Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[tsig]

Been there, done that, got the scars and the tee shirt*.




*or should I say the coat of many colours

I once started my own religion.

 

[Complexity]

I once started my own religion.

Yeah, I know.

I sent you the check weeks ago - where's my special gift?

 

[Resume]

There

Hooey snipped.

 

[Piggy]

...sorry Piggy...this thread gallops along and I should respond to your earlier responses and I've got my challenge to Wasp to flesh out (re-define the universe no less) but you just keep sayin stuff that annoys me and that is my name after all so I write stuff and out it comes in a big puddle of mangled meanings. I still think you're mistaken...and here's why...

Again, Piggy, your argument is predicated on the firm assumption that we have the ability to definitively rationally understand our experiences. You do not allow for the fact that this is indisputably not the case. You argue that because this God cannot be defined in terms that we can rationally understand, therefore this God cannot exist (and those who insist on it must be neurotic or psychotic)…because every rational ‘God’ can be argued out of existence (except the ones Wasp has proposed [which you disagree with anyway]…which, IMO, do not include the full range of possibilities)

No, it's not predicated on that.

Here's the thing.... We're evolved creatures, so the world in our head must be, in many ways, highly accurate about the world we're living in. And it will have its limitations, of course, and its useful delusions.

So we can come up with ideas like "The world must be a globe" and we can think about what that would imply, and we can check it out, and eventually we can go up in aircraft and see the curve and at some point fly around the thing.

At that point, to argue against the certainty that the earth ain't flat, you can't simply say what amounts to "We don't know everything, y'know".

Because what's your alternative? Not just that we're wrong about the shape of the earth, but that we're wrong about everything.

Or you could say, well, the earth is flat in a dimension we can't perceive, and I say fine, that doesn't change the fact that's it's round here.

And we can come up with ideas like gods and demons and spirits and ghosts and such. And when they don't pan out, just like everything else, they're done.

It's no good at that point simply making the case that there are things we can't perceive at all and which are beyond our comprehension.

That's certainly true, but you know what, we don't have words for any of those things, and we haven't been talking about them for thousands of years, because we never heard of them.

God is not one of those things, because it can't be. And you can't simply unpeel the "God" label from what it's always referred to and glue it onto a void and claim that it now refers to something real and something which is a god (which is to say, distinguishable from what isn't a god).

The bottom line is this....

To be real, to exist, to be something we can have a concept of and talk about -- like gods -- a thing has to have some sort of connection with our world, some sort of presence or activity within it, some set of features or qualities that make it different from everything else which it ain't.

Because of this, gods which are defined in such a way as to be inherently non-disprovable also cannot be real, cannot exist, and cannot be gods, because non-disprovability requires that these terms become indistinct from their negatives.

So we're back to real gods, my friend.

And not Eric Clapton, but actual weather-pushing, soul-judging, fertility-boosting, child-saving, enemy-punishing gods.

Gods that are something, gods that do something. By definition, these are the only ones that can possibly be real, the only ones that have a shake at being an existing god.

And not only are they gone, but the entire worldview they arose in has vanished.

Over time, you know, we do see things more clearly. We do make progress. If that weren't true, this conversation wouldn't be happening.

Today, we see the world more accurately than people did, or could, millennia ago. There are strong psychological reasons why god-belief persists, but everything that makes gods possibly real has been debunked.

It's over.

Appealing to what we don't yet know is irrelevant once the old paradigm has been proven wrong and a new one lets us do stuff like fly people to the damn moon.

 

[Piggy]

Can you prove that we have the capacity to understand all the terms within which God can be defined (.....this does not automatically allow for pink unicorns etc. etc. [explained below])? Can you prove that we understand even the terms of our own existence?

I suppose, then, you're ready to tell me what the qualities are which consistently distinguish gods from not-gods.

I won't get all picky on you. I know that any definition is imprecise if you simply keep pecking at it once you already know what it's referring to.

But it turns out there is no quality or action which anyone can single out as being universal to the concept of god, much less a sufficient set to make it identifiable against everything that's not a god.

So if you give me a scenario in which we're discussing "all the terms within which God can be defined" then it's just an open-ended proposition with nothing in the center. Of course there's no solution to that.

Instead of that, if we're actually talking about something, then we need to talk about the necessary and sufficient terms that define god.

That's what matters. Not "all the terms" that can be flung around.

But the thing is, there is no such set of necessary and sufficient terms.

So we can't have a discussion about that, either.

I gave you an example of one (a ‘God condition’…a description of God). God has all our dreams in mind. Your argument basically amounts to…because this is meaningless to your level of strictly rational comprehension, it must therefore be false. You completely ignore the indisputable fact that there are legitimate varieties of understanding that rational understanding has no understanding of. IOW…to expect to achieve an accurate understanding of a non-rational condition by imposing a rational template is a category error.

Ever heard the phrase…’the heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of’. Does this phrase accurately reflect the reality of human nature…or not? Does the ‘heart’ have an epistemology that your rational epistemology simply cannot effectively adjudicate…or not?

No, I'm not saying that meaningless strings of words are "false", just that they're meaningless. Why on earth do you think that it's ok to propose meaningless strings of words and expect them to be taken seriously simply because they're "not false"? Especially considering they also cannot be true.

And yeah, there are irrational states of mind which cannot be adequately described in rational terms. But that's another trip to Wonderland, where Mother Teresa can be a genocidal dictator and Adolph Hitler feeds starving children.

Once you get to the point where we are required to go to Wonderland in order to assert that a thing is real, that it exists, then this means that it cannot be real without abandoning the very notion of reality.... which of course slams you face-first into a contradiction.

And no, that's not a category error.

As for the metaphoric "heart", that doesn't help. It's true that a lot of our thinking goes on outside of conscious reasoning. But that's no help to god.

