HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » God as symbol...

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:28 PM

God as symbol...

Last edited Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:59 PM - Edit history (3)

The origins of the word god are not based in historical writings but the oral and cultural traditions of our long forgotten past. This past was allegorical, but the primary driver of mythology was the use of entheogens. The use of entheogens, and likely other forgotten ecstatic, and contemplative, ceremonial techniques, resulted in states of selflessness which further brought those into contact with a state of transcendent oneness: the source of consciousness. A state of non-mind cannot be described by those in the ego. This is the initial understanding of God. God was a word to describe this state which was further anthropomorphized into some religions. Contemplative and mystical traditions maintain a more direct path to this state than some other religions which focus on charity, or group mythology.

This is exemplified by millennia of Abrahamic theologians who described the conceptualization and personalization of god as being a false understanding. Eg consider the word creator: the concept of creator properly understood and conceived can only apply to human beings and can not really be used to describe God. There were those who considered the mind as only being able to describe what god is not or concepts god could only exceed. This is also why the Buddha refused to talk about this state. He literally couldn't do it. The above paragraph, also explains why the Buddha described his teachings as being only a remembrance of the path, that had already been paved. It is also why the first line in the Tao is: "The way that can be named is not the eternal way."

The discussion of faith, fact, proof, perception, conceptualization, personalization and observation are not appropriate ways to understand what God is, and only indicates that the subject is misunderstood.

This is of course only my understanding and I mean no disrespect to anyone's beliefs.

14 replies, 1152 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Flabbergasted (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:48 PM

1. Are you saying the only way to understand God is to experience God? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:54 PM

2. It's not the point I'm making. I'm saying God is not understood. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flabbergasted (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:59 PM

3. Ah, I thougth the part about Buddha refusing to talk about his experiences

was saying it just needed to be experienced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:04 PM

4. That is the individual understanding of that sentence. Thanks for your reply. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flabbergasted (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:26 PM

5. Except that your post

does presume an understanding of "god", in order to be able say what it is not, or to say that other people's conceptions and understandings of "god" are dead wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:35 PM

6. That's a good observation and has been noted by theologians. The concept of God itself is inadeduet

This is a case of the: "the map is not the territory." Experience is the only true justification.

The conundrum of the use of symbol to describe this concept or experience is very similar to the use of a Zen Koan. You pretty much have to stretch your understanding of symbol outside of mind to "get it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flabbergasted (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:59 PM

7. Experience is not a justification

if it leads to a self-contradictory position, your attempts to make it sound deep and profound notwithstanding.

But this would be tasty with a raspberry vinaigrette.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 06:15 PM

8. The perception of being "self-contradictory" is a misunderstanding.

Koan:

No Cold and Heat

A monk asked Tozan, "How can we escape the cold and heat?" Tozan replied, "Why not go where there is no cold and heat?" "Is there such a place?" the monk asked. Tozan commented, "When cold, be thoroughly cold; when hot, be hot through and through.

Further, there is a theological understanding that a discussion or conceptualization of "God as truth" is inherently paradoxical. This is the product of the mind and and the nature of rationality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flabbergasted (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:29 PM

9. I was wrong

better with a creamy blue cheese....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:39 PM

10. Have you truly contemplated your signature? Add a layer of ego to the inerrant layer of doubt? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flabbergasted (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:10 PM

11. Well, I have to admit

I'm having my doubts about the blue cheese dressing now...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:12 PM

12. Only the real, rare, and true vegetative mind can withstand blue cheese. I love Blue Cheese ;)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flabbergasted (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:43 AM

13. So?

 

Cold and heat are such only relative to each other, ie. dependent arisings, not intrinsic properties of anything; and objectified "thingness" is such only in relation to subjectified observation, another dependent arising.

Rationally and truthfully, is there any need to assume any "reality" or "god" beyond holistic relation networks of dependent arisings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:58 PM

14. The koan points out that the judgement of mind is illusory...

This is same idea behind the ying-yang symbol. The opposing sides are the judgements of the mind but it is the whole that points at truth.

It is quite necessary to be aware that our perception of seperateness is illusory. This is the entire point of religion and spirituality. "Truthfully" there is no other "reality" than an awareness of Oneness. Rationality is a trick of the mind.

Thanks for your reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread