The problem of God! [philosophy]

Separate self means the material body. The word separate simply stresses on the fact that it separate our from the divine world. When Adam and Eve chose to eat the apple, that is chose to live as a material body, it separates them from the Garden of Eden.

Here's quote from Einstein

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” ~Albert Einstein

New definition of religion
Source: William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience"

It is the feelings, acts, and experience of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine. Notice that the word "solitude" is very important, as if or perhaps it is only in solitude that we can get religious experience.

God has become whatever you consider ultimate. So, God can be anything: your parents, your lover, your dog, your computer, your nose. Of cause, God don't have to be material.

Symbol
Source: Paul Tillich

We use symbol to express things. First, because it makes the visual message shorter, i.e.: we don't have to put a lot of bullsh*t to express one thing such as 911. When we see 911, we know exactly what it is referring to, unless we don't have the knowledge about it. But anyone who have experience it or witness it, or googled it and saw it on Youtube, would know that it means. Likewise, in a middle of a math proof, if you have a damn long term of 30 variables and constants that you can't simplify until 40 steps later, you can simply replace it by a shorter symbol instead of rewriting it 40 times. Those short symbols just makes our life easier.

Second, symbols can replace things that are not easily to express. Like transcendelia data, our everyday language is not good enough to express them. Thus, we need symbols to translate them, and to make them easier to understand. But of course, we must be able to recognize the the meaning of the symbol. If not, the message would be completely meaningless.

1st characteristic of symbol:
Symbols point beyond themselves to do something else. Like letters and numbers, they point to sounds and meaning, while their natural selves are just weird shapes made of curves and lines.

What differentiate between signs and symbols is signs can be replace for expediency of convention, while symbols cannot, because signs do not participate the reality to which they point, while symbols do.

2nd:
Symbols participate to what they point. The manipulation of a symbol has meanings and impacts. You can go burn the restroom sign, but you can't burn a nation's flag. The flag is considered as meaningful as the nation itself or the leader of the nation. If you burn the flag is as bad as if you killed the leader or devastated the nation, while a restroom sign, people might just think that you are crazy.

3rd:
Symbols open a level of reality that is otherwise closed for us. As I said earlier, symbol can represent transcendelia data, which are otherwise impossible to express. Other thing like the symbolism in a poem or a story. Basic symbols like letters and number, if human have never invented them, we would be like animals.

4th:
Symbols also unlock dimension and elements that correspond to the dimension of reality. Similar to Newton's 3rd law - action-reaction... never mind. A good story does not only entertain us, it make us realize stuff in us that we never notice before. As for a sign, I have never hear someone one saying that the 100km/h road sign makes him realize that he has never been a good driver for something like that. Although it could be realistic, but people never do that.

5th:
Symbols cannot be produced intentionally. They must be adopted by a collectivity and our unconscious self. You can make symbols for yourself, but it would only be meaningful for yourself. However, if you're not used to use the new symbol, for example you decide to invent your own alphabet, if you don't practice, then you'll forget it and lose it. Especially when there no one else to enjoy and succeed your invention.

6th:
Symbols grow and die, do to the fact that they cannot be invented. Like Hieroglyph, those letters are no longer use by anyone. (Maybe some people use them just for fun. But people don't use it for the same meanings as it used to have.) Symbol comes to existence when the situation is ripe for them and disappear when the situation changes.

Symbol and religion
I say: since symbol is what all sacred texts are about, it is important to make the difference between literal and symbolic meaning of those scriptures. I guess that is what everyone would say. However, we can't just go to the church or in a library, take the bible and analyse all passage by its symbolic meaning because those symbols are dead. Long long ago, our ancestors thought about those symbols and hope that the scriptures can be passed down to future generation without any problem. But with all the translations, editions and new interpretations, we lose original meaning of the symbols. The texts becomes dull and meaningless on its literal meaning. And when religious people defends their text, they defended for the literal meaning. Because of all those lost, it is hard to refind the original meaning of the scriptures.

Symbol and God
God in like the finger pointing at the moon, its original intention is the moon, but people only pay attention to the finger.

Definition of God: ground of all being/ that which nothing can be conceived/ being Itself
Symbols for God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, most perfect example, highest, ...

If you are a kid and you ask someone what is God, if he tells you God is the ground of all being, you are more likely to no understand. If instead, he says He is a powerful guy on the sky who is watching you and would punish you if you're not good, then you will probably understand (or at least have a vague image of what God is). We use this kind of symbols to explain God because it is easier for us to relate ourself with God. You don't give a sh*t if God is He who is. But if you know God is a legitimate judge and would throw you to hell if you kill a fly, you would stop being a b*tch and maybe start to consider given some penny to the homeless people lying in the metros.

Of course God isn't supposed to be scary. You know, if you're parent that you say "God will slap your butt if you do wrong" to your kids, it's because you wants to manipulate them. You know when they grow up, they'll understand and forgive you. But consider the case of other symbol, like omnipotent, benevolent and loving and caring about all of us. Since he is wonderful being and He cares us, He will help us when we need Him. So this is a symbol to represent that whatever we consider divine can help us to cope, to deal with everything bad that happen in our life. As we saw in the the 2 different functions of religion: translation & transformation, religion consoles, fortifies, defends us.

So, to understand God, we must be careful with what is just a symbol and what God really is, for symbols are only approaches of God for us to be able relate ourself with God.

You say that there are rarely people who can experience transformation. How do we know that transcendental data exist? What if everything was only our mind playing tricks on us, give hallucinations of transcendent data to people who are mentally "handicapped"? Could transformation be only a mental disorder?

Can transformation only be a psychological issue? I don't think so. There have been records of many mystical experiences and those experiences differ from psychological disorder experiences.
First mystical experience cannot be explained with word. Psychological problem can be explained and detected by observation of the brain. Second, mystical experience contain a certain amount of knowledge. After a person experience it, he would adopt a new perspective of the world. The knowledge that he gain is full of significance and importance. But psychological experience does not gives much significant truth. Third, mystical experiences tend to last shortly. But psychological disorders last long and need treatments to cure them. Lastly, mystical experiences need instrumental injunction to make them happen, while psychological experiences just happen without the need of injuction.

Dialectical oppositions
Source: John Macquarrie

There are six dialectical oppositions that make God a God. What does that mean? Well, God is incomprehensible because of these oppositions and these oppositions must be present in order to make Him a God.

1st opposition: the contrast between being and nothing. The definition of God that someone mentioned before "God is He who is", which is clammed by Aquinas. The verb to be is used in the ancient culture to imply existence and reality. However, God does not exist as a being that we can sense in space and time. God exists as the source of existence of all being. Since He is found in everything, we cannot distinguish Him with other. God is the reality, but there is nothing in reality that can represent Him. Moreover, in science, we reject the argument of God because we do not need it. Thus God is nothing.

2nd opposition: between one and many. God is the unity that hold the world together. But He is also found among everything in the world. It is the same to divide a piece of wood; you would never get to infinity number of pieces, nor zero value of mass. Likewise, we cannot know the size of the universe, neither the size of the smallest unity particle.

3rd opposition: between knowability and incomprehensibility. God reveals Himself thought transformation, but God cannot be understood (as explained before).

4th opposition: between transcendence and immanence. God can be totally beyond nature, but He somehow have to involve. Mainly thought prophecy (transformation). For example, a painter creates hes painting, he transcend that painting, but he is somehow related to that painting.

5th opposition: between passibility and impassibility. God cannot be affected by His creation. However, He somehow cares.

6th opposition: between eternity and temporarily. God is outside of time, but he can still involve in time.

Me, Bishop of the East, shall tell you about everything. The following shall give you the ultimate truth about the world. Prepare to be enlighten.

Mandalic science is mapping transcendent data, while gnostic science is the direct apprehension of data. Originate in India, Yoga has become a worldwide gnostic science and Samkhya, its complementary theological framework.

The word "yoga" derives from "yoke," meaning connecting things together, that is connecting the separate self with the true self (atman).

In Samkhya philosophy, there is the notion of Purusha (atman, true self, spiritual, awareness) and Prakriti (material, energy, material world, non-awareness).

There are 3 gunas (string or a single thread or strand of a cord or twine) that form the fundamental principle or tendency of Prakriti:
-Sattva: it is transparent, poised, potential - peace, harmony, tranquility
-Rajas: it is turbulence - restless, energy, activity
-Tamas: it is inert, opaque - solidity

Now, prepare for the ultimate truth.

