What is God?

[Bubbles]

Oh, perleeease!!! I dipped in for ten seconds at four or five places and that was quite enough!

That's a shame!

I quite enjoyed it too.

I liked his point about creating a God in our own image.

I would have thought, even if you don't believe in anything, you could have seen some of his points.

I don't see things in quite the way he does, but enjoyed listening to him anyway.

I think you judged it too soon ,  and didn't bother to actually listen.

You can't give a valid criticism of something , if you don't bother to listen.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Typically, as long as the Sadguru says what you believe in, you are fine..... but where he goes beyond your experience, you become restive and uncomfortable.

Actually it’s the opposite of that – I like engaging with views contrary to my own because it allows me to test and re-evaluate my beliefs. My politics for example are left of centre, but I like reading the (right of centre) Spectator too.

In this case, it’s not that I’m “uncomfortable” but rather that I think he’s wrong, for the reasons I gave.

We should resist too much emphasis on intellectualism.  We can only understand things in terms of what we have experienced. If you have never experienced gravity....any number of classes on Newtons Laws will make no sense to you. It'll all be abstract (Ahem!...NS) and even weird. But one experience of gravity and it all becomes clear in a moment.

How about Phlogiston? Or Scotch mist? See your problem here is that you can conjecture any manner of things outwith our “experience” but when you do, any conjecture is epistemically equivalent to any other. Which is fine and dandy as a party game, but if you want to claim that any of these fancies are actually true then you have to come up with a method, a process, a something for others to distinguish your claim from the rest.

Its the same with God.

No it isn’t. Gravity can theoretically be modelled even if you haven’t experienced it. “God” on the other hand is white noise – no definition, no rationale, no evidence, no anything to qualify it. As a conjecture, it’s what science refers to as “not even wrong”.

We know of the unconscious mind that forms a much larger part of our mental process than the conscious mind (like an iceberg). It knows more than the conscious mind and takes decisions faster than the conscious mind does. The conscious mind is only the front office of a much larger set up that we are not normally aware of.

Sort of. The limbic system (that we share with reptiles for example) takes care of many functions we’re barely aware of like breathing and also primal responses like fight or flight. The pre-frontal cortex (that we share with the other great apes) on the other hand does the rational thinking bit. If you haven’t read it already, you should try “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman. You’d enjoy it I think.     

For a start therefore, the unconscious mind can be seen as a larger and bigger part of ourselves that we wish to relate to or dissolve in.  Nothing wrong with that!

No, but that says nothing to the notion that there is a god “out there” that we can “experience” by “dissolving” into it. That’s where yer man’s speculations fall apart and will continue to until he manages to set out a cogent means of distinguishing that claim from, say, just having a bit of a funny turn.   

[Udayana]

 It seemed to me that Sadhguru was not in fact making any claims, but essentially saying "find out for yourself". Did he claim that a god actually exists? Only that "your self" and "god" are difficult or impossible to define.

As NS suggested, it is more like Dave Allen, you can just enjoy it - trying to analyse it is a waste of effort.

[Bubbles]

Hi Gonnagle,

That's a rare but very nice combination. A faithful Christian but also secular and integrative. Most Hindus would applaud that! So do I.

Cheers.

Sriram

Yes me too 

[Bubbles]

It seemed to me that Sadhguru was not in fact making any claims, but essentially saying "find out for yourself". Did he claim that a god actually exists? Only that "your self" and "god" are difficult or impossible to define.

As NS suggested, it is more like Dave Allen, you can just enjoy it - trying to analyse it is a waste of effort.

Yes, find that spark within yourself.

The bit that aspires towards being something nobler and greater.

Regardless of the trappings of your cultural background.

 

He saw it as dissolving, I see it more as trying to aspire to or reaching towards ......

[Sassy]

It assumed that the belief in God came to all of us in the same way and somehow we saw God reflected in the creation and image of man.


I watched and listened for a little while, but God never took human form for me at any time as a child.
It wasn't about creation speaking for myself. It was God and I, co-existing together and the reason God wanted us to know about him. Not a Holy God and a dirty world.

I think the world and creation and can waylay us from the way and true God.

My first thoughts of God was he was always there and that I thought everyone knew the same.
As I grew up into adulthood I knew not everyone perceived or saw God with the same eyes and presence as I.

Instead of creation and the darkness in the world making man draw closer to him it somehow made him withdraw even further away. Running to the enemy away from the safety of God.
It has been difficult for me to understand why someone would run from the one answer that would make them able to live their lives with understanding and peace.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rose,

You can't give a valid criticism of something , if you don't bother to listen.

We touched on this in the pub ( me, Gordon and Sane ) and I am guilty as charged, not listening, but not bothering to read a post properly before replying.

I catch myself doing it with my "oh you bloody well think so" attitude, that little thing the forum has, the bit where you press post and a warning appears telling you there have been other posts, now that has saved me quite a few times.

When you notice it in yourself you then start to see other posters doing the same thing, but I suppose it is a wee bit more complicated than that, ego is in there, also that ability to construct a post, put your thoughts into words, so many times I have thought, no that is not what I am saying but when I read my post back, I think, Gonnagle you idiot, it might not have been what you mean't but that is how it reads.

Gonnagle.

[ekim]

 

No, but that says nothing to the notion that there is a god “out there” that we can “experience” by “dissolving” into it. That’s where yer man’s speculations fall apart and will continue to until he manages to set out a cogent means of distinguishing that claim from, say, just having a bit of a funny turn.

I don't know a lot about the man but I suspect that his method is related to advaita (not two) and so it would be related to dissolving what stands in the way of 'oneness' e.g. notions which divide it into 'out there' and 'in there', 'we' and 'it', subject and object.  As the method is experiential, consciousness is involved but not the analytical model making aspect of the mind.  The reasoning, rationalising mind can't understand it and the words used are only pointers not descriptions.  It is also necessary to dispense with western notions of 'god' which is what the guru was getting at, I believe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I don't know a lot about the man but I suspect that his method is related to advaita (not two) and so it would be related to dissolving what stands in the way of 'oneness' e.g. notions which divide it into 'out there' and 'in there', 'we' and 'it', subject and object.  As the method is experiential, consciousness is involved but not the analytical model making aspect of the mind.  The reasoning, rationalising mind can't understand it and the words used are only pointers not descriptions.  It is also necessary to dispense with western notions of 'god' which is what the guru was getting at, I believe.

Which is all well and good, but he makes a specific claim of fact - "god". We can all think we "experience" any manner of things, but why would anyone else think he's experienced this god rather than, say, had a rush of blood to the head?

[Udayana]

Did he say he experienced anything? If he did or did not why would it make any difference to us or you? His emphasis was on experiencing yourself.

[ekim]

ekim,

Which is all well and good, but he makes a specific claim of fact - "god". We can all think we "experience" any manner of things, but why would anyone else think he's experienced this god rather than, say, had a rush of blood to the head?

I'll have to listen to his talk again when I've got time, I expect, but I seem to remember him using the expression 'Isn't it' or 'Isn't it so' a lot.  In other words 'Don't believe me, it has to be your experience' and the invitation is to use a method to clarify further.  One of the expressions for 'god' that is sometimes used is 'Satchitananda' which I believe means 'being-consciousness-bliss' which perhaps suggests the bliss of simply consciously being rather than being this or that like being thoughtful or being emotional or being body beautiful, or being a rich celebrity.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ekim,

Isn't it I thought it was the man's catchphrase, but I now get Sanes Dave Allen analogy.

What is God.

God is a 56 year old Glaswegian who like a wee drink, enjoys a hot curry, supports the Gers and enjoys a well turned ankle, this is God

And I know what you are thinking, okay not you, others, those pesky Christian types, straight to hell Gonnagle, well I will be saving them a front row seat.

Gonnagle.

[SusanDoris]

Rose

I think that, even if there was something there that I did not know already, it would not be interesting enough to spend precious moments of my remaining life listening to!

[ippy]

It assumed that the belief in God came to all of us in the same way and somehow we saw God reflected in the creation and image of man.


