God and Nirvana

[WHITEROOMENERGYMINE1]

Excerpt from the Meditative Mind by Daniel Goleman:

 

"Things first began to jell in my understanding, though, with a remark by Joseph Goldstein, a teacher of insight meditation, at Bodh Gaya. It's simple mathematics, he said: All meditation systems either aim for One or Zero - union with God or emptiness. The path to the One is through concentration on Him, to the Zero is insight into the voidness of one's mind."

 

My question to all of you is do you think that they are both simultaneously possible in the same person, or is it one or the other? I ask because my insight meditation has gained significant momentum and there is certainly no stopping it now. At the same time I long for a connection with God.

 

Can one attain nirvana and also attain union with God?

[Wayfarer]

Excerpt from the Meditative Mind by Daniel Goleman:

 

"Things first began to jell in my understanding, though, with a remark by Joseph Goldstein, a teacher of insight meditation, at Bodh Gaya. It's simple mathematics, he said: All meditation systems either aim for One or Zero - union with God or emptiness. The path to the One is through concentration on Him, to the Zero is insight into the voidness of one's mind."

 

My question to all of you is do you think that they are both simultaneously possible in the same person, or is it one or the other? I ask because my insight meditation has gained significant momentum and there is certainly no stopping it now. At the same time I long for a connection with God.

 

Can one attain nirvana and also attain union with God?

 

A good question. What Buddha awakened to was the presence of God, he just didn't call it God. To have Right View is to see the presence of God in all things, knowing such objects and creatures are a single itness. So what Buddha noticed in Venus, Jesus noticed in the sky while being baptised and Moses saw alight in the bush. This is not a God that is separate...we are that God but have forgotten. To awaken is to notice once again.

 

When we are awake to what is holy we find Nirvana for it is everywhere, it is all. Nothing exists other than God however to realise this is to know God does not exist. Terms such as void, emptiness or Nirvana do not mean anything...if you Awaken you know emptiness is it and fullness is it, there is only distinction when there is delusion.

 

So in answer to your question it is not possible for a person to know one and not the other, if this is so they still view the world through duality. What ever name you give to anything is to create distinction. When there is difference it is because that person is still deluded.

 

If you want to know God the Bible said all you need to do in a single sentence...Be still and know God. Why? Because God is expressed in all things including us as a settled presence, an endless pool of undisturbed stillness. To come to notice one must manifest the same qualities as God...this is how you notice what you and things are.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Wayfarer

[gatito]

And a great answer

[konchog uma]

Excerpt from the Meditative Mind by Daniel Goleman:

 

"Things first began to jell in my understanding, though, with a remark by Joseph Goldstein, a teacher of insight meditation, at Bodh Gaya. It's simple mathematics, he said: All meditation systems either aim for One or Zero - union with God or emptiness. The path to the One is through concentration on Him, to the Zero is insight into the voidness of one's mind."

 

My question to all of you is do you think that they are both simultaneously possible in the same person, or is it one or the other? I ask because my insight meditation has gained significant momentum and there is certainly no stopping it now. At the same time I long for a connection with God.

 

Can one attain nirvana and also attain union with God?

 

great question!

 

i also look at things as a "one and zero" model. One one hand, when pushed to the extremes of the limits of knowledge or experience, we tend to fall back on a self, or on god. The doctrine of anatman is the only way to train the mind to rest in its own formless essence, free of concepts, which, as divine as they might be, are an obstacle to true and total liberation.

 

but on the other hand, there seems to be a spiritual intelligence "out there", as if life had a design, intentions, and a mind of its own. As much as some party-line buddhists want to say that there is no causal power, the true idea of god transcends the limited framework of "creator deity" or "causal power". The idea of god is just this: oneness! That there is a dimension of oneness in which the limitations, exclusions, and dualities of the ordinary world are merged into a singularity. This pops up in buddhism in the idea of non-duality, dissolution of subject and object into the pure experience itself, without "experiencer" or "experienced", a state called a god state in shaiva. Buddhism just looks at is as a natural state, without the prop of deity.

 

In my experience, there is a divine consciousness in the universe. Thinking of it in terms of god or goddess or even "transcendental" is silly. Transcending what? there is no second thing. All concepts are dualistic, and it is beyond all dualism. But just like the cells of your body are alive and reproduce, interact, and heal themselves in order to maintain "you", i believe all living things in the universe act on their own and in unison to express the dance of deity, the indescribably oneness beyond idea.

 

so i don't think that the buddha was not aware of the existance of divine realms of being. He had his experience with gods and goddesses while he was meditating, and he never said "there are no gods" or "there is no god" to my knowledge. I think he formulated the doctrine of anatman because there is a yet more liberating truth to be experienced by the seeker than even union with god, and that is the complete extinguishing of the self-construct (even the god part of it) into the bliss/awareness of non-self, non-deity.

 

So i think there is a kind of ecstacy that comes from union with god, realizing the self as divine, and there is also a kind of bliss that comes from recognizing the total emptiness of phenomena and the lack of fundamental reality, or the voidness, inherent to any so-called reality. But in my experience they act in tandem: they aren't really mutually exclusive. And at the higher levels of most of the mystical deity paths (kaballah, shaiva, sufism, for example) they teach the emptiness of god and creation. like the name of Ain Soph Aur, which i have seen translated as "limitless light in the void"... when you get to the most sublime levels of god, there is always the void closeby!