 

[Piggy]

I am proposing a God. I am proposing a God who is known through the primary epistemology of human nature. This is a variety of knowing that we each practice in our own unique way…and is therefore impossible to rationalize. The ‘God’ that I know is not the ‘God’ that the person immediately beside me knows. IOW…my description is not their description. Many would simply have no description. The fact that it can be abstractly referred to as ‘the creator of the universe’ is actually about as meaningless to many a believer as it is to you (IOW…who cares!). Those things that are meaningful are meaningful precisely because they are ineffable. The fact that it is widely accepted that ‘ineffable’ is a legitimate quality of human nature lends substantial credence to these experiences…contrary to your insistence that ‘if it can’t be described then how can they (or I) know what the hell they’re talking about’. It is precisely because it can’t be described that people do know what they’re talking about (I mentioned Wittgenstein before and his famous quote: ‘…there are those things that must be passed over in silence…’…assuming he was right [he was a stupid philosopher, but he was a pretty smart guy], what might these ‘things’ be and why must they be passed over in silence?)

What the hell is anyone ever actually talking about anyway? We don’t actually know (literally…personally I think it’s somehow related to all that ‘tower of babel’ stuff…but that’s another story) when it comes right down to it…and that precise area…’when it comes right down to it’…is exactly where people encounter what God means to them (that is, of course, a generalization).

Does anybody really know what time it is?

I mean, what do you expect me to say to that?

Anyone can propose the incomprehensible.

So is it OK if I propose that the universe is a 1957 Ford Fairlane without car parts?

If I did, would we be any farther along than if I didn't?

When the discussion of god ends in an elaboration of "I don't know and wouldn't know if I knew" then we're talking about nothing.

Seriously.

No matter what your emotions are when those strings of words run through your head, we're talking about nothing.

 

[Piggy]

You are not taking the time to consider the definitions of god, you are just dismissing them. Wasp is right in saying that you assume the materialist position and require that everything which can be entertained as existing must first be understood through this philosophy.

We are discussing a subject which cannot be understood via materialism, simply because it is about the context in which materialism resides.

We are considering the origin of existence as we know it and the basis of, or how it is, the way it is.

"To be or not to be"

What can materialism say about this?

What you call "materialism" is not a philosophy.

It's the result of investigating our world. It's what works, what has turned out to be accurate.

Whatever pans out is welcome into the tent.

So, yeah, when I judge an idea, I judge it against what actually happens in the world around me.

You tell me my mother was Charlie Chaplin, I tell you to get lost. I don't need to be "open to new evidence" about that idea, it's wrong.

We're actually able to look much closer into the "origin of existence" as you call it, and it bears no resemblance whatsoever to any god. Unless you believe in a god which is non-different from brute physics, but in that case, we're back to god = not-god... as always.

 

[Piggy]

OK, that's fine. It simply isn't the case, as commonly portrayed, that de-defining god was an attempt to 'put god out of harm's way'. It was a philosophical enterprise that served a different purpose. It grew out of the move from animism to polytheism to monotheism. Animistic and polytheistic gods were in this world not the cause of it. It was the move to understand existence that drove what I would call a change in conception of god. I think de-defining is a bit too value laden.

De-defining is a rhetorical strategy. It has nothing to do with values. Even when people don't realize they're doing it.

And I'm not saying that people realized their faith was in danger and tried to rig the system. What happens is that as cultures develop, the old gods become untenable, and the definition morphs toward de-definition.

 

[Piggy]

I think we need to take a step back and look at this from a bigger perspective again.

Of course all we can say is that the world was created (or came to be). That is because of our place in this shooting match -- we can't get 'behind the scenes' to see how it came about. And that has been my whole point. We can't say for sure that it was natural or due to a god. We can't say materialism is correct just as we can't say idealism is correct. I hope that we can say that substance dualism is incorrect but I'm not entirely sure how to do that yet.

Well, let's not step off the cliff here.

We don't have to get behind the scenes of the shooting match.

Just show me a god that could actually be real and be a god (that is, a god which doesn't require that either of those terms be non-different from their opposites) and which isn't contradicted by observation.

Yeah, there's a lot we don't know, but so what? If this god thing really is possible, why can't you come up with a workable god that doesn't dissolve into "I never had any idea what it was or even what it might have been"?

Why do you keep asking for a description of this type of god? No one has ever provided one because it isn't the sort of thing about which one can provide a description by its very 'nature'. That is not a de-definition but rather a reconceptualization based on monotheism.

Sorry to point this out, but that's just baloney.

If a description of the thing really is impossible -- any sort of description -- then no one could perceive it or imagine it.

If you find yourself believing in the possibility of a thing you have no idea of, then I submit you've managed to trick yourself into believing that nothing might just be something after all.

And historically, monotheism arrived long before the no-thing god. At least YHWH had a kvd, and he did things and had qualities, even though he (like all gods) was not comprehensible in his totality.

And that's fine. But a thing that's not comprehensible at all... that's not a thing.e god.[/QUOTE]

 

[Limbo]

The bottom line is this....

To be real, to exist, to be something we can have a concept of and talk about -- like gods -- a thing has to have some sort of connection with our world, some sort of presence or activity within it, some set of features or qualities that make it different from everything else which it ain't.

In that case, the bottom line is you don't understand mystical theology. You don't understand esoterica. You don't understand the ineffability of the Divine; how no concept no symbol no model can ever grasp the transcendent Godhead. And so, you don't grok religion itself, really.

"One of the primary goals of the Center for Sacred Sciences is to preserve and promote the teachings of these mystics and to show exactly what it is they have in common. Here, for example, are nine points agreed upon by mystics of all the great traditions, together with a sampling of quotes which demonstrate this agreement.

1. All mystics agree that Ultimate Reality—whether It is called Allah, Brahman, Buddha-nature, En-sof, God, or the Tao—cannot be grasped by thought or expressed in words. (In fact, the word mystic is related to the word mute, both of which derive from the Greek root mustes, meaning "close-mouthed.")