I watched and listened for a little while, but God never took human form for me at any time as a child.
It wasn't about creation speaking for myself. It was God and I, co-existing together and the reason God wanted us to know about him. Not a Holy God and a dirty world.

I think the world and creation and can waylay us from the way and true God.

My first thoughts of God was he was always there and that I thought everyone knew the same.
As I grew up into adulthood I knew not everyone perceived or saw God with the same eyes and presence as I.

Instead of creation and the darkness in the world making man draw closer to him it somehow made him withdraw even further away. Running to the enemy away from the safety of God.
It has been difficult for me to understand why someone would run from the one answer that would make them able to live their lives with understanding and peace.

3

ippy

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Actually it’s the opposite of that – I like engaging with views contrary to my own because it allows me to test and re-evaluate my beliefs. My politics for example are left of centre, but I like reading the (right of centre) Spectator too.

In this case, it’s not that I’m “uncomfortable” but rather that I think he’s wrong, for the reasons I gave.

How about Phlogiston? Or Scotch mist? See your problem here is that you can conjecture any manner of things outwith our “experience” but when you do, any conjecture is epistemically equivalent to any other. Which is fine and dandy as a party game, but if you want to claim that any of these fancies are actually true then you have to come up with a method, a process, a something for others to distinguish your claim from the rest.

No it isn’t. Gravity can theoretically be modelled even if you haven’t experienced it. “God” on the other hand is white noise – no definition, no rationale, no evidence, no anything to qualify it. As a conjecture, it’s what science refers to as “not even wrong”.

Sort of. The limbic system (that we share with reptiles for example) takes care of many functions we’re barely aware of like breathing and also primal responses like fight or flight. The pre-frontal cortex (that we share with the other great apes) on the other hand does the rational thinking bit. If you haven’t read it already, you should try “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman. You’d enjoy it I think.     

No, but that says nothing to the notion that there is a god “out there” that we can “experience” by “dissolving” into it. That’s where yer man’s speculations fall apart and will continue to until he manages to set out a cogent means of distinguishing that claim from, say, just having a bit of a funny turn.

Blue,

Using he word 'God' can be misleading but that is the most popular word in english for this phenomenon. That's why most of us use the word 'God' instead of say....Universal Spirit, Common Consciousness or something else.  In India we have various words for it and we don't use one word like 'God'.

I know that the word 'God' is loaded and carries with it certain imagery from the Bible which most of you are unable to shake off. But we Hindus (including Sadguru) have no option but to use the word. 

Coming to evidence. Its all about experience. If you haven't experienced 'love'....any amount of scientific explanations in terms of chemicals will not be sufficient. Its the same with experience of your inner self.

Now...whether the 'experience' is just the rush of come chemicals or something connected to the Consciousness beyond the brain and body is a matter of ones basic premise and assumption.

If you believe that the human body (and brain) is just a product of chance biological evolution and the mind and consciousness are just chemical and electrical impulses in the brain....then obviously all experiences are just chemical in origin and nothing more. The 'God' experience would also be one such.

But if the basic assumption is that the biological evolution of our body and brain is guided... and Consciousness forms a fundamental aspect of the universe ....then the mind and consciousness become independent of the brain/body and the brain/body only form the platform for the consciousness to work.

In this case, moving from an individual consciousness to a more universal consciousness is a profound and life changing event. That is what I (and the Guru) are talking about.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sriram,

Not got the time at the moment for a longer reply but good post, the term God is a loaded word, one to think about.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

If you believe that the human body (and brain) is just a product of chance biological evolution ...

There's the "Uh oh ..." moment ...

[Udayana]

Just because an experience occurs by chance or due to electrical or chemical interactions in the brain does not mean that they cannot be "profound and life changing" events.

And even if the experience is of an universal consciousness independent of the brain/body, this does not mean that one actually exists as such.

[Outrider]

Using he word 'God' can be misleading but that is the most popular word in english for this phenomenon.

Which 'phenomenon'? It's not a phenomenon at all, phenomena can be measured and recorded, investigated and inspected.

