ONE Universal Concept Among All Religions: God Is Within All, And All Is God

[Archived_member14]

Bhagat ji,


This is going to be long and controversial, so brace yourself.

Let me put it this way:
“No self” is not simply a denial of the existence of “self” but rather a description of one of the three universal characteristic of all conditioned existence. There are these mental and physical conditioned phenomena and there is the unconditioned Nibbana / Nirvana (but this we don't need to talk about), every things else, such as people, things, time, situations are simply ideas created by the thinking process. This means that “self” is the illusion and “no self”, the reality.

I would say "No self" is all encompassing space or emptiness in which there is the arising and falling of conditioned phenomenon.

Well, you will at least now admit that the “no self” which you equate with God is one that is according to *your* interpretation, not mine!
The “boundless space” referred to in Buddhist texts is one of the objects of the development of calm, and not of insight, which is what the Buddha’s teachings is about. Boundless space is an idea, the object of contemplation for those who know only how to suppress the defilements, and not to its eradication. Only penetrative insight into one of the three general characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and no self is the doorway by which enlightenment occurs. Boundless space being a concept, does not exhibit any of these characteristics.

Emptiness or sunnata / no self in the texts as I said before, refers to the particular characteristic of all conditioned phenomena. That you see this as being same as 'all encompassing space' and then go on to suggest that conditioned phenomena exist within this, is from where I stand, the result of wrong understanding.

Those ideas created by the thinking process, the thinking process and the self, are all conditioned phenomenon that arise and fall in the no self.

Does this mean then that thinking itself is 'self' as are seeing, hearing, feeling, perception, earth, wind and fire elements? Self exists within no self, sounds to me like metaphysics gone crazy!

No self isn't a denial of any particular existence, whether it be the self or anything else, it is existence itself, all of it. If it opposes the self, then it has become a sort of self in itself, it has become the "no self" self, you see?

So you are positing that there is such a thing as “self” and then insisting that the concept of no self should be such that it accommodates this. And then you go on to say that if I fail to do this, then I have made no self into a self? But would I then not have established the existence of self? But of course this is strange logic isn't it?

So no self if it is truly no self, it has to encompass without opposing.

So you are saying that no self could well be done without and replaced by the concept SELF with capital letters? The Buddha was actually teaching the same thing as Vedanta?

Quote: 'No self' therefore points to the way things are, whereas the perception of self is the result of ignorance and wrong understanding. So you don't try to understand no self by reference to what self is. Instead you understand a reality experienced through the five senses and the mind and thereby come to see that in fact “self” is a misperception / misunderstanding. When getting across the idea of no self, all one needs to point at are the moment to moment experience which make up our lives. Nothing mysterious at all!

Indeed.

I must be misunderstanding something. So far the impression is that you are telling me that no self does not deny the existence of self. But in the above I said that “self” is a misperception / misunderstanding” and you agree with this. Can you please clarify because it seems like you are contradicting yourself?

Quote:Regarding concepts such as God and soul being *like* the 'no self' that I refer to, this is only your own imagination!

As I said, no self is understood by way of studying what is experienced through the five senses and the mind. God and soul on the other hand are concepts entertained due to *not understanding*, in fact *misunderstanding* exactly this. Indeed you would have noted that the constant reminder regarding the need to understand the realities appearing through the five senses and the mind is what “no self” engenders,

And yes this is what soul and then God engender as well, with one change in perspective.

You mean I could well replace “consciousness experiencing an object” with “God experiencing God”? And I could say for example, that hearing consciousness is soul?

Nah, my impression when seeing soul and God being referred to and taught about, is that of encouraging *not* to attend to one's moment to moment experiences but rather to “believe” in something that is never a part of anyone's experience. One is asked to be involved in the kind of perceptions where concepts are taken for reality and made to form some kind of connection, all by sheer force of imagination. Indeed if it was not for the fact that there is no intention to mislead and that each person is responsible for what he believes in, I'd consider God the biggest lie ever perpetuated in human history.

Quote: God and soul on the other hand, leads away from such consideration and instead to something else altogether. One encourages not moving away from the present moment as the only valid object for the development of understanding, the other leads to following ideas about particular conventional activity, time, place and preconceived object of contemplation. And here you can see the huge difference, namely that while the one does not choose to “do” anything out of the ordinary having understood the impermanent and 'no self' nature of conditioned existence, the other in going by a program of practice is reflection of going by the perception of permanence and of self.

