone up there is watching over me" sort of envisioning. Tibetan Buddhism is probably the most advanced understandings and practices of states of consciousness in the world. They use deity forms in their practices to realize these things within themselves, and it has nothing to do with "solace and meaning":

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."​

And what might baffle you is that, to an extent, I agree with Wilbur in regards to “god” being as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. However, I do not agree that there is a “summit of consciousness”, as consciousness is always growing, expanding and becoming more. For me, “god” is the natural “elastic” state of grace in being.

Due to the implications of such a thought in the world of flesh and bone, I’ve opted to neuter the idea into the term, creaturehood rather than going with the easier to understand, but problematic term, godhood. I see it as potentially problematic due to the various ideas espoused in the popular god concepts.

I guess what I am trying to say is that people’s perception of god, whatever that may be, is an echo of the latent reality within them. Given that it is a living reality, it should come as no surprise that many people will experience “closeness” to god or feel that “god” has entered their lives. Given the nature of understanding, in one sense, that “god” really is has mentally knocked on their door or so it will seem.

Creaturehood, on the other hand, does not suffer from this inherent distortion, as all pretensions of god are dropped and being is allowed to explore itself without artificial fetters or expectations. Likewise, pretenses of divinity are dropped in favor of unbiased experience, within the natural state of grace.

The bottom line is that though I would not encourage people to utilize deity-form worship, neither would I disapprove either, if it was used as a reference point to reveal an aspect of being.

One of the important points I think you may not realize yet is that people will always take their peak experiences, or transcendent experiences, and then interpret them in their framework of understandings.

I am not a three year old child, Windwalker. I've actually written extensively on the topic.

It sounds to me as if you took your experience and tagged it with the mythic-literal view of God; external 'up there', watching over you, etc.

:thud:

More later, as time permits...

 

[methylatedghosts]

Really enjoying this conversation, Ymir and Windy. Keep it up!

 

[Windwalker]

And what might baffle you is that, to an extent, I agree with Wilbur in regards to “god” being as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. However, I do not agree that there is a “summit of consciousness”, as consciousness is always growing, expanding and becoming more. For me, “god” is the natural “elastic” state of grace in being.

I'll take the time later to respond further (after you finish with your part two), but I just wanted to clarify your thoughts here. Wilber full well knows that Consciousness is ever-evolving. I've heard him speak and say this many times. What he said above was not "summit of one's own consciousness", rather it is "it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness". The emphasis is on archetypal. The archetype is a form. The highest form that our symbolic mind can see is God. But there is "God beyond God", which is infinite Consciousness. Hence why he says that, "One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype." What we had seen as God, becomes us.

That Archetype dissolves. I have experienced this, and it becomes pure, simple Being. Hence the reference to the Sufi mystic's description of 'light upon light', and the Throne seeking your light.

:thud:

Alright, I knew I was taking a stab in the dark on that one. I see I missed.

 

[YmirGF]

I'll take the time later to respond further (after you finish with your part two), but I just wanted to clarify your thoughts here. Wilber full well knows that Consciousness is ever-evolving. I've heard him speak and say this many times. What he said above was not "summit of one's own consciousness", rather it is "it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness". The emphasis is on archetypal. The archetype is a form. The highest form that our symbolic mind can see is God. But there is "God beyond God", which is infinite Consciousness. Hence why he says that, "One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype." What we had seen as God, becomes us.

That Archetype dissolves. I have experienced this, and it becomes pure, simple Being. Hence the reference to the Sufi mystic's description of 'light upon light', and the Throne seeking your light.

Ah, ok... then we are in agreement on this part then, in that what you are referring to as "god", I am referring to as the "inner self" in that our visions of god arise from the latent memories of this subconscious inner self.