 

hope you get some interesting answers, im sure there are a lot of opinions out there! cool post

[WHITEROOMENERGYMINE1]

A good question. What Buddha awakened to was the presence of God, he just didn't call it God. To have Right View is to see the presence of God in all things, knowing such objects and creatures are a single itness. So what Buddha noticed in Venus, Jesus noticed in the sky while being baptised and Moses saw alight in the bush. This is not a God that is separate...we are that God but have forgotten. To awaken is to notice once again.

 

When we are awake to what is holy we find Nirvana for it is everywhere, it is all. Nothing exists other than God however to realise this is to know God does not exist. Terms such as void, emptiness or Nirvana do not mean anything...if you Awaken you know emptiness is it and fullness is it, there is only distinction when there is delusion.

 

So in answer to your question it is not possible for a person to know one and not the other, if this is so they still view the world through duality. What ever name you give to anything is to create distinction. When there is difference it is because that person is still deluded.

 

If you want to know God the Bible said all you need to do in a single sentence...Be still and know God. Why? Because God is expressed in all things including us as a settled presence, an endless pool of undisturbed stillness. To come to notice one must manifest the same qualities as God...this is how you notice what you and things are.

 

Thank you so much for your generous wisdom. I will continue to cultivate awareness and stillness and attempt to transcend this duality!

 

great question!

 

i also look at things as a "one and zero" model. One one hand, when pushed to the extremes of the limits of knowledge or experience, we tend to fall back on a self, or on god. The doctrine of anatman is the only way to train the mind to rest in its own formless essence, free of concepts, which, as divine as they might be, are an obstacle to true and total liberation.

 

but on the other hand, there seems to be a spiritual intelligence "out there", as if life had a design, intentions, and a mind of its own. As much as some party-line buddhists want to say that there is no causal power, the true idea of god transcends the limited framework of "creator deity" or "causal power". The idea of god is just this: oneness! That there is a dimension of oneness in which the limitations, exclusions, and dualities of the ordinary world are merged into a singularity. This pops up in buddhism in the idea of non-duality, dissolution of subject and object into the pure experience itself, without "experiencer" or "experienced", a state called a god state in shaiva. Buddhism just looks at is as a natural state, without the prop of deity.

 

In my experience, there is a divine consciousness in the universe. Thinking of it in terms of god or goddess or even "transcendental" is silly. Transcending what? there is no second thing. All concepts are dualistic, and it is beyond all dualism. But just like the cells of your body are alive and reproduce, interact, and heal themselves in order to maintain "you", i believe all living things in the universe act on their own and in unison to express the dance of deity, the indescribably oneness beyond idea.

 

so i don't think that the buddha was not aware of the existance of divine realms of being. He had his experience with gods and goddesses while he was meditating, and he never said "there are no gods" or "there is no god" to my knowledge. I think he formulated the doctrine of anatman because there is a yet more liberating truth to be experienced by the seeker than even union with god, and that is the complete extinguishing of the self-construct (even the god part of it) into the bliss/awareness of non-self, non-deity.

 

So i think there is a kind of ecstacy that comes from union with god, realizing the self as divine, and there is also a kind of bliss that comes from recognizing the total emptiness of phenomena and the lack of fundamental reality, or the voidness, inherent to any so-called reality. But in my experience they act in tandem: they aren't really mutually exclusive. And at the higher levels of most of the mystical deity paths (kaballah, shaiva, sufism, for example) they teach the emptiness of god and creation. like the name of Ain Soph Aur, which i have seen translated as "limitless light in the void"... when you get to the most sublime levels of god, there is always the void closeby!

 

hope you get some interesting answers, im sure there are a lot of opinions out there! cool post

 

Fantastic! I guess my ego is just getting scared that I am about to smother him into non-existence and is trying to find some way of slowing my progress

 

Thanks for the answers they're awesome!

[konchog uma]

Fantastic! I guess my ego is just getting scared that I am about to smother him into non-existence and is trying to find some way of slowing my progress

 

oh the lengths to which it will go to do just that are ridiculous! LOL truly absurd

 

the fear is a good sign tho

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[forestofemptiness]

For what it's worth, most teachers I've encountered from the Buddhist side have all said that they are different, while people from the monotheistic side have said that they are the same.

 

I've been in a unique position to have tasted both, and I would say that they are different. Nirvana, I believe, is not something you gain, but what happens when you lose everything. It is important to remember that the purpose of Buddha dharma is the end of suffering.

[xabir2005]

Forestofemptiness puts it well.

 

The Buddha defines nirvana as the termination of craving, aggression and delusion. It is the end of grasping and suffering.

 

It is not attaining or gaining something.

Edited July 30, 2012 by xabir2005

[WHITEROOMENERGYMINE1]

For what it's worth, most teachers I've encountered from the Buddhist side have all said that they are different, while people from the monotheistic side have said that they are the same.