The Tao which can be named is not the true Tao. —Lao Tzu (Taoist)

The Spirit supreme is immeasurable, inapprehensible, beyond conception, never-born, beyond reasoning, beyond thought. —Upanishads (Hindu)

Words and sentences are produced by the law of causation and are mutually conditioning—they cannot express highest Reality. —The Lankavatara Sutra (Buddhist)

That One which is beyond all thought is inconceivable by all thought. —Dionysius the Areopagite (Christian)

The gnostics know, but what they know cannot be communicated. It is not in the power of the possessors of this most delightful station...to coin a word which would denote what they know. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

2. The reason Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought or communicated in words is that thoughts and words, by definition, create distinctions and, hence, duality. Even the simple act of naming something creates duality because it distinguishes the thing that is named from all other things that are left unnamed. However, the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual.

In essence things are not two but one. ...All duality is falsely imagined. —Lankavatara Sutra (Buddhist)

No matter what a deluded man may think he is perceiving, he is really seeing Brahman and nothing else but Brahman. ...This universe, which is superimposed upon Brahman, is nothing but a name. —Shankara (Hindu)

If we will see things truly, they are strangers to goodness, truth and everything that tolerates any distinction. They are intimates of the One that is bare of any kind of multiplicity and distinction. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

That Oneness is on the other side of descriptions and states. Nothing but duality enters speech's playing-field. —Rumi (Muslim)

There all things are as one; Distinctions between "life" and "death," "land" and "sea," have lost their meaning. —anonymous Hasidic master (Jewish)

3. Although mystics cannot define Ultimate Reality in words, they still use words to point to That which is beyond words. For instance, all mystics agree that, while Ultimate Reality constitutes the true nature of everything, in itself It is nothing.

Neti neti (not this, not that)—Upanishads (Hindu)

Emptiness (shunyata)...is the ultimate nature of everything that exists. —Lama Yeshe (Buddhist)

The myriad creatures in the world are born from Something, and Something from Nothing. —Lao Tzu (Taoist)

It is within our intellects, souls and bodies, in heaven, on earth, and whilst remaining the same in Itself, It is at once in, around and above the world, super-celestial, super-essential, a sun, a star, fire, water, spirit, dew, cloud, stone, rock, all that is; yet It is nothing. —Dionysius the Areopagite (Christian)

He is not accompanied by thingness, nor do we ascribe it to Him. The negation of thingness from Him is one of His essential attributes. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

The hidden God, the innermost Being of Divinity so to speak has neither qualities nor attributes. —Gershom Scholem (Jewish)

4. Although mystics say Ultimate Reality is not a thing, they also agree that this emptiness or no-thingness is not a mere vacuum. It is radiant with the Light of Pure Spirit, Primordial Awareness, Buddha Mind, or Consciousness Itself.

He is the Eternal among things that pass away, pure Consciousness of conscious beings. —Upanishads (Hindu)


All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, besides which nothing exists. —Huang Po (Buddhist)

The light by which the soul is illumined, in order that it may see and truly understand everything...is God himself. —St. Augustine (Christian)

He is the spirit of the cosmos, its hearing, its sight, and its hand. Through Him the cosmos hears, through Him it sees, through Him it speaks, through Him it grasps, through Him it runs. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

Mind comes from this sublime and completely unified source above; it is divided only as it enters into the universe of distinctions. —Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

5. Mystics of all traditions also agree that when distinctions created by imagination are taken to be real—especially the distinction between 'subject' and 'object', 'I' and 'other', 'self' and 'world'—we lose sight of the Ultimate Nature of Reality and fall into delusion. This is the cause of all our suffering.

The fundamental dysfunction of our minds takes the form of a separation between I and other. We falsely grasp at an "I" on which attachment grafts itself at the same time as we conceive of an "other" that is the basis of aversion. —Bokar Rinpoche (Buddhist)


So long as the sense of "me" and "mine" remains, there is bound to be sorrow and want in the life of the individual. —Anandamayi Ma (Hindu)

Every man has plenty of cause for sorrow but he alone understands the deep universal reason for sorrow who experiences that he is. —Cloud of Unknowing (Christian)

As long as you are 'you', you will be miserable and impoverished. —Javad Nurbakhsh (Muslim)

How can any finite vessel hope to contain the endless God? Therefore, see yourself as nothing; only one who is nothing can contain the fullness of the Presence. —Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

6. The fact that distinctions are not ultimately real means that we are not truly separate selves. In Reality, all mystics declare, our True Nature is God, Brahman, Buddha-Nature, the Tao, or Consciousness Itself.

Our very self-nature is the Buddha, and apart from this nature there is no other Buddha. —Hui-Neng (Buddhist)

Having left aside Life and Death, he is now completely one with the universal Transmutation. —Kuo Hsiang (Taoist)

God is one's very own Self, the breath of one's breath, the life of one's life, the Atman. —Anandamayi Ma (Hindu)

Some simple people think that they will see God as if he were standing there and they here. It is not so. God and I, we are one. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

Thou art He, without one of these limitations. Then if thou know thine own existence thus, then thou knowest God; and if not, then not. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

For now he is no longer separated from his Master, and behold he is his master and his Master is he. —Abraham Abulafia (Jewish)

7. Although the Truth of one's identity with Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought, all mystics testify that It can be Realized or Recognized through a Gnostic Awakening (Enlightenment) which by-passes the thinking mind altogether.

