many names, but only one God

Many names refer to only one God (a single simple truth). This same idea has been represented in many different languages.

only one god, many names

“The Divine Source is complete, whole, undivided, inclusive, holy, singular, unity, without boundary.”

道可道, 非常道

“The Divine Source is not just one or more words about the Divine Source. Words cannot isolate the Divine Source.”

“There is no Divine Source except the Divine Source.”

Once there was a branch which said to the tree, “How can I become part of the tree?” The tree replied “treat every other branch as if it were a branch of a single tree.” Then the branch replied, “What? That must be the wrong answer. I know that I am better than those other branches. Before I take you seriously, you need to prove to me that you are really a real tree, and that you really exist, okay?”

On a tree, is there any branch of the tree does not contain the tree? Is there any clay pot which is not formed from clay by a potter?

The “Kingdom” of God is like a tree. From a single tiny seed, such as a mustard seed, many branches form, with each branch abiding within a huge tree.

God abides in me and I abide in God. What is isolated from God? That is a silly question- nonsense- like asking which branch of a tree is isolated from the tree.

If someone asks to be shown proof of a tree, is not a branch the proof of a tree? Which branch does not prove the existence of a seed?

Only those without understanding of the simplicity of the meaning of God would make reference to “proving the existence of God.” Everything that you perceive is evidence of God just as everything you perceive is evidence of you. It is silly to ask someone to prove that they exist. That kind of an inquiry is silly from the beginning. That you exist is a sufficient proof of God.

If someone is not familiar with this meaning of the word God, that is an innocent ignorance, like an infant who does not know how to speak at all will of course not be familiar any meaning of the word God (so they cannot even be confused about it!). There is no need to prove that life exists or that God exists or that trees exist or that language exists. However, until one is clear about what any of these labels mean, there may be a sincere question as to whether or not language exists or life exists and so on- as long as there is no clarity about what the word “life” means or what the word “language” means.

No one asks if biology really exists because they understand that biology is a category in language, rather than a specific quality such as “red” or “tall.” God has ALL qualities. Biology is evidence of God’s existence. Everything else is too.

Now, if someone who does not understand the English language asks for proof that the English language exists, speaking to them in English may not help. If someone says that they are fluent in English but they are not, then they may be able to fool someone who does not speak English. However, anyone fluent in English will be able to instantly recognize their lack of fluency.

So, when someone speaks of God to someone who understands God, the one who understands can recognize who does and who does not understand. When someone speaks of God to another who does not directly understand God, there can be much confusion. They may start talking a bunch of nonsense about whether or not life exists and how to prove or disprove the existence of trees. They are just socializing. Such “religion” involves no introspection of practical value, and it is no wonder that so many intelligent people reject the foolishness of idolaters who use the word God frequently but use it without any direct clarity as to how the word God is related to the many parables and teachings of the authentic “messengers” of the spiritual truth of God (or the most recognizable “voices” of God), such as Gautama Shakyamuni.

The “Kingdom” of God is also like a potter which forms pots of clay. The potter makes each form. When you see a bunch of clay pots, which one has not been made by a potter from clay?

The existence of a branch proves that a tree exists and also that God exists. Even the existence of language proves that God exists, just as the existence of a single word, such as God, is sufficient evidence of the existence of language (AKA “the spiritual realm”).

God is simply a word for the Divine Source which forms all forms, all names, all words, all labels, all languages, all identities, all patterns, and all developments (events, perceptions, etc). In other languages, other words are used for that Divine Source, such as Allah, Brahman, Tao, Yahweh, and so on.

Diagram of the names of God in Oedipus Aegyptiacus

Diagram of the names of God in Oedipus Aegyptiacus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So shall you struggle to prove the existence of an alphabet? Those without understanding may tangle themselves up in sincere arguments and even passionate conflicts about which branch best proves the existence of a tree or which language is the most linguistic. Beware of such fools and their foolishness.

Just like a parrot can make the sound of a word, making a sound is not evidence of understanding or comprehension or fluency. Just like an infant can copy the sounds of a foreign language, it is no evidence of understanding to repeat phrases. Making the sounds “I understand English”
is not evidence of an understanding of English. Beware of those who use the word God in vain, in foolishness, in arrogance, in naivete. By “their fruits,” one can identify whether someone understands the linguistic metaphor “God” or whether someone is just an idolater worshiping a particular word in a particular language.

There is a time for the repeating of phrases and sounds. For an infant, there may be great interest in repeating sounds like a parrot. Let the ones with a great interest in the repeating of sounds and phrases explore their interest.

There is a time for budding and for blossoming and for a flower to spread it’s petals. Let the ones with a great interest in arguing over words explore their interest. There may come a time for the exploring of the Divine Source which is beyond all words. There may come a time for exploring that which is evidenced by it’s creations.

Once there was a branch which said to the tree, “How can I become part of the tree?” The tree replied “treat every other branch as if it were a branch of a single tree.” Then the branch replied, “What? That must be the wrong answer. I know that I am better than those other branches. Before I take you seriously, you need to prove to me that you are really a real tree, and that you really exist, okay?”

It is like asking someone to prove that they had a mother. “I do not believe that you were ever a little tiny fetus in a womb. That is ridiculous. Look how huge you are now. How could you fit inside of a woman’s belly?”


