"We are That"

[metis]

If we are not all looking to go to the same Place (goal/desire), it is silly to expect everyone to be on 'THE' right Path.

But the problem is what is "the right path" and how could we possibly know that it is with any certainty that one would be correct?

 

[metis]

I'm not clear why defining 'consciousness' slips us into anthropomorphizing. Consciousness is more the ability to experience existence so I'm not sure why the definition slips into anthropomorphizing.
.

It may or may not, depending on how far one might try to take the issue of "consciousness".

 

[metis]

taking away the 'human' aspect of God opens the discussion for any and all kinds of entity .....greater than ourselves.
the imagination can then run to any extent and any form.

how about a spiritual version of Star Trek's .....the Borg.

you will be assimilated......resistance is futile.
no judgement....no damnation.....
no continuance for the unique person you are....

take away the play of creation that makes us unique.....and the Cause behind that creation....
you are more likely to cease as a person.

But how could one be certain of that? How does one define the "Cause"-- or is it "Causes"?

 

[LuisDantas]

the death rate doesn't keep up with the birth rate.
Unchecked I might live to see 12billion people on this earth.
6billion will die in the same sequence.

that's a lot of ego going somewhere.

not believing in afterlife?......

I hope you are attempting to be funny with a nonsensical parody of analysis. Because that is what you are presenting.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

OK, for those of us who especially believe and/or who were brought up in one of the Abrahamic faiths, I'm gonna ask you to put that aside for at least this introduction and try to consider something from the eastern approach.

A phrase that would make sense to one brought up as a Hindu is "We are That". The "We" is obvious, but the "That" may not be, plus it is also even controversial in the east. In general, "That" can stand for "the Great Soul", namely "Brahman" in Hindi, or "God" in English. Unlike the Abrahamics, which tend to anthropomorphize "God" to a large extent, "Brahman" is generally not treated as such. Some may use terminology like "a consciousness that envelopes all", but even that is conjectural because how does one define such "consciousness" without slipping back into anthropomorphizing. Therefore, even in Hinduism, this is pretty much an open question.

So, what happened in Hinduism is more along the line of the "many paths to God" approach, namely that each of us need to study and contemplate that which we may conclude is the best path for ourselves, realizing that our path may not be the best path for someone else. This also tends to lead to pretty much a non-judgmental approach to other faiths, so if one feels more "spiritual", however defined", with their belief in Jesus and his teachings, that's fine, as well as the Muslim who feels more spiritual with their belief in Mohammed and his teachings. Etc.

What are your thoughts on this?

BTW, a Blessed & Happy New Year to you all.

That is of course, not true of Muslims at all.

 

[metis]

That is of course, not true of Muslims at all.

In what regards? Just a reminder that I did contrast the Hindu approach with the Abrahamic approach in the OP, so I don't know if pointing this out helps to clarify where I'm coming from or not.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

In what regards? Just a reminder that I did contrast the Hindu approach with the Abrahamic approach in the OP, so I don't know if pointing this out helps to clarify where I'm coming from or not.

I mean that we Muslims do not anthropomorphise God. In the Quran, it clearly states, "there is none like Him". Even the term Allah, which is often loosely translated to God does not actually mean God. It is the name of the deity worthy of our worship and the only true deity. The term Allah does not have a male or female version nor can it be plural. Speaking in terms of arabic of course. That's what I was pointing out, when you said Abrahamic faiths do such and such. There is a vast difference in the understanding and attributes of God between Christians/Jews and Muslims. Specifically with regards to Christians representing God as a man with a beard etc in their art work.

 

[EtuMalku]

My signature defines my take on this . . .

 

[atanu]

Thank you Metis for this great initiation.

(What follows is my understanding only but many advaitins will have similar understanding/opinion).

....
A phrase that would make sense to one brought up as a Hindu is "We are That". The "We" is obvious, but the "That" may not be, ......

This is based on Vedic sruti 'Tat Tvam Asi" .. or "Thou art That", which however is not very straight forward. Neither the import of 'Thou' nor the import of 'That' can be mentally realised, and especially since all minds exist with different levels of understanding and hence there are many layers of explanation/understanding of "Tat Tvam Asi".

That is basically my belief - that there are many streams which lead to the ocean.

In the metaphor of the ocean, there is only one ocean.

I believe the same. There are many minds -- following varieties of desires -- but all subsist on the same "I Am" awareness to begin with. The "I am" awareness is said to rise as a singular awareness from the so-called ocean that Hindus call Brahman. The "I am" is all pervasive. Then, depending on particular desires attributes differentiate a single awareness into infinite roles, projected on a mirror called mana (mind). As a metaphor, it is somewhat similar to a single moon being reflected in many puddles.

