Interesting post. It plain to see that certain concepts and traditions about God have been passed on from individual to individual with variations occuring as generations pass. Just go to churches in the yellow pages and take a look.
Some have proposed that the world would be much better off without organized religion but I agree with you that if all organized religion were to vanish tomorrow the questions of who we are, are we more than these bodies, does consciousness survive after my body fails, would still exist in the hearts and minds of men. Some teacher philosopher would come along and a religion would spring up.
BTW, the ‘whomever’ was just a quote from Gyan in the initial post (and what does it say about me that I keep spelling it “Gyani”? )
That merely becomes a matter of definition, then. I tend to think of religion as the collective practice of certain forms of spirituality, at least in its best sense. In its worst sense religion can be yet another violent expression of nationalism, ethnocentrism or classism which I think is more the central problem, not so much religion (although it is too easily used to justify these violent tendencies). In other words, my definition of religion in its “pure” form is are the codified central tenets around which spirituality is practiced in groups.
I think it would be far more likely that the current ones would evolve. Gyan’s example of Buddhism is a good one, but another example is my beloved Sikhism. Even if it is determined that consciousness dies with the body and much of the canon about reincarnation is jettisoned, there still is much value in the practice of naam simran as a means of discovering this joyous connection with the universe.
I think the best parts of religion are the formal practices of seeking interconnectedness and expressing unconditional love, not the notion of a “heavenly reward.” Certainly these more concrete (well, relatively speaking) ideals would not shrivel away even if the notion of an afterlife does. In fact, they might be strengthened by the knowledge that this is the only shot we get at a sensate life.
God. In our capacity as man, our reference frames are subjective; i.e., our consciousness is closed. You cannot experience mine, nor I yours. But in our oneness with God, we will know all things and be privy to all consciousness. You can think of it like a hub (God) and spokes (us as physical creatures). One spoke does not touch another, but God touches them all. Or you may think of it as a two-dimensional creature (us) who cannot see outside the circle he is in, while a three-dimensional creature (God) can see both the inside and the outside of the circle at the same time.
One man’s hell is another man’s heaven. Jesus teaches that God gives every man the desires of his soul. Not every man values goodness. Some men value other things. Every man is given what he values most. Morality is not a matter of ethics, but of aesthetics.
It seems to me that your definition of “God” is far different than how 99% of the population uses the word. Why would you use a term that everyone will misunderstand and falsely relate to?
I thought God was Love, AKA the Facilitator of Goodness? Using your spoke analogy, I can (sorta) see how God could be a “virtual hub”, “routing” goodness (and, perhaps, itself) between individual nodes, but I don’t understand how our selves (the individual “nodes”) could then be considered as “one”. Linked, maybe, but unified into one?
I mean, if you facilitate, you need somethings to facilitate between, right?
So did I. Our moral journey on earth is the establishment and pursuit of that which we value most. After this, we shall have it. Yours might seem like hell to me, but heaven to you. And likewise.
Recall that goodness edifies. With the achievement of our oneness, we will be edified to perfection. Do not confuse the awareness of all consciousness with the loss of all identity. As I’ve said before, it isn’t a Trinity; it’s an Infinity.
In effect, yes. After all, a lot of people enjoy being miserable. There’s really no point in the bellyaching you might hear from time to time by people who cry that the whole system is unfair. Whoever values goodness above all other aesthetics is one with God. Labels mean nothing. The good hearted atheist is more Godly than the Christian who obstructs goodness.
If everyone effectively ends up in heaven, then won’t everyone be one with God?
I’m also having trouble with the details of morality as aesthetics. You say that to do that which is valued most. Can’t you rationalize that whatever happened is that which was valued most? Or is there a calculus of aesthetics?
Also, the argument that we will be rewarded with what we value “afterwards” ignores the OP’s premise that consciousness is a transitory state that only exists as long as our brain is functioning. Thus, if there is an “objective” consciousness, it is in a constant state of flux. I’m not sure what the implications of that would be, but it’s an intriguing idea to ponder.
Back when I was an athiest (long story) I had this logical breakdown of transient consciousness: if this life was all you experienced, then it makes sense to enjoy this life to its fullest extent. IOW, a philosophy of “benelovent hedonism” makes the most sense. But in its more extreme case, it’s an awful lot like Randian Objectivism, which was a little too depressing even for my athiestic self to adopt.
