There is a new book out by Brad Warner about this topic called There Is No God and He is Everywhere.
I am only on chapter 2 but it is interesting so far. The straw Gods that people argue against here (based I suppose on the media reports of extremist positions) are given short shrift, but the idea of God outside of our beliefs and thoughts is fleshed out. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jun 14, 2013 3:05 PM, "Merle Lester" <merlewiit...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > mike... > > indeed it is good..and so we do > > at the end of the day...you cannot reason the existence of god.. > > god is god is god... > > merle > > > Merle, > > I half agree and disagree. I think it's good for us to contemplate these > kind of issues from time to time and then thru diligent practice the > 'answers' can be realised. For example, do you blindly accept the existence > of God or do you also use reason? I would agree that it is only thru > experiential wisdom that these kind of questions will be resolved - usually > in the form of no longer needing to ask such questions of ourselves - but > there have been some great thinkers from the jnana school of yoga, too. I > think Suresh may have had such exposure. > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > ------------------------------ > * From: * Merle Lester <merlewiit...@yahoo.com>; > * To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > * Subject: * Re: [Zen] God > * Sent: * Fri, Jun 14, 2013 11:32:35 AM > > > > relax suresh...stop the mind games..relax...and as joe says > practice...merle > Dear Sirs, > > For last few days. I was wondering whether there can be any god at > all, I being born Hindu Brahmin, keep going to temples, and hearing > all those discourses, Bhajans, etc., and wanted to see the god right > in front of my eyes. But that did not happened so far. May be I might > have imagined and brought those image right in front of my closed > eyes, but that is not the god. > > After reading JK and OSHO, I wondered what the truth is. > > Ramana had mixed teachings. He says self is all, and self is god or > self is guru. At one place on dissolution, there exist only brahman, > and not god, so god is the product of maya. > > Now what is god? > > Is god Shiva or Vishnu? There are group of saints who has seen god as > Shiva, and there are group of saints who has seen god as Vishnu. And > there are other saints who has seen god in different names and forms. > > In recent days, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa claimed to have seen god has > Kali. Ramana states god is in heart cave just like shivalinga. > > Now those who claim god in some form are highly intelligent and done > great virtues. > > Now Buddha maintained a neutral state, neither deny god, nor accept > god, by not speaking about god. > > The Atheist who deny god, mainly shows the inequality of the world, > such as some are rich and some are poor. And many who are doing bad > deeds, live happily and those who always does good deeds live in > miserable condition. If god would have been there, who is supposed to > be full of love, why he has not given good life for those who does > good deeds? > > For this inequality there is one answer that is Karma. Those who did > good karmas in past life, now are enjoying and those who did bad > karmas in the past life are suffering. > > But those who are in good living condition, why haven’t learnt in > their past life not to do any bad karmas now, because they only cause > suffering to others. > > Most of the Suffering or happiness is caused by human beings alone > even though nature also plays role here, science states even the > suffering caused by nature is also in turn by human beings only, > because of his unintelligent acts with nature. > > Then why these human beings haven’t learnt to be happy while living on > this earth? > > Then the answer is selfishness. Again this selfishness is cause of > ignorance. The ignorance is that human beings doesn’t learn that my > happiness is depends on your happiness. If I want to be happy, then I > have to make you happy, then only my happiness is not disturbed by > you. > > So human beings have to learn the principle of sharing. > > But this sharing is not an easy thing for human beings. Why? > > Because unconsciously we believe that by sharing our happiness diminishes. > > So we always like to possess more. Common belief is that if one > possesses more, than more happier he will be. > > That possession can be of anything, it may be of wealth, it may be of > knowledge, it may be of people. And this desire to possess has no > limit. > > The rich want to become more rich. The knowledgeable person wants to > become more knowledgeable. The person who controls large crowd of > people, want to establish his control in much larger crowd. So in > nutshell the human mind do not mind to possess if it can possess the > universe also. > > Who will like to possess? > > To possess something, one need to have space. > > To possess more rich wealth, one need more space. > > To possess more knowledge, one needs to have more space in brain. > > So this desire to possess rises from the emptiness of oneself. > > Only empty can possess. So the self is empty. So the self is empty of > all visible forms. > > Can these forms fill this emptiness completely, so that there is no > more space to possess anymore, and hence fulfilled? > > Since when fulfilled, no desire to possess will raise and hence > sharing become easy and hence human beings don’t suffer. > > Now I see from the above arguments, there are two kinds exist, that is > forms and emptiness. Emptiness is self, i.e consciousness which is > empty of all visible forms and the forms. > > Emptiness is still non-moving, whereas forms move. > > Which is the origin of what? > > Is emptiness created form or form created emptiness? > > For example the form suresh body was not there before, now present and > then some time later it will not be there. > > All forms appear some time and later disappear, so all forms have to > be from this emptiness. > > So emptiness is the origin, present and ending. > > Since emptiness creates forms, it is not empty, but full of something, > it has potential to create forms, play with it and destroy it. > > This emptiness or this consciousness is neither yours nor mine, which > means it is not separated by the forms. Forms don’t possess emptiness. > Even thought is form. Emptiness possesses form. > > Moment a form is created by the emptiness, then it is subjected to > law. Like moment a baby is born it is subject to environmental factors > surrounded by it, since there are already forms created. > > Now what is god? Is emptiness or the consciousness god? Or the form > created by the emptiness? Or the law between the forms. > > At most we can conclude is that the emptiness or consciousness is god. > > But this emptiness or consciousness has no form, then how come there > are many gods in Sanathana Dharma in form? > > How these saints have seen god in these forms such as Shiva, Vishnu, > Subramanya, Ganesh and Devis and so on in innumerable gods? > > The saints actually the pure consciousness can create any form of god. > So these god forms were created by these saints, which have some > utility for other human beings such as to bring order to make life > comfortable for living. > > Hence Ramana statement of “In dissolution there remains only the > non-dual Brahman and no Isvara” is true. Isvara thus the product of > maya or the ego, the individual sense of self. > > Hence no god in all those forms we worship, but there is god as > consciousness which is all or self is all. > > Hence dwaitham is utility for better living and Advaitham for freedom. > > Best wishes > Suresh > > > > -- > Thanks and best regards > J.Suresh > New No.3, Old No.7, > Chamiers road - 1st Lane, > Alwarpet, > Chennai - 600018 > Ph: 044 42030947 > Mobile: 91 9884071738 > > > ------------------------------------ > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > >
