A Discussion On God
“I have always a wonderful dialogue with my without gender GOD. My GOD is my close friend who can motivate me. Before this wonderful friendship, I was searching about GOD . I was looking GOD in theories, religions. I was reading GOD in books. Later I found out that GOD is inside of me so close to my feeling! You see my words about GOD are so easy, childish and understandable because GOD is a easy and understandable concept for people who want to understand GOD and GOD is a difficult concept for people who want to prove GOD by sciences. I think we can not prove feeling of love but we can prove how love can improve our life. So different definitions of GOD are because of the conceptual and linguistic problem. However, the differences can prove that GOD is every where but in different names!”[1]
Ravi Arapurakal , [2] responded me : “Sahar, let's stay with your easy and understandable concept for people who want to get the reality you mean when you use the word "God" either in thought or word. Ask yourself if the specific reality that lies behind your use of the word "God" is the same reality that lies behind others' use of the word "God". Ask yourself if there are any consequences to the fact that the word "God" means different things you and other people. Now ask yourself how you can talk about the reality which you refer to with the use of the word "God" in a way that enables others to get the same reality you mean when you use the word. Ask yourself if the use of the word "God" makes it easier or more difficult to convey exactly what you mean by the word "God" to another who has a different meaning for the word "God". Then ask yourself how you can reduce the conflict among people that arise from the single fact that they mean different things when they use the same word.”
I thought about the questions and wrote him: “My answer to your first and second question is same. In my opinion the specific reality that lies behind my use of the word "God" is the same reality that lies behind others' use of the word "God". Although GOD has a different names, different definitions, I think when I am calling GOD, the essence of this concept, GOD ,is same for others. Sex of GOD, Place of GOD, Definition of GOD, Name of GOD, etc are some thing to describe reality. They are different but reality is same. Lets share a story with you. It said reality was a big mirror in the hands of GOD, It felt down and broke. Each person in the world got a small piece of this mirror and felt that she/he found a reality. A small piece of mirror is fact in the different shapes and sizes but reality is the knowledge that only GOD knows this reality. You see its complicated. Because we have different language and concept to define facts around us. Common literature is one of the ways that we can reduce conflict among people that arise from the single fact that they mean different things when they use the same word. For common literature we need dialogue. From the dialogue we have to reach a discurse. Discurse can solve the different understanding from the same fact. However, I believe that reaching a common literature in different contexts is so difficult and full of challenges.”
Now here is his respond: “The linguistic symbol (God in English) for God is the same for those who use the word (leaving out translations into other languages).And the reality of God is no doubt the same, if only because it is what it is, and no one is able to fathom that reality, but merely point at it. But the idea of God stored in each individual can be vastly different. These ideas of God depend upon the manner in which the concept was first introduced to the individual. And we can be sure, that even within a religious tradition, these ideas of God are different for different people. When people quarrel about God, it is typically neither about the linguistic symbol or the reality of God. There is nothing to quarrel about in the symbol, if only because it is merely a symbol. There is nothing to quarrel about the reality, because no one either knows it, or can articulate it in a way that can be clearly understood by another. So what is left, the idea of God in each individual is where we quarrel. Even within each religious tradition, there are several divisions arising out of these different ideas, and even within each of these division, there are further quarrels about this or that difference among the ideas that various believers have of God. Unfortunately, these quarrels are not without consequences. Wars and terrorism are the products of the differences among these various ideas of God.”
Then we talked about that if religious traditions can create different understanding from GOD or different experience of life ? He discussed : “suggest that the functioning of God in each of our lives is as the "Pure Witness" that experiences (perceives, observes) one's own and every one else's entire life/lives. As the "Witness" God engages with the content of each one's experiences through emotion, the functioning of which in our lives manifest in providing and intensifying positive and negative charges to the content that is experienced. The extent of positive and negative charges to imaginative (ideas) content in turn determines the extent of effort and perseverance that the apparent "individual" applies to physical zing the idea, and thus contributing to the transformation of our common world, which, of course, is God's Body. Unfortunately, God cannot operated as Oneself in the lives of most of us. This is because although we are each an extension and manifestation of God within One's Body, One's function as the Agent is usurped by the Identity element in the assumptive dimension of God's experiencing field. As the imaginative (idea) content arises from the assumptive content, much of which, including One's identity starts out in adulthood contaminated with errors, conflict and confusion. To the extent of such contamination, the application of God's emotional charges are also perverted, and "wrong" things get priority, and are done by one's human body. To get God back in the driver's seat in all of our lives, the perversion has to be eliminated, which in turn requires the elimination of the false assumptive element of the "Witness'" identity as the individual human organism. When this happens, there will still be a lot of unique creativity and opportunity and available to each of us, as each of us is the manifestation of a different perspective and instrument of God operating as witness, possessing different experiences and different latent capabilities in the genetic make-up of our human organisms. But as we will then no longer be in ideological conflict, we will all be a lot more productive, and a lot less in want.”
But really friends I think even if all of us had a same language, a same religion and a same cultural background and another common elements which could put us is a same category still our understanding from GOD was different ?I believe that ideology more than a way of approaching to the world is a way of looking at the world...