 

I've been in a unique position to have tasted both, and I would say that they are different. Nirvana, I believe, is not something you gain, but what happens when you lose everything. It is important to remember that the purpose of Buddha dharma is the end of suffering.

 

 

I will have to take the Buddhist's views on this one then. So if the two are different do you think that one is better than the other? Obviously they are not attained together so one path should be chosen, unless you can do both?

[konchog uma]

one can attain union with creation, and also attain nirvana. I see no mutual exclusivity. In some schools of deism, the divine is seen as one with creation and the manifestation of the oneness of all that is. This is similar to the Buddhist idea of interdependance.

 

The Buddha taught in no uncertain terms that life is actually real, there is a reality. He was not a nihilist and didn't like it when siddhas who followed him dwelt exclusively in emptiness and nonbeing and curtailed their engagement of reality there.

 

Much of the third turning or later mahayana teachings were about reconciling the paradoxes that arose from the earlier teachings; things that people misunderstood and got completely wrong. And people still misunderstand them and get them completely wrong! lol 2 millenia later. Oh well, i think daoism is great for reminding us not to think in rigid terms, not to get locked into dualistic ways of looking at things. The "one and the zero" are a yin-yang pair, they are in all likelihood inseperable and shouldn't be thought of as ultimately two different things as much as they are just two sides of the same infinitely complex coin

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[konchog uma]

of course there will always be people who like to think in dualistic terms and can't fathom that one and zero can coexist, but i personally wouldn't believe anyone if they tried to sell me a ticket for a smooth ride. The spiritual path is work, liberation is not easily attained.

and after all, if you aren't afraid of a couple bumps on the road, the destination is probbbably worth it

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[konchog uma]

oh i don't know, i think some people are thinkers by nature, and need the constructs of the left-brain to hold on to on their way up the mountain.. and some people aren't. I'm not, so i agree with you from a personal standpoint, but i've seen philosophy and concepts do people a lot of good, so i've come to accept that people have different dispositions from person to person.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I am no credited [ed. to add "ed"... .] master by any means, but I think it stands to reason and beyond that in empyting ourselves of selfishness, desire, anger, jealousy, pride, and various other obstacles to spirituality, we clean our window well enough that we see God in the entire Universe including ourselves and others, in the ways of life, fortune and misfortune, growth, regression, and all the states of Tao.

 

In accepting the Emptiness of Everything, we also accept The Everything though see it's nature is one with all, which is Emptiness. "Only by emptying our cup can it then be filled."

Edited August 14, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[gendao]

Nirvana is simply the realization that nothing (including "you" and "God") is absolutely real. It doesn't wholly negate anything, per se - only denies their 100% reality.

 

We tend to think of things in binary fashion as either 100% unreal or 100% real.

 

But mathematically, "reality" is actually a spectrum that goes from 0 (nonexistent) and approaches a limit of 1 (existent).

 

"God" is the limit of 1 - the closest you can get to full reality...without ever quite reaching it.

 

Nirvana is simply the experiential realization of this fact.

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[et-thoughts]

My question to all of you is do you think that they are both simultaneously possible in the same person, or is it one or the other?

 

zero limits and infinite limits point to the eternal while still using the limiting ways... for the finite temporal its impossible to attain the infinite eternal--- still thanks to the infinite eternal what is impossible for one to do becomes possible for one to do... YES its simultaneously possible to transcend limitations thanks to the infinite possibilities and the two become one and the same and then three in one...

[et-thoughts]

"Only by emptying our cup can it then be filled."

One can still fill a filled cup... as new stuff pours in, the stuff in the cup is displaced until only the new stuff fills the cup...

a cup is always full... say half water and half air ... the idea that it be somewhat empty stems from a delusion that air does not fill it... I am sure some will claim that the subatomic fluid is mostly empty and that stems from a different delusion... fill up self with love peace understanding humility and various other spiritual traits, desires... remember that you may be able to clean one side of your bubble but still need the assistance of God to clean the other side... the merciful ways of life, fortune , growth, has infinite possibilities, some of which better remain as possibilties .

[Harmonious Emptiness]

One can still fill a filled cup...

 

Not sure if you missed my point for the sake of argument, or just wanted to repaint the picture with a different density of paint..

[et-thoughts]

Not sure if you missed my point for the sake of argument, or just wanted to repaint the picture with a different density of paint..

 

Actually I wanted to point out that seeking to empty the cup is a fools errand... the 'empty' cup is full of air ...

more latter

 

ok I have some time now... the central point I sought to convert was

emptying ourselves of... is better done by filling ourselves of something that we want to have...

 

 

do not think of an apple leads to thinking of an apple and ways to get not to think of it

do think of an elephant leads to thinking of an elephant (and unless I mention the apple its likely that you will not to think of the apple when thinking of an elephant)

 

The analogy of the cup leads me to think that if what we are pouring in does not mix with what is in the cup and is heavier than whats in the cup it will displace the stuff there... I think that the point you where making was to first empty the cup ( by filling the cup with air) then pour into the cup what you want and displace the air out of the cup... the cup will always be full... the question is full of what? half water half air...

Edited August 16, 2012 by et-thoughts