I'll try to finish this more quickly. It's a bit meatier than I had first thought when I sat down to respond. It's actually getting into areas that I am a bit uncomfortable discussing in a public setting, though I believe I have found a way around that. :beach:

 

[Windwalker]

It's a bit meatier than I had first thought when I sat down to respond. It's actually getting into areas that I am a bit uncomfortable discussing in a public setting, though I believe I have found a way around that. :beach:

Oh, come on... I'm sure everyone reading this will fully understand when you say you transform into radiant tree whose roots are the earth and whose leaves are the universe. That's a pretty common experience. No one will call you crazy.

 

[YmirGF]

John Martin laid this out nicely just a post or two ago in how he speaks of the stages of prayer. It's the same thing in understanding of God. But, sometimes, not knowing how else to separate one’s self from the stranglehold of dogmatic literalism, something like atheism, or ex-Christianity, becomes the best option in order to first say "not this!", before you can discover what truly is.

I suppose. I don’t know. What I do know is that was certainly not my route. It didn’t simply occur to me one day to revert to atheism. My embrace of atheism is based on the reality that I do not know what god is – in real terms. I am in no position, whatsoever, to say, “Ah. This is what god is.” To be utterly truthful there is something on the periphery of my awareness that might be what “god” is, but I just don’t know. What I perceive on that periphery isn’t like anything I have ever heard of or read about on the subject - ever. It just isn’t and is quite indescribable. If I was particularly dishonest I could claim that what I sense is “god”. The reality is, again, I just don’t know. Oh, and for the record, here I am referring to something beyond the inner self. Do recall that I see the inner self as being the source of all the god concepts created by human animals.

In another thread I referred to reality as being an ever-receding tide that you never quite catch up to. This “something” I am referring to above is that. Even through the various transformations I have been through, there is always this odd unknown lurking beyond my certainty. Frankly, I hope I never get to the water’s edge, as it were, as it is far more interesting and entertaining the mystery of the unknown. Do you think it would be helpful for me to label that mysterious unknown as god?

That became my own necessary, but temporary path in order to now come into touch with what I first encountered. I said this about a couple years ago now that, "Now I begin where I began".

In my own lexicon I used the term “coming full circle” more than occasionally.

The theistic understanding of God is not a 'perilous' place, as the overall framework itself has shifted. It cannot be taken again in a mythic-literal understanding, as understanding has moved beyond this. "When I was a child, I thought as a child. When I became an adult I put away childish things". The belief in God itself is not childish, but the mythic-literal view is an earlier stage of development.

Fair enough, if you say so.

What I cannot help but wonder if how useful is the concept of god after a certain stage?

It’s not like one needs constant reminders about the nature of being one is intuitively grasping with each new and ever-fresh moment.

Which is as I said, you needed to break away from the mythic-literal understanding of an external God, to an internal one.

Hahaha. I never did have the standard “mythical view” as I was smitten by Vaisnava thought long after my first nondual experiences. I came to accept this “symbolic” vision of god offered by Vaisnava thought in a radically enhanced – living version -- that is quite impossible to describe. I saw a god worthy of being called god by a god. A god’s god, if you will. Note to the casual reader: In order to fully understand the last two sentences one must have experienced nondual states of consciousness.


And that is where I’ll leave this for today.

 

[Straw Dog]

I'm interested in hearing and discussing the subject of prayer in our various spiritual practices. How do you understand it's purpose or function? How does it affect you? What value do you derive from it? What sort of prayers do you perform; petitionary, sending positive energy, etc?

I don't know if what I do can be considered prayer or not. I simply express total gratitude. There's no particular recipient of my appreciation. It's more of an attitude or state of being. I've been playing with terms like "God" and "spirit" as both poetic expressions and means of communication, but I know I can go on without them or slip on different expressions entirely for nondual presence.

