Chapter 11 10. The Riches of God

In Indian philosophy the nature of ultimate truth is described as truth-satyam, beauty-sundram and goodness-shivam are these the attributes of God? These are not qualities of God.Rather, they are our embodiment of God.They do not belong to God as we think; they are our perceptions, and God himself is unknowable.It either has every quality.Or nothing of any quality.But as the human mind is made, it can experience God through three windows; you can glimpse God through truth or goodness or beauty.All three dimensions belong to the human mind.They are our limits.This frame is given by us; God himself has no frame.It is like, we can see the sky through the window.The windows appear to frame the sky, whereas the sky itself has no frame.It is unlimited.It's just that the windows give it a frame and.Likewise, truth, goodness and beauty are the windows through which we can see God.

Human personality is divided into three levels.If reason prevails, then God takes on the image of truth.Intellectual approach produces true windows, true frames.If the mind is emotional.If one feels reality not through the head but through the heart - then God becomes beauty.You give it a poetic quality.That's just the frame and.Reason dares in its frame of truth; emotion in its frame of beauty.If your personality is neither emotional nor intellectual—if action predominates—then the framework becomes good. So here, in India, we use these three words to describe God.Bhaktiyoga refers to the way of devotion.It is suitable for emotional people.God is seen as beautiful.Jnanayoga is the path of knowledge.God is seen as real.Darmayoga is the way of action.God is good.

The word God ttiooguang comes from the word good (Deng Taoguang). This word has a great influence, because most people are dominated by movement, not by reason or emotion. This is not It's not that they don't have reason or emotion, but reason or emotion is not their dominant factor. There is very little rationality and very little emotion. Most people are action-oriented. Through action, God becomes Became "good". But the opposite pole must also exist, so that if God is thought to be good, then the devil will be thought to be bad.The action mind thinks the devil is bad; the emotional mind thinks the devil is ugly; the rational mind thinks the devil is unreal, delusional, false.

These three attributes, truth, goodness, and beauty, are human categories that define God, who himself has no frame.They are not God's qualities as we think.If the human mind can know God through any fourth dimension, then this fourth dimension also becomes the quality of God.I am not saying God is not good.I'm just saying that this goodness is a quality we choose, a quality we see.If there were no people in the world, then God would not be good, God would not be beautiful, God would not be true.Godworld is always there, but these qualities we have chosen will not be there.These are just human feelings.We can also think of God as having other qualities.

We don't know whether animals are aware of God's existence, we don't know how they see things at all.But one thing is certain; they do not view God in human terms.So far as they are aware of God's existence, they feel it.The way of looking at it is also completely different from ours.The qualities they perceive will not be the same as ours.When a person's reason is dominant, he cannot imagine how you can possibly say that God is beautiful.The concept was completely foreign to his mind.And a poet cannot conceive of truth as anything other than beauty.It couldn't have meant anything else to him.It is beauty; everything else is intellectual.For a poet, for a painter, for a person who interprets the world with the heart, it is really a bare thing without beauty.It's just an intellectual category.

So, if there is a mind dominated by reason, it cannot understand the emotional mind, and vice versa.That's why there are so many misunderstandings and so many definitions, and there is no one definition that can be of concern to all human beings.You necessarily think of God in your own terms.When you define God, you will be part of that definition.The definition comes from you; God is undefinable.So those who look at God through these three windows are, in a sense, thrusting themselves, their own definitions, upon God. It is also possible to write God as a person whose personality has transcended the first three dimensions through the fourth path.in India.We don't have a word for the fourth pathway.Let's just call it tUriy - the fourth one.There is a type of awareness in which you are neither intellectual, nor emotional, nor acting, you are just knowing.This way you are not looking at the sky through a window.You have come out of the room, you have known the windowless sky.There is no form, no frame.

The limitations of the other three can only be understood when the fourth type of awareness is realized.It can understand the other three kinds of difficulties in understanding, and it can also understand truth.Goodness and beauty are fundamentally similar.Only the fourth type can understand that He Zun or the other three types are always arguing. All religions fall into one of these three categories.They have been arguing non-stop.Buddha could not have been involved in this dispute.He is the same as the fourth type.He said: "This is all nonsense. You are not arguing about the qualities of God; you are arguing about your own windows. The sky is always the same, it has nothing to do with any windows.

