PDA

View Full Version : freedom from the god concept



solomon levi
05-06-2012, 06:20 AM
First I should clarify, for I have used this word "God" at times.
But for me it is the utmost, the ineffable, the Source.
Now it's also the All and every level and degree of the All,
but when talking/communicating it is usually necessary to distinguish
between the One and the two/many/All.

Anyway, being free from a god concept was an important point, or more
accurately, process in my life. So many things can change when we no longer
look outside of ourselves for god.
But particularly is the religious concept of god, which many of us are raised with
or indoctrinated into. Of course a child will believe what its parents believed
according to the church they go to, at least until we begin to think for ourselves.
Fortunately for me, my dad was into theosophy and had a small alternative library
I used to love to browse through. I was introduced to auras and OBEs and hypnosis
and healing at a really young age.
Anyway, I'm getting off track. With a little reason, we can free ourselves from a lot
of silly god-religious concepts. When god tells Moses to take off his shoes because
he is on holy ground... really?? God cares about shoes and bare feet - this condition
must be met for holiness?? The bible is full of these rediculous items including hating
lots of people and punishing lots of people.
I'm sure most people here know that the many different gods of the many different
religions are obviously not the One God. It is easy enough for me to know that God
has no conditions whatsoever. I've tried to point that out with arguments elsewhere.
So instead of going on, let me just propose a question. What/who would you be if
there is no god to judge you? Another version: If there is no objective truth to guide
your life, your choices, your actions - no good or bad, right or wrong - what/who would
you do and be? What if it's all up to you and no one else is "out there"?
Instead of arguing why this isn't true, just allow yourself to imagine for a short time,
what if there is no god but you? And see where it takes you.

solomon levi
05-06-2012, 06:44 AM
There's something I'll just put out there for others to consider if they wish.
It's a pretty common saying that God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.

Years ago, while participating in a particular "spiritual" school, I was introduced
to a radical teaching which said "God only knows what you know". This was not a
school where you are told to accept things blindly or on faith. It took me years to
see the truth of this statement for myself. I have argued elsewhere why God cannot
possess knowledge - not in Its Oneness state anyways.
This teaching/observation goes along well with the previous post, if anyone wants
to consider it.

MarkostheGnostic
05-06-2012, 06:20 PM
Well, there are many God concepts, and these are Ideas about God. Ideas are intellectual constructs, but constructed of what? Consciousness. Only if we choose a common model about God, wherein we can agree that the archaic word 'spirit,' is translated as 'consciousness,' can we even discuss God, the Idea of God, and the experience of God. Like a math problem in which one must first reduce numbers to the lowest common denominator, we have to reduce scriptural stories from purportedly historical events to mythic events which are enacted in consciousness, but not in space-time. Then the mythic events need to be reduced (as John Shelby Spong has done) to its cultural symbolism. The New Testament's gospels, according to Spong, follows the Jewish liturgical calendar. The actual rituals (not the mythic insertions) hold at least four levels of interpretation according to Jewish exegetical analysis (Plain, Allegorical, Midrashic, Mystical) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis) . Most people are confused by the levels. When Jesus allegedly says "I am the vine, you are the branches..." the meaning is not 'Plain,' it is at least "Allegorical,' for example. But meanwhile, the famous 'I AM' statement in John 14:6 ",Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me," if taken in its 'Plain' level makes a whole lot less sense, and looks megalomaniacal. But, if it is a statement made from Pure Being, then it is a statement which describes the truth of each and every one of us, which we must individually realize. Otherwise, it merely puts Jesus on a pedestal to be worshiped like a Greek demigod. It becomes a meaningless statement altogether if (1) Jesus existed historically, and was therefore a normal human being like all others (barring any typical myth of parthenogenic birth), or (2) if Jesus never existed historically, but is a literary creation of many wisdom teachers.

So, I would say that the 'god concept' is not eliminated, but rather that the direction of consciousness to experience God in some capacity is removed from an historical, or even a mythical level, and narrowed to a transpersonal level of the psyche, which can then be experienced directly. A mystical experience of the "high subtle" (K. Wilber) or "low causal," or "high causal" plane, will seriously reduce (Sabikalpa samadhi) or eliminate (Nirvikalpa /Asamprajnata samadhi) the individual, transient identity so that all that remains is the Universal "I AM" in its intuitively self-existent, non-verbal mode. Paul had "high subtle" experiences of being "caught up to the third heaven," but he retained an individual identity with which he "heard" "unutterable" (ineffable) things. Meanwhile, in the NT, Jesus remains the only one who has "high causal" or 'God-consciousness.' For Paul (as Albert Schweitzer pointed out in The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle), there is ONLY Christ-mysticism for Paul, not God-mysticism as one finds in the East.

The great difficulty in all the 'religions of the Book,' is that individuals confound their ego with the "I AM," the Jungian or Advaitic Self. It is called blasphemy in the NT, and the sin of 'shirk,' or 'association with God,' in Islam. It is a grave error to proclaim the truth of one's ultimate identity in God, and Jews, Christians and Muslims have always condemned their mystics for any such proclamations. This truth must only be expressed by the occult gesture of placing upright index finger to closed lips, in the gesture of Silence. Reducing this Idea to verbal, vibrational, or written expression is forbidden because most individuals will immediately interpret the exhortation, or revelation as pertaining to an individual's ego, and thus be introducing a lie into the most holy of secrets.

As to "out there," in consciousness, which has no extension in space-time, the notion of location (inner or outer) is meaningless. In fact, this very discussion is meaningless to anyone who still conceives of God as an 'Old-Bearded-Guy-in-the-Sky." Those mythological images (Zeus/Deus/Iesous/YHWH) will simply prevent a person from transcending their immature images, concepts, and beliefs. The anthropomorphizing of God with human attributes may be necessary for those who need a 'personal' God, but those who seek to realize the transpersonal God will reject these (like the Islamic '99 Names') along with mythic images. It then is a matter of 'stripping away,' all attributes, which are idolatrous illusions. The path becomes 'apophatic,' (Via Negativa) instead of 'cataphatic' which posits attributes - even Light or Love. The closest thing to God may well be the moment-to-moment experience of taking a breath (which is why in Greek the word for air and spirit is pneuma). Every 'inspiration' is life, every 'expiration' is death, and God is experienced in the moment between both, first inwardly, then outwardly, then - no difference remains.

zoas23
05-06-2012, 11:54 PM
Well, there are many God concepts, and these are Ideas about God. Ideas are intellectual constructs, but constructed of what? Consciousness. Only if we choose a common model about God, wherein we can agree that the archaic word 'spirit,' is translated as 'consciousness,' can we even discuss God, the Idea of God, and the experience of God. Like a math problem in which one must first reduce numbers to the lowest common denominator, we have to reduce scriptural stories from purportedly historical events to mythic events which are enacted in consciousness, but not in space-time. Then the mythic events need to be reduced (as John Shelby Spong has done) to its cultural symbolism. The New Testament's gospels, according to Spong, follows the Jewish liturgical calendar. The actual rituals (not the mythic insertions) hold at least four levels of interpretation according to Jewish exegetical analysis (Plain, Allegorical, Midrashic, Mystical) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis) . Most people are confused by the levels. When Jesus allegedly says "I am the vine, you are the branches..." the meaning is not 'Plain,' it is at least "Allegorical,' for example. But meanwhile, the famous 'I AM' statement in John 14:6 ",Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me," if taken in its 'Plain' level makes a whole lot less sense, and looks megalomaniacal. But, if it is a statement made from Pure Being, then it is a statement which describes the truth of each and every one of us, which we must individually realize. Otherwise, it merely puts Jesus on a pedestal to be worshiped like a Greek demigod. It becomes a meaningless statement altogether if (1) Jesus existed historically, and was therefore a normal human being like all others (barring any typical myth of parthenogenic birth), or (2) if Jesus never existed historically, but is a literary creation of many wisdom teachers.

So, I would say that the 'god concept' is not eliminated, but rather that the direction of consciousness to experience God in some capacity is removed from an historical, or even a mythical level, and narrowed to a transpersonal level of the psyche, which can then be experienced directly. A mystical experience of the "high subtle" (K. Wilber) or "low causal," or "high causal" plane, will seriously reduce (Sabikalpa samadhi) or eliminate (Nirvikalpa /Asamprajnata samadhi) the individual, transient identity so that all that remains is the Universal "I AM" in its intuitively self-existent, non-verbal mode. Paul had "high subtle" experiences of being "caught up to the third heaven," but he retained an individual identity with which he "heard" "unutterable" (ineffable) things. Meanwhile, in the NT, Jesus remains the only one who has "high causal" or 'God-consciousness.' For Paul (as Albert Schweitzer pointed out in The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle), there is ONLY Christ-mysticism for Paul, not God-mysticism as one finds in the East.