Purusha is awareness of the activity of Prakriti, which is about the subtle (rajas) and gross (tamas) body. In other words, Purusha is aware, but doesn't do anything; Prakriti is doing thing but not aware of anything. Prakrity can be divide is such:
-Gross: eye of flesh; sense organ
-Subtle: -10 faculties of perception; - manas (mind, eye of mind, ego or Ahamkara); -Buddhi (eye of contemplation)

Everything we know, everything we experience are collected by Prakriti. The awareness of everything is known by Purusha, our true self.

Purusha is what we really are. But because we are so absorbed in Prakriti, we lose the sense of what we really are.

In other word, Purusha is Buddhi, is us, is God. Atman = Brahma.

What Yoga does is to work backward to sense Buddhi. First, it shuts the eye of flesh, then shits the eye of mind, so the only eye available is the eye of contemplation, which allow us to sense our buddhi.

source: Ashok K. Malhotra's "The Philosophy and Psychology of Yoga"

In Hinduism, Purusha (Sanskrit puruṣa, पुरुष "man, Cosmic man", in Sutra literature also called puṃs "man") is the "self" which pervades the universe. The Vedic divinities are considered to be the human mind's interpretation of the many facets of Purusha. According to the Rigvedic Purusha sukta, Purusha was dismembered by the devas -- his mind is the Moon, his eyes are the Sun, and his breath is the wind.
In the Rigveda, Purusha is described as a primeval giant that is sacrificed by the gods (see Purushamedha) and from whose body the world and the varnas (castes) are built. He is described as having a thousand heads and a thousand feet. He emanated Virat, the female creative principle, from which he is reborn in turn before the world was made out of his parts.
In the sacrifice of Purusha, the Vedic chants were first created. The horses and cows were born, the Brahmins were made from Purusha's mouth, the Ksatriya from his arms, the Vaisyas from his thighs, and the Shudras from his feet. The Moon was born from his mind, the Sun from his eyes, the heavens from his skull. Indra and Agni emerged from his mouth.
The parallel to Norse Ymir is often considered to reflect the myth's origin in Proto-Indo-European religion.

---
Prakrti or Prakriti or Prakruti (from Sanskrit language प्रकृति, prakṛti) means "nature". It is, according to the Hindus, the basic nature of intelligence by which the Universe exists and functions. It is described in Bhagavad Gita as the "primal motive force". It is the essential constituent of the universe and is at the basis of all the activity of the creation. It is composed of the three gunas which are tendencies or modes of operation, known as sattva (preservation), rajas (creation), and tamas, (destruction) Sattva encompasses qualities of goodness, light, and harmony. According to the Yoga Vasistha, people who are of a satvic nature and whose activities are mainly based on satva, will tend to seek answers regarding the origin and truth of material life. With proper support they are likely to reach liberation. Rajas is associated with concepts of energy, activity, ambition, and passion; so that, depending on how it is used, it can either have a supportive or hindering effect on the evolution of the soul, Tamas is commonly associated with inertia, darkness, insensitivity. Souls who are more tamasic are considered imbued in darkness and take the longest to reach liberation. Prakriti is closely associated with the concept of Maya within Vedic scripture.

---
In classical literature (for example, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata Purana and the Bhagavad Gita), the guṇas are also associated with the five elements (mahabhutas),[5] five senses, and five associated body parts:
Akasha (space), associated with the guṇa śábda ("sound") and with the ear.
Vayu (air), associated with the guṇa sparśa ("feeling") and with the skin.
Tejas or Agni (fire), associated with the guṇa rūpa ("appearance", and thus color and tangibility) and with the eye.
Apas or Jalam (water), associated with the guṇa rasa ("taste", and thus also flavor and tangibility, as well as shape) and with the tongue.
Prithivi (earth), associated with all the preceding guṇas as well as the guṇa gandha ("smell") and with the nose.