That's why most of us use the word 'God' instead of say....Universal Spirit, Common Consciousness or something else.  In India we have various words for it and we don't use one word like 'God'.

Our conceptualisation is always limited by our linguistic capacity, it's true.

I know that the word 'God' is loaded and carries with it certain imagery from the Bible which most of you are unable to shake off. But we Hindus (including Sadguru) have no option but to use the word.

The word 'God' is no more loaded than any other word for a vague concept: honour, duty, mercy - all are open to interpretation, all are sometimes viewed highly, sometimes viewed dubiously. In the absence of anything definitive, any conceptual framework is by it's nature subjective.

Coming to evidence. Its all about experience.

The evidence of many experiments is that people's experience is highly questionable.

If you haven't experienced 'love'....any amount of scientific explanations in terms of chemicals will not be sufficient. Its the same with experience of your inner self.

Right. How does the 'experience of the inner self' reveal anything about mystic concepts like 'spirit' or 'soul' or 'gods'. You suggest that 'god' is a loaded term, but so are those that the idea is phrased in. 'Honour' and 'justice' and the like are conceptual descriptions of behaviour, but 'gods' and 'spirits' are allegation of objects, of things, and yet there is no basis for presuming these. 'Things' interact, we can deduce their nature from these interactions, yet gods do not interact with anything, spirits are immune from physicality it appears.

Now...whether the 'experience' is just the rush of come chemicals or something connected to the Consciousness beyond the brain and body is a matter of ones basic premise and assumption.

And, as with all things, the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate their case. The case for brain chemicals is well-established; if you wish to depict 'god' as something more than a mistaken interpretation of otherwise physical activity, it falls upon you to demonstrate that.

If you believe that the human body (and brain) is just a product of chance biological evolution and the mind and consciousness are just chemical and electrical impulses in the brain....then obviously all experiences are just chemical in origin and nothing more. The 'God' experience would also be one such.

It's not about 'belief'. Evolution is a demonstrable fact, we've witnessed it in the laboratory, we've documented it in the wild, we've demonstrated it in the genetic records. The theory of evolution is a superlatively well-supported explanation for that demonstrable phenomenon. If you want to posit something more you need to justify the claim, not dismiss one of the most rigorously supported theories of human history as 'assumption'.

But if the basic assumption is that the biological evolution of our body and brain is guided... and Consciousness forms a fundamental aspect of the universe ....then the mind and consciousness become independent of the brain/body and the brain/body only form the platform for the consciousness to work.

Your false equivalency is shown here; 'guided' evolution is an assumption, because you have no evidence for either a guide or for guidance. You presume, in the absence of support, that our existence has some significance in a grander scheme, and then use that as justification for presuming the grander scheme.

Creation and natural evolution are not two equally valid 'assumptions'. One is a well-supported deduction from the available evidence which has made predictions which have been tested and shown to be accurate, and the other is an assumption.

In this case, moving from an individual consciousness to a more universal consciousness is a profound and life changing event. That is what I (and the Guru) are talking about.

That experience may well be a life-changing one, and having gone through it in no way intrinsically makes you a 'bad person', I just want to make that clear. But that you choose to interpret your experience that way does not in any way signify that I have to accept your understanding is any more accurate than the belief that Christ is real or that aliens steal and probe hillbillies.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Using he word 'God' can be misleading but that is the most popular word in english for this phenomenon. That's why most of us use the word 'God' instead of say....Universal Spirit, Common Consciousness or something else.  In India we have various words for it and we don't use one word like 'God'.

I know that the word 'God' is loaded and carries with it certain imagery from the Bible which most of you are unable to shake off. But we Hindus (including Sadguru) have no option but to use the word.

Not really. Lots of people at lots of times have experienced episodes they found to be transcendent, profound etc and it’s part of our common psychology to reach for explanations outside of ourselves, bigger than ourselves. And these supposed “somethings” are often labelled “god(s)”.

What neuroscience in particular tells us though is that there are various explanations for the phenomenon that require no outside agency at all, and that fall within materialistic parameters. We can even induce these experiences artificially if we want to.