I practice with a Quaker community and have attempted to incorporate a form of centering prayer. However, it only serves as preparation for the more advanced practices of yin-zen and singularity projection. My entire way of life could be summarized as being grateful, showing compassion, and paying attention. The rest is just improvisational poetry.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

A prayer is not definable. If you feel God is there, and you don't pray for something good, because one wants to ask for something good from God, and that is what prayer is, then I feel reticent praying. My idea of God is, that God, like is Jesus Christ, for example, didn't ask for anything, and it seems he was given everything before he was born, for instance, he had a mother, before he was born, if he was to have a mother at all. There are similar saints in every religion. There doesn't seem to be anything one can have, but in greater measure of perception. We can have only what is better, of what we already have, not what is better, of what we don't have, or what we have never had. Why would a man like me, who doesn't doubt whether God exists, not because I am a Muslim, or Christian, or Jew, but because I feel God is the same for them, as God is to me, want to pray? I don't, and this is an important idea, want a better idea of God, for myself. I never thought of this, till just now. And, my emotion of love and reverence, towards God, is very subdued, and not very strong in perception. When I express myself, then I feel differently.

 

[Vouthon]

I don't know if what I do can be considered prayer or not. I simply express total gratitude. There's no particular recipient of my appreciation. It's more of an attitude or state of being. I've been playing with terms like "God" and "spirit" as both poetic expressions and means of communication, but I know I can go on without them or slip on different expressions entirely for nondual presence.

Trust me, dear friend, that is prayer. The greatest prayer one can give is to be thankful with one's whole Being for divine grace, for life, for everything. Prayer is not about rhyming off endless words and remembered lines, ten to the dozen. That soon becomes hollow. Prayer is about the condition of your heart. Recall that Jesus reminds us in John, that the time will come when those who truly pray, pray neither in Jerusalem nor on Mount Gerazim but in "spirit and truth".

Meister Eckhart got it in one:

"...If the only prayer you say in your entire life is "Thank You," that would suffice...The most powerful prayer, one well nigh omnipotent, and the worthiest work of all is the outcome of a quiet mind. The quieter it is the more powerful, the worthier, the deeper, the more telling and more perfect the prayer is. To the quiet mind all things are possible. What is a quiet mind? A quiet mind is one which nothing weighs on, nothing worries, which, free from ties and from all self-seeking, is wholly merged into the will of God and dead to its own...God wants nothing of you but the gift of a peaceful heart...One must not always think so much about what one should do, but rather what one should be. Our works do not ennoble us; but we must ennoble our works..."

- Meister Eckhart (1260-1329), Catholic mystic & Dominican priest

Prayer is to be silent in communication with one's ground, essence, the deep region of the soul where we are most in God's Image. Prayer is the spontaneous ascent of the mind to God. It in can done in any place, at any time, in any way that the Spirit moves us. He is the teacher of prayer.

On the terms "God" and "spirit", I wouldn't concern myself too much. The reality, intuitively felt, is by far more important than the name we give to it, or the understanding that we place upon it. In the end every human understanding fails to taste even one drop in the fathomless ocean of divine Being.

Where knowledge, names and terms and understandings of God fail, pure love and purity of heart ascend and seize God in his fullness.

I practice with a Quaker community and have attempted to incorporate a form of centering prayer. However, it only serves as preparation for the more advanced practices of yin-zen and singularity projection. My entire way of life could be summarized as being grateful, showing compassion, and paying attention. The rest is just improvisational poetry.

All that God requires is, in the words of Eckhart, "for to you go out of yourself, inasmuch as you are a creature, and let God be God in you". Compassion, gratefulness and watchfulness are certainly a true manifestation of this self-emptying love. As the NT says in the First Epistle of John, "Those who love are born of God...God abides in them and they abide in Him".

You don't need elaborate words or styles of prayer. Just keep on doing what you are doing, and being who you are being.

You're doing great!

 

[Windwalker]

It didn’t simply occur to me one day to revert to atheism. My embrace of atheism is based on the reality that I do not know what god is – in real terms. I am in no position, whatsoever, to say, “Ah. This is what god is.”

