With thanks to LilyM and Danserr, who’s comments in conversation have prompted this question.
What is the fundamental, basic, essential nature of God?
And how do you know?
Sarah x
So far, JRKH’s answer is the simplest, most honest, and direct. For my part, God is not known as an object of personal mind, and therefore no argument, feeling, faith, or
lack of faith has anything to do but be a placeholder until a certain point of inquiry into one’s nature and existance is passed. In one system of reconing, that would be the nineth fulcrum of human awareness. Most humans are not near that, or at least one can make that assesment from viewing the news. And most of us are stuck somewhere between 2 and 12 in terms of emotional development, all protests to the contrary notwithstanding.
I am not an atheist. Nevertheless, one might think so, as I put no stock in the Abrahamic paradigm of God being a personal God, and to me the Trinity is a rarely useful educational tool that can be gotten past eventually, however explanatory it might be in the meantime. I will quote here from somone I respect abouit the ordinary understanding of God:
The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse. I use it sometimes, but I do so sparingly. By misuse, I mean that people who have never even glimpsed the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness behind the word, use it with great conviction, as if they knew what they were talking about. Or they argue against it, as if they kinew what they were denying. This misuse gives rise to absurd beliefs, assertions, and egoic delusions, such as “My or our God is the only true God, and your God is false,” or Nietzsche’s famous “God is dead.”
The word God has become a closed concept. The moment the word is uttered, a mental image is created, no longer, perhaps, of an old man with a beard, but still a mental representation of someone or something outside you, and, yes, almost inevitabley a male someone or something.
Neither God nor Being nor any other word can define or describe the ineffable reality behind the word, so the only important question is whether the word is a help or a hindreance in expereincing That toward which it points. Does it point beyond itself to that transcendent reality, or does it lend itself too easily to becoming no more than an idea in your head that you belive in, [or don’t] a mental idol?
(my addition in brackets)
What might be said, somewhat controversially on these pages, is that the referent for the word God is, as Catholic and other contemplatives have discovered. experiencible. That comes through hard work and/or grace. And it doesn’t, as some spontaneus experiences show, ncessarily require faith, but primarily the exhaustion of mental process, prayer being one way to do that, to the point wher the discursive mind stops. It, at some point, just cannot cope and goes into overload, and goes silent with its commentary and story about
you.
What’s left, then, is what appears to the intellect as nothing, blank, zero, zip zilch. And yet, it is ALL. It is significance itself. It is That which allows anything else to appear. All that is left in that state is pure, unqualified, unadulterated, Consciousness with no other attribute than Being. At that point the world changes radically in an instant. And a few things become clear.
It becomes clear how the mind works. It becomes clear why it is said that as long as you think you are a person, you will have a personal God. (A Catholic said that, btw, as well as that being implied by many others, and certainly I say it too.) You will also see that nothing of the world as it was seen before is different. As the Zenists say "Before enlightenment, chopping wood, carrying water. After enlightenment, chopping wood, carrying water. It is very true. Only your understanding and attribution of Identity changes.
So how do I know? It happened to me. There just are not words as to the astonishing and instantaneous change in perception that happens. And one who hasn’t had that might readily say that “Oh, it’s an illusion or a hallucination.” If that is so, then it is one built into the human mind. And there would need to be an explanation of why, since there is written history, regardless of time, place, or condition, religious or not, so many have come up with the same conclusion and can speak extemporaneously of that State with complete consistencey, with or without the benefit of havng know or not others who have had the same realization. It’s damn near scientific in its repeatabiliy, And in fact ther is a time honored way with small variations, that will yeild that result over time. It is implicit even in the sort of prayers recorded to have been used by Catholic contemplatives. Kd of makes sense if you are one who says that we are all “Made in the image and likeness of God.”
So there it is. It matters not a whit whether you personally belive or not, It is exactly the same. It is mental/emotional, only the contents takes one side or another of the same coin, and is therfore made of the same substance. Get past your thinking mind by one of the prescribed methods, and see for yourself. No one cares, really, if you do it or not. But those who don’t will continue to aregue one side or another of what isn’t there except as the awareness to it. God/no God points only to that yu have awareness. What is the Source of that awarenes? If you find That, you may then be able to use one word or another to point to it. And you will be competely competent and consitent in your explications, which wil have zero meaning to anyone who hasn’t “been there,” but it might give them encouragement to make the journey themselves.
