Not God

Telecaster, you wrote, "that sounds like God, of some kind of power or prescence and something, actually, separate or different or "better" or more "pure" and " real" from the small me"
I don't think Kenneth Folk means to say that the "inherently existing awareness" is God, or seperate, or better, or more pure or real than anyone. What you are saying is your interpretation of something that cannot be interpreted in any accurate way through language or intellect. In fact, please notice that Kenneth refrains from any sort of explanation, interpretation, comparison or labeling (God). "Inherently existing awareness" is a vague working term for something that can not be described with any sort of precision or truth.

I would be curious to see what the group thinks of this. My (very humble) opinion on this is that through out time imortal when mystics are refering to god they are talking about a. A strong Samadhi State b. The witness or Non-Dual awareness... There is nothing inherently not god in these states. Although the word God has a LOT of baggage I think its really a different rationalization or understanding of non-duality/emptiness... of course I could be way of base... thoughts anyone...

"The Kingdom of God is within you"

This is a HUGE topic. There's very little possibility of consensus on the 'God' issue among participants of forums such as this, due mostly to there are so many reasons why different people will define 'God' differently.

I can say this: the Absolute as understood in the Eastern traditions is not in the least comparable to any Western concepts of God as understood in the Orthodox expressions of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). You'd be hard pressed to find a truly awakened master describing primordial awareness, or the Tao, as some super-being.

And not to get too picky here... but, being that I studied the Christian New Testament in its original language when I was in Bible college (that's right, I was in Bible college for a few years - fancy that), I can tell you that the phrase "The Kingdom of God is within you," is more than likely a mistranslation. It is better translated as "The Kingdom of God is in your midst," or "... among you." In light of this, it can be inappropriate to place the words "within you" in Jesus' mouth, as if the Jesus of the Bible (which some would call the "Christ of Faith") were speaking as an enlightened being akin to the Buddha. I don't think that's what the authors intended, but that's my opinion.

I don't know if any of that pertains to the discussion, but I hope so.

~Jackson

This is indeed an enormous topic. It can be a very interesting topic. Compelling. Maddening, some might say. So... why did the Buddha refuse to talk about this and other metaphysical questions?

Thanks Jackson, I appreciate your input. Indeed you are correct that the word God as described by Abrahamic religions has nothings to do with what we are talking about. Thanks for your clarification on that verse. Its may be naive of me but I like to think that some followers of Abrahamic religions do tap into what we are talking about. I was raised a fundamentalist christian myself, and ended up leaving that behind somewhere around 16. I found buddhism at 18 but didn't start a daily practice until last december (21)... Although it did facilitate some early spiritual openings overall I find Buddhism, and eastern thought in general seems a lot more in tune with what I have experienced...

"Telecaster, you wrote, "that sounds like God, of some kind of power or prescence and something, actually, separate or different or "better" or more "pure" and " real" from the small me"
I don't think Kenneth Folk means to say that the "inherently existing awareness" is God, or seperate, or better, or more pure or real than anyone. What you are saying is your interpretation of something that cannot be interpreted in any accurate way through language or intellect. In fact, please notice that Kenneth refrains from any sort of explanation, interpretation, comparison or labeling (God). "Inherently existing awareness" is a vague working term for something that can not be described with any sort of precision or truth. "

Thanks.
I don't remember when or why I said that, but I'm sure at the time it was just a conversational first impression and not a serious argument on my part.
I agree with all your points here.

Also there's some kind of mystical, grace-ful dimension to Christianity that I don't know if it's accounted for in Buddhism. I'm not attracted to it but have to keep an open mind because I experienced a course-changing mystical experience as a young teen delinquent that was very explicitly Christian. It wasn't transformative at all but, ironically, it seemed to have got me started with a proto-insight disease. I would love to understand that stuff some day but getting 1st path seems a lot more important.

"I like to think that some followers of Abrahamic religions do tap into what we are talking about. "

Guess I'll go with the urge this time to offer a little on behalf of the Abrahamics. As 1st born male child in a family of ministers and missionaries, I was groomed to be a preacher except that I had pyschological problems and became a Buddhist
Mid-western Protestant fundamentalism of the 60's seemed ridiculously simplistic compared to Buddhism. But later I found out that Christianity (just 1/3 of the Abrahamics) has had a big geographic and chronological spread, most of it East of here, and included the best spriritual minds who happened to live there. Even here & now in the far West, a friend of mine who is a Baptist chaplain had his life turned around by a strong and unexpected A&P. Another friend who was a Cistercian nun for 10 years seems to have had at least 1st path. And an early mentor (by mail), Bernadette Roberts seems to have possibly reached the end of the path (Arhat?) with only a Catholic frame of reference. (Her books are Path to No-Self, Experience of No-Self, and What is Self?)