Nor am I, nor is anyone. If you can say "This is what God is", then it isn't God. It's your idea, your concept, your impression, your experience. And all of those are rooted in time, and thus "not God".

The term atheism is a tricky one. According to your traditional theist, I would be considered an atheist as well. Your typical modern, neo-atheist really is defined as not believing in the Western traditional conception of an anthropomorphic, mythological deity form that literally is wholly separate from all of creation as some entity, some separate being "up there", who does all sorts of human-like behaviors such as keeping a ledger book as he watches over your behaviors here on earth and recording them for you to later have them read to you in a day of judgement, etc. I don't believe in that God either. So I'm not different than them in that regard.

But then in like vein early Christians themselves were considered atheists because they didn't support the Roman gods. In other words, God, our understandings of what "God" is evolves. And each evolution of that understanding negates a previous understanding, thereby making the new understanding a "non-believer", or an "atheist" in the conventional or traditional understanding.

I could go on about the role of the neo-atheists, but that takes us too far afield here. Suffice to say, it does play some role is dissolving the lesser understanding of a mythic-literal deity. It is thoroughly modernisitic in its "debunking". Then postmodernism comes along and desconstructs this God. And all this has some value, as it ends up leaving us with an empty plate after removing all these substitutes. Then they step out of the picture as nothing other than iconoclastic with no vision of what is beyond themselves. This is where "God" is now able to unfold within us freed from the chains of our doctrines and sciences that continue to try to hold That, into our understandings.

What is the value of mystical experience, either subtle, causal, or nondual (as I maintain those are valid forms of mystical experience) is that they too dismantle these 'concept-Gods' we hold to. In every movement within these higher planes of mind towards that Infinite, more and more of our ideas are laid waste, and more and more Truth begins to be exposed. It is a process. Not a single state experience. It is not "nonduality", nor "causal" states that are "true mysticism", but everything that steps us outside of our conceptual realities into that which "Is", beyond those, is genuine mystical apprehensions to one degree or another.

Prayer, is a vehicle, a tool, for us to put our minds on that which is 'above' our thoughts (and hence why it is envisioned as outside us). But it is through that direct communion with Spirit, albeight mediated through the subtle-level forms of deity, that we apprehend within our own spirit that which is eternal and beyond our own thoughts, and all forms, subtle level included. That apprehension then leads to a greater realization of that within ourselves as we move through them, until there is nothing but "God" beyond God.

Meister Eckhart is being referenced in this tread. He clearly delineates exactly what I said, again and again at every turn. The language of God in his use dissolves into that very self-realization you are speaking of, and what I too am speaking of. My language for God is to say that God is the Face we put upon the Infinite. God is the Face our face can look at as an object to take us into and beyond itself, to that infinite Ground that is in all that is, at every moment.

How is that inferior in any possible sense of the word? To touch the Face of God, is to be drawn into its Heart. Anything less than that, is idolatry.


(just some stream of thought here this morning..... I'll share some more thoughts in response to you later)

 

[Straw Dog]

Trust me, dear friend, that is prayer. The greatest prayer one can give is to be thankful with one's whole Being for divine grace, for life, for everything. Prayer is not about rhyming off endless words and remembered lines, ten to the dozen. That soon becomes hollow. Prayer is about the condition of your heart. Recall that Jesus reminds us in John, that the time will come when those who truly pray, pray neither in Jerusalem nor on Mount Gerazim but in "spirit and truth".

Oh, good. Then I can tell my grandmother that I do pray the next time she asks.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I do not believe in prayer in the normal sense and divide it between prayer and worship as most typical Muslims do.
Worship is to give praise and adoration to god without the desire of wanting anything from him. This I do every 4-6 times a day depending on circumstances. I view it as a duty to worship god since only he is worthy of worship. I worship god in hopes I do not worship anything other then him.
Supplication is something I do not do and I only believe prayer can give people insight at most. Prayer is the act of asking god to place importance on a creature who means almost little to the universe and have him change the entire cosmos to fulfill this creatures desires. It is quite a selfish act to me and only do it when in desperation.