In Samkhya philosophy, a guṇa is one of three "tendencies": tamas, sattva, and rajas. These categories have become a common means of categorizing behavior and natural phenomena in Hindu philosophy, and also in Ayurvedic medicine, as a system to assess conditions and diets. For this reason Triguna and tridosha are considered to be related in the traditions of Ayurveda. Guṇa is the tendency not action itself. For instance, sattva guṇa is the tendency towards purity but is not purity itself. Similarly rajas guṇa is that force which tends to create action but is not action itself. Each of the three gunas is ever present simultaneously in every particle of creation but the variations in equilibrium manifest all the variety in creation including matter, mind, body and spirit.
All creation is made up by a balance composed of all three forces. For creation to progress, each new stage "needs a force to maintain it and another force to develop it into a new stage. The force that develops the process in a new stage is rajo guna, while tamo guna is that which checks or retards the process in order to maintain the state already produced, so that it may form the basis for the next stage".
Sattva (originally "being, existence, entity") has been translated to mean balance, order, or purity. Indologist Georg Feuerstein translates sattva as "lucidity".
Rajas (originally "atmosphere, air, firmament") is also translated to mean change, movement or dynamism. (Rajas is etymologically unrelated to the word raja.)
Tamas (originally "darkness", "obscurity") has been translated to mean "too inactive" or "inertia", negative, lethargic, dull, or slow. Usually it is associated with darkness, delusion, or ignorance. A tamas quality also can refer to anything destructive or entropic. In his Translation and Commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi explains "The nature of tamo guna is to check or retard, though it should not be thought that if the movement is upward tamo guna is absent".

----
Ahaṃkāra (अहंकार) is a Sanskrit term that is related to the ego and egoism - that is, the identification or attachment of one's ego. The term "ahamkara" comes from an approximately 3,000 year-old Vedic philosophy, where Ahaṃ refers to the concept of the Self or "I" and kāra refers to the concept of "any created thing" or "to do". Ahamkara is one of the four parts of the antahkarana (inner organ) described in Hindu philosophy. The other three parts are Buddhi, Citta and Manas.

---
Buddhi is a feminine Sanskrit noun derived from the same root (budh – to be awake; to understand; or to know that is gyan) as its more familiar masculine form Buddha. Buddhi is a composite of mind and ego, and principally the faculty of I-sense, which derives the sense of individuality (atman), a sense or principle of pure ego, and which is due, in part, to the reflection on it, as an object seen (pramana), i.e., the self-effulgence and illumination of Purusha in the witness brings I-sense and Buddhi into the awareness of the mind.
Both the mind and ego are regarded as instruments of reception in Buddhi. By itself, Buddhi is not a single principle upon which one could meditate, due to its composite nature. It cannot bring the mind to an arrested state by doing so. Technically, both the mind and ego originate in Prakriti and from Purusha, emerge into materiality as a function of the 3 Gunas as the most subtle objects in their pure sense. Discriminative in nature (बुद्धि निश्चयात्मिका चित्त-वृत्ति), which is able to discern truth (satya) from falsehood and which makes wisdom possible. It corresponds to the Platonic conception of nous and plays a central role in salvation within Hinduism, Buddhism and Yoga. Buddhi plays a central role in the attainment of liberation (moksha) or enlightenment (bodhi).
Buddhi makes its first scriptural appearance in the Katha Upanishad (I,3) where it is compared in a famous simile to the driver of a horse and carriage, where the reins held by the driver represent the lower mind (manas); the horses represent the five senses (Indriya) and the carriage itself - the body. Ontologically, buddhi is equivalent to hiranyagarbha and is to individual living souls - jivas - as hiranyagarbha is to the insentient phenomena of the universe. Buddhi is that dimension (or pole) of the heart/mind (chitta) which is attracted to Brahman. The other 'pole' of chitta is called manas and is characterised by an attraction to form and ego-construction or ahamkara (or the mutative or changing ego). Manas, through identification with matter and desire for sensual pleasures (kama) causes the incarnation of Brahman into material existence as an individual soul. Buddhi, through wisdom (prajña) and discernment (vitarka), leads an incarnate soul in the opposite direction dissolving identification with material phenomena with cessation of corresponding worldly desires (vairagya) and eventually attaining liberation (moksha).

---
Brahma (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मा; IAST:Brahmā) is the Hindu god (deva) of creation and one of the Trimurti, the others being Vishnu and Shiva. According to the Brahma Purana, he is the father of Mānu, and from Mānu all human beings are descended. In the Ramayana and the Mahābhārata, he is often referred to as the progenitor or great grandsire of all human beings. He is not to be confused with the Supreme Cosmic Spirit in Hindu Vedānta philosophy known as Brahman, which is genderless. Brahmā's consort is Gāyatri. Saraswati is his daughter who sits beside him to gain knowledge and is referred as the goddess of learning. Brahmā is often identified with Prajapati, a Vedic deity.

If this is true, then it explains why there are so many different religions; it's because each existing person is a God!

We'll talk about that....

3rd debate: https://secondlife.1fr1.net/t118-the-problem-of-god-debate-iii#1146

What do you mean?