The great difficulty in all the 'religions of the Book,' is that individuals confound their ego with the "I AM," the Jungian or Advaitic Self. It is called blasphemy in the NT, and the sin of 'shirk,' or 'association with God,' in Islam. It is a grave error to proclaim the truth of one's ultimate identity in God, and Jews, Christians and Muslims have always condemned their mystics for any such proclamations. This truth must only be expressed by the occult gesture of placing upright index finger to closed lips, in the gesture of Silence. Reducing this Idea to verbal, vibrational, or written expression is forbidden because most individuals will immediately interpret the exhortation, or revelation as pertaining to an individual's ego, and thus be introducing a lie into the most holy of secrets.

As to "out there," in consciousness, which has no extension in space-time, the notion of location (inner or outer) is meaningless. In fact, this very discussion is meaningless to anyone who still conceives of God as an 'Old-Bearded-Guy-in-the-Sky." Those mythological images (Zeus/Deus/Iesous/YHWH) will simply prevent a person from transcending their immature images, concepts, and beliefs. The anthropomorphizing of God with human attributes may be necessary for those who need a 'personal' God, but those who seek to realize the transpersonal God will reject these (like the Islamic '99 Names') along with mythic images. It then is a matter of 'stripping away,' all attributes, which are idolatrous illusions. The path becomes 'apophatic,' (Via Negativa) instead of 'cataphatic' which posits attributes - even Light or Love. The closest thing to God may well be the moment-to-moment experience of taking a breath (which is why in Greek the word for air and spirit is pneuma). Every 'inspiration' is life, every 'expiration' is death, and God is experienced in the moment between both, first inwardly, then outwardly, then - no difference remains.

Except for the fact that I am not specially interested in the terms coined by Jung and I am not in love with K. Wilber either, you have just explained everything... !!!
It's even worth getting a tattoo of this post... and the key to everything is there.

Damn... I hate the "applause" posts that don't add abything... but what else can I say when you have said it all? So...

***Applause***

Great post.

solomon levi
05-07-2012, 03:35 AM
Yes. A very nice post Markos.
I think, upon first reading, I agree with all of it.
But did you catch what my post is really about -
what if there is no God, just you?
Not a new concept of God... just take It off the table.
What if we never looked outside of ourselves for verification
or second-guessed ourselves?
I'm not saying that is the way to be.
I'm saying, check it out and see what it's like.
Be free enough to consider it. :)

What if we didn't even have words/ideas like "consciousness"
to substitute for "God"? That's my main point. Don't put anything
else in its place. Remove the place.

Krisztian
05-07-2012, 03:56 AM
My wisdom tells me that all of the concepts of God and all of the other intellectual terms describing this-and-that philosophy are just that, ego's word-play. My teacher is experience. My god is wisdom itself.

That quote solomon levi, "God only knows what you know", comes from Ramtha. You live in that area of the country where the school is established. I also studied the material. It's quite ironic that Ramtha's School of Enlightenment is, in a way, teachings of gnosticism, like the name "MarkostheGnostic" implies. So, I guess we're all on the same page, no?

Thanks for this posting. The topic itself is important.

solomon levi
05-07-2012, 07:58 AM
That quote solomon levi, "God only knows what you know", comes from Ramtha. You live in that area of the country where the school is established. I also studied the material. It's quite ironic that Ramtha's School of Enlightenment is, in a way, teachings of gnosticism, like the name "MarkostheGnostic" implies. So, I guess we're all on the same page, no?

Thanks for this posting. The topic itself is important.

The topic itself is important, which is why it is worth considering without bringing in personalities
like Ramtha IMO. Ramtha didn't teach me to verify it - nonduality did, which Ramtha doesn't
focus on so much, most of their focus being on creating reality, therefore duality - self as creator
instead of self as object.

I don't know that we're all on the same page.
No one has shared any understanding of removing the God "place" from the table,
without substituting any other word for that place. Not in this thread anyway.
If they have, it wasn't clear to me.

It's part my fault in wording the title of the thread.
And then I did go into concepts of God a little too.
But my main pointing was about freedom from the "place" that God holds.
As long as this place exists, there are other perceptions we do not see.
And I'm about seeing everything, not part.
And if I can't talk about seeing everything, I talk about bigger pictures or
radical views; whatever helps to free us of any narrow-mindedness/fragmentation/exclusion. :)