You can use the word “god” to mean “profound experience” if you want to, but what you cannot do is simply to elide that meaning into “a non-material, divine causal agency” just because it suits your cultural influences.   

Coming to evidence. Its all about experience. If you haven't experienced 'love'....any amount of scientific explanations in terms of chemicals will not be sufficient. Its the same with experience of your inner self.

No. You’re conflating emotional responses with objective factual claims here. Yes someone who had never experienced love would struggle to grasp its full effect just from reading about it, but you can’t just claim that to be analogous with the supposed fact of a universe-creating deity.

What you’re attempting here is an old saw – love feels a bit, you know, mysterious, and it’s real, therefore…ta-daaaa!...other mysterious stuff must be real too!

All good fun when used to chat up impressionable young women, but logically hopeless nonetheless I’m afraid.       

Now...whether the 'experience' is just the rush of come chemicals or something connected to the Consciousness beyond the brain and body is a matter of ones basic premise and assumption.

Nope. If you want to argue for something “beyond the brain and body” you have all your work ahead of you to make that case before you make claims for it.

If you believe that the human body (and brain) is just a product of chance biological evolution and the mind and consciousness are just chemical and electrical impulses in the brain....then obviously all experiences are just chemical in origin and nothing more. The 'God' experience would also be one such.

You fell off the cliff there with that “chance”. Try “purposeless” perhaps and there’s no “just” about it, but you’d be on the right lines, yes. 

But if the basic assumption is that the biological evolution of our body and brain is guided... and Consciousness forms a fundamental aspect of the universe ....then the mind and consciousness become independent of the brain/body and the brain/body only form the platform for the consciousness to work.

You can make that assumption if you want to despite the absence of any evidence for it, but then again I could make any assumption I want with no evidence to support it either.

How would that help either of us?

In this case, moving from an individual consciousness to a more universal consciousness is a profound and life changing event. That is what I (and the Guru) are talking about.

It may be a “profound and life changing” belief, but that would say nothing to whether there’s even one iota of truth to it. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Not got the time at the moment for a longer reply but good post, the term God is a loaded word, one to think about.

Sorry my friend, but it wasn't a good post at all. Mush (as NS puts it) is mush, regardless of who spouts it.

[Udayana]

hmm .. "love" is real? Surely it's just another form, mainly hormonal, of self-delusion? One that is helpful in maintaining the production of descendants? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayama,

hmm .. "love" is real? Surely it's just another form, mainly hormonal, of self-delusion? One that is helpful in maintaining the production of descendants?

Hey, it's not my argument! Essentially it goes something like, "Hey, love feels all real and mysterious right? And love isn't physical stuff you can weigh or measure now is it? Right then, in that case here's something else I call "god" (or leprechauns, or the Man in the Moon) that really feels real to me and that can't be weighed or measured either so...

...(quickly says, "is that a flying kangaroo going past the window?" so no-one notices the switcheroo)...

...ta-daa, god must be real too!"

That's the schtick Sriram is attempting here - it's all very sixth form and it relies on a false equivalence for its effect, but there it is nonetheless. 

   

[ekim]

hmm .. "love" is real? Surely it's just another form, mainly hormonal, of self-delusion? One that is helpful in maintaining the production of descendants?

It's certainly a word which seems to take on many shades of meaning.  Some people loves trees, dogs, cats, the sea etc but I doubt whether in a sexual or procreative sense.  In a number of religions it sometimes takes on the meaning of 'being at one with', attuned to or at-one-ment and to attain this often requires self sacrifice or self abnegation rather than self delusion, as it is self centeredness which gets in the way of the union.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

There is very little point in going on and on with these kind of arguments. All of us are  programmed to think in different ways (by our culture and upbringing).  Impossible to make all minds meet!

What I write is for information of those who are able to understand that particular point. Not for those who don't. 

My purpose in linking the video was to highlight the argument that different deities and images of God are just symbols that we humans create. The real God within us however, is common to all and does not depend on the image we worship. 

We can access the real God through prayer (to any image) or good deeds or Yogic techniques and meditations, duties etc., depending on our individual nature and preference.

Cheers.

Sriram