Please see Postulate Mechanics.
.
The God
The Unknowable is symbolized as God. The sense of God as the Unknowable is retained in the Eastern regions; but, it is modified to “Creator” in the Western Abrahamic religions.
God as “Creator” becomes a part of the knowable universe because the concept of “creator” is based on experience obtained from the Universe. A “creator” that is not part of the Universe must be unknowable; and, therefore, unidentifiable.
Some philosophies postulate God as the “Cause” of the Universe This only raises the question of an earlier cause. This leads to an absurdity, such as, the “Uncaused cause.” This only means that actual Cause of the universe is unknowable.
The philosophy of Scientology takes the “scientific” approach of postulating God as a “Static” that controls a “kinetic” universe. This is similar to the postulate of “Unmoved mover” from an earlier philosophy. Again, this leads to an absurdity because all motion is relative. This only means that the actual ‘static’ is unknowable.
Thus, the postulates of God as ‘Creator’, ‘Cause’, and ‘Static’ leads to unsustainable arguments.
.
Misconception
God symbolizes the Unknowable. Any known attribute assigned to God, which is then fixed by faith, moves it farther away from its original sense of Unknowable. The Unknowable cannot be fixed by any meaning.
.
More Misconceptions
You may discover more misconceptions on your own, if you contemplate on each sentence of the above definition with mindfulness. Please see:
Then, you may end up improving upon this definition too.
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.