A useful idea from William James:
is
"I speak not, now, of
your ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his
country, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or Mohammedan. His religion has
been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to
fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It would profit us little to study
this second-hand religious life. We must make search rather for the original experiences
which were the pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and
imitated conduct".
Friday, December 25, 2009
Now, two comments to add from a forum that I find is useful in the process of *finding words* towards describing the 'experience' of god.
This one about the 'personal' nature of god;
> Date: Thursday, 24 December, 2009, 19:14
> "Well, we as individuals get to
> determine or decide what qualifies as a "god
> experience" other than if we choose to let someone else
> do it for us. That being the case a "god
> experience" becomes whatever we want to identify as
> such and yours may little resemble mine... maybe yours seems
> inauthentic to me maybe mine appears inauthentic to you.
>
> OVER ALL however, (and as a flaming pantheist, a rabid
> intellectual, and a mad skeptic of reason) I have to say
> that I doubt the human capacity to mindfully experience
> 'GOD' or much of it sufficient to make sense out
> of--any more than some hypothetical parasite of a virus host
> could make sense out of a human being."
**************************************************
The mindful, personal interactive factor, looks to me to be a significant one - but no, I dont say that without it, the thing is not 'of god'.
In the way that there are sometimes lost paths, there seems to me to be too much emphasis - on certain aspects of mans 'human-ness', that miss out on the 'human-ness' that is everywhere.
It seems to me that human temperament, human nature, is identified much too much as *just* 'human', when so many of its qualities may equally be seen in a field of hay or a granite cliff, or an ocean, in all the universe, as in human personality.
They are not mindful in exactly the same way, but the the nature of man is intensely interactive, without mindfulness. It just is. *It* interacts constantly. ..but theres constant, intense interaction, all the while, everywhere. (In 'nature' for example, does the bee search for nectar or does the flower entice the bee?).
The person to person 'god' seems clear to me, and is available, accessable to everyone.
I think of an altered, deeper, or intent focus, on that personality, as prayer.
I mean that - My 'own' interactive nature, or something that resembles it closely, is out there, it responds to me as I do to it, all the while.
Next,
This comment I found helpful in clarifying an idea of god that appears to me to be a mistaken concept.
> Date: Friday, 25 December, 2009, 3:12
> I have a friend who says - loudly,
> that she is an atheist. She was born into a Jewish
> family, but bore a stillborn baby and had two miscarriages
> -
> all very disturbing for her. Her experiences told her
> there Is No God... Also, it is not a philosophy for
> her, and though it is clearly a belief, it is
> physical and cellular, from her experiences. Even
> this discussion about God would be more than she could
> manage.
This is about a 'make believe, space filler' god, I think.
This woman's rejected 'god', existed (perhaps by the tradition of family religious practice), at sometime in her life, but *only* as one of the make believe,
god-concepts, that one may describe as 'fillers' or ways to bridge, (perhaps fearful) gaps, in understanding?
'Make believe' often having the limitations of inadequacy in dealing with 'real experiences'.
This particular 'make believe god', was expected, (perhaps even guaranteed by some kind of teaching) to protect women from the misery of miscarriage, despair and loss, failed to do so, and was discarded for ever, never having existed at all, as a real experience.
Isnt this one of the most common of the 'make believe, filler' god concepts?
The metaphysical controller, that is able and willing to intervene in the affairs and lives of men, according to their hopes & needs, and make approved changes, when required to do so?
I dont think its useful to think about any use of the word 'god'
in that context.
This one about the 'personal' nature of god;
> Date: Thursday, 24 December, 2009, 19:14
> "Well, we as individuals get to
> determine or decide what qualifies as a "god
> experience" other than if we choose to let someone else
> do it for us. That being the case a "god
> experience" becomes whatever we want to identify as
> such and yours may little resemble mine... maybe yours seems
> inauthentic to me maybe mine appears inauthentic to you.
>
> OVER ALL however, (and as a flaming pantheist, a rabid
> intellectual, and a mad skeptic of reason) I have to say
> that I doubt the human capacity to mindfully experience
> 'GOD' or much of it sufficient to make sense out
> of--any more than some hypothetical parasite of a virus host
> could make sense out of a human being."
**************************************************
The mindful, personal interactive factor, looks to me to be a significant one - but no, I dont say that without it, the thing is not 'of god'.
In the way that there are sometimes lost paths, there seems to me to be too much emphasis - on certain aspects of mans 'human-ness', that miss out on the 'human-ness' that is everywhere.
It seems to me that human temperament, human nature, is identified much too much as *just* 'human', when so many of its qualities may equally be seen in a field of hay or a granite cliff, or an ocean, in all the universe, as in human personality.
