Three principles for the problem of describing God

[Inliytened1]

39 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

I think what they were implying is that each of these words do not accurately describe the totality of what these descriptions actually mean. Its something you have stated in many of your videos. Since words, thoughts and emotion are all finite they cannot accurately describe how your awakenings are. Basically God can never be spoken because all finite descriptions fall short. But you are definitely correct in everything you posted.

Yes but now that you are self aware that nothing finite can capture infinity you can fhen proceed to describing God in finite ways.  

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The map is not the territory.

God is an experience but also understanding what God is is a bit of an intellectual problem.

That is the irony of mysticism and why some newbies get confused. They see all these people who can't stop themselves from speaking about the unspeakable, and it gives them the wrong picture. This thread is an attempt to rectify that.

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That is the irony of mysticism and why some newbies get confused. They see all these people who can't stop themselves from speaking about the unspeakable, and it gives them the wrong picture. This thread is an attempt to rectify that.

Well done.

[Prakhar]

Can there be a wrong answer to "What is God"?

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Prakhar said:

Can there be a wrong answer to "What is God"?

All answers are at worst and best incomplete, but the simpler answers are often more complete.

[Razard86]

14 hours ago, Prakhar said:

Can there be a wrong answer to "What is God"?

As Carl-Richard said only incomplete. All perspectives have some truth to them...the level of truth though is questionable lol. The only reason all perspectives have an element of truth and love in them is because all of creation is an expression of Ultimate Truth and Love. 

[Leo Gura]

16 hours ago, Razard86 said:

I think what they were implying is that each of these words do not accurately describe the totality of what these descriptions actually mean. Its something you have stated in many of your videos. Since words, thoughts and emotion are all finite they cannot accurately describe how your awakenings are. Basically God can never be spoken because all finite descriptions fall short. But you are definitely correct in everything you posted.

That is true of an apple as much as it of God.

Words are the never the thing spoken of.

[Razard86]

16 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Yes but now that you are self aware that nothing finite can capture infinity you can fhen proceed to describing God in finite ways.  

Sure you can, and people will get lost on their journey with all these maps. Of course getting lost is part of the journey but ehhhhh what do you do?

 

36 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That is true of an apple as much as it of God.

Words are the never the thing spoken of.

While true.....it kind of devolve this into a Non-Duality word game. Because I could just respond well of course because all of creation is infinite and that Apple is God because nothing is separate!!! Etc. Etc...

Edited April 1, 2022 by Razard86

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

While true.....it kind of devolve this into a Non-Duality word game. Because I could just respond well of course because all of creation is infinite and that Apple is God because nothing is separate!!! Etc. Etc...

Again, this is what it means to understand that the map is not the territory. But also the map is the territory.

You have to deeply understand that.

[SOUL]

I have noticed how people are always trying to describe 'god' to define it the same way the ego describes the self to define itself as if it can draw a line between what it is or isn't.... it's pretty humorous.

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, SOUL said:

I have noticed how people are always trying to describe 'god' to define it the same way the ego describes the self to define itself as if it can draw a line between what it is or isn't.... it's pretty humorous.

What the hell did I just read?

[SOUL]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

What the hell did I just read?

A statement about an observation.

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, SOUL said:

A statement about an observation.

Is this what you were trying to say?:

Quote

I have noticed how people are always trying to describe 'god', to define it the same way the ego describes the self, to define itself as if it can draw a line between what it is or isn't

 

[SOUL]

@Carl-Richard  The commas don't need to be in there because 'describe to define' is communicating the point well enough but a comma can be in there if desired but not required. Although, ironically, the comma separates just like the ego separates haha.

[Carl-Richard]

24 minutes ago, SOUL said:

@Carl-Richard  The commas don't need to be in there because 'describe to define' is communicating the point well enough but a comma can be in there if desired but not required. Although, ironically, the comma separates just like the ego separates haha.

My brain melts every time I try to read it without the commas.