"
This is indeed an enormous topic. It can be a very interesting topic. Compelling. Maddening, some might say. So... why did the Buddha refuse to talk about this and other metaphysical questions?

"

Because God is not going to end your suffering for you.

Hey mpavoreal,

Have you read Bill Hamilton's Saints and Psychopaths? There is an interesting comment in there about big spiritual openings (A&Ps) he writes that if visions occur they almost always occur in the context of the religion you are practicing. So if your christian you might see Jesus or feel the holy spirit, if your buddhist you could see the buddha etc. I remember my spiritual experiences as a devout christian teen. I feel in retrospect that they were some form of samadhi coupled with intense feeling of grace. Nothing wrong with that. The problem was for me that since they were concentration based instead of insight there was no lasting change on the mind and eventually I got fed up. Best of luck with Path. Its very doable with applied consistent (but not manic) effort...

"Hey mpavoreal,

Have you read Bill Hamilton's Saints and Psychopaths? There is an interesting comment in there about big spiritual openings (A&Ps) he writes that if visions occur they almost always occur in the context of the religion you are practicing. "

I've read this. Ken Wilber said something similar. And I can definitely vouch for it from my own experience. As a 17 year old, intense prayer while in a physically weakened condition sent me into an altered state of consciousness experience. It was vivid and clear, and at the time the main conceptual framework I had for it was of having 'been born again'.

You know, alot of the religious cosmologies differ mainly on who they describe as the Main Cast of Significant Characters, the Dramatis Personae, if you will. You know, like Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and so on. The gods, in other words. Many of them don't focus in great detail on the changes that occur within the aspirant. It's the detailed attention to phenomenological changes in the aspirant that tends to grant certain systems (such as Theravada, for example) more staying power over time. I think.

The thing is we are (that is human beings are) wired--in our instincts--to fetishize power. We've talked about that here in the past. (that's also a theme in Saints and Psychopaths).

In a way the gods are just shorthand for the various screens onto which we project our power fetishes. Water. Corn. Thunder. Lightning. Vastness. Alligators. Time. The Unknown. Mind. That which is beyond. The list goes and on and on. You make it powerful and we'll go right ahead and fetishize it for ya.

"Because God is not going to end your suffering for you."

Give that person a cigar!

"
"Because God is not going to end your suffering for you."

Give that person a cigar!

"

Will Buddha?


Namo Amitabha! Namo Amitabha! Namo Amitabha!

"Will Buddha?


Namo Amitabha! Namo Amitabha! Namo Amitabha!
"

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.


"

I'll buy him a beer and will chat first, then I'll kill him.

My advice is to kill the Buddha quickly -- before you get sucked in

"

My advice is to kill the Buddha quickly -- before you get sucked in

"

Can I put him in handcuffs?

Hi there, mpavoreal. Thanks for the comment.

I also spent many years deeply Immersed in Christianity. I grew up attending a Foursquare church, which (as I'm sure you know) can be a bit wacky. Being a charismatic/pentecostal denomination, I participated in more than my fair share of what might be called "Main St. Mysticism": speaking in tongues (and interpreting them), prophecy, healing, dreams, visions, being 'slain in the Spirit', etc, etc. Many people, including myself, had what seemed to be big openings and other special experiences, starting at age 7 or 8. As I mentioned above, I even went to a bible college for three years to study theology. Switching over to a more Buddhist-like spirituality happened somewhat gradually, and started during my last semester at bible college. The rest is history (for me at least)...

The point of I was attempting to make above was not that there isn't a great deal of deep mysticism (much deeper than what I experienced) within certain Christian or other Abrahamic spiritual traditions. But, these traditions in general would not equate a term like the Chinese "Tao" or the "Shunyata" of Mahayana Buddhism with what they believe to be "God." There's video at IntegralLife.com that features Fr. Thomas Keating - one of the foremost Christian contemplatives on earth - and he talks about why it might be a good idea to not use the word "nondual" when speaking with Christians, as it doesn't jive with their theology. And this is mostly true, even among contemplatives and mystics. (Of course, there are exceptions.)

