Thanks OUG,

"[I'm using words, chosen from my mind
by imagry..in-spi-spired from outside my mind
so see the image..in-flux(in-spi-ration)..rather
than the words chosen"

Well there you have it. In order for you to communicate with us, you translate your understanding through language. It signifies and gives rise an image in our minds. However, it is necessary for you first to consult the symbolic references in your own mind, before you even think about dissemination to anyone outside...that is immersion in materiality and the symbolic order.

Ammonite,

Yep, the "enigma" of consciousness or awareness is what we struggle with. We inquire and sift and attempt to come to terms with an innate suspicion that our biological senses and intellect can't tell us the whole story - and may even obscure it.

Dear George,

You made me interested in Tillich, I would like to read his books, one day.

Just to clarify my use of "existence", yes, it must imply a material object. I must however add that my concept of "material" is broad and includes, besides apples, chairs and electricity, also things which others often delegate to other realms, including psychological phenomenas, dreams, delusions, wishes and superstitions. Not only are these material, but there is even a science (or a pseudo-science as some claim) that researches the above. Note the use of the word "things": whatever it applies to, then for the purpose of this discussion I consider the thing as material.

I hope you would agree with me that God is not a thing.

Dear Poirot,

"So, how about some basic questions? How would either of you define God...What is God? Is everything God, as in everything is energy?"

As I just wrote to George, God is not a thing. Since only things can be defined, there is no chance I could ever define God.

The Tao Te Ching begins with:

If you can talk about it,
it ain't Tao.
If it has a name,
it's just another thing.
Tao doesn't have a name.
Names are for ordinary things.

Another translation:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

(more translations in http://www.duhtao.com/translations.html)

So sorry I cannot help you there, but if it can be of any help, there are three things I can say:

1) While it is impossible to say what God is, it is easy to state what God is not:

God is not ... {you may fill in the blank yourself}.

2) There is nothing but God.

3) It is possible to experience God directly.

(we already experience God all the time, for there is nothing besides Him, but we normally do it through something. By "directly" I mean without any via, such as the senses or the mind)

Yuyutsu,

Yes, I'm familiar with the Tao.

...and the Tao takes its wisdom from the machinations of the material world - applies them so that we may understand the nature of physical and spiritual reality.

Hence our yearning to be (re)united...

They may flourish abundantly,
But each turns and goes home to the root
of which it came.
Home to the root, home, I affirm, to the stillness,
This means to turn back is destiny,
And the destiny of turning back, I affirm, can never be changed.

The spiritual mirrors the material.

toa...[the way]
of course the way..cannot be named
for all paths have different beginnings and endings
but it can be defined...as being in between here and there

or betwixt then and now
its the axctive of moving between known knowns

knowing that anything you can name..isnt the journey..[the way]
its yet another ending or beginning..[yeah ok i just made that up]
but it explains my minds imagry...not a symbol

but i didnt say this
poiroh did...

quote..""However,..it is necessary
for you first to consult the symbolic references in your own mind,""

no
know im seeing a chair...when i think of a chair

infact am invisioning all the chairs..i have ever seen/felt/smelt..ie..by senses..not symbol

see all that i ever recognised
labled/named..chose..as being chair..[like]..[etc]

ie im not seeing a symbol
of a generic 'chair'

""before you even think about dissemination to anyone outside""

you must know...the known known's name
ie see a 'thing'..not a symbol of a thing

its the seeing/knowing/recognition..
of the thing..""...that is""..

the result of..
""immersion in materiality""

ie my life has taught me
a chair is a thing
not a symbol..

and im no closer to getting the sign
""and the symbolic order""...

of anything but chairs

chairs might have a..generic symbol

and so too might a clock..

but life again has taught me
to tell the time without a clock..
and sit..without a chair

while time might be..named..as symbolic measure..
or a symbol..for movement..between the NOT tao
it is not..nor can ever be
the symbol of..''the way'

yin/yang..dont symbolise..'the way'

they as such are opposing parts in balance
as symbolised,..for what they are symbiolising
only what...they are said to symbolise..to you..[or me]

movement maybe..
but not THE way*
not tao

OUG,

Sorry to split (c)hairs, but the mental picture of a chair in your mind is not in fact "a chair" - it's a symbol of a chair. The same as if I sat down beside you and drew a chair on paper. The drawing is not a chair, it is a symbolic representation thereof.

Symbols - ya can't operate without 'em.