Is this "God"

Originally posted by mokko
WOW! Some real great responses. Thanks.

I personally have several trains of thought when it comes to religion, spirituality and God. And I say "God" only because that's what I've learned it to be in my culture. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

I have had my own personal experience in life that has led me to believe in God. I see and define God ...[text shortened]... guiding hand of God? Or the power of the subconscience mind to manifest it's own reality?

Even if a rose by any other name is a rose, that would only be true if there was, in fact, a rose. Similarly, God referred to by any other name would only be God if there was, in fact, a God. This real issue is not whether people call God different names but whether those different names actually refer to anything.

When you say that you believe in God, what do you mean? Is it possible you don't know what you mean? If you can't say what your belief in God entails, can you at least say what it excludes?

Originally posted by whodey
What other option do you have if you yourself do not have the answers? You will always need answers and if you had the answers you would never have to seek the unknown. As Christ said seek and ye shall find, knock and it will be open, for whoever seeks shall find. Therefore, it depends soley on the degree of you seeking the answers as to the level of success in finding those answers. We are finite beings who will never know it all.

What about the people who earnestly sought but who still did not find? Does their existience that mean Jesus was mistaken or lying? Or were they just not earnest enough?

Originally posted by whodey
What other option do you have if you yourself do not have the answers? You will always need answers and if you had the answers you would never have to seek the unknown. As Christ said seek and ye shall find, knock and it will be open, for whoever seeks shall find. Therefore, it depends soley on the degree of you seeking the answers as to the level of success in finding those answers. We are finite beings who will never know it all.

I don't believe in a right or wrong "God". It's a very unique and personal journey that eventually leads to the same destination no matter what path you choose to take.

But seeking to find God I think we first need to understand the dynamics of our own psychological history. We need to learn how to become aware of ourselves and the surrounding universe that we're a part of.

Often we find we're searching for something we already possess. All I know is that I spent many years not believing in God. Despite my lack of belief God was present in my life.

When I look at my life, for example, I can see very clearly all the signs that I was given in attempts to guide me to the right path in my life. Always present, always the same direction. I can see the consequences and hardships that occured from not listening to those signs. I can also see the rewards of being aware and giving in to whatever forces were guiding me towards certain choices.

In my belief that it's God who provides us with the directions towards fullfillment I also believe in the deep seeded psychology which embeds the need for such a belief.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hey mokko,

Long time no speak!! I like your ideas here, however, it's my conjecture that (as you know) the human mind is very good at finding patterns, even when they don't exist. Most people go through bad times in their lives, when they wished things are very different to what they are. Some people have these experiences that you talk about, bu happening to 1 person in 1,000,000,000. At those odds, almost anything can happen!

...it's my conjecture that (as you know) the human mind is very good at finding patterns, even when they don't exist. Most people go through bad times in their lives, when they wished things are very different to what they are. Some people have these experiences that you talk about, but I'd guess most don't. The difference is, the ones who talk about it are the self same people who DID have these "revalations".

Bingo! (and rec’d) That’s pretty much my conjecture as well, and I speak as one who has had such experiences.

_____________________________

I’d like to expand with some of my own conjectures. In the following, I know that I am not using terms correctly, from the point of view of cognitive science; I don’t have the vocabulary. So I’m using terms like “right brain/left brain,” etc., just as handles for certain functional neurological complexes and brain stuff going on (well, “brain stuff”—that is a valid cognitive term, isn’t it? 😉 ). I hope pawnokeyhole will weigh in with corrections...

Suppose in a moment of stress, or high relaxation, or a reactive relaxation immediately following stress, there is in the brain an increase of “right-brain” functioning that alters our perception in such a way that our focus broadens out. We have that sense of experiencing existence in a much more holistic, “larger” way. Things may seem ambiguous or disconnected or overwhelming... Then the “left-brain” functions begin to reassert themselves, trying to make rational/symbolic/linguistic “sense” of the experience. Suppose further that, at the same time and as part of the same process, the “left-brain” picks up a memory (remember, I’m speaking metaphorically here) of some religious nature—say, a mental image of Krishna (such an image may not be from our own religious background, or it may be). We might experience what’s going on in terms of any of our sensual brain functions: visual, auditory, even olfactory. (Emotional centers may also be triggered in this process.)

[As an analogy, in everyday experience our visual sense apparatus receives sensory stimuli, processed along the appropriate neurological pathways, to be translated in the visual cortex into a visual image: and what we “see” is really that image, whether or not it is accurately reflective of the actual physical world—that’s roughly how I understand it anyway....]

The result is that we have a “religious experience” in which Krishna seems to appear, surrounded by the scent of incense, and speaks to us. And just like the ordinary visual images that we see, it seems to be external to ourselves. I call this process “immediate translation”—i.e., of an otherwise unintelligible experience into an intelligible one, as the brain attempts to form recognizable and “sensible” patterns.

This “mystical” experience need not have any supernatural connotations at all (e.g., in some Taoism or Zen). And although the general literature has traditionally referred to them as “mystical” experiences, even without the supernatural connotation, howardgee convinced me to pretty much drop that term from my vocabulary—or at least to use it very cautiously with the requisite caveats—because it seems to be almost universally perceived, outside that literature, as having to do with the supernatural.