(continued below)

People from different backgrounds will translate their experiences differently. If one is particularly embedded in a certain way of describing things (which happens to Christians and Buddhists alike), their View is likely to affect their understanding in some way. I'm OK with this, as I have no reason not to be. I just like to remind people to use caution when applying the teachings of another spiritual tradition to their own; as with the "kingdom of God" quotation I responded to above. I have no reason to really believe that Jesus said these words verbatim; nor is there reason to think that the author who penned it had primordial nondual awareness in mind when he wrote it down. Spiritual practices can be transformative and life altering, regardless of one's chosen tradition or translation. When such experiences occur, people either find a way for them to fit within their current tradition or move on to another (which may include starting a new one). Anyways, I'm just rambling now.

~Jackson

"My advice is to kill the Buddha quickly -- before you get sucked in

"

"If I get him in my sights...
Boom, boom,
Out go the lights."

-Stan Lewis (covered by Pat Travers)

I too have a significant Christian background, though nothing no where near as long or as intense as Jackson's. Mine was more of the standard Southern Baptist evangelical with lots of "alter calls" and John 3:16 summar camp and revivals but no speaking in tongues (though I often had friends and relatives who were involved in the more 'Main St. Mysticism' stuff at other Churches) but there was a definite spirituality in my churches (at the very least a feeling of another loving type power in the room). And, I stopped at around 14 or 15 mostly because I didn't trust the adults any longer or the theology and because I wanted to be a regular normal worldly person while at my church things were definitely divided us (christians) vs. them (sinners) and I hated that.
But I know now that I've never gotten over whatever happened to me in those young years in terms of how I look at life and how it should or can be lived and at the possibilites of grace and healing and transformation and love and I'm not sure if it's a blessing or a curse.
To me, Jesus was a sort of Guru figure who showed me what I could do and be by simple words and examples. I never thought of him as a God which is another reason why I couldn't last in those churches.
In my twenties I was pleased to find many books and teachings that treated Jesus as just another great (human) mystical teacher -- that really freed me up to still love him while not being bound by the dogma of Christianity and be able to take from him as well as buddha, etc. More lately I've been even more pleased to find that there are a LOT of people who don't even think there WAS a Jesus, that he was an invention (now that is a big subject). If this is true (and I think it might be) it elimates all the questions of who or what he was or wasn't and what he did or did not say.

""If I get him in my sights...
Boom, boom,
Out go the lights."

-Stan Lewis (covered by Pat Travers)"

COMMIN' OUT DA SLUMS!!! (read dukkha nanas)
It's da hoodlums (read yogis)
I'm pullin' my gat out on all you bums (read buddhas)
So bring it on when you wanna come fight this
Outlaw, I'll kick ya like Billy Ray Cypress Hill
Kill, I'll bust that grill
Grab my gat, and load up the steel
And if you wanna get drastic
I'll pull out my blasted glock, automatic,
Synthetic material, bury your plots in order,
Headed down to da Mexican border (read reobservation nana?)
Smokin' that smellie, Northern Cali,(read meditating a lot and getting to high equanimity, pun intended))
Gonna put a slug in Captain O'Malley (read Buddha)
Ho, hum-Hear the gat come
Boom Boooooommmmmm! (Read stream entry or some realization)

Cypress Hill

Too much? Hehe! Today is a funny day.

"if the Jesus of the Bible (which some would call the "Christ of Faith") were speaking as an enlightened being akin to the Buddha" hmmm, based upon the words the Gospels have him saying in the New Testament he was a poor excuse of a Buddhist - kept rambling on about a heavenly Father, a personal creator god that he was very attached to and dependent on! This Jesus by Buddhist orthodoxy seems to fall short of enlightenment! If this be heresy make the most of it!

"If visions occur they almost always occur in the context of the religion you are practicing. ... I remember my spiritual experiences as a devout christian teen. I feel in retrospect that they were some form of samadhi coupled with intense feeling of grace. Nothing wrong with that. The problem was for me that since they were concentration based instead of insight there was no lasting change on the mind and eventually I got fed up. Best of luck with Path. Its very doable with applied consistent (but not manic) effort... "

Thanks Clayton! Yeah, transient concentration experience, that sounds like the bottom line. Maybe some of these experiences seem so temporarily mind-blowing, though, that they might be really good at turning the question mark on.

god is a concept
concepts are mind objects
no mind