yes indeed chris.. there are many preconceived ideas about god.. some are downright absurd... through a deeper understanding we can begin to shed light on "there is no god and he is everywhere..... let us know how the reading goes merle
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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>; >To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; >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 > required) > > > > > > > >
