What is God and Love?
-
Sorry that this may not pertain to buddhism stuff but no harm trying if some of u can tell more about it.
I am referring to the 'God' and 'Love' that are always talked about by spiritual teachers. Because some of us may be confused(like myself) when we think in terms of the personal God and romantic love.
-
no one has found the answers yet or ever will....
but what the word u use "personal" and were saying may just be the nearest answer without referring to the scholars....this confusion was discovered by Soren Kierkegaard and from this....a new philosophy was born...
-
Both God and Love are ineffable, just like the color red.
No one can tell you what is God, and you can only understand Love when you experience it yourself :)
_/\_
-
that right......God/ Love is subjective
Truth is therefore subjective - Soren Kierkegaard
-
Buddhism and the God-idea
QUESTION: Do Buddhists believe in a god?
ANSWER: No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:
Gripped by fear men go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.
The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.
QUESTION: But if there are no gods how did the universe get here?
ANSWER: All religions have myths and stories which attempt to answer this question. In ancient times, when man simply did not know, such myths were adequate, but in the 20th century, in the age of physics, astronomy and geology, such myths have been superseded by scientific fact. Science has explained the origin of the universe without recourse to the god-idea.
QUESTION: What does the Buddha say about the origin of the universe?
ANSWER: It is interesting that the Buddha’s explanation of the origin of the universe corresponds very closely to the scientific view. In the Aganna Sutta, The Buddha describes the universe being destroyed and then re-evolving into its present form over a period of countless millions of years. The first life formed on the surface of the water and again, over countless millions of years, evolved from simple into complex organisms. All these processes are without beginning or end, and are set in motion by natural causes.
QUESTION: You say there is no evidence for the existence of a god. But what about miracles?
ANSWER: There are many who believe that miracles are proof of gods existence. We hear wild claims that a healing has taken place but we never get an independent testimony from a medical office or a surgeon. We hear second-hand reports that someone was miraculously saved from disaster but we never get an eye-witness account of what is supposed to have happened. We hear rumours that prayer straightened a diseased body or strengthened a withered limb, but we never see X-rays or get comments from doctors or nurses. Wild claims, second-hand reports and rumours are no substitute for solid evidence and solid evidence of miracles is very rare. However, sometimes unexplained things do happen, unexpected events do occur. But our inability to explain such things does not prove the existence of gods. It only proves that our knowledge is as yet incomplete. Before the development of modern medicine, when people didn’t know what caused sickness people believed that god or the gods sent diseases as a punishment. Now we know what causes such things and when we get sick, we take medicine. In time when our knowledge of the world is more complete, we will be able to understand what causes unexplained phenomena, just as we can now understand what causes disease.
QUESTION: But so many people believe in some form of god, it must be true.
ANSWER: Not so. There was a time when everyone believed that the world was flat, but they were all wrong. The number of people who believe in an idea is no measure of the truth or falsehood of that idea. The only way we can tell whether an idea is true or not is by looking at the facts and examining the evidence.
QUESTION: So if Buddhists don’t believe in gods, what do you believe in?
ANSWER: We don’t believe in a god because we believe in man. We believe that each human being is precious and important, that all have the potential to develop into a Buddha – a perfected human being. We believe that human beings can outgrow ignorance and irrationality and see things as they really are. We believe that hatred, anger, spite and jealousy can be replaced by love, patience, generosity and kindness. We believe that all this is within the grasp of each person if they make the effort, guided and supported by fellow Buddhists and inspired by the example of the Buddha. As the Buddha says:
No one saves us but ourselves,
No one can and no one may.
We ourselves must walk the path,
But Buddhas clearly show the way. -
Originally posted by Aloozer:
Sorry that this may not pertain to buddhism stuff but no harm trying if some of u can tell more about it.
I am referring to the 'God' and 'Love' that are always talked about by spiritual teachers. Because some of us may be confused(like myself) when we think in terms of the personal God and romantic love.
Which spiritual teacher do you have in mind?
-
When Ananthapindika, a wealthy young man met the Buddha at the bamboo groove at Rajagriha, the Buddha spoke to him clearly about his views on the existence of God and the real cause behind the creation of beings in this world. These views of the Buddha are summarized in the following manner:
1. If God is the maker of all living things, then they all should have to submit to His power silently. They have to be like the vessels produced by the potter, without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can they all practice virtue?
