Who is God?

[godnotgod]

The caterpillar is not concerned with his transformation into a butterfly. He is absorbed completely in this moment in his being a caterpillar. Likewise, the butterfly is not concerned with what he came out of. He is too involved at the moment with being a butterfly, nor is he concerned with his tomorrow.

There is wood, there is combustion, there is ash. It is a mistake to think of these as the same thing or part of a process. Wood is not turned into ash. Wood is wood. Ash is ash. Fire is fire.

31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Matthew 6

Nobody knows whether there is a creator-God or not. We do have this Present Moment, and that is all we have for certain. Therefore we should live the life we now have fully and completely, from one moment to the next, without concern whether there is a God or not-God. As Jesus said, tomorrow will worry about itself. If you pay attention to what is right in front of you, instead of some reward at the end of the line, what is at the end of the line will fall into place of its own accord.

 

[godnotgod]

Friend Thief,

You last line sums it up.
Yes, it is kinda hard to miss someone....who didn't want to be someone as these one's are no more as separate individuals; they are *enlightened*.

Love & rgds

"Perfect activity leaves no track behind it;
Perfect speech is like a jade worker whose tool leaves no mark."

Tao te Ching, Ch. 27

 

[zenzero]

Friend godnotgod,

"Renunciation

What is that?

Love & rgds

 

[Thief]

Excuse me? There is no fence, and no decision to be made. Once again, your reference to a fence tells me that you are still living in the dualistic world. Sorry to inform you, but that is an illusion; the world is singular and seamless and One. Always has been; always will be.

You want me to decide between the orange and the orange tree. You see them as different from each other. I see them as interconnected and therefore one and the same.

You are already fully connected to the Infinite. You have never, not even for one nano-second, ever been separated. Any separation you imagine is only in your mind. It is an illusion. You think you need to decide whether to remain separated or to reconnect with the Infinite, when you are already connected completely.

Show me where you leave off and the universe begins.

By definition, you are part and parcel of the universe itself. That is why it is called a uni-verse.

It's called universe (one word) because that's how it was created.
The separation that you deny is as obvious as your reflection in the mirror.

 

[godnotgod]

Friend godnotgod,

What is that?

Love & rgds

Here is part of it:

Renunciation has both sadness and joy in it: sadness because you realize the futility of your old ways, and joy because of the greater vision that begins to unfold when you are able to let go of them. This is no ordinary joy. It is a joy that gives birth to a new and profound strength, a confidence, an abiding inspiration that comes from the realization that you are not condemned to your habits, that you can indeed emerge from them, that you can change, and grow more and more free.

Having realized true suffering, we will easily realize the other three of the four noble truths. Thus it is said: suffering is to be known. The origin is to be abandoned. The cessation is to be attained. The path is to be practiced.

http://http://www.viewonbuddhism.org/dharma-quotes-quotations-buddhist/renunciation.htm

 

[godnotgod]

It's called universe (one word) because that's how it was created.

(Yes, of course I know it is one word; I interposed the hyphen deliberately to emphasize the fact that the universe is one. I thought you knew that.)

What do you mean that it was "created"? Do you mean ex nihilo?

The separation that you deny is as obvious as your reflection in the mirror.

OK. So can you tell me, then, where, exactly, you leave off and the universe begins?

 

[Mr Cheese]

It is changing as we speak. What you are witnessing are the outcomes of people who have tried to apply efforts to make the world change by force through the superimposition of morality onto a natural system. The resulting chaos is what you see. At the same time, a large portion of mankind is spiritually evolving toward their authentic self (actually a return to our original state). So to say that the world needs change, and then to continue to apply moralistic solutions to the outcome of the problem is only to create more friction and suffering, WHEN THERE WAS NO PROBLEM IN THE BEGINNING! By doing nothing, the turbulence begins to settle, and then we can see clearly into the true nature of the mind. In so doing, one can then see how the first error was made, how one mistook a rope moving in the wind at twilight, for a snake. But because we mistakenly saw what we firmly believed to be a dangerous snake, we acted, thereby creating problems where none actually existed. If we had seen that the rope was, indeed, only a rope, the proper "action" would, of course, be only to have done nothing.

You see? It is all a matter of the mind, which itself is an illusion!

A caterpillar need do nothing in order to become a butterfly.

BTW, your dissertation on the Kabbalah and the origin of evil and the universe, etc, is a good example as to exactly why the Buddha discouraged discourse into such matters, and wanted people instead to focus on their immediate state of suffering.

Questions regarding the origins of the world and such were not considered important by the Buddha and not made out to be a big deal as in other religions. In a famous story, a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Buddha and demanded that the Buddha explain the origin of the universe before he would become a disciple of the Buddha. Then the Buddha said that he would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's immediate problem was his own suffering and his task was to liberate himself from the present state of affairs. To illustrate this, the Buddha related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he was told who shot the arrow, what he looks like, the kind of wood the arrow was made of and so on. The Buddha said that before the man could learn such information, he would be dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to be enlightened, not to speculate about the metaphysical. Thus, the Buddha's teachings centre around mankind and emphasises the methods by which he can liberate himself.

http://http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/origin_of_the_world.htm

"Troubled voyage in calm weather"

not my essay, just a post from my blog...

but I agree..such discourses are pointless...but it is still interesting to examine a "system of belief"...

but the map is not the territory.