The time will come when your mind will suddenly come to a stop like an old rat who finds himself in a cul-de-sac. Then there will be a plunging into the unknown with the cry, "Ah, this!"—Yun-man (Buddhist)

When the mirror of my mind became clear... I saw that God is not other than me, and this non-dual knowledge completely destroyed all thought of "you" and "I." I came to know that this entire world is not different from God. —Lalleshwari (Hindu)

Here, renouncing all that the mind may conceive, wrapped entirely in the intangible and the invisible, he belongs completely to him who is beyond everything. Here, being neither oneself nor someone else, one is supremely united by a completely unknowing inactivity of all knowledge, and knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing. —Dionysius the Areopagite (Christian)

He sees only God as being that which he sees, perceiving the seer to be the same as the seen. This is enough, and God is the giver of grace, the Guide. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

It is by descending into the depths of his own self that man wanders through all the dimensions of the world; in his own self he lifts the barriers which separate one sphere from the other; in his own self, finally, he transcends the limits of natural existence and at the end of his way, without, as it were, a single step beyond himself, he discovers that God is 'all in all' and there is 'nothing but Him'. —Gershom Scholem (Jewish)

8. All mystics agree that Realizing our Identity with this Ultimate Reality brings freedom from suffering and death.

When a man knows God, he is free: his sorrows have an end, and birth and death are no more. —Upanishads (Hindu)

What is suffering? What is death? In reality, they do not have any existence. They appear within the framework of the manifestations produced by the mind wrapped up in an illusion. ...In the emptiness of mind, there is no death. No one dies. There is no suffering and no fear. —Bokar Rinpoche (Buddhist)

When the false apprehension is negated...from the heart of the enlightened ones, then "death shall be swallowed up forever and God will erase tears from every face."—Abraham Abulafia (Jewish)

Suddenly, I realized..."it really is like this, in reality there is not a single thing!" With this single thought, all entanglements were broken. Suddenly, it was as if a load of a hundred pounds had fallen to the ground in an instant. It was as if a flash of lightning had penetrated the body and pierced the intelligence. —Kao P'an-lung (Confucian)

This man lives in one light with God, and therefore there is not in him either suffering or the passage of time, but an unchanging eternity. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

I have been delivered from this ego and self-will—alive or dead, what an affliction! But alive or dead, I have no homeland other than God's Bounty. —Rumi (Muslim)

9. Finally, mystics of all traditions agree that their teachings about the Ultimate Nature of Reality should not be taken on faith alone. Just as scientific theories can be verified by anyone willing to perform appropriate experiments, mystical teachings can be verified by anyone willing to engage in appropriate spiritual practices and disciplines. (This, incidentally, is why we at the Center believe mystical teachings and practices are rightly said to constitute a science of the sacred.)


Those who practice know whether realization is attained or not, just as those who drink water know whether it is hot or cold. —Dogen (Buddhist)

The pure truth of Atman, which is buried under Maya and the effects of Maya, can be reached by meditation, contemplation and other spiritual disciplines such as a knower of Brahman may prescribe. —Shankara (Hindu)

If you don't wash out the stone and sand, how can you pick out the gold? Lower your head and bore into the hole of open non-reification, carefully seek the heart of heaven and earth with firm determination. Suddenly, you will see the original thing!—Liu I-ming (Taoist)

The patriarchs opened up the channels of the mind in the world, teaching all who were to come into the world how to dig within themselves a spring of living waters, to cleave to their fount, the root of their lives. —Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

The way of the sufis is the way of the exact gnosis of God, and of the knowledge of the diverse ways of self training necessary for the gnosis of God. —'Abd al-Wahab Sha'rani (Muslim)

If you follow my teachings, then you are truly my disciples and you shall come to a gnosis of the truth, and the truth shall make you free. —Jesus of Nazareth (Christian)"

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/publications/the-mystical-core-of-the-great-traditions.htm

 

[Piggy]

There are two of these types of god to discuss: one is the Idealist Mind. It thinks what we experience as reality. It is everything. It is Brahman. The other is the substance dualist god -- it is Mind that thinks the creation of a material world into existence and controls that creation. How many times do I have to keep repeating the same thing?

You can repeat them as often as you like. Doesn't get it to start making any sense, tho.

Sure, religious types have taken these philosophical notions and put window dressings on them to make their versions of god immanent. But that is their problem, trying to fuse the philosophical notion of god with earlier versions of god-in-the-world. Those folks have to retreat, when challenged, to the old philosophical notion of god; they de-define god.

The "religious types" are the only ones that matter, because the existence of god is not a philosophical question, for the same reason that "Do we have any more beer left?" isn't a philosophical question.

 

[Piggy]

In that case, the bottom line is you don't understand mystical theology. You don't understand esoterica. You don't understand the ineffability of the Divine; how no concept no symbol no model can ever grasp the transcendent Godhead.

Of course I understand it.

You seem to think I woke up one morning, flipped a coin, and "god exists" lost.

It's taken me years to get to this conclusion, and along the way I've studied about every way of looking at god I could find.

The problem isn't that I don't understand mysticism. The problem is that mysticism is useless.

 

[Resume]

In that case, the bottom line is you don't understand mystical theology. You don't understand esoterica. You don't understand the ineffability of the Divine; how no concept no symbol no model can ever grasp the transcendent Godhead. And so, you don't grok religion itself, really.

"One of the primary goals of the Center for Sacred Sciences is to preserve and promote the teachings of these mystics and to show exactly what it is they have in common. Here, for example, are nine points agreed upon by mystics of all the great traditions, together with a sampling of quotes which demonstrate this agreement.

1. All mystics agree that Ultimate Reality—whether It is called Allah, Brahman, Buddha-nature, En-sof, God, or the Tao—cannot be grasped by thought or expressed in words. (In fact, the word mystic is related to the word mute, both of which derive from the Greek root mustes, meaning "close-mouthed.")