So, these are not the qualities of God.These are the qualities of what we think God is because if we can break our windows, we will be able to realize that God is without qualities - nirguna.Then we go beyond quality.Only in this way will the human projection not get involved. But in this way.It becomes difficult to speak.Anything that can be said about God can only be said through the windows.Because anything that can be said is actually mentioned in the mouth, not in the sky itself.When we look out of the window, the sky is so vast, so infinite, it cannot be fixed.All languages ​​are useless; all theories are insufficient.

So a person of the fourth type is always silent about it, and the definitions come from the first three types.Even when a Type 4 person speaks, what he says sounds absurd, illogical, and unreasonable.He is inconsistent.Through contradictions, he tries to show something.Not to say something; but to show something. Wittgenstein (Wlttgenstei.) is just a definition of this.He said that some truths can be said, and some truths can only be shown, not spoken.A thing can be defined because it exists among other things.It can be related and compared with other things.For example, we can always say that a table is not a chair.We can define it in reference to other things.Its extension has a boundary beyond which it goes.Other things begin.Actually, all we define is this boundary. A definition means a boundary from which other things begin.

But we cannot say anything about God.God is all, so it has no boundaries; there is no boundary from which other things begin.There is nothing else. God has no boundaries. So it cannot be defined. The fourth type can only show; it can only indicate.So the fourth type is still mysterious.And the fourth type is also the most real, because it is not affected by human projections.All the great saints have instructed; they have not said anything.It doesn't matter whether he is Jesus, Tantra, Mahevira or Krishna.They didn't say anything; they were just pointing -- just a finger pointing to the moon.