They are not mindful in exactly the same way, but the the nature of man is intensely interactive, without mindfulness. It just is. *It* interacts constantly. ..but theres constant, intense interaction, all the while, everywhere. (In 'nature' for example, does the bee search for nectar or does the flower entice the bee?).
The person to person 'god' seems clear to me, and is available, accessable to everyone.
I think of an altered, deeper, or intent focus, on that personality, as prayer.
I mean that - My 'own' interactive nature, or something that resembles it closely, is out there, it responds to me as I do to it, all the while.
Next,
This comment I found helpful in clarifying an idea of god that appears to me to be a mistaken concept.
> Date: Friday, 25 December, 2009, 3:12
> I have a friend who says - loudly,
> that she is an atheist. She was born into a Jewish
> family, but bore a stillborn baby and had two miscarriages
> -
> all very disturbing for her. Her experiences told her
> there Is No God... Also, it is not a philosophy for
> her, and though it is clearly a belief, it is
> physical and cellular, from her experiences. Even
> this discussion about God would be more than she could
> manage.
This is about a 'make believe, space filler' god, I think.
This woman's rejected 'god', existed (perhaps by the tradition of family religious practice), at sometime in her life, but *only* as one of the make believe,
god-concepts, that one may describe as 'fillers' or ways to bridge, (perhaps fearful) gaps, in understanding?
'Make believe' often having the limitations of inadequacy in dealing with 'real experiences'.
This particular 'make believe god', was expected, (perhaps even guaranteed by some kind of teaching) to protect women from the misery of miscarriage, despair and loss, failed to do so, and was discarded for ever, never having existed at all, as a real experience.
Isnt this one of the most common of the 'make believe, filler' god concepts?
The metaphysical controller, that is able and willing to intervene in the affairs and lives of men, according to their hopes & needs, and make approved changes, when required to do so?
I dont think its useful to think about any use of the word 'god'
in that context.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
better begin...in the beginning...
hmm
reading this again, it needs to be shorter...
I am interested in comparing notes on 'real experience of', (ie not 'belief in' or 'faith in'), the phenomena generally identified as 'god', ie/eg the non-magical, person to person god, as the source of the order and disorder of the universe, that takes part in the exchange that is often called 'prayer' - freely and without mankind's influence or constraint.
So far, the experience might be best described, as I know it, as the result of a 'tuning', a shift in consciousness, which, ideally - would, or one day will be, a continuous state, not one that has to be searched for.
I know it as a continual condition of disconnection and reconnection. My actual physical, daily world demands constant thought and attention, its complexity in extremes of delight and tragedy are often overwhelming, uplifting or heartbreaking.
Beyond my own daily life experiences, are those of my wider world, of people and places that I know respond as I and mine do, who face similarly - those same kinds of extremes - or greater ones.
Their lives change as mine does, they celebrate, they feel pain & their hearts are broken, as mine may be.
The experience of any sense of impending collapse, disaster, destruction - every kind of calamity, must be a common one.
Just as immense joy, delight, celebration, may be.
For myself - the tremendous turmoil of life, and many of its most awful aspects, might be intolerable, I have certainly found it to be so in the past, so that I felt driven to escape it all, and everything I know of it, somehow.
Yet there is no escape - always the relentless continuum.
However my most powerful experience, my reality, is none of that.
Instead, it is 'god consciousness', or the sense of stepping away from smaller concerns, to consider 'god', a god sensed as 'love', instead.
The experience is a powerful one in that there has appeared to be nothing that comes close to subduing it, and it brings answers, results, responses. Sometimes so uncanny that I feel that a 'fix' has been arranged, deliberately by someone who knows me well, but concerning things about which no-one can possibly know, or intervene.
But - no, none, not one response that I ever demand,
none that I can ever dream of.
Any sense of 'knowing better' than the experience itself, renders it useless.
I know that, and feel it as 'bad tuning'.
For it to be effective, I need to be in a state of mind that accepts my own complete unbounded, ignorance.
A state of mind that might compare to the landscape after an immense flood, or fire, with everything swept away, nothing recognisable.
Then I hold on to that state of mind, a reconnection, I know it as my most 'real' condition, not that one given by whatever my life seems to give me on any given day as a main protagonist, in a plot concerning 'one' - me, as large and significant,
but - I as a tiny part of infinity, microscopic, insignifcant, nothing at all, in the universe, far less than one microscopic star in the milky way.
Then I feel close to god, I rediscover my true nature, and feel 'seen' and heard, as I am, 'actually'.
At that time, in that state of mind, I can find my deepest, saddest thoughts and darkest feelings, all that seems to be my most impossibly glorious dreams, and needs.