The Tao which can be named is not the true Tao. —Lao Tzu (Taoist)

The Spirit supreme is immeasurable, inapprehensible, beyond conception, never-born, beyond reasoning, beyond thought. —Upanishads (Hindu)

Words and sentences are produced by the law of causation and are mutually conditioning—they cannot express highest Reality. —The Lankavatara Sutra (Buddhist)

That One which is beyond all thought is inconceivable by all thought. —Dionysius the Areopagite (Christian)

The gnostics know, but what they know cannot be communicated. It is not in the power of the possessors of this most delightful station...to coin a word which would denote what they know. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

2. The reason Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought or communicated in words is that thoughts and words, by definition, create distinctions and, hence, duality. Even the simple act of naming something creates duality because it distinguishes the thing that is named from all other things that are left unnamed. However, the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual.

In essence things are not two but one. ...All duality is falsely imagined. —Lankavatara Sutra (Buddhist)

No matter what a deluded man may think he is perceiving, he is really seeing Brahman and nothing else but Brahman. ...This universe, which is superimposed upon Brahman, is nothing but a name. —Shankara (Hindu)

If we will see things truly, they are strangers to goodness, truth and everything that tolerates any distinction. They are intimates of the One that is bare of any kind of multiplicity and distinction. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

That Oneness is on the other side of descriptions and states. Nothing but duality enters speech's playing-field. —Rumi (Muslim)

There all things are as one; Distinctions between "life" and "death," "land" and "sea," have lost their meaning. —anonymous Hasidic master (Jewish)

3. Although mystics cannot define Ultimate Reality in words, they still use words to point to That which is beyond words. For instance, all mystics agree that, while Ultimate Reality constitutes the true nature of everything, in itself It is nothing.

Neti neti (not this, not that)—Upanishads (Hindu)

Emptiness (shunyata)...is the ultimate nature of everything that exists. —Lama Yeshe (Buddhist)

The myriad creatures in the world are born from Something, and Something from Nothing. —Lao Tzu (Taoist)

It is within our intellects, souls and bodies, in heaven, on earth, and whilst remaining the same in Itself, It is at once in, around and above the world, super-celestial, super-essential, a sun, a star, fire, water, spirit, dew, cloud, stone, rock, all that is; yet It is nothing. —Dionysius the Areopagite (Christian)

He is not accompanied by thingness, nor do we ascribe it to Him. The negation of thingness from Him is one of His essential attributes. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

The hidden God, the innermost Being of Divinity so to speak has neither qualities nor attributes. —Gershom Scholem (Jewish)

4. Although mystics say Ultimate Reality is not a thing, they also agree that this emptiness or no-thingness is not a mere vacuum. It is radiant with the Light of Pure Spirit, Primordial Awareness, Buddha Mind, or Consciousness Itself.

He is the Eternal among things that pass away, pure Consciousness of conscious beings. —Upanishads (Hindu)


All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, besides which nothing exists. —Huang Po (Buddhist)

The light by which the soul is illumined, in order that it may see and truly understand everything...is God himself. —St. Augustine (Christian)

He is the spirit of the cosmos, its hearing, its sight, and its hand. Through Him the cosmos hears, through Him it sees, through Him it speaks, through Him it grasps, through Him it runs. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

Mind comes from this sublime and completely unified source above; it is divided only as it enters into the universe of distinctions. —Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

5. Mystics of all traditions also agree that when distinctions created by imagination are taken to be real—especially the distinction between 'subject' and 'object', 'I' and 'other', 'self' and 'world'—we lose sight of the Ultimate Nature of Reality and fall into delusion. This is the cause of all our suffering.

The fundamental dysfunction of our minds takes the form of a separation between I and other. We falsely grasp at an "I" on which attachment grafts itself at the same time as we conceive of an "other" that is the basis of aversion. —Bokar Rinpoche (Buddhist)


So long as the sense of "me" and "mine" remains, there is bound to be sorrow and want in the life of the individual. —Anandamayi Ma (Hindu)

Every man has plenty of cause for sorrow but he alone understands the deep universal reason for sorrow who experiences that he is. —Cloud of Unknowing (Christian)

As long as you are 'you', you will be miserable and impoverished. —Javad Nurbakhsh (Muslim)

How can any finite vessel hope to contain the endless God? Therefore, see yourself as nothing; only one who is nothing can contain the fullness of the Presence. —Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

6. The fact that distinctions are not ultimately real means that we are not truly separate selves. In Reality, all mystics declare, our True Nature is God, Brahman, Buddha-Nature, the Tao, or Consciousness Itself.

Our very self-nature is the Buddha, and apart from this nature there is no other Buddha. —Hui-Neng (Buddhist)

Having left aside Life and Death, he is now completely one with the universal Transmutation. —Kuo Hsiang (Taoist)

God is one's very own Self, the breath of one's breath, the life of one's life, the Atman. —Anandamayi Ma (Hindu)

Some simple people think that they will see God as if he were standing there and they here. It is not so. God and I, we are one. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

Thou art He, without one of these limitations. Then if thou know thine own existence thus, then thou knowest God; and if not, then not. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

For now he is no longer separated from his Master, and behold he is his master and his Master is he. —Abraham Abulafia (Jewish)

7. Although the Truth of one's identity with Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought, all mystics testify that It can be Realized or Recognized through a Gnostic Awakening (Enlightenment) which by-passes the thinking mind altogether.

