Dear AJ Philips,

That God cannot be defined in positive terms, is a limitation of humans, of language and of concepts, not of God.

If you consider existence and the idea of positive-definition superior, then that's your personal value and preference. Ideas can be compared because they are objects, but only objects can be compared - any other comparison is logically faulty and meaningless.

Yes, there is nothing but God, but that does not imply that God is everything. Even mathematically, the claim "If A is B than B is A" is only valid when both A and B exist (within the given set of axioms).

The classic example is the rope and the snake: you walk in the twilight and see a snake in the bush ahead, so initially you are frightened but then you shine a torch on it and find that it's only a piece of rope, so you no longer fear. It never was a snake in the first place. The snake is a rope, but the rope is not a snake! How come? Because the snake never existed!

Also, the ocean for example is water, but water is not the ocean, water only happens for the time-being to take the form of the ocean. Another way to state this is that while the ocean is truly there, water is a deeper truth of the ocean.

At the time I had that particular direct-experience, I did not understand what happened. I was not even preoccupied with God around that time: all I wanted was to understand that book on mathematical set-theory. There was a profound sudden experience, but I had no name for it. Instead, in the second-after-that I interpreted it as having found a proof of God, which I thought occurred by some mental process. But as hard as I tried, I was unable to reconstruct that mental process. It is only years and a few more experiences later that I begin, just begin, to connect the dots.

Dear Banjo,

Please don't worry: the mind cannot be transported anywhere, let alone beyond reality - it stays right inside one's skull!

However, the use of the mind can be suspended. There's nothing spectacular about it: we haven't been using our mind before we born, then even as babies we only gradually started using it. In fact we still don't use our mind while in deep sleep either.

My grandmother used to cross the street without paying attention to oncoming traffic, but she was no mystic at all and to the best of my knowledge never meditated. Also, that was not how she died.

And humans can fly, you know (but please don't try it on your own body) - it's just that we haven't yet solved that slight problem of landing without injury.

Now let's get a bit more serious:

Your human limitations will always constrain that human you call 'Banjo'. The illusion and limiting factor is in your perception as if YOU are Banjo.
Banjo is limited - he can't fly and if he continuously crossed streets without looking, then he would at very high probability be run over by a car. You, however, cannot be run over by a car, because all cars are nothing but Yourself, and so is Banjo, so is Yuyutsu, so it this forum, so is the screen you watch and the keyboard you type on. There is nothing but You - You are God.

Dear George,

Thank you for your kind advice. I am glad that at least someone here understands my explanations.

But if God were limitless, Yuyutsu, then it should be possible to define Him in positive terms within our limits as well.

<<That God cannot be defined in positive terms, is a limitation of humans, of language and of concepts, not of God.>>

This is still a limitation. I, on the other hand, can be positively defined both within our limits and beyond them. So I must be superior to God in that way.

<<Yes, there is nothing but God, but that does not imply that God is everything.>>

This is cheating. You can’t speak of something as though it exists - using language that we would all use to refer to something that does exist - and then sidestep a perfectly sound point that someone makes by claiming that this thing that you’ve been talking about doesn’t actually exist. Similarly, you cannot speak of something as though it is a thing and then claim that God is not a thing when someone does something as innocent as use words like ‘something’ or ‘nothing’ in order to get a toehold on what you’re talking about.

If you are limited by language (as we all are) and must necessarily speak about your God as though it exists and as though it is a thing, then you need to afford others the luxury of using words like ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ in order to refer to what you are talking about without you sidestepping their point by claiming that God is not a thing.

These types of semantics may enable you to feel more enlightened than everyone else, but in reality, you have merely hidden your god in non-existence for the sole purpose of protecting it from criticism and puzzling others (If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance… ). There is no enlightenment here, no deep spirituality, just a word game.

Thanks for sharing what you believe to be your direct experience of God. However, going by what you've said, you cannot rule out a rational explanation.

I've written on this subject in the past
so kindly bear with my repetition.

It was the sociologist Emile Durkheim who believed
that the origins of religion were social, not
supernatural. He pointed out that,
whatever their source, the rituals enacted in any
religion enhance the solidarity of the community
as well as its faith.

Consider such religious ritual such as Baptism,
Bar Mitvah, Weddings, Sabbath Services,
Christmas and Easter Mass, and of course - Funerals.

Rituals like these serve to bring people together, to
remind them of their common group membership, to
re-affirm their traditional values, to maintain
prohibitions and taboos, in the case of funerals -
to offer comfort in times of crisis, and in general
to help transmit the cultural heritage from one
generation to the next.

People may not believe deeply in traditional religion, but
many have found no satisfying substitute. The choice of
a funeral service is of course a personal one. Whatever
brings comfort during this difficult time to family
members should however be respected and not judged.

AJ..THE EXISTANce of god is by personal revelation
SIGN IF YOU WILL/../EXTERNAL SIGN..BECAUSE GOD EXISTS WITHIN EVery living thing..YOU CANT SEE WITHIN me/or you..AND IF YOU TEST ME[or you]..who is to say..thats god doing it from within ME..[OR YOU]

..it seems...convoluted thinking..BECAUSE GOD IS OUTSIDE US..YET INSIDE US ONLY/..SUSTAINING THE OUTER..[exzist]..we are the external because god is the [inzist]..INTERNAL GOOD SUSTAINING LIFE LOVE LOGIC IN THE holy SPIRITS light
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11008&page=0

I STILL RESIST..THE SPECIALIZED Thinking required
but i allrEADY STATED THAT LAST TIME..i see the externals..KNOWING.. only god could haVE HELPED CREATE..THAT INNER SEEING...externalized INTO WORD FORMS ON THE SCREEN..

THE INSIDE UNSEEN...BEING ,CONCEALED..THAT ACCRETED LIFE ARROUND HER,unconcealed/revealed..externalised..yet none that we see is god..only energy changing state

SEE YOU ARNT DOING IT
SEE THAT SCIence cannot make claim..to nature/natural nuthin
[that intelligent 'NATURAL/selection..belongs to GOD..WITHIN HIS CREATIONS..loving his creations..loving and being lOVED..WHY DO YOU LOVE/HOW DO YOU TURN..wasted dead energies into usefull living energies.

your either fROM NUTHIN GOING NO WHERE
Or your a child of the eternal immortal good..REACHING FOR THE STARS

ITS NOT A THING You ned do
its simply a thing you must see..from within..finding your real self IN OTHER...[who is not thyne brother?..that we did to thge least..we did to him

we seek him here/we seek him..tHERE
BUT THERE HE LIES..WITHIN YOU..JUST WAITING TO SERVE YOU YOur life gift..[HE LIVES TO SERVE YOUR LIVING]..HIS WIll is to do thyne will]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

"There was a profound sudden experience, but I had no name for it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fart

"...The researchers suspect the abnormal behavior is the result of the brain attempting to save effort on a task by entering a more restful state. The scientists detailed their findings on 21 April 2008 online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The scientific term they gave the phenomenon is 'maladaptive brain activity change'."