2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no such thing as sorrow or calamity or evil, for all the pure and impure deeds must come from Him.
3. If that is not the case then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.
4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.
5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?
6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.
7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.
The Buddha did not encourage speculation on the existence of Iswara, (God) among his disciples. He wanted them to confine themselves to what was within their field of awareness, that is, to understand the causes of suffering and work for its mitigation.
He preached that the individual was a product of ignorance and an illusion which were responsible for all the suffering and evil. He therefore urged his disciples to become aware of the various aspects of their individual personalities and work for Nirvana which was but the total extinction of this individuality and cessation of all becoming and changing. -
Who created God? Man.
Sort of like if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around does it make a sound? If man didn't exist, would there be God? -
no lah rooney. i already said not that kinda God up above.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Which spiritual teacher do you have in mind?
can't remember any names sorry cos i just happened to read some. i just mean the kinda 'God' that one reaches in meditation? what's that kind of 'God' in that context? -
People ask, "what is God?", to understand the answer you first have to understand the question, likewise for Enlightenment, Buddha-Mind/Nature.
may you be One with God _/\_
-
"God is Godless. God is an idea that we have, another construct, a prop, which doesn't suggest that God doesn't exist. God is existence. But your idea of God and existence are two different things at the moment."
-
"Enlightenment, nirvana, God, truth, call it what you will - there is no activity other than the eternal activities of the universe, perfect being, the awareness of all suchness and knowledge."
"We use the word "God" as representative of that which is timeless, immortal and infinite, that which produces order, which holds together the nucleus of an atom, which gives us life and death, neither masculine nor feminine, not a person, beyond any comprehension."
"To become conscious of God, to become God's consciousness, to become God, to be God and to be beyond God, God being beyond God, God having an existence separate from the creation, to be that, to merge with that, to lose one's self and find one's self endlessly again and again in that is self-realization."
-
God is conditional whereas love is unconditional :)
-
To me, God and love can't save us from sufferings (sufferings from karma, reincarnation etc. ) thus never bother to find out more about them.
-
Hi Aloozner
It is an interesting query. There two aspec to it.
First, we need to define, " GOD". This definition process maybe subjective in nature as most people would belive in GOD under the Rooney9-Q&A summary. The main reason for the belief is due mostly to fear and blessing factor. However, recently theologian, has redefine,"GOD" as Ground of All Beings. In another word, it indicates not that God is the fact of things existing, but that God is the basis for the existence of all things. God is more fundamental to existing things than anything else. So fundamental to the existence of all things is God, that God can be thought of as the basis upon which things exist, the ground their being. To say that God is The ground of being or being itself, is to say that there is something we can sense that is so special about the nature of being that it hints at this fundamental reality upon which all else is based. All beings are parts of His manifestation. http://www.doxa.ws/Being/Being2.html
Secondly, we need to define , "LOVE". In English language, Love is love. However, the original Greek word have a few premises for consideration.
Philo-brotherly or community love
Eros-sexual and sensual appealing love between lovers
Storge-parental love for his offspring
Agape-unconditional love without discrimination
Therefore, it depend on the context to define the love. Love(Agape) is an aspect of God in Christian context. Personally, I do beleive that Buddha and Bodhisattvas also possess the agape and philo quality which we repeatedly see in Buddhist scripture. However, we tend to call this quality as compassion, because love in Buddhist context tend to have a connotation related to object attachement which resulted in suffering.
In conclusion, a person may believe in God/Buddha/Bodhisattvas due to the various factors. However, if he is able to recognise himself as parts of higher beings manifestation (grounds of all beings). Then he can chose to strive on the Agape quality aspect of higher beings in his daily living to make our world a better place. Thus far, I think Mother Teresa and Master Cheng Yen (Tzu Chi) have managed to do that in our era.
Gassho
-
Originally posted by Aloozer:
can't remember any names sorry cos i just happened to read some. i just mean the kinda 'God' that one reaches in meditation? what's that kind of 'God' in that context?Here's some quotations for you to ponder:
God
Thusness (2006, Is God A Thing?):
This is an interesting topic and since it is allowed to discuss more about God in a Buddhism forum, I would like to talk a little more about the experience of 'AMness" in all things.
Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?
Being free individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is “God”.
His Holiness The Dalai Lama:
Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?
A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.
We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.
Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape.
In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.
This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.
Dzogchen text/tantra:
"I, the supreme source ["All-Creating King"], am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me ... The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me ... I am self-arising wisdom that has existed from the beginning. I am the supreme source of everything, pure and total consciousness ...'Consciousness' means that self-arising wisdom, the true essence, dominates and clearly perceives all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe. This self-arising fundamental substance, not produced by causes and condition, governs all things and gives life to all things ... As my nature is unhindered and all-pervading, it is the celestial abode of wisdom and luminous space: therein abides only self-arising wisdom. As I am the substance whence everything arises, the five great elements, the three worlds [i.e. the worlds of Desire, Form, and Formlessness] and the six classes of beings [hell-denizens, ghosts, animals, humans, Titans, and gods] are only my body, my voice, and my mind: I myself create my own nature ... The root of all phenomena is pure and total consciousness, the source. All that appears is my nature. All that manifests is my magical display. All sounds and words express only my meaning ...
"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am 'the core', because I contain all phenomena. I am 'the seed', because I give birth to everything. I am 'the cause', because all comes forth from me. I am 'the trunk', because the ramificationsof every event sprout from me. I am 'the foundation', because all abides in me. I am called 'the root', because I am everything [emphasis added]"(Translation of "The All-Creating King", published as The Supreme Source, tr. by Adriano Clemente and Andrew Lukianowicz, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, New York 1999, pp. 137-141, 157).
Love:
Scott Kiloby
Love
Love is such a simple word, yet so misunderstood.
In my first book, “Love’s Quiet Revolution,” I used the word love a lot as a pointer.
Through the years, I stopped using the word because people seemed to misinterpret what was being said.
By love, I don’t mean one person loving another person, either romantically or platonically. Certainly, that is a kind of love that can arise.
But love, with regard to non-dual realization, is something totally different.
Yes, this love is what is experienced when the sense of being a separate person disappears.
But that is only a small part of it.
It’s not just the sense of a separate person that disappears.
It’s the sense that nothing is separate.
No matter where you go, you cannot find something that feels independent from what you are.
Nothing feels “out there,” estranged, or isolated.
Life is intimately present.
The sun feels just as inseparable as a bodily sensation.
Ask yourself, how far is the thought, “Sun,” from the warmth of the sun? Both appear right here, in present awareness, inseparably.
Love is the experience of all dualities collapsing. It is the recognition that there is no thought that can capture the freedom of life.
Opposites just don’t work anymore.
Words like time v. timelessness, form v. formlessness just don’t convey solid information.
Dualities collapse, melting into one sweet essence.
Love is seeing two people arguing, knowing that there can be no right without wrong, and so the two are inseparable even in the heat of conflict.
The entire world feels intimate precisely because no separate thing can arise without a thought arising. Things are really thoughts. And thoughts appear intimately and inseparably within the awareness, right here and now, that sees them.
Even the duality between awareness and thought disappears.
Love is not being able to find a thought that is actually independent of awareness.
This nondual love cannot be comprehended. It is beyond the mind. The most profound thought and the most absurd thought are equally drenched in love. They are both love pretending to be two different things.
The heart knows it unquestionably. But it is not the kind of love we normally experience, thick with attachment to an other.
In this love, there is no other. There is only love, appearing in every form. And there is a knowing that there aren’t really separate forms at all. Paradoxically, each form is loved completely and totally in its own right.
This is a complete unknowing. But it is not simply the act of throwing one's arms up in the air and saying, "I don't know." That is just another label, a superficial statement. This is a deep, deep unknowing that goes to the very core of being. This unknowing removes every ounce of what you take to be a separate self, leaving only love. This is an unknowing that is not attached to the past and has no expectations for future. Therefore, whatever arises is perfect.
There is only love. So simple, so sweet. Nothing to comprehend. Love just is. It is being whatever it is being in this moment. Nothing is excluded.
-
Honestly, for anyone who genuinely wishes to understand or experience more about Creator/Source/God, the less you read about it, the higher the chance of you understanding and feeling it. :)
-
Nothing happened by coincidence or by accident or by natural evolution.