But here's the difficulty: you're always fascinated by your fingers.The finger has no meaning; it points to something else.You can't keep your eyes on it.If you want to see the moon, you must completely forget your fingers. As far as God is concerned, this has been the greatest difficulty.You see the instruction, and then you feel that the instruction, itself, is the truth.The whole purpose is thus defeated.That finger is not the moon; they are completely different.Fingers can point to the moon.But one cannot cling to fingers.If a Christian cannot forget (the Bible), if a Hindu cannot forget (the Gita), then their purpose is defeated.The whole thing becomes purposeless, meaningless, in a way.It has also become secular and anti-religious. Whenever a person approaches God.He must know his mind.If one approaches God through the mind.God will be colored by it. If you approach God not with the mind, not with you, without human intervention; if you approach God with emptiness, with nothing.There is no projection.Without any tendency to see things in a particular way -- then you will understand the quality-lessness of God, otherwise not.Otherwise all the qualities we ascribe to God belong to our human windows.We thrust them upon God. Are you saying we don't need to look at the sky through windows? Yes.It's better to see the sky from a window than not to see it at all.But looking at the sky through a window is not comparable to seeing the sky without a window. But how can a person in a room without a window see the sky? You can see the sky through the window.But you can't stop by the window.Otherwise the window is always there.Windows must be left behind.You must lead through it and beyond it. Once a man stands under the sky, he has no language—until he is back in the room again.And then the story begins... Yes, people can come back.But when that time comes.He will never be the same again.He has known the formless, boundless sky.Thus, even from a window, he knows that the sky has no form, no windows.Even from behind a window, he would not be fooled.Even with the windows closed and the room darkened, he knew the endless sky was there.Now he could never be the same again. Once you know the infinite, you become infinite.We are what we know, what we feel.Once you realize the infinite, the boundless, in a sense you become infinite.What you know is what you know.To know love is love; to know prayer is to pray; to know God is God.To know is to realize; to know is to be. Will three windows become one? No.Every kind of window is the same as before.The windows don't change; you do.If the man was emotional, he would go out and come in through this window, but now he does not negate the other windows; he does not oppose them.Now he uses other windows.He knows that other windows lead to the same sky. Once you stand under the sky, you will know that other windows are also part of this room.Now Hugh might go to the other side.Maybe not.It's all up to you.You don't need to do this; one window is enough.If a person is like Ramakrishna, he will run to other windows to see if he sees the same sky.It depends on the individual.One may look from another window, one may not. And actually there is no need.Knowing the sky is enough.But one might probe, curious.So he looked out from other causes.There are people.There are also people who can't get it.Once a man knows the open sky, he does not deny other windows; he does not deny other ways.He will confirm that their poor households open to the same sky.so.A person who already knows the sky becomes obsessed, not paranoid.The bigoted mind stays behind the window; the pious mind goes beyond it. A person who sees the sky may walk around; he may also go to other windows.There are countless windows in the room.These are the main types, but they are not the only windows.There are probably too many combinations.Does every consciousness, every human being have a window?Yes.In a way, every human being comes to God through his own window.And every window is fundamentally different from every other window.There are countless windows and countless factions, and everyone has their own faction.Two Christians are not alike.The difference between Christians is like the difference between Christianity and Hinduism. Once you come under the sky.You will know that all differences belong to the house.They were never yours.They belong to the house you live in, you see through them, you feel through them.But they do not belong to you. When you come to the sky below.You know you are part of the sky too - just living within the walls.There is no difference between the sky inside the room and the sky outside the room.Once we're out, we'll know those barriers aren't real.Even Jane is not a barrier to the sky; it does not divide it at all.It makes the sky look divided -- this is my room, that is your room; the sky inside my room is mine.The sky in your room is up to you - but once you get to know the sky itself you will find it makes no difference.Therefore, there is no individual as we think of it, so the wave disappears and only the ocean remains.You will come back again.But now you are no different from the sky. It seems that very few Christians have known the sky, and then brought this concept back? There are several - St. Francis, Eckhart, Bohme...   They didn't tell us it was the same sky, did they? They couldn't possibly say that.Although the sky is always the same, they cannot describe the sky in the same way.The expression of the sky is definitely different, but the thing being expressed is the same.For those who don't understand that waves represent things themselves, representation is everything.Thus, the differences become quite stark.And all the aspects expressed are just a choice, a choice.The whole cannot be expressed; only a part of the whole can be expressed.When it is expressed, it dies. St. Francis can only express as much as St. Francis can.He could not have expressed it like Muhammad.For this expression does not come from the sky.This expression comes from pattern, personality.It comes from the mind: memory, education, experience; from words, languages, sects; from the way of life.The expression comes out of all of this.This communication cannot come only from St. Francis, because expressions are never individual.It has to be shared, otherwise it will fail completely. If I speak in my own individual language, no one will understand me.When I experience the sky, my experience is not shared.At the moment of knowing, I am completely alone.No language; no words.But when I speak, I speak to those who have not experienced it, and I must speak in their language.I had to try to use the language I was familiar with, not my knowledge. St. Francis uses the language of Christianity.As far as I'm concerned, religions are just different languages.In my opinion, Christianity is just a special language that comes from Jesus Christ.Hinduism is another language; Buddhism is another language.The difference is always linguistic.But if one knows only the language and not the experience itself, the difference must be great. Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God because he was using terms that his listeners could understand.Some people understood the word kingdom, others misunderstood it.Then came the cross—then Jesus was beaten to death on the cross.Those who understand Jesus know what the kingdom of God means, but those who don't understand think he is talking about the kingdom on earth. But it is impossible for Jesus to use the language of Buddha.Buddha never used the word kingdom one.There are many reasons for this difference.Jesus was born into a poor family; his language was the language of the poor.To a poor man a kingdom" is also very expensive, but to Buddha, the word means nothing, because Buddha himself was a prince. It means nothing to Buddha, but it means a lot to Jesus. Later, Buddha became a beggar and Jesus became a king.That is inevitable.The other pole always makes sense.The pole of the unknown becomes the expression of the unknown.For Tan Yang, begging is the least he understands.So he took the form of the unknown, the form of a beggar.For him, bhikkhu—begging soil—was the word with the most meaning. There is never a question like "Bi Five" in India. Because there are too many beggars here. Instead, we use the word "Swami - Guru."If someone becomes a monk, if he renounces worldly life, he becomes a swami, a guru.But when the Buddha gave up the worldly life, he became a beggar, a beggar.For Buddha, this question had a meaning that it could not have had for Jesus. Jesus could only borrow words from Judaic culture.He may change things here and there, but he cannot change the whole language, otherwise no one would be able to understand him.So, in a way.He is not a Christian.When St. Francis appeared.A Christian culture develops with its own language.So St. Francis was more of a Christian than Christ himself.Christ was still a Judaizer; his whole life was Judaism.It couldn't be otherwise. If you were born a Christian, Christianity probably means nothing to you.It may not have touched you.The more you learn about it, the less meaningful it becomes.The mystery is lost.To a Christian, a Hindu attitude might make more sense.Because it is unknown, it can represent the unknown. In my opinion it is better for a man not to remain in the religion to which he is born.At some point he has to let go of those attitudes and beliefs he was born with, or the adventure never begins.One should not stay where one was born.One should go to the corner of one's knowledge.Feel uplifted and inspired by it. Sometimes we don't know what we think we know best.A Christian thinks he understands Christianity.That thought became his hindrance.A Buddhist thinks he understands teaching because he is familiar with it.Yet it is this familiar feeling that becomes a hindrance.Only the unknown can be attractive, profound, secret. A man must transcend the circumstances of his birth.It is accidental that a man is born a Christian; it is accidental that a man is born a Hindu.As far as religion is concerned, a person has to be born again.One has to go into unknown corners.Then, the surprise is there.Exploration begins. In a sense, religions complement each other.They must serve other religions and we must accept other religions.A Christian or a Hindu or a Jew must know the surprise of conversion.The surprise of transformation creates the basis for transformation.Whenever someone comes from the West to the East, he encounters something new.The attitude of the East is so different that you cannot fit it into any familiar category.Its whole attitude is diametrically opposed to what you are familiar with, so if you want to understand it, you yourself must change. The same goes for people who go from the East to the West.It should be so.One should be open before it can happen.It is unknown, strange, and it will cause a change. It is impossible for us to create a religion similar to Christianity in India.We cannot create theology.We cannot create the Vatican, the Church.There are monasteries here, but no churches.The Eastern mind is fundamentally illogical, so it must have a sense of chaos.It must be optimal, it cannot be organized. A Christian priest is quite different.He was trained to be part of the organization.He belonged to a certain section of the religious hierarchy.The organization works.An institution, a hierarchical organization is logical.So Christianity can spread all over the world. Hinduism never tries to convert anyone.Even if someone converts himself, Hinduism will not appreciate him.It is a non-conversion, non-organizational religion.It does not have a clergy like Christianity.A Hindu monk is just a wanderer -- no hierarchy, no institution.This approach is doomed to failure as far as the external world is concerned, but as far as the individual is concerned.In terms of inner depth.It is bound to succeed. Vivekanda was very attracted by Christianity.The Ramakrishna church system he created is based on the Christian God-Union system.For Orientals, this is very strange, very alien.It Nazis is a Westerner thing.The mind of Tweezhang Nanda is not the mind of an oriental person at all.Just as I said Vivekananda was a Westerner, I also said Eckhardt and St. Francis were Easterners.Fundamentally.They belong to the East. The wooden figure of Jesus belongs to the East.But Christianity does not belong to the East; it belongs to the West.Deng Zui is basically from the East; he is against churches and organizations.That was the conflict at the time. The Western mind is used to thinking with logic, reasoning system, and argumentation. It cannot go very deep; it will stay on the surface.It will be comprehensive, but never very deep. So organized family fun is a curtain for us.We have to remove these curtains to see the sky. Yes.They closed the windows.They are obstacles. Must the heads of Westerners unfold like Eastern minds? The Western mind can succeed in science, but it cannot succeed in religious awakening.Whenever a religious mind is born, even if it is born in the West.It is also oriental.Eckhart, Bo Biao, their mental qualities are all oriental.Whenever a scientific mind is born in the East, it must be from the West.East and West are not geographical.West means logic and East means illogical.West means equilibrium and East means disequilibrium.West means rationality.And Oriental means irrational. Tertullian is one of the most oriental in the west.He said, "I believe in God. Because it's unbelievable. I believe in God. Because it's absurd." That's the basic Eastern attitude.Because it's ridiculous.In the West, no one can say such a thing.In the West, they say you should only believe what is reasonable.Otherwise it is just a belief, a superstition. Eckhart was also an Oriental.He said, "If you believe in possibility. It's not faith. If you believe in argument. It's not religion. These are all part of science. You can only get beyond your head if you believe in the absurd." Western.it belongs to east force