Reference: The Book of Universe
The Universe consists of everything knowable. The Self is the totality of awareness without fixation. We inherently feel the superset of both Universe and Self to be God. Thus, God incorporates everything that we sense and can be aware of.
.
Definition of GOD
God is defined based on the “Creator-created” duality in the West; and on the “Unknowable-knowable” duality in the East. When God is Unknowable, you can’t even say that God is the Creator. When God is known as the Creator, then he is a part of the knowable Universe.
God could be a projection from all that we can sense (the Universe) and the totality of our awareness without fixation (the Self). God does not appear as just one thing. To us God can represent anything, nothing, or everything; and, therefore, will forever remain the subject of deep meditation.
Everything appears to be changing. But underlying that change there is an IS-NESS that seems to be eternal. That may provide a clue to God.
There are unrealities; but when we get rid of them, something still remains that seems eternal. Maybe that provides a clue to God.
We feel this element of eternity in our beingness but we cannot define it. We may refer to this eternal element as God.
In those moments, when we are able to face the deepest of our fears, or when we resolve the most difficult of our problems, and everything suddenly comes into focus, we find our heart to be filled with gratitude that extends to everything. We may call this feeling the God’s love.
.
Notes
God, to us, is the ultimate. It seems to be the superset of both the Universe and Self.
Nothing can be said definitively about God. Anything said definitively about God would be a misconception. There are plenty of such misconceptions that are known widely. It is not necessary to list them here.
But important are the misconceptions that lie deep hidden within us. That is why the ancient Vedic process, “neti, neti” (not this, not that) exists.
.
Key Misconception
The key misconception about God is that it is something fixed. Anything said about God with any fixedness of faith, vehemence of feelings, or certainty of intellect, will be a misconception.
.
More Misconceptions
You may discover more misconceptions on your own, if you contemplate on each sentence of the above definition with mindfulness. Please see:
Or, you may end up improving upon this definition.
Good luck!
.
Comments
Vianaire Do you have plans to compile a book?Seems to me it would be a good plan to ensue! Thanks for your post today. Mike
This post is a part of my book.
Living in a universe which may be demonstrably fractal, and seeing as how my living unit of body is composed of smaller cells of life, it seems that a reasonable person could correctly assume one is a smaller part of a larger and living conglomerate. :)
You may assume whatever you want. Real is that which is a part of oneness. Unreal is that which violates oneness.
PS: This definition of God is likewise a misconception. ~Neti-neti!
Your very good friend, Chris :)
Are we talking about Universe or God? When we consider God using the dichotomy “Unknowable-Knowable,” as in the East, then it is beyond the Universe. But, if we consider God using the dichotomy “Creator-Creation,” as in the West, then it could be a part of the Universe. It is simply how you postulate God.
When God is Unknowable, you can’t even say that God is the Creator. When God is known as the Creator, then he is a part of the knowable Universe.
Maybe your disagreement has to do with the definition of the Universe.
The Universe
“Net-neti” is not a definition of God. It is a process. I am proposing the definition of God as above.
Here is my old essay on God.
Can God be Defined?
Yes, you are quite right!
Each of has our thoughts on God. It is a part of our worldview. Certainty, uncertainty, completeness, incompleteness, prediction, chaos, and so forth are part of our worldview.
One can run neti-neti process on anything when one is trying to be philosophical. And we can also simply work with what we have to work with on a daily basis on a less philosophical but practical matter.
I love the bigness and color of Hinduism. I like the many processes of Scientology. I love the faith and hope of Christianity.
I love the love of preciseness in Science. Poor Science has hit some brick walls as it has fairly conjured all the mysteries of everyday life at the scale in which we live. It is suffering from a lack of tools to expand our senses and possibly a lack of imagination as it is so much easier, even if lazy, to sit on our hands and declare “prove it to me” when considering great spiritual claims. This is not a slant at the discipline but rather a commentary on how large the scales of the universe. both big and small, and also we are still working on our first universe!
What was I getting at? Picture a pie both as large and as small as the universe. Now picture a hundred more pies occupying a hundred more dimensions with the same space-time. Now imagine that we’ve only taken the first bite of the first small slice in the dimensions in which we live. Yet, somehow, everything fits neatly into the thumbnail of your left hand with infinite space to spare! This is kind of how I see our Universe and also possibly this is the way Beings scale as well! I hope that is thought provoking 🙂
Meanwhile, I love the painting of Christ and Krishna. That’s kind of how I see you and me. :) ( I, of course, an the blue guy on the right) :D
I don’t think that the “neti-neti” process is philosophical in the sense that it is not practical. The running of this process makes one aware of one’s identification with parts of this universe.
It is the identification with parts of the universe that makes one smaller than the universe. One then feels overwhelmed by the universe.
We are individual self trying to get back to the natural Self.
.
Definition of SELF
In the Vedic philosophy, Self (with an uppercase ’S’) is seen as the totality of awareness; and the self (with a lowercase ’s’) is seen as the individual self. This individual self seeks the ideal scene of Self.
In our general understanding, a person sees his self to be a unique individuality. That individuality is essentially defined by the range and quality of its awareness, but other things, such as, the person’s body, name, profession, etc., also become part of it.
We may define the sense of individuality to be the individual self. The individual self is an identification with some part of the universe, which makes it much smaller than the universe. It perceives the universe through streaming of data. This creates a subjective dimension of time, and anxiety about survival.
If a person is identifying with his body, then he sees the body as his self. He is being aware of everything else from the viewpoint of the body. His body is determining the range and quality of his awareness.
If a person is aware that he is not the body; but he is still identifying with a personality that influenced him, then that personality is his self. He is unconsciously mimicking that personality in his thinking and mannerisms.
If not the body, or a personality, the person could be identifying with a thought, such as, “danger lurks everywhere.” That thought would define his self, as being very suspicious and paranoid.
In general, the individual self is defined by identification or unconscious fixations. The fixations that the person is conscious of, do not define his self.
The eternal Self, on the other hand, is the totality of awareness. It is free of all fixations. It is aware of the universe in its wholeness. There is no streaming of data, and no subjective dimension of time. The Self sees things as they are. It does not miss anything.
It is by freeing himself from identification, or from all his fixations, that a person moves from individual self to the eternal Self.