The time will come when your mind will suddenly come to a stop like an old rat who finds himself in a cul-de-sac. Then there will be a plunging into the unknown with the cry, "Ah, this!"—Yun-man (Buddhist)

When the mirror of my mind became clear... I saw that God is not other than me, and this non-dual knowledge completely destroyed all thought of "you" and "I." I came to know that this entire world is not different from God. —Lalleshwari (Hindu)

Here, renouncing all that the mind may conceive, wrapped entirely in the intangible and the invisible, he belongs completely to him who is beyond everything. Here, being neither oneself nor someone else, one is supremely united by a completely unknowing inactivity of all knowledge, and knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing. —Dionysius the Areopagite (Christian)

He sees only God as being that which he sees, perceiving the seer to be the same as the seen. This is enough, and God is the giver of grace, the Guide. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

It is by descending into the depths of his own self that man wanders through all the dimensions of the world; in his own self he lifts the barriers which separate one sphere from the other; in his own self, finally, he transcends the limits of natural existence and at the end of his way, without, as it were, a single step beyond himself, he discovers that God is 'all in all' and there is 'nothing but Him'. —Gershom Scholem (Jewish)

8. All mystics agree that Realizing our Identity with this Ultimate Reality brings freedom from suffering and death.

When a man knows God, he is free: his sorrows have an end, and birth and death are no more. —Upanishads (Hindu)

What is suffering? What is death? In reality, they do not have any existence. They appear within the framework of the manifestations produced by the mind wrapped up in an illusion. ...In the emptiness of mind, there is no death. No one dies. There is no suffering and no fear. —Bokar Rinpoche (Buddhist)

When the false apprehension is negated...from the heart of the enlightened ones, then "death shall be swallowed up forever and God will erase tears from every face."—Abraham Abulafia (Jewish)

Suddenly, I realized..."it really is like this, in reality there is not a single thing!" With this single thought, all entanglements were broken. Suddenly, it was as if a load of a hundred pounds had fallen to the ground in an instant. It was as if a flash of lightning had penetrated the body and pierced the intelligence. —Kao P'an-lung (Confucian)

This man lives in one light with God, and therefore there is not in him either suffering or the passage of time, but an unchanging eternity. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

I have been delivered from this ego and self-will—alive or dead, what an affliction! But alive or dead, I have no homeland other than God's Bounty. —Rumi (Muslim)

9. Finally, mystics of all traditions agree that their teachings about the Ultimate Nature of Reality should not be taken on faith alone. Just as scientific theories can be verified by anyone willing to perform appropriate experiments, mystical teachings can be verified by anyone willing to engage in appropriate spiritual practices and disciplines. (This, incidentally, is why we at the Center believe mystical teachings and practices are rightly said to constitute a science of the sacred.)


Those who practice know whether realization is attained or not, just as those who drink water know whether it is hot or cold. —Dogen (Buddhist)

The pure truth of Atman, which is buried under Maya and the effects of Maya, can be reached by meditation, contemplation and other spiritual disciplines such as a knower of Brahman may prescribe. —Shankara (Hindu)

If you don't wash out the stone and sand, how can you pick out the gold? Lower your head and bore into the hole of open non-reification, carefully seek the heart of heaven and earth with firm determination. Suddenly, you will see the original thing!—Liu I-ming (Taoist)

The patriarchs opened up the channels of the mind in the world, teaching all who were to come into the world how to dig within themselves a spring of living waters, to cleave to their fount, the root of their lives. —Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

The way of the sufis is the way of the exact gnosis of God, and of the knowledge of the diverse ways of self training necessary for the gnosis of God. —'Abd al-Wahab Sha'rani (Muslim)

If you follow my teachings, then you are truly my disciples and you shall come to a gnosis of the truth, and the truth shall make you free. —Jesus of Nazareth (Christian)"

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/publications/the-mystical-core-of-the-great-traditions.htm

The girls all get prettier at closing time. ~ Mickey Gilley

Mine's more insightful than any of yours.

 

[Limbo]

Of course I understand it.

You seem to think I woke up one morning, flipped a coin, and "god exists" lost.

It's taken me years to get to this conclusion, and along the way I've studied about every way of looking at god I could find.

The problem isn't that I don't understand mysticism. The problem is that mysticism is useless.

If you understood mysticism and esoterica then you wouldn't be saying the things you say. You wouldn't expect to have or to find a concept of God that you can talk about rationally and logically in the first place. You would know that concepts of God are ultimately derived from ineffable mystical experiences that transcend thought and words and concepts and culture. Not derived from the waking-state intellectual efforts of scholars and philosophers. Not from the day-to-day imagination of storytellers. Not from the scheming of con-men and power-mongers. Not from raving street prophets and soothsayers. Not from fairy tales.

Concepts of God are mystical metaphors. Metaphors can only be pushed so far. Words can only be pushed so far. Then you have to transcend them through mystical techniques and experience. You have to transcend all levels of intellectual thought. If one can't or won't do that, then one will not understand God. Not in a million years... because without the right mystical experience one has no frame of reference with which to penetrate the metaphor. Mystical metaphors are impenetrable to the uninitiated. Therefore, the true meaning of sacred text, any sacred text, is also impenetrable to them. Only the initiated can grok the current of esoteric theology that runs underneath the orthodox, exoteric, surface theology of the man-on-the-street and underneath the intellectual efforts of philosophers because only the initiated have been trained to induce mystical experiences in an environment that supports mystical development.

If you understood mysticism then you would know that if you want to find God, you have to transcend thought and words too, not sit around on a beach talking about concepts with Ralph.

 

[Resume]

If you understood mysticism then you wouldn't be saying the things you say.

Mysticism is rejected precisely because it is understood. Understood to be an empty sack. In much the same way one might abandon religion.

You seem to think that atheists, or agnostics or secularists came to their particular epiphanies because they might have read a Dawkins book or they didn't want to go to church anymore. You fail to understand the journey many have travelled before coming to the conclusion that these long-held spiritual ideas are nothing more than wish thinking; I know quite a few secularists who found this realization painful and disheartening, but were just too intelligent to fool themselves further.

 

[annnnoid]

There is no other difference; and there is no way to discern if intention is or isn't there. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Metaphysics is a pantload.

Overlooking, for the moment, the ‘pantload’ nature of metaphysics…if ‘intention’ can be demonstrated, do we have any capacity to determine the implications of this conclusion….or might the implications occur as ‘intention’ is demonstrated?

So how would you define ‘intention’ in relation to idealism (the 'intention' that you argue cannot be demonstrated)?

 

[punshhh]

I once started my own religion.

I didn't go there, it almost happened, but I realised it was not necessary or appropriate in the modern world.