This is also explained in terms of a single ocean with many waves that come and go but which are essentially all shapes of water. This is a metaphor.

As I recall the Sanskrit words were 'Tat Tvam Asi" as transliterated.. or "Thou art That" and refers to the identity of the Atman or soul with Brahman...and is a cornerstone of advaita philosophy. Another view was supplied by the Dvaita school which posits:
“Sa atmaa-tat tvam asi” in Sanskrit is actually “Sa atma-atat tvam asi” or “Atman, thou art not that”. ...., text 6, 'tat tvam asi" is translated as "you are a servant of the Supreme (Vishnu)"
So maybe we should see the original Sanskrit to determine this ...anyway....

Some think that advaita guru Shri Sankara is equating 'You' (individual self)' and 'That' (Ishwara-God). Actually No.

'You' refers to an individual who has no Godlike attribute. OTOH, 'That' is God, Ishwara, full of infinite qualities. As per Sankara, only when all attributes are stripped off from both 'You' and 'God', the attribute-less common general aspect that remains is Supreme Brahman, which is said to be of the nature of "ekaadvittiyam, satyam, anantam, jnanam" (ekaadvittiyam is ONE WITHOUT A SECOND; satyam is True, anantam is infinite, and jnanam is of the nature of knowledge/consciousness/awareness).

For example, a wave is not the ocean. But a wave (if endowed with awareness) may realise that its shape is only a temporary phenomenon but that its reality is the reality of the ocean also. Alternately, not realising the oneness of itself with the ocean the wave may face great painful destruction and die out.

So, from the perspective of an individual who believes that the selfhood (I sense) is equal to the physical body, the Dvaita guru, Shri Madhava teaches "You are not that". When this is the knowledge state of an individual (which is the state of almost all) Hinduism generally prescribes "Work without motivation for personal gains" or "Submission of ego-will to the Ishwara (God)".

But. But. The scriptures also teach "Ayam Atman Brahman" (This self is Brahman) and exhort individuals to "Know that self/Brahman" in order to obtain release from painful cycle of repeated births and deaths.

How does one know 'That', which your own self (and everyone else's) and is 'indivisible one without a second'? One cannot know this as a second entity outside of one's own awareness/consciousness/self, without invalidating and breaking the sruti definition of Brahman.

Atman-Brahman can only be known in non dual awareness without any boundary whatsoever. This is usually called samadhi. Gita says that the truth is known in samadhi only.

YMMV.

 

[metis]

I mean that we Muslims do not anthropomorphise God. In the Quran, it clearly states, "there is none like Him". Even the term Allah, which is often loosely translated to God does not actually mean God. It is the name of the deity worthy of our worship and the only true deity. The term Allah does not have a male or female version nor can it be plural. Speaking in terms of arabic of course. That's what I was pointing out, when you said Abrahamic faiths do such and such. There is a vast difference in the understanding and attributes of God between Christians/Jews and Muslims. Specifically with regards to Christians representing God as a man with a beard etc in their art work.

Anthropomorphizing does not necessarily have to be physical alone but can refer to human-type personality, such as happy, sad, thinking, angry, etc. Therefore, the point becomes how can we know if God has any of these attributes?

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Anthropomorphizing does not necessarily have to be physical alone but can refer to human-type personality, such as happy, sad, thinking, angry, etc. Therefore, the point becomes how can we know if God has any of these attributes?

Why do you think being happy or sad etc is a "human type" personality? Did you know animals feel the same emotions?

 

[metis]

Thank you Metis for this great initiation.

(What follows is my understanding only but many advaitins will have similar understanding/opinion).



This is based on Vedic sruti 'Tat Tvam Asi" .. or "Thou art That", which however is not very straight forward. Neither the import of 'Thou' nor the import of 'That' can be mentally realised, and especially since all minds exist with different levels of understanding and hence there are many layers of explanation/understanding of "Tat Tvam Asi".




I believe the same. There are many minds -- following varieties of desires -- but all subsist on the same "I Am" awareness to begin with. The "I am" awareness is said to rise as a singular awareness from the so-called ocean that Hindus call Brahman. The "I am" is all pervasive. Then, depending on particular desires attributes differentiate a single awareness into infinite roles, projected on a mirror called mana (mind). As a metaphor, it is somewhat similar to a single moon being reflected in many puddles.

This is also explained in terms of a single ocean with many waves that come and go but which are essentially all shapes of water. This is a metaphor.