And I think that even those folks who conclude that such an experience represents an actual “revelatory” event (for whatever reasons, valid or not—I don’t want to argue all that here), must, as a matter of intellectual integrity, admit that it might be something akin to what I’m trying to describe. I would say to someone who responds that their experience was just too powerful or profound for it to be anything but God (Krishna, Shiva, the Buddha, whatever), that they might have too paltry a notion of the power of their own brain. (After all, mirages are convincing just because they seem so “real.” )

_______________________________________

I think you’re right, too, Scott, that people who assign religious content to such experiences tend to seek community with others who also do so—Christians with Christians, Hindus with Hindus, Buddhists with Buddhists (although Zennists teach that all such experiences—say in meditation—should be discounted as makyo, “bedeviling illusions;” and I agree). The common features of such experiences also allow them to discuss them across religions in interfaith dialogue.

The only thing I might disagree with you on is that I tend to think that most people have such experiences, at least in mild forms. (With sufficient data, one could probably construct a statistical distribution.)

It is also possible that such experiences may be connected to some pathology. Some cognitive scientists have attempted research to sort that out, but I don’t recall any of their criteria for differentiating (perhaps evidence, or lack thereof, of other pathological indications). I can’t offer any references; this is from some reading several years ago...

____________________________________

If pawnokeyhole, or someone else who is involved in psychology or the other branches of cognitive science would correct either my terminology or the substance of my conjectures, I would appreciate it.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...it's my conjecture that (as you know) the human mind is very good at finding patterns, even when they don't exist. Most people go through bad times in their lives, when they wished things are very different to what they are. Some people have these experiences that you talk about, but I'd guess most don't. The difference is, the ones who talk about it a ...[text shortened]... d correct either my terminology or the substance of my conjectures, I would appreciate it.

You put it so much more eloquently than I, visted!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You put it so much more eloquently than I, visted!

Thank you, Scott. That is very much appreciated.

To my understanding, the point of zen-type approaches to meditation is to get clear of the prejudicial patterns we may carry about in our heads without even realizing it (from our childhood enculturation—even nonverbal—socialization, indoctrination, etc.) in order to experience the phenomena of existence in terms of just those patterns (such as, again, those produced in the visual cortex in response to sensory data) that occur naturally. I don’t think it is (or ought to be) an attempt to get at some noumenal “thing-in-itself” behind the phenomenal world—it certainly is not to replace pre-imposed patterns with new ones that arise reactively as we try to undo the old ones. Does that make sense? (I’ve been grappling with this for a long time, and your post triggered a sort of “falling into place” of some of it, but I still lack a clear vocabulary...)

In meditation, as the old prejudicial patterns or formulae begin to slowly fall away, there is a reaction—as if the “left-brain” functions are so entangled by the habitual patterns (remember, I am not talking about the natural, neuro-biological ones), that any relaxing of them causes it to madly seek to impose something new to escape the unfamiliarity: e.g., as in my Krishna example.

There is a zen saying: “To seek the truth, first drop your opinions.” I think that kind of thing is what it’s getting at.

Again, conjecture, and I’m still grappling with the language and just thinking out loud...

Originally posted by mokko
WOW! Some real great responses. Thanks.

I personally have several trains of thought when it comes to religion, spirituality and God. And I say "God" only because that's what I've learned it to be in my culture. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

I have had my own personal experience in life that has led me to believe in God. I see and define God ...[text shortened]... guiding hand of God? Or the power of the subconscience mind to manifest it's own reality?

Once again, I ask you, how can you believe in something you have no knowledge of? (in your own words)

It's like me saying "I believe in Sloblocks".
You ask me "What is Sloblocks?"
I reply "I don't know".

At this point, wouldn't you be justified in calling the men in white suits?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
What about the people who earnestly sought but who still did not find? Does their existience that mean Jesus was mistaken or lying? Or were they just not earnest enough?

They didn't ask the right questions, or the answer to their questions would have destroyed their lives.

Originally posted by vistesd
If pawnokeyhole, or someone else who is involved in psychology or the other branches of cognitive science would correct either my terminology or the substance of my conjectures, I would appreciate it.

Glad to have you back, old man. Excellent post.

Originally posted by 7ate9
naaa, it's not God.

lol way to get straight to the point.

Originally posted by whodey
What other option do you have if you yourself do not have the answers? You will always need answers and if you had the answers you would never have to seek the unknown. As Christ said seek and ye shall find, knock and it will be open, for whoever seeks shall find. Therefore, it depends soley on the degree of you seeking the answers as to the level of success in finding those answers. We are finite beings who will never know it all.

The Australian Aboriginies also did not have the answers. They also made up stories - fantasies - about how the earth, and the creatures upon it, began, and what is after death.

Their stories are in many regards more beautiful than any of those of the bible (or the Quaran, either). Their lessons are by far more gentle and more respectful than those of othoer "religions". Their respect for the earth upon which they live and rely is far greater than the Christian rapists and pillagers throughout the ages (ex: the Crusades).

Does this make the Dreamtime true?

Originally posted by howardgee
" believe in what is generally known as God. But I have never claimed to be able to define just what God is."

Could you explain to me how it is possible to believe in something you cannot define?

I believe there are things beyond my understanding.

Over the years I've taken various aspects of many religions and have incorperated them into my own form of understanding.

I also believe in the power of the human mind. Affirm what you know to be true in your heart, and you will create that reality. So essentially whatever I create in my mind to be true of God will be the truth.

I find it amazing however that whenever we look upwards and ask for comfort, answers or guidance it always appears. Just because it isn't what we want to hear doesn't make it unanswered.