 

[tsig]

In that case, the bottom line is you don't understand mystical theology. You don't understand esoterica. You don't understand the ineffability of the Divine; how no concept no symbol no model can ever grasp the transcendent Godhead. And so, you don't grok religion itself, really.

"One of the primary goals of the Center for Sacred Sciences is to preserve and promote the teachings of these mystics and to show exactly what it is they have in common. Here, for example, are nine points agreed upon by mystics of all the great traditions, together with a sampling of quotes which demonstrate this agreement.

1. All mystics agree that Ultimate Reality—whether It is called Allah, Brahman, Buddha-nature, En-sof, God, or the Tao—cannot be grasped by thought or expressed in words. (In fact, the word mystic is related to the word mute, both of which derive from the Greek root mustes, meaning "close-mouthed.")

The Tao which can be named is not the true Tao. —Lao Tzu (Taoist)

The Spirit supreme is immeasurable, inapprehensible, beyond conception, never-born, beyond reasoning, beyond thought. —Upanishads (Hindu)

Words and sentences are produced by the law of causation and are mutually conditioning—they cannot express highest Reality. —The Lankavatara Sutra (Buddhist)

That One which is beyond all thought is inconceivable by all thought. —Dionysius the Areopagite (Christian)

The gnostics know, but what they know cannot be communicated. It is not in the power of the possessors of this most delightful station...to coin a word which would denote what they know. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

2. The reason Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought or communicated in words is that thoughts and words, by definition, create distinctions and, hence, duality. Even the simple act of naming something creates duality because it distinguishes the thing that is named from all other things that are left unnamed. However, the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual.

In essence things are not two but one. ...All duality is falsely imagined. —Lankavatara Sutra (Buddhist)

No matter what a deluded man may think he is perceiving, he is really seeing Brahman and nothing else but Brahman. ...This universe, which is superimposed upon Brahman, is nothing but a name. —Shankara (Hindu)

If we will see things truly, they are strangers to goodness, truth and everything that tolerates any distinction. They are intimates of the One that is bare of any kind of multiplicity and distinction. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

That Oneness is on the other side of descriptions and states. Nothing but duality enters speech's playing-field. —Rumi (Muslim)

There all things are as one; Distinctions between "life" and "death," "land" and "sea," have lost their meaning. —anonymous Hasidic master (Jewish)

3. Although mystics cannot define Ultimate Reality in words, they still use words to point to That which is beyond words. For instance, all mystics agree that, while Ultimate Reality constitutes the true nature of everything, in itself It is nothing.

Neti neti (not this, not that)—Upanishads (Hindu)

Emptiness (shunyata)...is the ultimate nature of everything that exists. —Lama Yeshe (Buddhist)

The myriad creatures in the world are born from Something, and Something from Nothing. —Lao Tzu (Taoist)

It is within our intellects, souls and bodies, in heaven, on earth, and whilst remaining the same in Itself, It is at once in, around and above the world, super-celestial, super-essential, a sun, a star, fire, water, spirit, dew, cloud, stone, rock, all that is; yet It is nothing. —Dionysius the Areopagite (Christian)

He is not accompanied by thingness, nor do we ascribe it to Him. The negation of thingness from Him is one of His essential attributes. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

The hidden God, the innermost Being of Divinity so to speak has neither qualities nor attributes. —Gershom Scholem (Jewish)

4. Although mystics say Ultimate Reality is not a thing, they also agree that this emptiness or no-thingness is not a mere vacuum. It is radiant with the Light of Pure Spirit, Primordial Awareness, Buddha Mind, or Consciousness Itself.

He is the Eternal among things that pass away, pure Consciousness of conscious beings. —Upanishads (Hindu)


All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, besides which nothing exists. —Huang Po (Buddhist)

The light by which the soul is illumined, in order that it may see and truly understand everything...is God himself. —St. Augustine (Christian)

He is the spirit of the cosmos, its hearing, its sight, and its hand. Through Him the cosmos hears, through Him it sees, through Him it speaks, through Him it grasps, through Him it runs. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

Mind comes from this sublime and completely unified source above; it is divided only as it enters into the universe of distinctions. —Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

5. Mystics of all traditions also agree that when distinctions created by imagination are taken to be real—especially the distinction between 'subject' and 'object', 'I' and 'other', 'self' and 'world'—we lose sight of the Ultimate Nature of Reality and fall into delusion. This is the cause of all our suffering.

The fundamental dysfunction of our minds takes the form of a separation between I and other. We falsely grasp at an "I" on which attachment grafts itself at the same time as we conceive of an "other" that is the basis of aversion. —Bokar Rinpoche (Buddhist)


So long as the sense of "me" and "mine" remains, there is bound to be sorrow and want in the life of the individual. —Anandamayi Ma (Hindu)

Every man has plenty of cause for sorrow but he alone understands the deep universal reason for sorrow who experiences that he is. —Cloud of Unknowing (Christian)

As long as you are 'you', you will be miserable and impoverished. —Javad Nurbakhsh (Muslim)

How can any finite vessel hope to contain the endless God? Therefore, see yourself as nothing; only one who is nothing can contain the fullness of the Presence. —Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

6. The fact that distinctions are not ultimately real means that we are not truly separate selves. In Reality, all mystics declare, our True Nature is God, Brahman, Buddha-Nature, the Tao, or Consciousness Itself.

Our very self-nature is the Buddha, and apart from this nature there is no other Buddha. —Hui-Neng (Buddhist)

Having left aside Life and Death, he is now completely one with the universal Transmutation. —Kuo Hsiang (Taoist)

God is one's very own Self, the breath of one's breath, the life of one's life, the Atman. —Anandamayi Ma (Hindu)

Some simple people think that they will see God as if he were standing there and they here. It is not so. God and I, we are one. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

Thou art He, without one of these limitations. Then if thou know thine own existence thus, then thou knowest God; and if not, then not. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

For now he is no longer separated from his Master, and behold he is his master and his Master is he. —Abraham Abulafia (Jewish)

7. Although the Truth of one's identity with Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought, all mystics testify that It can be Realized or Recognized through a Gnostic Awakening (Enlightenment) which by-passes the thinking mind altogether.