 

[Windwalker]

Getting back to some further thoughts in response to this post.....

If I was particularly dishonest I could claim that what I sense is “god”. The reality is, again, I just don’t know. Oh, and for the record, here I am referring to something beyond the inner self. Do recall that I see the inner self as being the source of all the god concepts created by human animals.

You are describing the ineffable. And this is where I see you recoil at the use of the word God, as to you God is a defined entity. What I call God, is as I said in my last post, that Face we put upon that Infinite, the ineffable. We sense that both surrounding us, and at some point, within us as we move out of ourselves; out from within our self-contraction.

Here's the thing about deity forms. They are symbolic bridges to that Mystery, that is within ourselves and everything outside us. Our evolution of our minds utilizes mental objects to represent the worlds of matter and thoughts. These mental objects function horizontally, and vertically. On a horizontal plane, they are signs. They point to objects within the sphere of our daily interactions, whether that is with physical objects, or conceptual objects. On a vertical axis they are symbols. They are of a higher order, whose referents are unrealized potentials - and in the spiritual context that is they point to the that transcendent, to the ineffable, to the Absolute Mystery.

So God, or any other deity form may be functioning on either a horizontal plane as a sign translating the world, such as pointing to some groups value structures, ideologies, institutions, etc. This is God translated in an exoteric form, external to one's internal self. Then God, or any other deity form may be functioning esoterically on a vertical plane as a symbol, which includes such things as archetypes. It's form in not a concrete-literal object, but a highly subtle form.

So here you have the same object, and it is either functioning as a sign or a symbol. The mythic-literal thinker translates this as some literal, unseen object "out there" somewhere that they must have invisible dealings with in order to fulfill their responsibilities as a person. It has not yet moved within them. Then something happens, and what was seen as 'out there', opens something up within them and that sign now becomes a symbol of their own transcendence, into what that symbol points to.

Do you see what I'm getting at now? To pray to God, is either in a horizontal fashion, to ritually bind oneself to the objects of their social and cultural environments, or vertically in self-transcendence, above and beyond all social and cultural referents. God is in both instances a mental object. But vertically it points, draws us to, the Transcendent itself, the Mystery, the Ineffable, "God", for lack of any words.

In another thread I referred to reality as being an ever-receding tide that you never quite catch up to. This “something” I am referring to above is that. Even through the various transformations I have been through, there is always this odd unknown lurking beyond my certainty. Frankly, I hope I never get to the water’s edge, as it were, as it is far more interesting and entertaining the mystery of the unknown.

I see as as infinite unfolding. The Source, has no edge. It's center is everywhere, and nowhere.

Do you think it would be helpful for me to label that mysterious unknown as god?

It depends if you are like me and can comfortably use the word without mistaking what it points to symbolically, as some mere sign of some object 'out there'. One may approach God as an object, but on that vertical, esoteric axis, as you move further up and away from that self-contraction I mentioned, that symbol becomes more and more and more subtle until it unfolds into your true Self, your true Nature as "That". "That" which you "saw", becomes that with Is. And you are That. That has be you all along, as it is all things.

It is simply you opening your eyes and seeing who you have always been, from before the Big Bang. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". We are not separate from that.

What I cannot help but wonder if how useful is the concept of god after a certain stage?

It's not useful as a sign if you are on a vertical path. It needs to be a symbol. In which case, it's less about a concept, and more about an interior draw, and intuition of the ineffable. In that sense, its very useful quite a ways up that ladder! The high subtle is extremely powerful, beyond words. It drops you to your knees in holy reverence. You cry endless streams of tears in joy and gratitude, knowledge and comfort, confidence and peace. I could go on and on. And all of that is quite useful in coming into a conscious knowledge of who we are as individuals in the world.

