What is God?

[Shaker]

We're human, and have far bigger brains than we require for the immediate needs of daily survival. 'Twas ever thus.

[Rhiannon]

You know what it's like when you love someone - anyone, child, friend, lover - and find yourself doing something you didn't know that you could because they need you to or because you care. How is that not transcendent?

[ekim]

Thanks for this, ekim, and for your persistence in getting it published (spellchecker wants to call you skim, btw!)

I'm pretty familiar with these theories. I really wanted to hear what you thought about it all, though I should have made that clearer. Personal experiences are always so much more interesting than abstract ideas.

This is skim speaking!  My thoughts about it all could take a long time, perhaps could be more specific with your question.

[Bramble]

This is skim speaking!  My thoughts about it all could take a long time, perhaps could be more specific with your question.

My apologies. Your posts are always well informed but seldom betray anything of ekim, which always slightly disappoints me. Perhaps I'm just nosey but I can't help thinking that you have an interesting story to tell. However, now that you ask for a specific question I find myself floundering a bit. I suppose I was just curious about what you thought of the spiritual views and practices you mention in your own posts. Have you perhaps applied these to your own life and if so, how did that go for you? Often in these threads the discussion can revolve around a detached assessment of rather abstract beliefs, which always seems quite sterile to me. The value of these practices must stand or fall according to whether they actually do what they claim and how relevant they are to the lives of ordinary people.

We were originally discussing the role of desire on the spiritual path and contrasting what might be called 'mundane' desires with the 'higher' desire for enduring ecstatic or transcendent states, which according to certain traditions reflect the underlying, undefiled nature of the mind (perhaps associated with God or liberation). Later you commented that pursuing desire as a spiritual practice might lead to a state in which fulfilment replaces desire altogether. If I have to frame a specific question it would be ‘can you see any problems with this spiritual approach and its goal?’

[wigginhall]

Interesting stuff, Bramble.   I recall going over this again and again in Zen, where the paradox of goals presents itself.   That is, that if you have enlightenment as a goal, you have a massive barrier right then and there.   In fact, you could say that the idea of enlightenment is itself a barrier.    But a barrier to what, I hear you cry.   As I used to say to my best pal, who was a Sufi, what does it mean to try?   Both of us would collapse in giggles at that, the laughter is really about not trying any more.  I don't have to get it right. 

It is interesting to look at it in terms of life trajectories.    When I encountered Zen about 40 years ago, I was like a puppy with two tails, and ran around trying to convince everyone that they should be like me!   I can laugh at that now.   This is a kind of messianic phase, which hopefully wears off.

But advancing years have an interesting effect on all this.   Partly I became less interested - it didn't seem to matter whether I was enlightened or not.   Or nothing seemed to matter, in a good kind of way.   It's hard to describe this.   The idea of transcendence seems absurd to me now, but I would not condemn anyone who desires it. 

[ekim]

My apologies. Your posts are always well informed but seldom betray anything of ekim, which always slightly disappoints me. Perhaps I'm just nosey but I can't help thinking that you have an interesting story to tell. However, now that you ask for a specific question I find myself floundering a bit. I suppose I was just curious about what you thought of the spiritual views and practices you mention in your own posts. Have you perhaps applied these to your own life and if so, how did that go for you? Often in these threads the discussion can revolve around a detached assessment of rather abstract beliefs, which always seems quite sterile to me. The value of these practices must stand or fall according to whether they actually do what they claim and how relevant they are to the lives of ordinary people.

We were originally discussing the role of desire on the spiritual path and contrasting what might be called 'mundane' desires with the 'higher' desire for enduring ecstatic or transcendent states, which according to certain traditions reflect the underlying, undefiled nature of the mind (perhaps associated with God or liberation). Later you commented that pursuing desire as a spiritual practice might lead to a state in which fulfilment replaces desire altogether. If I have to frame a specific question it would be ‘can you see any problems with this spiritual approach and its goal?’

Yes, I think you are right about the sterile nature of assessing abstract beliefs, but I suppose on an Internet discussion site this is all that can be hoped for, just a little mental entertainment of questioning beliefs etc.  However, discussion can sometimes stimulate a curiosity into exploring the practical aspects to see whether they are beneficial and this is where the difficulty arises because the exploration is usually inwards.  It becomes personal and the language used to communicate any findings tends to be analogical rather than logical and can confuse rather than clarify.  Wigginhall mentioned 'enlightenment' being a barrier, which is true because the mind will latch on to the term which implies 'light' and create a desired objective.  The mind becomes the barrier.  Many 'spiritual' methods revolve around promoting inner stillness, which is not the same as inner deadness, but more like inner aliveness.  You can often see this in small children before they have become programmed.  Unless you become as a small child again etc.  It is this blissful aliveness which fills you full (fulfilment) to the extent that the pursuit of  the cycles of desire/satisfaction starts to wane.  Do I see any problems?  Yes, if it became widespread, consumerism and probably society would collapse.  This is possibly why those with such a common purpose form their own communities, until they become persecuted or inner corruption takes place.  I hope I have answered your question.

[Bramble]

I hope I have answered your question.

You’ve answered my question in your own way, ekim. I can’t ask for any more.   

[Bramble]

Interesting stuff, Bramble.   I recall going over this again and again in Zen, where the paradox of goals presents itself.   That is, that if you have enlightenment as a goal, you have a massive barrier right then and there.   In fact, you could say that the idea of enlightenment is itself a barrier.    But a barrier to what, I hear you cry.   As I used to say to my best pal, who was a Sufi, what does it mean to try?   Both of us would collapse in giggles at that, the laughter is really about not trying any more.  I don't have to get it right. 