There is always a planner behind every creation.
You can dismantle a cutting tool machine into bots and bits, spin them around in a bathtub for 1000000 millions of years, and you still won't get an assembled cutting tool machine.
-
Originally posted by parn:
Nothing happened by coincidence or by accident or by natural evolution.
There is always a planner behind every creation.
You can dismantle a cutting tool machine into bots and bits, spin them around in a bathtub for 1000000 millions of years, and you still won't get an assembled cutting tool machine.
Every phenomena is conditions depending, or arising if you please, a process of conditions being in place, while one phenomena ceases, another arises. The cutting tool machine exists not just due its physical components of the machine, but also the assembler, the machines that turn out the components of of your cutting tool machine, which is in turn another process . What also of the materials of components, is'nt it a process too, of mining of ore, subsequent processing of it?
Then, there is that of the assembler, is it a "it" or "he"? Let's say he's a human, is'nt he a product of process born of man and woman, stream of processes of going to school, getting educated, picking up engineering, mechanical skills, finally ending in this particular factory assembling this particular cutting tool machine!
Everything arise from a process and processes preceding it, never of something out of nothing!
Why do we get angry or happy or sad, melancholic for that matter, there's always reasons, factors or process leading to it, The different is of being aware and level of awareness, nothing mystical about that!
-
Originally posted by Aloozer:
Sorry that this may not pertain to buddhism stuff but no harm trying if some of u can tell more about it.
I am referring to the 'God' and 'Love' that are always talked about by spiritual teachers. Because some of us may be confused(like myself) when we think in terms of the personal God and romantic love.
''God" is "Love", is love your supreme ideal, any any ultimate values which you like to ascribe to God or even love. As long as you draw no lines or set exceptions, your God or Love is boundless and unconditional. When you go into a religious rapture or euphoria, then you can be said to in and union with God. This is the emotional aspect which draws to the devotion of God!
Romantjc love is the attraction, physical and emotional bonding of individuals, culminating in the rapture of the union. Anyway, when you fall deeply in love, it always seems like it is the real thing and love will never die.
-
In both cases you are suppose to give yourself completety!
-
Originally posted by Rainbow Jigsaw:
Honestly, for anyone who genuinely wishes to understand or experience more about Creator/Source/God, the less you read about it, the higher the chance of you understanding and feeling it. :)
Partly true - but of course, reading by itself is no harm.
It is that if we cling to any ideas of God when practicing that is of harm. Like pointing to the moon, no pointers are the moon itself. What you want is to 'get' the moon itself.
Whatever is transcendental can only be approached through a direct, intuitive, non-conceptual awareness.
Here's some pointers for those who want to have that direct experience of the transcendental:
Personal Buddhist wishes
Thusness:
For your first wish, you may need to have an initial glimpse of our inner most essence. You can try the direct approach by asking yourself this,
“Without using any languages, ‘I’, ‘me’ or any signs or symbols, how is ‘I’ experienced?”AEN:
Yesterday I watched these videos, I think they're very good and tells you how all symbols and label, such as 'I am my body' is not the pure experience.
They're good esp part 2. Those interested or practicing self inquiry may want to watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNOzlHcOEto (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaYeAve8aKM (part 2)
Though I must reiterate what Thusness said:
Of all teachings, no teaching is more important then a direct ‘touch’ of our Buddha essence; but of all dangers, none is more dangerous than misinterpreting our essence after the ‘touch’.The ‘touch’ of the pure sense of existence is often wrongly understood due to our karmic tendencies. Use the doctrine of Anatta and Emptiness as antidote.
Thusness:
AEN posted a great site about what I am trying to convey. Do go through the videos. I will divide what that are being discussed in the videos into the method, the view and the experience for ease of illustration as follows:
1. The method is what that is commonly known as self enquiry.
2. The view currently we have is dualistic. We see things in terms of subject/object division.
3. The experience can be further divided into the followings:
3.1 A strong individual sense of identity
3.2 An oceanic experience free from conceptualization.
This is due to the practitioner freeing himself from conceptuality, from labels and symbols. The mind continuous disassociates itself from all labeling and symbols.