You could also posit the case that we are, at core, are still but animals and thus one could adopt a more Gaiast philosophy. I preferred this logic a lot more; even if I no longer exist at death at least the worms would be happily munching on me parts of the cogs in the living earth. Certainly this makes sense concretely; I don’t care how powerfully conceived God is, if we fuck up our environment badly enough we’re going to be extinct anyway. Therefore the acquisition of evolutionary intelligence compels us to take care of this planet since it literally created us. No gods, no armageddon, no ultimate consciousness, just us and our little point in the universe.
Sometimes what we value most is hidden from us in our subconscious. When we realize what we value most is something we’re not happy about we can make a conscious choice to change our path.
Like, “I thought that was love but I was only seeking approval”
Or, I thought I loved God but I was really trying to please my parents and stay in my comfort zone"
As far as afterlife is concerned I believe that the process of awakening continues. I lean toward reincarnation myself. The process of oneness can cross several lifetimes. MAybe the term is " life afterlife afterlife"
You’ve reminded me of something I completely forgot to add to my last post (I composed the last one on a 15-minute break, just like this one).
When you say: “…we will know all things and be privy to all consciousness”, I’m not sure what you mean. Will I suddenly know how to tie a Monkey’s Fist and do Differential Calculus? Or is it more like a cell achieving awareness of the body? Or…?
I don’t understand what “awareness of all consciousness” means.
Why is Heaven not Heaven, unless someone goes to Hell? Why can God not be one with however many dissimilar mortal reflections of Himself it turns out that He does become one with? If we can’t even entertain the possibility that God, and Heaven will be beyond even the understanding of our immortal selves, aren’t we just locking ourselves into our own little worlds of perception? Forever is a very long time. Harps and cloud castles are gonna get old fast.
Even joy and happiness are limits, in the vast hall of eternity. I’m gonna just have faith that the Lord has made us for some reason, and that what I am going to be doing is . . . uh, cool. (I have a vision of it, by the way, and it is . . . uh, well, atypical.)
Self? Well, there is no where near enough of me to go around. What I am is definitely going to have to change, if eternity, and infinity, and oneness with all are going to be involved. Not that that isn’t possible, but it certainly isn’t possible without redefining me, everyone else, God, and everything.
For the essential self, there’s no difference between the two. Don’t fall prey to the equivcation: as Jesus teaches, there is life, the biology, and life, the spirit. The latter is alive in both “life” and “afterlife”. The body is trivial, and is nothing more than a perception machine intended to make moral sense out of the amoral universe. The spirit does not undergo any sort of death.
No. Only those who value goodness above all other aesthetics are one with God, because that’s what God values. Think of it as people in an art gallery. Some may be drawn to the Aztec artifacts. Others may gravitate toward the renaissance realists. Still others may make a bee-line for the modern artists. Have you ever met someone who shares a love for something that you hold dear? Nothing is quite so delightful as finally discovering someone who loves model trains as much as you. The oneness you perceive as you giddily discuss your shared aesthetic is a shadow of an inkling of the oneness you will experience when you meet the Facilitator of the aesthetic you most value — goodness.
What is done depends on what is valued. It is not the case that goodness or evil comes from an action; rather, it is the other way around. A behavior is born in the heart. You cannot even discern necessarily from an action alone whether its root is good or evil. Suppose you see a well dressed man giving food to a homeless man as you pass by. You might think to yourself how wonderful it is that there are people in the world who care for others. Little do you know that the well dressed man’s actions are born of a dark heart that values destruction (the opposite of edification). His intention is to lure the homeless man into his car, where he will rape and murder him.
I’d say that it is more like a cell achieving awareness of other cells. Suppose that, suddenly, you were to become perfectly empathetic with my whole life experience. You have my memories as well as your own. My knowledge as well as yours. You know not only what I’ve done, but why — what led to what. You know what I love and what I hate. You know what I fear and what I desire. And not only do you know these on an intellectual level, but you understand these. It isn’t just that you become knowledgable of my shame in childhood upon hearing jokes about my father, it is that you have experienced that shame. You transcend past, present, and future, just as a 3D man transcends the borders on a circle. This is how it is with God. He knows the hearts of men because He IS we — not as a copula, but as an existential. That is why identity is not lost.
See above. Remember that now, you are privy to no consciousness but your own. You are a subjective being. To be aware of all consciousness is to be an objective being.
)