On the other hand, Confucius was an Oriental.Westerners can understand Confucius, but they can never understand Lao Tzu.Lao Tzu said: You are a fool because you are only reasonable.Just being reasonable and fair is not enough.The unreasonable must have its own place.A person is just only if he is both reasonable and unreasonable. " A perfectly reasonable person can never be just.Reason has its own dark corners of irrationality.Children are born in the womb of darkness.Flowers are born from darkness, from underground roots.Darkness cannot be discarded; it is the foundation.It is the most meaningful and life-giving thing. The Western mind can offer something to the world.That is science.rather than religion.The Eastern mind can only offer religion, not technology or science.Science and religion are complementary.If we could reconcile both their differences and their complementarities, a better world civilization would emerge. If one needs science, one should go to the West.but.If the West creates any religion, it can never go beyond theology.In the West, you always give yourself arguments to prove the existence of God.There are arguments to prove the existence of God!This is unimaginable in the East.You cannot prove the existence of God.The effort itself is pointless.That which can be proven can never be God, it is a scientific deduction.In the East we say that God is unverifiable.When you're tired of your grounds.You become involved in the experience itself; in God Himself. The Eastern mind can only be pseudo-scientific.Just go back to the Western mind and it can only be a quasi-religion.You have created huge theologies in the West, not religious traditions.Likewise, in the East, whenever we try to develop science, we only create technicians, not scientists, and people who know how to operate, not originators, creators. So don't come to the East with a Western mind, otherwise you can only create misunderstandings.Then you take your misunderstanding for understanding.The attitude of the East is completely opposite.Only opposites can complement each other - just like male and female. The Eastern mind is feminine; the Western mind is masculine.Western leaders are proactive.Logic is necessarily active and violent.Religion is receptive.Just like a woman.God can only be received; he can never be discovered or invented.One has to become like a woman into fully receptive, just open wells that have been waiting.This is exactly what meditation means: open and waiting. Ramakrishna says devotional approach is suitable for today's age.Is that so? No, the reason why Ramakrishna said that devotional yoga is the most suitable method.Because this method is the most suitable for him.It was a basic window through which he came down to the sky.It is not a question of whether an approach is appropriate for a particular era.We cannot think about this matter in terms of the times. Centuries exist simultaneously.We appear to be contemporaries; we may not be.I lived twenty centuries ago.Nothing is an absolute future.For some it is the past, for others it is the future.Therefore, no such assertion can be made about the era. Ramakrishna is a devotee.He reaches God through prayer and love, through affection.He got enlightened by this method, so it seems to him that this method is helpful to everyone, but his method may be difficult for others.No matter how considerate we are of others we always see others through our own experience.So for Ramakrishna, that approach seems to be the yoga of devotion: the path of bhakti.If we think about this matter according to the era, we can say that this era is the most rational, the most scientific, and the most technical.It is the most devotional, the least affectionate.What Ramakrishna said was appropriate to the land, and perhaps to those who were with him at the time, but Ramakrishna never affected the great world.The land is basically the same as his village, belonging to the untechnical, unscientific mind.He was a villager - uneducated.It cannot be used in a larger world—so, his words should be understood in light of his country life.He couldn't imagine the present day.He had been part of the peasant world, where reason was nothing and emotion was everything.He is not of this era.His words are perfectly suitable for the world he has entered, but they are not suitable for the world now. These three types are always present; the intellectual, the acting, and the emotional.There is always a balance between them, just as there is always a balance between man and woman.It won't be long to lose your balance.If it is out of balance, it will recover quickly. in the West.You have lost this balance.Reason becomes the dominant factor.You may like Ramakrishna saying "Bhakti is the way of this age because you are out of balance. But Vivekashita said the opposite. Because at that time the East was also out of balance, so he was A person whose reason used to be dominant. It's just to balance the extremes of being. In a sense, it's complementary. Ramakrishna was emotional while his chief disciple was intellectual.It must be so.That's the pair: male and female.Ramakrishna is purely feminine; inactive, receptive.Sex isn't just in the biological world; it's everywhere.In every field, as long as there is pole, there is sex, and both sexes attract each other. Vivekananda water is far from appealing to any sane type of person.He couldn't charm them; he wasn't the opposite of them—there were some intellectual greats in Bengal at the time.He would visit them and leave empty-handed.He is not attracted to them.Ramakrishna was probably the least sane of them all.He is everything that Changnan does not have, and it is also everything he seeks. The opposite of Ramakrishna in Vivekananda, so what he taught in the name of Ramakrishna is not of the same soul as Ramakrishna's teaching itself.So, anyone who reaches Ramakrishna through Vivedhangnanda never reaches Ramakrishna at all.Anyone who understands Ramakrishna as explained by Vivekananda can never understand Ramakrishna himself.This interpretation comes from the opposite pole. If someone says, "Without Vivekananda. We will never know Ramakrishna. In a sense, this is true. Without Vivekananda, the whole world will never know." Heard the name Ramakrishna. But with Vivekananda. Whatever we know about Ramakrishna, in essence, is false. That is a misunderstanding. Because he The type of Ramakrishna is completely different from the type of Ramakrishna. Ramakrishna never argues; Vivekananda is good at argument; Ramakrishna has no knowledge. Vivekananda is A man of great knowledge. Vivekananda talks about Ramakrishna through Vivekananda's mirror. That is never true. That cannot be true. This sort of thing is happening all at once.It will continue to happen.Buddha attracted the exact opposite of himself.Mahavira, Jesus attracts people of the opposite sex.Later, these opposite sexes created organizations and systems.They will interpret them.These disciples will be tamperers.But this is already the case.There is no way.