Follow up on this question:
Thank you for your answer. I agree about your explanation regarding time since if we view the world from soul world, we do not need time where everything just exists and does not materialise or dematerialise as in the physical world.
sanyaasis and ascetics say that there is no God, just pure bliss or as you rightly said that since we have only experienced God, he remains that for us’ an experience’.
However, Bapdada has mentioned many times in murlis that there can be no thing without a name and if a name exists then definitely the thing must exist, and He calls himself “Paramatma” or supreme soul as different from Brahma, the vehicle or instrument. He has also alternativley said, My name is Shiva, and people call God by varied names, ie Allah, Jehovah or Ishwar. My question is that when there is such specific evidence [ whether based on religious paradigm or not, or on personal experience], definitely how can God only be an experience? How then would you define God, a being not seen or perceived by the senses, yet who definitely creates or is the cause of an experience?If air is seen then we know it by its properties, same way if God is not seen, how can so many people have a misconception about him, when all humans definitely use the name and it is a part of our language and culture handed down through some universal collective memory?
Please bear with me as i am trying to delve into the nature of God for my own understanding.
Thank you for your follow up. You are raising good points.
The following will be a couple of notches “deeper” than “normal.”
How can God be only an “experience”? 🙂 BapDada has mentioned that “experience is the best authority.” Experience is another name for living. When you experience something, you know something. When you just repeat what someone else said, without an experience; there is only repetition.
“Naming” is fragmenting. You cannot know what it is when naming. Labels merely point out. Many times we think that naming is knowing.
I can say: He is “Dada Lekhraj.” Do I know him? I could even know his birthday and some other facts about his life. Do I know him? Is that knowing?
The answer is NO. Unless you live with him, you will not know him and your experience of living with him, is “just” your experience. Knowing is not a static thing where we can put a magical label such as: “he is sweet.” That may not be the experience of someone else.
“Pure gyan,” clearly explains that roles are within us. What we know is according to that role. “Reality” is just an experience of it. That is why, the only thing that we can know, is the self. That is something which BapDada mentioned yesterday (10/7/12) as the “heart” of this knowledge, “pure gyan.”
God is not a definition. Saying: “God is a point of light, living in our home, Brahman or Parandham or Nirvana, or the soul world” does not add a bit on my experience of God. That stuff just adds information.
Information without experience is useless. It is just for intellectuals. Information with experience is priceless.
God is not the cause of “my” experience. The cause of it is within my perception of God according to my role. Let us say that God is like a bright day. Let us say that I have been living in darkness all of my life.
When I see God for the first time, can I say that God is the cause of my “daylight”? Or perhaps it is just my perception based on something which I have not experienced before due to living in darkness? Let us say that I am used to living in daylight. Would my experience with God be the same? NO. It depends on me. My stage, my perception, the role playing.
Yes, all cultures have a perception of God. That is why gyan mentions that “it is numberwise.”
That perception of God appeared all of the sudden in the Copper age, even though; God did not manifest “himself” to anyone; however, He has done it through “visions.” Those divine experiences were enough for people.
Even though, this knowledge is “easy” as the Murli many times mentions, the majority of people will not be able to understand it. Why? They have a different perception of reality according to their experiences and those experiences are already contained in their roles.
Even take a look at a Sakar Murli and see how many times God is mentioned is a devotional way, as God “doing this and that just for the children.” Can we call that knowing God, according to knowledge? Or perhaps “just” an experience of God?
Let me recommend the following article as well.