Ok therein lies your misunderstanding. Now I agree that God and soul on the conceptual level can be misleading but that is true of no self as well. On a conceptual level it is just an misleading. Though that is not my concern here. I am talking about the actual not what misleads amateurs, those who are starting out.

Yes no self could be misleading but only if one has proliferated on the concept as you have done. Someone who understands correctly will not put forward the idea without reference to ordinary day to day, moment to moment experiences. One is not asked for example, to contemplate or imagine no self, but to develop understanding of such mundane experiences as seeing, hearing, touching, thinking and so on. Indeed one is also reminded that what is to be understood are characteristics of realities where no labels apply. God on the other hand, is a huge label forced upon, one which actually goes against the nature of these experiences, being that it is associated with the perception of permanence, happiness and self, when reality in fact exhibit impermanence, suffering and no self.

The concept of God misleading only amateurs / beginners? Being misled can only lead to further being misled. Why use such ideas at all if there is any understanding and one knows that beginners will be misled!!? And how can it be expected that wrong lead one day to right? Well, the fact is that what you judge otherwise is in fact wrong made to appear right by power of delusion.

Quote: So really, what you are doing is trying to make concepts that in fact oppose each other, appear the same.

They are different indeed and belong to two different paradigms. There is a perspective change that is required if one wants to understand God and soul from the non-theist perspective, and a perspective change that is required to understand the no self from the theist perspective.

So the path to Truth is not about development of understanding of the way things are, but repeated thinking along one of the many possible lines of inquiry? No need to bother about whether such thinking is conditioned by wisdom and detachment or by ignorance and attachment? Just follow a particular so called paradigm of thought?

And the Noble Truth of the Path which the Buddha was enlightened to is actually coming to see this as being one of the many possible ways to experience the Noble Truth of Cessation? I'm going to have to tell my teacher and all my friends about this…..

Heidegger in his philosophy when referring to the revealing process of reality, echoes this same thing. He says when we ask reality to present itself to us, the way in which we do so causes certain parts of that reality to reveal themselves and other parts to conceal themselves.

Well, reality is nothing more than that which rises and falls away “now” experienced through one of the five senses and the mind. Either one understands this or does not understand it, but reality appears all the time! Starting from the very beginning with intellectual understanding which acknowledges the fact, there is no impression about one part of reality being revealed and causing another to conceal. Rather there is understanding or not of what has arisen and fallen away.

The idea that there is something that can be observed in part comes from the assumption that there exists something out there waiting to be known / observed. But conditioned phenomena rises and falls away instantly there and then, and what went before and what follows are altogether different realities.

(To clarify he is not talking about an elephant) It is like that famous Japanese proverb goes something like "a garden must be viewed from many angles to be seen properly". Now you may say the garden does not exist. All that exists is your perspective of the garden.

No. No me and no garden, but just thinking, thinking about garden. So yes, I was right about the perception of elephant as coming from a view which takes the elephant as existing and needed to be 'viewed from many angles'. This is perception of self and permanence, something which the Buddha's teachings work directly against.

You must understand that "garden" is referring to "all perspectives of the garden", not just yours but my perspective, and Akasha j's perspecive, Gyani ji's perspective and so on.

Whether it is one or all perspectives, if seeing, visible object, perception, thinking etc. are not known, the knowledge that comes must be completely worthless. Indeed it does not even matter if one mistakes a rope for a snake, or is hard of hearing, color blind, have no sense of smell or starting to experience dementia, the point is always to understand the present moment reality for what it is. Perception is perception and to be known for what it is, no matter this is of a snake or rope mistaken for a snake.

So a change in perspective is required if one wants to understand something outside of their perspective, obviously.

Change of perception (instead of perspective) comes with understanding reality and not from thinking differently about some concept. To believe otherwise can only be due to wrong understanding and will lead to more ignorance.

But it is difficult to make this change since we are so identified with our own perspective, which forms as a result of absorbing various concepts, we are exposed to, year after year after birth.

Regardless of what one believes, seeing that only this present moment is real and to be understood is the only step in the right direction.

This change is definitely not easy to make and to process different perspectives quickly requires one to be the at the level of an Arhat, who can make this change for every perspective that exists out there.