The time will come when your mind will suddenly come to a stop like an old rat who finds himself in a cul-de-sac. Then there will be a plunging into the unknown with the cry, "Ah, this!"—Yun-man (Buddhist)

When the mirror of my mind became clear... I saw that God is not other than me, and this non-dual knowledge completely destroyed all thought of "you" and "I." I came to know that this entire world is not different from God. —Lalleshwari (Hindu)

Here, renouncing all that the mind may conceive, wrapped entirely in the intangible and the invisible, he belongs completely to him who is beyond everything. Here, being neither oneself nor someone else, one is supremely united by a completely unknowing inactivity of all knowledge, and knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing. —Dionysius the Areopagite (Christian)

He sees only God as being that which he sees, perceiving the seer to be the same as the seen. This is enough, and God is the giver of grace, the Guide. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

It is by descending into the depths of his own self that man wanders through all the dimensions of the world; in his own self he lifts the barriers which separate one sphere from the other; in his own self, finally, he transcends the limits of natural existence and at the end of his way, without, as it were, a single step beyond himself, he discovers that God is 'all in all' and there is 'nothing but Him'. —Gershom Scholem (Jewish)

8. All mystics agree that Realizing our Identity with this Ultimate Reality brings freedom from suffering and death.

When a man knows God, he is free: his sorrows have an end, and birth and death are no more. —Upanishads (Hindu)

What is suffering? What is death? In reality, they do not have any existence. They appear within the framework of the manifestations produced by the mind wrapped up in an illusion. ...In the emptiness of mind, there is no death. No one dies. There is no suffering and no fear. —Bokar Rinpoche (Buddhist)

When the false apprehension is negated...from the heart of the enlightened ones, then "death shall be swallowed up forever and God will erase tears from every face."—Abraham Abulafia (Jewish)

Suddenly, I realized..."it really is like this, in reality there is not a single thing!" With this single thought, all entanglements were broken. Suddenly, it was as if a load of a hundred pounds had fallen to the ground in an instant. It was as if a flash of lightning had penetrated the body and pierced the intelligence. —Kao P'an-lung (Confucian)

This man lives in one light with God, and therefore there is not in him either suffering or the passage of time, but an unchanging eternity. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

I have been delivered from this ego and self-will—alive or dead, what an affliction! But alive or dead, I have no homeland other than God's Bounty. —Rumi (Muslim)

9. Finally, mystics of all traditions agree that their teachings about the Ultimate Nature of Reality should not be taken on faith alone. Just as scientific theories can be verified by anyone willing to perform appropriate experiments, mystical teachings can be verified by anyone willing to engage in appropriate spiritual practices and disciplines. (This, incidentally, is why we at the Center believe mystical teachings and practices are rightly said to constitute a science of the sacred.)


Those who practice know whether realization is attained or not, just as those who drink water know whether it is hot or cold. —Dogen (Buddhist)

The pure truth of Atman, which is buried under Maya and the effects of Maya, can be reached by meditation, contemplation and other spiritual disciplines such as a knower of Brahman may prescribe. —Shankara (Hindu)

If you don't wash out the stone and sand, how can you pick out the gold? Lower your head and bore into the hole of open non-reification, carefully seek the heart of heaven and earth with firm determination. Suddenly, you will see the original thing!—Liu I-ming (Taoist)

The patriarchs opened up the channels of the mind in the world, teaching all who were to come into the world how to dig within themselves a spring of living waters, to cleave to their fount, the root of their lives. —Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

The way of the sufis is the way of the exact gnosis of God, and of the knowledge of the diverse ways of self training necessary for the gnosis of God. —'Abd al-Wahab Sha'rani (Muslim)

If you follow my teachings, then you are truly my disciples and you shall come to a gnosis of the truth, and the truth shall make you free. —Jesus of Nazareth (Christian)"

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/publications/the-mystical-core-of-the-great-traditions.htm

You're a mystic of the c&p variety?

 

[tsig]

If you understood mysticism and esoterica then you wouldn't be saying the things you say. You wouldn't expect to have or to find a concept of God that you can talk about rationally and logically in the first place. You would know that concepts of God are ultimately derived from ineffable mystical experiences that transcend thought and words and concepts and culture. Not derived from the waking-state intellectual efforts of scholars and philosophers. Not from the day-to-day imagination of storytellers. Not from the scheming of con-men and power-mongers. Not from raving street prophets and soothsayers. Not from fairy tales.

Concepts of God are mystical metaphors. Metaphors can only be pushed so far. Words can only be pushed so far. Then you have to transcend them through mystical techniques and experience. You have to transcend all levels of intellectual thought. If one can't or won't do that, then one will not understand God. Not in a million years... because without the right mystical experience one has no frame of reference with which to penetrate the metaphor. Mystical metaphors are impenetrable to the uninitiated. Therefore, the true meaning of sacred text, any sacred text, is also impenetrable to them. Only the initiated can grok the current of esoteric theology that runs underneath the orthodox, exoteric, surface theology of the man-on-the-street and underneath the intellectual efforts of philosophers because only the initiated have been trained to induce mystical experiences in an environment that supports mystical development.

If you understood mysticism then you would know that if you want to find God, you have to transcend thought and words too, not sit around on a beach talking about concepts with Ralph.

Then what are you doing here talking about it?

 

[tsig]

I didn't go there, it almost happened, but I realised it was not necessary or appropriate in the modern world.

I only did it because I had seen the Divine Vision and touched the hand of god then later I realized I was looking in a mirror and touching myself.

Satori.