Thread: Nature of God

Originally Posted by Raz

Scholars, who believe in the theory of evolution, naturally think that this system of belief must also have undergone its own evolution. They say that ' animism ' (a belief in souls) slowly developed into ' polytheism ' (the belief in many Gods) and from there developed into a belief of one God.

They're getting closer to the true figure all the time.

However, it is clear from ancient scriptures of India, which go back four to six thousand years (longer if we add oral tradition), that their polytheism is indeed a very precise belief in only one God.

Who cares? There have been countless cultures that were clearly polytheistic. Whether or not some random Indian one was or was not is of zero significance.

This sentence alone should be sufficient to clear up another result of ignorance. Polytheism can rather be compared with Trinity, the threefold God of the Christians.

This is debatable. The Ancient Greeks weren't monotheistic, and they didn't think that all their Gods are in reality only one God. They thought of Gods as different supreme entities. You can't just redefine Polytheism by citing some Indian book you dug up. Fail.

The Trinity itself is not - as most Christians think - uniquely Christian.

So?

The Trinity, like religion itself, originated from India where it was called 'Trimurti' . Hindus call the Absolute Being ' Brahman ' The Son, as the creative force of cosmic vibration, is called ' Vishnu' . The returning, ingoing, attracting, dissolving, involutionary force is called ' Shiva ' . That is the exact equivalent of God the Father , God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Which doesn't make these concept any more valuable in philosophical terms.

To picture all three as persons is somewhat childish because then we are thinking in terms of human families. An omnipresent Being should not be pictured in terms of Fathers, Mothers, Uncles, Sons, Daughters, etc. In fact, it should be clear that God is not a person and that when we talk about an Absolute Being or Supreme Being it refers rather to a condition of perfect Beingness. Knowledge of this fact is found in all genuine religions and systems of belief, which also includes that of the American Natives.

Then it must be correct. We all know how supremely developed a culture the American Indians have.

Beingness, as the nature of God, is expressed when we hear American Natives refer to God as the 'Great Spirit.' 'Jahwe' (JHVH\Jehovah), the Jewish name for God, translates as 'I am who I am' which is the perfect description of Beingness. Beingness, then is the nature of God...in fact, Beingness is God.

This is only acceptable, if then, I am God myself, in a Zen/Vedanta way. However, religions repeatedly assert that I am NOT God and that God is external. So this is still not valuable insight.

Originally Posted by Raz

The Trinity itself is not - as most Christians think - uniquely Christian. The Trinity, like religion itself, originated from India where it was called 'Trimurti' . Hindus call the Absolute Being ' Brahman ' The Son, as the creative force of cosmic vibration, is called ' Vishnu' . The returning, ingoing, attracting, dissolving, involutionary force is called ' Shiva ' . That is the exact equivalent of God the Father , God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

This is a misconception to think that the Christian 'Trinity' and the Hindu 'Trimurti' are referring to the same thing. Although in both cases there are three divine aspects, any resemblance ends there. These ternaries come from completely different points of view and cannot be forced to fit together. There is one ternary in Hinduism that in certain respects comes close to the Christian 'Trinity', but is still of a different point of view: Sat-Chit-Ananda.

Originally Posted by Raz

Beingness, then is the nature of God...in fact, Beingness is God.

'Beingness' can be called God, but like any other name given to God, it is still imperfect. God is really beyond all Beingness. God is the source from which Being receives its reality, Non-Being. But even this is misleading, because Non-Being and Being are not separate things. It is though Being that God reveals Himself to Himself, but it is also this 'Beingness' that hides God from all Being. So it can be said that the nature of God is 'Beingness', but only in a sense relative to manifestation. That which can be named is not the true Tao.