One of the first important steps along the Path of the development of right understanding is to make the reality vs. concept distinction, but you are suggesting that an Arahat would involve himself with thinking about many different concepts as basis for true knowledge?!! :-/

But again such a change is required if a non-theist wants to understand the theist, and vice versa. If a human wants to understand another human, essentially.

As a student of reality, I see no reason to try and understand theism, having understood to some extent what conditions such a belief. Understanding another human would include knowing where he is right and where he is wrong. It does not mean that someone who does not believe in God should suddenly see the belief as equally valid.

It's upto the individual whether they want to learn how to escape their perspective, to see outside of it. Not to discard it but to transcend it, absorbing other perspectives in the process, discarding none of them, but transcending all.

Yeah, there is no wrong, but only right and more right.

Quote: So long as I refer to the idea of having been born and am living, sure, I am going to die!

I meant not as some sort of logical knowing like "Mortals die. I am a mortal. Therefore, I will die" or "That which is born dies, I was born therefore I will die." Not like this. I mean another kind of knowing. Do you know in the other kind of knowing that you will die?

I know only of two kinds of death, one the conventional death as I pointed out. The other is the momentary death which happens all the time with the falling away of each consciousness. Which kind of death and the knowing of it are you referring to?

 

[Archived_member14]

Itsmaneet ji,

your name 'confused' is enough to describe your present condition. There's no scope of confusion in Sikhi. If you are into Sikh there's no scope of confusion. All trust be on Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Even if your confused at some point reciting Gurbani itself will eradicate all your confusion & then hope we see your real name on the SPN

I don't exactly remember why I chose "Confused" here, but on another website I call myself "Ignorant". There are many I could choose from for my next group, such as conceit, delirious, mad worldling, defilement, fool and so on, these more closely represent who I really am.

But if you are asking about the name given by my parents and family name, it is Sukhinderpal Singh Narula.

Regarding not being confused as a result of following and having trust in Sikh teachings, I wonder how this is different from say, a Muslim, Christian or Jew who follows a strict regiment of activities, including prayer and study, and all with the impression of doing what is right and being on the right path?

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

I am surprised to see where is tha need for such long explanations about ONE which is COMMON to all.
I think the more we write ,the more we say, the more confused we become.
Therefor it is always better to be short and to the point.

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Archived_member14]

Prakash ji,

I am surprised to see where is tha need for such long explanations about ONE which is COMMON to all.

Should you be surprised? Do you truly know what is *needed* and act accordingly or is it simply that your nature / accumulated tendencies lead the way?

I write as I do like a mad man, and you write as you do like another mad man, what's the difference? I sometimes have difficulty understanding brief statements, and you appear to have difficulty understanding long explanations. I mean, my long post did not at any point convey such ideas as “ONE which is COMMON to all”, yet you read me as expressing this. Indeed what I'm pointing at in my long post is that, all there exists to be known is what rises and falls away through one of the five senses and the mind “now”. That it is ignorance of this that such ideas as God or One comes to be formed and entertained!

So yes, what I’m talking about is really simple, namely that there exists just these six doorways through which anything is known and that we need to understand this and nothing more. And this is common to all. But does anyone here understand this? You obviously don't! But can you now see why repetition and long explanations might be needed? It is simple, but hard to see, as a friend used to say. And talking about friends, do you think I need to talk much about such things to them? Just a look can sometimes get the message across.

I think the more we write ,the more we say, the more confused we become.
Therefor it is always better to be short and to the point.

You are using your own personal inclination to decide what the correct course of action should be for other people. When I write, I see it as an opportunity to sort out my thoughts and perhaps there arise some instances of what is called, “straightening of view”.

Since I've joined SPN, I've been consistently sending out essentially the same message. You say that I have become more confused. Please point out my confusion to me, otherwise I consider your statement as groundless and an attempt to divert and distract.

Regarding short and to the point statements vs. long winded ones, which is better, the former expressing wrong understanding, or the latter expressing right understanding?

 

[Ambarsaria]

Confused brother ji thanks for your post. Wonderful and thought provoking and well written as always. mundahug

I believe in Sikhism there is no concept of God/creator to be a "self", a body, a description of any level of completeness. All who try to define simply define their own limits either of origins selfish or origins ignorance. It is more of "all is" which is the mirror of "all is not". It is the duality that is inviolable and unexplainable. As from dust to dust the illusions come and go the void or no-self never changes. Through all change, all life, the more we think or believe changes, the lesser the change is. Actually there is no change just we cannot comprehend beyond birth, life and death of ourselves.