But the key again is that we must not hold onto any of this as "defining" God, as that would reduce God to a sign, an object in space and time we can point to and say "That over there! The Bible says, this!". It then fails to function vertically! What the symbol does, what God does, is to stand as an object of focus to allow what is within us to unfold into itself, into God. As one sets their mind on what is "above", what is within opens to its Source in return to it! It is concentric circles, like the magnetic lines of flux on the globe flowing from and to itself. That's how this unfolds to me symbolically of Itself. And even that, is itself, only the minds way to represent it, as a symbol. It must not be held to as some literal object defining God. It transitions us to how it functions in form, within us.

You may need to chew on this awhile.

 

[YmirGF]

You may need to chew on this awhile.

As luck would have it I am running out the door and shouldn't even be typing on RF, LOL. But yes, though there isn't much for me to think about here, per se, I will give you the benefit of a thoughtful response. There is an important difference.

The short answer is that I think you have neatly summed up the differences in personality types. Some people need these things to help them along, some folks don't. There is no "higher"; there is no "lower"; no vertical, nor horizontal... There is only nothingness and yet we do have a penchant, as a species, for adorning that nothingness in the most elaborate ways. I guess we just need to make things warm and fuzzy, like ourselves.

I'll go into more detail when I have time, but till then get off your knees and quit bawling... :flirt:

 

[Straw Dog]

There is only nothingness and yet we do have a penchant, as a species, for adorning that nothingness in the most elaborate ways. I guess we just need to make things warm and fuzzy, like ourselves.

Yeah, I can see your point. I've played around with "sacred" metaphors and the result has seemed to be that my thinking becomes more uptight and grandiose. It becomes more difficult to just let go into the emptiness. I'd prefer to minimize my language to just what is neccessary for humble expression and communication rather than feeling an imperative to "spread the good news". I'll always be a Daoist at heart.

 

[Windwalker]

The short answer is that I think you have neatly summed up the differences in personality types. Some people need these things to help them along, some folks don't.

I disagree with this summary. I think it glances off the surface and misses the underlying points. I think it is true to some degree in all personality types, albeit what the difference you see is the types of symbols that resonate, and those that don't. That I fully get. Everyone needs things to help them along. What forms speak to them, is of course individual.

There is no "higher"; there is no "lower"; no vertical, nor horizontal... There is only nothingness and yet we do have a penchant, as a species, for adorning that nothingness in the most elaborate ways.

This is of course nonsense when applied to how we live our lives as functioning human beings. Nonduality embraces these vertical and horizontal relationships in our pyschological makeup and social and cultural structures. We live here. In this world. And yes, of course emptiness in within all this, but so is form. And in these forms, you have these relationships.

Your dismissal of these is as absurd as those who think logic and reason alone defines us as humans. We are both that "nothingness", and that "everythingness". Nobody lives their lives in reality in denial of this. They may say it theoretically, but in practice they live inconsistently with that "theory".

I guess we just need to make things warm and fuzzy, like ourselves.

If that's your take-away from the content of what I am saying, then I am wasting my time on you.

 

[Windwalker]

P.S. It always disappoints me when I see someone rise to level of discussion we were having, to see them flounder in their thoughts and resort to glib non-answers that don't address any real issues. I think I'll redirect my discussions to those who can keep on with the actual discussion.

 

[Straw Dog]

I'd like to get in on this action perhaps.

Windwaker, you make a good point about symbols that resonate. I know it's not terms like "God" that are the issue, but what we mean by them and react. It used to help bring on a glimmer of enlightenment, but now I find it to be hollow. My way involves destroying old forms, including the act of destroying forms whenever it becomes a burden. How can we maintain the spontaneity of esthetic experience without becoming trapped by our own "knowledge"?

 

[Windwalker]

I'd like to get in on this action perhaps.