It is interesting to look at it in terms of life trajectories.    When I encountered Zen about 40 years ago, I was like a puppy with two tails, and ran around trying to convince everyone that they should be like me!   I can laugh at that now.   This is a kind of messianic phase, which hopefully wears off.

But advancing years have an interesting effect on all this.   Partly I became less interested - it didn't seem to matter whether I was enlightened or not.   Or nothing seemed to matter, in a good kind of way.   It's hard to describe this.   The idea of transcendence seems absurd to me now, but I would not condemn anyone who desires it.

That's been pretty much my experience too, wigs. You put it better than I could.

[Rhiannon]

I don't know if my thoughts on this come over as twee or something. Maybe it is because I see no division between spirituality and living. And maybe it is because I'm a pantheist that I find the transcendent and the ecstatic in things that might be regarded as everyday, even 'lower', 'base' or 'animalistic' in some way. I'm with Campbell and also the existentialists when they say that life has no meaning except what we bring to the party. As Campbell says, it is pointless to be asking the question when you are the answer.

[Shaker]

That'll do for me 

[SweetPea]

Yes, I think you are right about the sterile nature of assessing abstract beliefs, but I suppose on an Internet discussion site this is all that can be hoped for, just a little mental entertainment of questioning beliefs etc.  However, discussion can sometimes stimulate a curiosity into exploring the practical aspects to see whether they are beneficial and this is where the difficulty arises because the exploration is usually inwards.  It becomes personal and the language used to communicate any findings tends to be analogical rather than logical and can confuse rather than clarify.  Wigginhall mentioned 'enlightenment' being a barrier, which is true because the mind will latch on to the term which implies 'light' and create a desired objective.  The mind becomes the barrier.  Many 'spiritual' methods revolve around promoting inner stillness, which is not the same as inner deadness, but more like inner aliveness.  You can often see this in small children before they have become programmed.  Unless you become as a small child again etc.  It is this blissful aliveness which fills you full (fulfilment) to the extent that the pursuit of  the cycles of desire/satisfaction starts to wane.  Do I see any problems?  Yes, if it became widespread, consumerism and probably society would collapse.  This is possibly why those with such a common purpose form their own communities, until they become persecuted or inner corruption takes place.  I hope I have answered your question.

Another wonderful comment from you, ekim (often thought I'd like a compilation of 'ekim comments').
 
I much prefer to be still than to meditate at all deeply. Once you go further and further into yourself something is lost, and this is when something else can replace that which is lost.. not good. But we need go no further than to be still, with surrender, and yes, thereby find aliveness.. right there.. need look, seek no further.

Yes, this is why, as adults, we need to de-programme. I look at my grandchildren and see aliveness in their eyes and at the same time an innocence that I know and dread one day will be gone. So hard for them to remain innocent for long in our Babylonian society. They too must crawl their way out of the matrix of this world at some point.

Interesting though, once you find peace within all desires cease, anyway.

[Bramble]

I don't know if my thoughts on this come over as twee or something.

Just wondering what made you think that.

[ekim]

I don't know if my thoughts on this come over as twee or something. Maybe it is because I see no division between spirituality and living. And maybe it is because I'm a pantheist that I find the transcendent and the ecstatic in things that might be regarded as everyday, even 'lower', 'base' or 'animalistic' in some way. I'm with Campbell and also the existentialists when they say that life has no meaning except what we bring to the party. As Campbell says, it is pointless to be asking the question when you are the answer.

I don't think the mystics (for want of a better word) would argue too much with what you say about Campbell's view but they would probably focus on the 'you' which is the 'answer'  and the 'we' as the source of what is 'brought to the party' and the party could be any aspect of everyday living.  They too would not see a division but the 'source' would not be dependant upon 'things'.

[Rhiannon]

Just wondering what made you think that.

I think it's because I don't do the 'higher' mystical stuff, but equally I'm told that my definition of 'spirituality' is so loose as to be meaningless. So maybe when I talk about love being transcendent it does sound twee. I don't know.

[ekim]

So maybe when I talk about love being transcendent it does sound twee.

I think that it is reasonable.  There are said to be two basic ways to transcend the contents of the mind.  One is meditative and the other is devotional, which you could say leads to being in that state called love.  Whatever works for you, is the way for you.  Both have their challenges.

[Rhiannon]

I think that it is reasonable.  There are said to be two basic ways to transcend the contents of the mind.  One is meditative and the other is devotional, which you could say leads to being in that state called love.  Whatever works for you, is the way for you.  Both have their challenges.

If meditational equals being mindful then there are many acts of love that fall into that category. I'm not sure that I even know how to approach the notion of 'devotion'.

[ekim]

If meditational equals being mindful then there are many acts of love that fall into that category. I'm not sure that I even know how to approach the notion of 'devotion'.

I expect that there are many views as to what 'meditational' means, just as there are many meditation methods.  From the mystical point of view 'love' is a state of being that you are either in or not, and the ideal is to be in it without interruption and the acts from that state are indiscriminate e.g. 'like the sun which shines on all no matter whether good or bad'.  Devotion, I believe, is intended to lead to that state.  Unfortunately it can often lead to devotion to imaginary gods or their earthly representatives or it can become selective and possessive.