God Within, God Without.

It seems at first glance that the Abrahamic religions have little in common with the Eastern traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, particularly because the former describe an external God and the latter emphasize the God-nature within all of us. Are these traditions speaking of different phenomenon? How can they be reconciled?

I contend that they are speaking about the same phenomenon. The primary difference being, the Western religions take the perspective of the ego, and the Eastern religions take the perspective of awareness. In the New Testament, Jesus references his "father who art in heaven". That God is nothing but awareness, and Jesus is the ego. In Buddhism, no such God figure exists. Instead there is Buddha nature, which all Buddhists hope to realize. This is done, essentially through the realization of no-self. So, from the Buddhist approach, instead submission of the ego, or personal self, to God, that ego is merely examined closely, and seen as illusory.

In Buddhism enlightenment means non-duality. The same message is present in The Bible. In John 14, Jesus says,

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. ¹¹ Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me..."



This passage show that Jesus didn't believe in a God that was separate from his own self. This is the same as the realization of Buddha nature. And in the gospel of Luke, Jesus talks about heaven on Earth. This is can be seen as the same thing as nirvana. "Knowing God", and similarly be thought of   as enlightenment. And according to the ancient Greek, Jesus is not "the" son of God, he is "a" son of God. In Buddhism there is a contrast between self and no-self; ignorance and enlightenment, whereas in Christianity, there is a contrast between God and man. The languages are a little different, but it seems to me that they express the same idea.

I think this fundamental concept of  unity is the keystone of most, if not all the world's significant religions. Likewise, it appears in contemporary spiritual traditions. Ramana Mahrishi, the great 20th Indian Sage of Tamil Nadu spoke of the same phenomenon. He implored seekers to find the source of the "I" thought, and to contemplate it. He and his teachings are responsible for the "Neo Advaita Vedanta" movement which is becoming popular on the American west coast. Eckhart Tolle, the author of the acclaimed Power of Now urges his readers to "aware in the present moment", and thus have the "self talk" dwindle away, and so removing the ego and seeing reality as it is.   

You can phrase the phenomenon is many different, ways, but the goal of spiritual traditions, is to recognize the difference between identifying with the isolated idea of the person you think you are versus the entire field awareness. There is no separate self, because that awareness is a verb, and not a noun. The idea, that noun, of who you think you are exists within that awareness, and it is dependent upon that awareness to exist at all.
It's like there are two selves: there is the fake self that an amalgamation of  personality, life story and your body; and then there is the real self which is formless, which perceives the fake self. The unreal self is essentially a conglomeration of thoughts that must be constantly maintained in order to continue to exist. The real self is formless and eternal. This is the essential message of all genuine prophets throughout the ages.

Realizing non-duality leads to extraordinary peace, because when you no longer see yourself as separate, there is no more "me vs them". Then if conflict does arise, it can be seen one immediately takes responsibility for it. Instead of thinking what a terrible world it is that has put me into this situation, one becomes empowered, and realizes that there is no separate world out there punishing oneself; there is only a particular circumstance, which has arisen of it's own accord. From this way of thinking there are no victims. Essentially this is the same as consigning your will to God. In my opinion, devoting one's self to God is not the full realization, because there is there is still a self to submit...but then again, if the submission is absolute, then perhaps there is no difference. 

When you realize that it's all just you, there is no longer need to attain anything. If you can see that wherever you are and whatever you are doing, you are complete, then it's a small step to realize that unhappiness is caused be the tension we create in the body when we mentally cling to the material things that we do not have. From there you can realize that you have the choice to hang on to your unfulfilled desires, or to simply let them go. It's mere choice. What is there to fear but death? And what is death but the breaking up of the body? No one knows what happens at the time of death, but it's only a problem if you're identified with the body. Therefore, even though I am not Christian, perhaps I can agree that when someone dies, he goes to heaven.

People have been realizing God consciousness and non-duality, at least since there has been writing--and it seems a bit silly not to assume they have been before then. The experience is constantly being rediscovered and expressed in different terms. But if it's genuine, it's the same phenomenon, of discovering one's own true nature:oneness; peace; love; whatever.

Thoughts on Death

I've heard it said that all fear comes from the root fear of death. It stands to reason. It seems to me that most people will cite death as their biggest fear, and if you die, then you're presumably free from all other fears. I'm beginning to wonder, however, if all this fear of death is warranted.

Most people believe that after they die, there will be some kind of afterlife, or they will reincarnate, or alternatively, that there just won't be anything.

Well, if there if there is an afterlife, then why should one worry? Some people will fear that they will go to Hell when they die, but I think the vast majority of people that believe in the "afterlife" as such, think that they will be going on to the land of milk and honey. If this is a genuine belief, then why all the apprehension surrounding death? Why not view it as a celebration?

For those who believe in reincarnation, it seems that their attitude toward death should be informed by their current life situation--that is, if they are enjoying life, then they should have a certain amount of apprehension toward death, but otherwise, they should look forward to it.

For those who think that death is the end, full stop, why should there be any worry about about it one way or the other? Such people sometimes claim to have a greater appreciation of life than people with alternate ideas on death, but I find this reasoning questionable. Such people are completely identified with the body, so if the body is in constant pain, then death seems preferable.

So, are the only people that have a really good reason to fear death the people that believe they will go on to live in torment for eternity?

Regardless of the choice of the above beliefs, there often remains a fear of the loss of self. I think that's the core of people's fear of death. Loss of self. But what does that mean? What is this self, anyway?

Is self the body? Although this is, intuitively, what many people seem to think, how can this be so? The body is flesh and blood. It is gross matter. Is is this gross matter that is perceiving the world around it? No, that's absurd. Matter is something that is perceived, it's not perception itself. Is this not obvious? Maybe we can say that consciousness is shaped by the brain, but who's to say that the brain isn't shaped by consciousness? Some of  assume that there cannot be consciousness without the brain, but can there be a brain without consciousness? I'm not trying to be "cute" here. This is a legitimate question. 

If self is the result of a living body, then it would make sense to assume that when the body dies, there is a dissipation of self. Perhaps this is so. But perhaps self, that is consciousness (as opposed to an identity) is not the result of a living body.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest this. I think many people assume it, without knowing it: when you bring up death they will say: an eternity of nothing? Who wants that? But this line of reasoning assumes a witness--someone to experience that nothing.

How can consciousness be created? How can it disappear? Can it?

The fact is that whatever our personal beliefs about death, no one really knows what is going to happen. All that we know is that the bodies that some of us identify with as self will die. That's it. And if that's the end of consciousness forever, then so what? As Mark Twain famously said, (loose paraphrase) being nothing didn't bother me for billions of years before I was born, why should it bother me after I die?

For the record, I do not think death is the end. I think that consciousness is eternal, and it's form that is impermanent. So, when we die that's the end of our personalities, but consciousness lives on, formless and infinite. After all, that's what it's like to be nothing.