I can scream and cry them, they can all be heard, they will be heard. They are shared with god.
It is the sense of finding the centre - the organiser, an 'other' consciousness,
one immense one, that contains my own.
'God consciousness' & the ongoing search for god, and god based structures, (religions) together with all the god debate, with rejection of god, appears to be universal, trans cultural and present in some of the earliest evidence of man, and might be assumed to be some kind of 'need' that must be confronted & met, in similar ways that the needs for all fundamental needs such as shelter or food must be.
It may be almost impossible for anyone to live on this planet, without being aware of 'god consciousness'.
That 'god thought' appears to be an inbuilt function in the nature of man, - does not appear to guarantee any kind of working relationship with any god, any more than the need for food and shelter guarantees a useful diet or a safe home. To find food or shelter, may be in some locations - very easy, in others
extremely testing, yet mans resilience and adaptability makes it possible for him to inhabit some inhospitable regions.
...to be continued...
reading this again, it needs to be shorter...
I am interested in comparing notes on 'real experience of', (ie not 'belief in' or 'faith in'), the phenomena generally identified as 'god', ie/eg the non-magical, person to person god, as the source of the order and disorder of the universe, that takes part in the exchange that is often called 'prayer' - freely and without mankind's influence or constraint.
So far, the experience might be best described, as I know it, as the result of a 'tuning', a shift in consciousness, which, ideally - would, or one day will be, a continuous state, not one that has to be searched for.
I know it as a continual condition of disconnection and reconnection. My actual physical, daily world demands constant thought and attention, its complexity in extremes of delight and tragedy are often overwhelming, uplifting or heartbreaking.
Beyond my own daily life experiences, are those of my wider world, of people and places that I know respond as I and mine do, who face similarly - those same kinds of extremes - or greater ones.
Their lives change as mine does, they celebrate, they feel pain & their hearts are broken, as mine may be.
The experience of any sense of impending collapse, disaster, destruction - every kind of calamity, must be a common one.
Just as immense joy, delight, celebration, may be.
For myself - the tremendous turmoil of life, and many of its most awful aspects, might be intolerable, I have certainly found it to be so in the past, so that I felt driven to escape it all, and everything I know of it, somehow.
Yet there is no escape - always the relentless continuum.
However my most powerful experience, my reality, is none of that.
Instead, it is 'god consciousness', or the sense of stepping away from smaller concerns, to consider 'god', a god sensed as 'love', instead.
The experience is a powerful one in that there has appeared to be nothing that comes close to subduing it, and it brings answers, results, responses. Sometimes so uncanny that I feel that a 'fix' has been arranged, deliberately by someone who knows me well, but concerning things about which no-one can possibly know, or intervene.
But - no, none, not one response that I ever demand,
none that I can ever dream of.
Any sense of 'knowing better' than the experience itself, renders it useless.
I know that, and feel it as 'bad tuning'.
For it to be effective, I need to be in a state of mind that accepts my own complete unbounded, ignorance.
A state of mind that might compare to the landscape after an immense flood, or fire, with everything swept away, nothing recognisable.
Then I hold on to that state of mind, a reconnection, I know it as my most 'real' condition, not that one given by whatever my life seems to give me on any given day as a main protagonist, in a plot concerning 'one' - me, as large and significant,
but - I as a tiny part of infinity, microscopic, insignifcant, nothing at all, in the universe, far less than one microscopic star in the milky way.
Then I feel close to god, I rediscover my true nature, and feel 'seen' and heard, as I am, 'actually'.
At that time, in that state of mind, I can find my deepest, saddest thoughts and darkest feelings, all that seems to be my most impossibly glorious dreams, and needs.
I can scream and cry them, they can all be heard, they will be heard. They are shared with god.
It is the sense of finding the centre - the organiser, an 'other' consciousness,
one immense one, that contains my own.
'God consciousness' & the ongoing search for god, and god based structures, (religions) together with all the god debate, with rejection of god, appears to be universal, trans cultural and present in some of the earliest evidence of man, and might be assumed to be some kind of 'need' that must be confronted & met, in similar ways that the needs for all fundamental needs such as shelter or food must be.
It may be almost impossible for anyone to live on this planet, without being aware of 'god consciousness'.
That 'god thought' appears to be an inbuilt function in the nature of man, - does not appear to guarantee any kind of working relationship with any god, any more than the need for food and shelter guarantees a useful diet or a safe home. To find food or shelter, may be in some locations - very easy, in others
extremely testing, yet mans resilience and adaptability makes it possible for him to inhabit some inhospitable regions.
...to be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
