An interesting definition of God

[Konstantin Zaitzev]

Today one member of our Russian theosophical forum posted a quotation from diary of Leo Tolstoi of July 30th 1906 which I want to share with you:

«Is there a God? I don't know. I know that there is a law of my spiritual being. The origin, the cause of this law I call "God".»

[Scott Sands]

What do you think Tolstoi meant by "a law of my spiritual being"?

[Scott Sands]

I believe also that this is one of the best, if not thee best, place for us to contemplate God. But of course, God is all, in all... all in all.. and all. One cannot forget to look for God in the littlest and most obscure places, for each carry their own lesson, and at times we can get lost even in ourselves.

[Vincent]

Well, I know a member of the TS who is adept at some real magic, and she very often can be heard to say "Love is the Law!". No one has the nerve to argue that point with her...

[Scott Sands]

Yet at the same time how can you argue something you don't understand?

I think such sayings are great and the sink into our soul like rain nourishing the roots but it doesn't always do good for the contemplating mind. And as great as such sayings are, without more indepth explanation they can be like a patch of quicksand on a path walked.

[Vincent]

Well, she always says it in the lodge in response to something close to her hearing, but not always heard by everyone. So, it does break my contemplation, from time to time.

It is not so much that she would be wrong, most would agree with her on intellectual grounds, but not many seem to agree with her in what they actually accomplish.

[Konstantin Zaitzev]

> What do you think Tolstoi meant by "a law of my spiritual being"?

I don't know exactly, I can only clarify the translation. The word "being" which was used doesn't mean here an existence, Sat, or Das Sein, but the individual, in the same way as it is used in expression "a human being".
As Tolstoi was a moralist, he probably meant a moral law which governs in his soul or something like that. Yet it would be an undue simplification of the original phrase.

[Scott Sands]

I like that... human being and human doing. It's a clever way to remember the... nothingness.

In the original quote:
«Is there a God? I don't know. I know that there is a law of my spiritual being. The origin, the cause of this law I call "God".»
...the question is about the existence of God. Tolstoi seems to have set aside all spiritual doctrine, personalities and such for the one and only thing he can be sure of... his own experience. Why should the existence of a law to his spiritual being be the one proof he holds too? We have our own wants and desires which the lower bodies 'ask' for as we go throughout the day... but this law of spiritual being is something different. It is a motivation which is above seeming physical needs. Things such as one led toward compassion and service maybe. All this which is above simple survival instincts. And this, I am assuming, is what he attributes to intentions from his GodSpark.

[Scott Sands]

I think the Godspark can talk to us, but only relative to things below. What I mean is, this Godspark is silence and peace... kind of a baseline at the root of our being. When we are elsewhere in our being... and we open up, we may feel the tugging back toward such a place. So the 'talking' may only be in relation to an out of balance state however extreme or minor.

I understand, kind of... when people talk about Love being a natural state... I just have problems with the word love... much as I do with the word god. There are so many different ideas and feelings and tags and labels attached to each. When one person says it another may think and feel a completely different thing.

I invite you to eleborate what you mean by Love in this instance. Maybe it is similar to my 'silence and peace'.

[Scott Sands]

I absolutely believe that each persons answer is exactly right for them... as long as they leave a little room for growth. We MUST know, that even though our answers are not wrong for us... they are not entierly right. We can avoid such a statment and live in a relatively secure sense of our belief set, but I think the true seeker 'knows that they do not know'... that a full cup cannot be filled. On the same note ideas cannot be forced on one nonreceptive. Not only is it futile, it can prolong growth by setting up defensivness to new ideas.

[Holger Neumann]

Whats about that we create us one reality because we are the creators of our universe? From out this point, nothing cant be realy rong and most of our realitys should not be the same
Think about god in my reality:
Everything is energy, so everything is connected, everything is one – so we came from one and we go to one, there is no other higher one wich not connect with us. Thinking about Thoms Logion 77
So yes if you want to used the name God – he is everything, he is over all, in all, with all and you and me. Would you realy like to search hem, than search in you, out you and if you realy listening you wil hear him.
But there is no Law witch is NOT made by human beeing
There is no god no bad – no right no rong