3.3 An oceanic experience dissolving into everything.
The period of non-conceptuality is prolonged. Long enough to dissolve the mind/body ‘symbolic’ bond and therefore inner and outer division is temporarily suspended.
The experience for 3.2 and 3.3 are transcendental and are precious. However these experiences are commonly misinterpreted and distorted by objectifying these experiences into an entity that is “ultimate, changeless and independent”. The objectified experience is known as Atman, God or Buddha Nature by the speaker in the videos. It is known as the experience of “I AM” with differing degree of intensity of non-conceptuality. Usually practitioners that have experienced 3.2 and 3.3 find it difficult to accept the doctrine of Anatta and Emptiness. The experiences are too clear, real and blissful to discard. They are overwhelmed.
Before we go further, why do you think these experiences are distorted?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Partly true - but of course, reading by itself is no harm.
It is that if we cling to any ideas of God when practicing that is of harm. Like pointing to the moon, no pointers are the moon itself. What you want is to 'get' the moon itself.
Whatever is transcendental can only be approached through a direct, intuitive, non-conceptual awareness.
Here's some pointers for those who want to have that direct experience of the transcendental:
Personal Buddhist wishes
Thusness:
For your first wish, you may need to have an initial glimpse of our inner most essence. You can try the direct approach by asking yourself this,
“Without using any languages, ‘I’, ‘me’ or any signs or symbols, how is ‘I’ experienced?”AEN:
Yesterday I watched these videos, I think they're very good and tells you how all symbols and label, such as 'I am my body' is not the pure experience.
They're good esp part 2. Those interested or practicing self inquiry may want to watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNOzlHcOEto (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaYeAve8aKM (part 2)
Though I must reiterate what Thusness said:
Of all teachings, no teaching is more important then a direct ‘touch’ of our Buddha essence; but of all dangers, none is more dangerous than misinterpreting our essence after the ‘touch’.The ‘touch’ of the pure sense of existence is often wrongly understood due to our karmic tendencies. Use the doctrine of Anatta and Emptiness as antidote.
Thusness:
AEN posted a great site about what I am trying to convey. Do go through the videos. I will divide what that are being discussed in the videos into the method, the view and the experience for ease of illustration as follows:
1. The method is what that is commonly known as self enquiry.
2. The view currently we have is dualistic. We see things in terms of subject/object division.
3. The experience can be further divided into the followings:
3.1 A strong individual sense of identity
3.2 An oceanic experience free from conceptualization.
This is due to the practitioner freeing himself from conceptuality, from labels and symbols. The mind continuous disassociates itself from all labeling and symbols.
3.3 An oceanic experience dissolving into everything.
The period of non-conceptuality is prolonged. Long enough to dissolve the mind/body ‘symbolic’ bond and therefore inner and outer division is temporarily suspended.
The experience for 3.2 and 3.3 are transcendental and are precious. However these experiences are commonly misinterpreted and distorted by objectifying these experiences into an entity that is “ultimate, changeless and independent”. The objectified experience is known as Atman, God or Buddha Nature by the speaker in the videos. It is known as the experience of “I AM” with differing degree of intensity of non-conceptuality. Usually practitioners that have experienced 3.2 and 3.3 find it difficult to accept the doctrine of Anatta and Emptiness. The experiences are too clear, real and blissful to discard. They are overwhelmed.
Before we go further, why do you think these experiences are distorted?
It's just my personal advice to anyone truly wanting to connect with Creator/Source/God, to read less, analyse less, experience more, feel more. The connection needs to be made with your heart and mind combined, not your mind alone. A mind operating without the heart is only good for analysing academic papers and spiritual articles.Many writers out there on the Internet and bookstores have no clue what they are writing or talking about, as they have yet to experience it for themselves. Even for the few writers who have experienced themselves and know what they are writing about, many readers have no clue how to interpret what they are reading. Which is why the academic debates and battles over existence of Creator/Source/God is never-ending. At the end of the day, just believe what one is comfortable with. If one is meant to understand and experience something, he will be able to, somehow.
Though I'm blunt here, I mean no offence to anyone. Just my honest sharing. :)
Rainbow Jigsaw of Life
-
God and love??? God no love???? Love has no God?
God or no God does not matter, the truth is found elsewhere