Regards.

PS: A point on Prakash.S.Bagga ji's post above.

..... long explanations about ONE which is COMMON to all.
Prakash.S.Bagga

Veer ji I believe the assignment by us to matter and energy as something other than atoms and waves is the issue. That is the only thing that so far has been discovered by limited intellect humans with the best brains.

We can call this as the truth and manifestations but the atoms and energy are never still and always in instances of mobility or disturbance. We are just an exchange machine doing the churning of such manifestations. Our illusion can not be forgotten but living in illusion can be made illusonary enjoyable and contented in contemplation of what is creator and creation and all as one.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Empty vessels make the most noise.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Ref.the very first message of this thread
In the diagram depicting all world Religion I observse that there is no mention of

SIKH RELIGION.

Is Sikh Religion is not one of the Youngest Religion of the World.?

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Archived_member14]

Ambarsaria ji,

I have been busy and therefore could not respond earlier.

Confused brother ji thanks for your post. Wonderful and thought provoking and well written as always.

Although I do not expect any change in basic outlook, I do hope however, that what I write will sometimes cause people to question their understandings. So thank you for telling me this.

I believe in Sikhism there is no concept of God/creator to be a "self", a body, a description of any level of completeness.

There are three different ways in which “self” manifest, self-view, attachment and conceit. Attachment and conceit are a problem, but they are not insidious like self-view. Indeed so long as the latter is not known, the other two will not ever lessen but in fact strengthen. When I point out the danger of “self”, it is therefore self-view which I have in mind.

Self is not just having a pictorial idea about something. It is attributing characteristic and functions to something outside of the present moment, one which is not in line with the law of cause and effect and of conditionality. It is associated with the idea of “control” over phenomena which comes from one's own tendency to believe in control. It manifests as an attempt to find the original cause, be this the idea of God, Tao or Big Bang and dwelling on such questions as, which came first, the hen or the egg. It reflects a lack of sense of urgency with regard to understanding what the reality “now” is, but instead is attached to concepts / stories about reality and explanations thereof. Having failed to make the reality / concept distinction and seeing the harm in ignorance now, one conceives of some ultimate reality unknown, but knowable in the future. And whatever actions one undertakes in order that this happen, invariably involved is a belief in an abiding 'self' who will one day realize / identify with the larger Self. Indeed the belief in soul is corollary to this belief in some kind of Self out there separate from or encompassing all.

One parable the Buddha gave was of the man shot by an arrow who was offered help to remove it by a doctor. This man refused to have the arrow taken out unless he was told who shot the arrow. When this was given, he wanted to then also know which family he came from, which wood was used for the arrow, the bow, where the tree for the wood grew etc. In the meantime he'd suffer from the wound and ultimately die.

All who try to define simply define their own limits either of origins selfish or origins ignorance. It is more of "all is" which is the mirror of "all is not". It is the duality that is inviolable and unexplainable.

And you do not see this as symptom of the belief….
There can be no other option for a person who believes in the existence of anything outside of the present moment experience, than to be involved in projections. Recognizing one particular projection does not stop one from going on to project something else, even if this is the idea of something being ineffable. In other words, saying that something exists that can't be described is already projecting. Instead of thinking that one's faculty is limited, better come to realize what drives one to speculate to begin with.

Indeed the faculties namely, the eye and seeing, ear and hearing, mind and thinking, etc. are simply conditioned there and then by other conditioned phenomena all of which can be known. And this is what the Buddha realized and was basis for his seeing through all speculative philosophies. So it has nothing to do with the idea of the faculties being “limited”, but coming to understand that each of them perform a unique function and fall away completely, followed by another set of realities with other functions.

As from dust to dust the illusions come and go the void or no-self never changes. Through all change, all life, the more we think or believe changes, the lesser the change is. Actually there is no change just we cannot comprehend beyond birth, life and death of ourselves.

Yes, this is what you believe.
As I suggested above, if eye and seeing for example, are seen for what they are, namely conditioned and impermanent, insubstantial and no self, such speculative philosophies will not be entertained. When the causes and conditions for the present moment are revealed, what place is there for such ideas as first cause or the existence of an underlying or overarching reality?