Interestingly, Gnosticism is often cited as world hating, dualistic and heretical...
if we examine it further.... people such as Mani, just like Buddha, refused to ultimatly comment on the universe....


as for the butterfly and the catwerpillar...just an illustration
the caterpillar will change into the butterfly or it will die..it is a part of its natural cycle....

 

[zenzero]

Friend godnotgod,

Renunciation has both sadness and joy in it

There is someone who feels that sadness and joy. Personally find no one at home to feel that. So who is renouncing what?

Love & rgds

 

[Mr Cheese]

When the caterpillar changes it becomes a butterfly.
It hasnt LEFT the world but it now is able to see the world from a bigger perspective now some would argue the butterfly has left the world, by being a caterpillar it can leave the leaf.
The leaf here represents the world, nature.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/TYOU&HIGANBANA.JPG
The butterfly however can move beyond the leaf.
The leaf is still a part of the bigger picture, a part of the field for example.
But as a caterpillar, thwe entire world is just a leaf.
As Gnostics we seek to be butterflies and see the field.
Some would use this to argue that the leaf is “worthless” or to be devalued. But the leaf is but a part of the field.
As butterflies we can see there is no leaf, there is only the field.
The leaf becomes lost, gone..as we are butterflies and we are of the field.
change is inevitable growth is optional choose wisely

 

[Mr Cheese]

(Yes, of course I know it is one word; I interposed the hyphen deliberately to emphasize the fact that the universe is one. I thought you knew that.)

What do you mean that it was "created"? Do you mean ex nihilo?

OK. So can you tell me, then, where, exactly, you leave off and the universe begins?

good luck with Thief, his assertions are rather, geared a certain way..for want of a better term

I think I leave off around the corner of Houston and Church street in NYC...and God begins in Harlem....

 

[godnotgod]

Friend godnotgod,



There is someone who feels that sadness and joy. Personally find no one at home to feel that. So who is renouncing what?

Love & rgds

Well, yes, that is the question. Is there a renouncer, or just renunciation itself?

The sadness and joy are relative, tied in to Samsara*. Then, there is Absolute Joy, which encompasses them both, but is attached to neither.

But, to return to the original statement:

"Renunciation is the realization that nostalgia for Samsara is full of shhit"

So, all that is required here is the seeing of things as they are. No agent of seeing need apply.

*Samsara: the world of suffering and rebirth, as compared to Nirvana, being "the perfect peace of the state of mind that is free from craving, anger and other afflictive states. The subject is at peace with the world, has compassion for all and gives up obsessions and fixations. This peace is achieved when the existing volitional formations are pacified, and the conditions for the production of new ones are eradicated."

Wikipedia

 

[ruhnafsoul]

hmm.. I guess there are some opinions here are around the bush..

 

[IF_u_knew]

And who is greater? He who calls...or he that comes running?
I suppose we now digress to the role God plays.
Is He master...or servant.

I liked this! It certainly is valid for contemplating in light of the op. :yes:

 

[Andywelikandy]

Can someone please explain to me why the God of most Abrahamic religions is just called "God" instead of calling Him by a name? To me that is kind of like naming your child "Child."

Simple question. No debating about who's God is real. No fighting about who has the cooler name. No religion disrespect. Just, why? Why is there no name?

Pl Google for: The Names for God in the Old Testament.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Nobody knows whether there is a creator-God or not.

Yes they do

 

[IndigoStorm]

Can someone please explain to me why the God of most Abrahamic religions is just called "God" instead of calling Him by a name? To me that is kind of like naming your child "Child."

Simple question. No debating about who's God is real. No fighting about who has the cooler name. No religion disrespect. Just, why? Why is there no name?

He's like the same as the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny, tweedle dee, Donald duck ... in other word - the figment od someone's imagination.

 

[johnpeter1970]

Can someone please explain to me why the God of most Abrahamic religions is just called "God" instead of calling Him by a name? To me that is kind of like naming your child "Child."

Simple question. No debating about who's God is real. No fighting about who has the cooler name. No religion disrespect. Just, why? Why is there no name?

BECAUSE:

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Can someone please explain to me why the God of most Abrahamic religions is just called "God" instead of calling Him by a name? To me that is kind of like naming your child "Child."

Simple question. No debating about who's God is real. No fighting about who has the cooler name. No religion disrespect. Just, why? Why is there no name?

God is the All-Attractive Supreme Person...who is the source of everything and the cause of all causes.
There are so many names of God. Out of all of them, Kṛṣṇa is the principal. Just like Kṛṣṇa appeared as the son of Vasudeva; therefore He is called Vāsudeva. Kṛṣṇa played in Vṛndāvana as the son of Nanda Mahārāja and Yaśodā; therefore He is called Yaśodā-nandana. Kṛṣṇa acted as the driver, chariot driver Arjuna. Therefore He is known as Pārtha-sārathī. So His name... All these names are according to His different activities. So He has got unlimited activities, and therefore He has got unlimited names. So out of all these names, Kṛṣṇa is the supreme or the prime because Kṛṣṇa means all-attractive.


The Definition of God as per Vishnu Puran is...."The Supreme Personality who possesses all riches, all strength, all fame, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation is called Bhagavan(God). There are many persons who are very rich, very powerful, very beautiful, very famous, very learned, and very much detached, but no one can claim that he possesses all riches, all strength, etc., entirely."

Hare KRishna

 

[Acintya_Ash]

BECAUSE:

for there is none other name (Acts 4:12)

May i know What is that unique name of God as per Christianity?

Thank you

 

[psychoslice]

My question is, who isn't god ?.