Windwaker, you make a good point about symbols that resonate. I know it's not terms like "God" that are the issue, but what we mean by them and react. It used to help bring on a glimmer of enlightenment, but now I find it to be hollow.

And I suspect that is so for the reasons I've brought up in what I said about creating boundaries in order to differentiate oneself from an earlier system. God, if you are indoctrinated with that term in the context of a very mythic-literal framework, can drag you down when you are trying to rise above that framework itself. It becomes difficult to evolve God in our understanding.

I don't know how easily I can express this, but for me at one point I had to divorce myself from that symbol as well. The reason for this, I can see in hindsight, is because the fundamentalist mentality lays claim to, and ownership of God in their literal, hardcore, fear-based dogmatism. I coined a term for those I've seen who deconvert from this sort of religious mentality who then become hardcore anti-theists, militant atheists, angry Ex-Christians, etc. I get the anger part of it, and I get the reasons for the process. I see them often ridicule and scorn God, attacking the silly notions of the mythic literalness (enter their champion Richard Dawkins here). In a sense I see it as what I call a "therapeutic blasphemy". To say "screw God" is away to empower themselves, reclaiming power for the dogmatic, fear-based religions who use the sign "God" to validate their poverty, fear-based mentalities.

Some people can never reclaim God as a valid symbol for themselves in their new awakening minds. Some remain angry atheists, anti-theists their whole lives. But I see that is still giving power to the fundamentalists, allowing them their undue claim of ownership over all things "God" related. Some of course get over it, but still find the symbol "too close to home". They may prefer to visualize Nature in some form or another as "God", not calling it that of course. But it still holds that same position in how it functions on that level. Key words are "on that level". The God symbol may be too tied to that level they can no longer, nor at all, relate to. God has a bad rap, so to speak. And then it will fail as a symbol. It can't function properly as a symbol. Instead it remains a sign, and a hindrance.

My way involves destroying old forms, including the act of destroying forms whenever it becomes a burden. How can we maintain the spontaneity of esthetic experience without becoming trapped by our own "knowledge"?

By reclaiming God. Disempower those who use scare tactics to falsely claim ownership of God and make others believe it. Hold all your beliefs, no matter what they are with an open hand. Use them where they work in answering that internal desire for the ineffable. It's not the symbol's fault, but ours.

 

[Straw Dog]

Some people can never reclaim God as a valid symbol for themselves in their new awakening minds. Some remain angry atheists, anti-theists their whole lives. But I see that is still giving power to the fundamentalists, allowing them their undue claim of ownership over all things "God" related. Some of course get over it, but still find the symbol "too close to home". They may prefer to visualize Nature in some form or another as "God", not calling it that of course. But it still holds that same position in how it functions on that level. Key words are "on that level". The God symbol may be too tied to that level they can no longer, nor at all, relate to. God has a bad rap, so to speak. And then it will fail as a symbol. It can't function properly as a symbol. Instead it remains a sign, and a hindrance.

Yes, I agree that it is important to make peace with the tradition of one's upbringing. There is a tendency for some to become antagonistic towards it once they become disillusioned. Richard Dawkins kind of alienates much of the public from actually learning about science. I prefer Neil deGrasse Tyson anyday.

I've been making more of an effort to see the positive side in these traditions while approaching people as they are rather than just according to their beliefs. Historically, it does seem that the term "God" has carried anthropomorphic connotations, which might also explain why I prefer more neutral terms now.

By reclaiming God. Disempower those who use scare tactics to falsely claim ownership of God and make others believe it. Hold all your beliefs, no matter what they are with an open hand. Use them where they work in answering that internal desire for the ineffable. It's not the symbol's fault, but ours.

I don't know. Won't that just perpetuate adversarial relations with the fundamentalist community? Why does anyone have to claim possession of the symbol? Can't we just create new symbols?

Personally, I prefer to have as few abstract beliefs as possible and focus more on living directly in presence instead.