This is most crucial.

Some think that Sankara equates 'You' (individual self)' and 'That' (Ishwara-God). Actually No. 'You' refers to an individual who has no Godlike attribute. OTOH, 'That' is God, Ishwara, full of infinite qualities. As per Sankara, when all attributes are stripped off from both 'You' and 'God', the attribute-less common general aspect that remains is Brahman, which is said to be of the nature of "ekaadvittiyam, satyam, anantam, jnanam" (ekaadvittiyam is ONE WITHOUT A SECOND; satyam is True, anantam is infinite, and jnanam is of the nature of knowledge/consciousness/awareness).

For example, a wave is not the ocean. But a wave (if endowed with awareness) may realise that its shape is only a temporary phenomenon but that its reality is the reality of the ocean also. Alternately, not realising the oneness of itself with the ocean the wave may face great painful destruction and die out.

So, from the perspective of an individual who is still entrenched with the idea of self being a physical body, the Dvaita Guru, Madhava teaches "You are not that". When this is the knowledge state of an individual, Hinduism generally prescribes "Work without motivation" or "Submission to the Ishwara (God)".

But. But. The scriptures also teach "Ayam Atman Brahman" (This self is Brahman) and exhort individuals to "Know that Brahman" in order to obtain release from painful cycle of repeated births and deaths.

How does one know 'That', which your own self (and everyone else's) and is 'indivisible one without a second'. One cannot know this as a second entity outside of one's own awareness/consciousness/self, without invalidating and breaking the sruti definition of Brahman.

Atman-Brahman can only be known in non dual awareness without any boundary whatsoever. This is usually called samadhi. Gita says that the truth is known in samadhi only.

YMMV.

I very much appreciate your well-written contribution here, but let me just throw out a speed-bump in that there are so many different ways to look at this, especially considering the tremendous diversity within Hinduism. I'm not at all implying that you're wrong but merely stating that another Hindu could take issue with some of what you wrote above.

 

[atanu]

I very much appreciate your well-written contribution here, but let me just throw out a speed-bump in that there are so many different ways to look at this, especially considering the tremendous diversity within Hinduism. I'm not at all implying that you're wrong but merely stating that another Hindu could take issue with some of what you wrote above.

Yes. I am aware of that and I noted that in the post itself. Thanks.

 

[metis]

Why do you think being happy or sad etc is a "human type" personality? Did you know animals feel the same emotions?

But that doesn't really change anything just because some animals may share some of these same characteristics.

In the process of trying to understand God or the Gods, it's pretty much human nature to project some of our characteristics because these are what we relate to the most. Many people even here at RF have posted that it's hard for them to accept a totally personality-less deity that just creates and that's all. Since we do not really know God(s) on any kind of personal basis, such as having a beer together at a local pub, God(s) tends to be a cognitive void that we tend to want to fill.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So, what happened in Hinduism is more along the line of the "many paths to God" approach, namely that each of us need to study and contemplate that which we may conclude is the best path for ourselves, realizing that our path may not be the best path for someone else. This also tends to lead to pretty much a non-judgmental approach to other faiths, so if one feels more "spiritual", however defined", with their belief in Jesus and his teachings, that's fine, as well as the Muslim who feels more spiritual with their belief in Mohammed and his teachings. Etc.

Holy Heinlein, I grok you, bro! Thou art God and so am I.

Whatever leads a person to love others is alright by me.

FWIW, this thread so reminds me of Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land". Great thread and a great book.

 

[George-ananda]

It may or may not, depending on how far one might try to take the issue of "consciousness".

In the thinking I've come to adopt, there is only One consciousness and we are a ray of that consciousness animating our finite form giving us our limited personality.

 

[metis]

In the thinking I've come to adopt, there is only One consciousness and we are a ray of that consciousness animating our finite form giving us our limited personality.

Nice theory, and you well might be right, but I don't know if you are.

 

[George-ananda]

Nice theory, and you well might be right, but I don't know if you are.

Well it is not my theory of course, but it comes from my best understanding from spiritual masters I believe took human form with the mission to teach those interested. My knowledge of a couple masters has left me certain beyond reasonable doubt (but that is just my own honest analysis).

 

[Thief]

I hope you are attempting to be funny with a nonsensical parody of analysis. Because that is what you are presenting.

it makes good sense to me.....
if you don't see the reasoning....the fault lays to you

 

[Thief]

But how could one be certain of that? How does one define the "Cause"-- or is it "Causes"?

look to the effect.
science will do so readily
I see no 'cause' to refrain when discussing God.