Ravi Arapurakal , [2] responded me : “Sahar, let's stay with your easy and understandable concept for people who want to get the reality you mean when you use the word "God" either in thought or word. Ask yourself if the specific reality that lies behind your use of the word "God" is the same reality that lies behind others' use of the word "God". Ask yourself if there are any consequences to the fact that the word "God" means different things you and other people. Now ask yourself how you can talk about the reality which you refer to with the use of the word "God" in a way that enables others to get the same reality you mean when you use the word. Ask yourself if the use of the word "God" makes it easier or more difficult to convey exactly what you mean by the word "God" to another who has a different meaning for the word "God". Then ask yourself how you can reduce the conflict among people that arise from the single fact that they mean different things when they use the same word.”
I thought about the questions and wrote him: “My answer to your first and second question is same. In my opinion the specific reality that lies behind my use of the word "God" is the same reality that lies behind others' use of the word "God". Although GOD has a different names, different definitions, I think when I am calling GOD, the essence of this concept, GOD ,is same for others. Sex of GOD, Place of GOD, Definition of GOD, Name of GOD, etc are some thing to describe reality. They are different but reality is same. Lets share a story with you. It said reality was a big mirror in the hands of GOD, It felt down and broke. Each person in the world got a small piece of this mirror and felt that she/he found a reality. A small piece of mirror is fact in the different shapes and sizes but reality is the knowledge that only GOD knows this reality. You see its complicated. Because we have different language and concept to define facts around us. Common literature is one of the ways that we can reduce conflict among people that arise from the single fact that they mean different things when they use the same word. For common literature we need dialogue. From the dialogue we have to reach a discurse. Discurse can solve the different understanding from the same fact. However, I believe that reaching a common literature in different contexts is so difficult and full of challenges.”
Now here is his respond: “The linguistic symbol (God in English) for God is the same for those who use the word (leaving out translations into other languages).And the reality of God is no doubt the same, if only because it is what it is, and no one is able to fathom that reality, but merely point at it. But the idea of God stored in each individual can be vastly different. These ideas of God depend upon the manner in which the concept was first introduced to the individual. And we can be sure, that even within a religious tradition, these ideas of God are different for different people. When people quarrel about God, it is typically neither about the linguistic symbol or the reality of God. There is nothing to quarrel about in the symbol, if only because it is merely a symbol. There is nothing to quarrel about the reality, because no one either knows it, or can articulate it in a way that can be clearly understood by another. So what is left, the idea of God in each individual is where we quarrel. Even within each religious tradition, there are several divisions arising out of these different ideas, and even within each of these division, there are further quarrels about this or that difference among the ideas that various believers have of God. Unfortunately, these quarrels are not without consequences. Wars and terrorism are the products of the differences among these various ideas of God.”
Then we talked about that if religious traditions can create different understanding from GOD or different experience of life ? He discussed : “suggest that the functioning of God in each of our lives is as the "Pure Witness" that experiences (perceives, observes) one's own and every one else's entire life/lives. As the "Witness" God engages with the content of each one's experiences through emotion, the functioning of which in our lives manifest in providing and intensifying positive and negative charges to the content that is experienced. The extent of positive and negative charges to imaginative (ideas) content in turn determines the extent of effort and perseverance that the apparent "individual" applies to physical zing the idea, and thus contributing to the transformation of our common world, which, of course, is God's Body. Unfortunately, God cannot operated as Oneself in the lives of most of us. This is because although we are each an extension and manifestation of God within One's Body, One's function as the Agent is usurped by the Identity element in the assumptive dimension of God's experiencing field. As the imaginative (idea) content arises from the assumptive content, much of which, including One's identity starts out in adulthood contaminated with errors, conflict and confusion. To the extent of such contamination, the application of God's emotional charges are also perverted, and "wrong" things get priority, and are done by one's human body. To get God back in the driver's seat in all of our lives, the perversion has to be eliminated, which in turn requires the elimination of the false assumptive element of the "Witness'" identity as the individual human organism. When this happens, there will still be a lot of unique creativity and opportunity and available to each of us, as each of us is the manifestation of a different perspective and instrument of God operating as witness, possessing different experiences and different latent capabilities in the genetic make-up of our human organisms. But as we will then no longer be in ideological conflict, we will all be a lot more productive, and a lot less in want.”
But really friends I think even if all of us had a same language, a same religion and a same cultural background and another common elements which could put us is a same category still our understanding from GOD was different ?I believe that ideology more than a way of approaching to the world is a way of looking at the world...
[1] There was a discussion in Omidyar network on what is the true concept of GOD . This note is part of the interesting discussion that we had.
[2] About Ravi I can say he is originally from India. He is saying “My primary life is based on the understanding that human destructiveness is not intrinsic to human nature, but is the result of our unfamiliarity with, and neglect of the conceptual systems in our brains, which systems inform our world views, and thus, influence our behavior as well.”
[2] About Ravi I can say he is originally from India. He is saying “My primary life is based on the understanding that human destructiveness is not intrinsic to human nature, but is the result of our unfamiliarity with, and neglect of the conceptual systems in our brains, which systems inform our world views, and thus, influence our behavior as well.”
posted by Sahar Maranlou @ Thursday, February 17, 2005
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home