Life (Photo credit: aftab.)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

15 Responses to “many names, but only one God”

  1. Michael Says:

    Do you have evidence of an all powerful, all knowing, all loving, personal creator of the universe? Since you had linked to my blog, in a specific post, You must be referring to the Christian god, which I typically refute in my posts.

    If you do not have evidence, stop claiming that you know whatever it is that you know.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Hi Michael,

      Many who call themselves Christians and use the English word God are completely ignorant of that word. In the blog, I make reference to an infant babbling sounds and practicing pronunciation, but without any understanding of the word’s meaning required in repeating the sounds.

      If you read the whole post, you will see that I reject the foolish nonsense of so much of mainstream religious tradition, just as we see stories of Isaiah and Jesus rejecting the vain practices of worship so popular (apparently) in their cultures. In the Christian Gospel of Mark 7-7-8, Jesus references the mainstream foolishness clearly practiced by so many people today. However, while you may lack the naivete of the masses, you cannot learn the meaning of the word God unless you can accept your own history of naivete and arrogance and foolishness. If you claim that you were never an infant babbling meaningless sounds, then you may be no more enlightened than someone suffering from the mental illness of mainstream religious traditions.

      • Michael Says:

        “If you do not have evidence, stop claiming that you know whatever it is that you know.”

        That is what I said, and I stand by what I say. You can quote bible verses all day, but the bible is not proof of anything but of itself, not of a god.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      In other words, if you (or any Christian or anyone else) use a term like “the Christian God,” I tend to presume that they are merely talking about a linguistic object of idol worship. While there is idolatry and Santa Claus and mythology, that has rather little to do with the simple truth of the existence of God. Mythology is fine, but for you to say “there is no such personal identity as Santa Claus” is trivia to me. Should you then make a big part of your identity in to questioning the existence of Santa Claus?

      • Michael Says:

        Fine, evidence for any being outside of reality? Id like to see it, and Im sure all the other atheists would as well

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      “Outside of reality” is a silly comment. If you are not ready to have a mature conversation, then you will have to remain in your contempt of fools. Do not have contempt for fools. They are fools. It is your foolishness to have contempt for them.

      • Michael Says:

        Sorry, I was hoping you would understand what I meant by that. by “outside of reality” I meant reality not being the proof of this being or god. Not outside of the universe. Thanks for trying to assume my “foolishness”, maybe you should be fully aware of what I am asking first before assuming.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      You are skeptical of beliefs and words. That is an important stage. If you are open to the possibility that there is another stage of intelligent experience beyond the one you have been experiencing- like there are colleges after kindergartens- then you may wish to invest some time in the words of this blog post.

    • jrfibonacci Says:


      LOL. Maybe you recognize that there is no such a being as God. The word God originally does not refer to “a being.”

      You can call that atheism. That (“atheism”) is just an English word rejecting a particular misinterpretation.

      Brahman is not “a being.” The “Tao” is not “a being.” God is not “a being,” though many people may use the word God as part of the practice of vain idolatry. However, by vain, I mean useless or futile or irrelevant. Other people’s idolatry is not our concern really, is it?

      Shall we go around saying that we do not believe in the Easter Bunny? That is also a bunch of vanity (foolishness).

      • Michael Says:

        The word “god” doesnt originally refer to a being? Do you have proof of this claim?

        It is of concern when people are being killed over it, maybe you havnt seen the news or anything lately. When a group starts to kill another group over which god is better, or because their god says such and such is bad, therefor we must kill these people, it is time we remove religion.

        To dont have to see eye to eye with me here, but the news it out there, and Im fighting against what people currently believe.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Do not fight against hysteria or insanity. It is like fighting against infancy or blindness.

      The blind will not develop sight by fighting with them. The insane will not come to clarity by conversation.

      The European root of the word “God” goes back before Goth (and Gothic) to Guth (relating the voice) and prior to that back to Sanskrit and the psychological distinction or archetype of “Indra.” (see below or )

      To me, your comment about proving the existence of God is like “prove the existence of East.” East is not a being. To make a lot of attention to the fact that East is not a being is okay I guess, but how much fun is that? How practical?

      Word Origin & History

      O.E. god from P.Gmc. *guthan (cf. Du. god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ), from PIE *ghut- “that which is invoked” (cf. Skt. huta- “invoked,” an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- “to call, invoke.”

      • Michael Says:

        You neglected to fully source your answer, so I will go about helping you:

        “But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- “poured,” from root *gheu- “to pour, pour a libation” (source of Gk. khein “to pour,” also in the phrase khute gaia “poured earth,” referring to a burial mound; see found (2)). “Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound” [Watkins]. Cf. also Zeus.”

        Which references.

        “supreme god of the ancient Greeks, 1706, from Gk., from PIE *dewos- “god” (cf. L. deus “god,” O. Pers. daiva- “demon, evil god,” O.C.S. deivai, Skt. deva-), from root *dyeu- “to gleam, to shine;” also the root of words for “sky” and “day” (see diurnal). The god-sense is originally “shining,” but “whether as originally sun-god or as lightener” is not now clear.”

        For Zeus linked at the end of the reference. I can see this turning into a stalemate though, You cannot provide evidence for a stance that you cannot positively identify, or you simply do not have any. If you simply wish to say that “god” and the universe are the same thing, then call yourself a pantheist and be done with it.

        Muslims are claiming a god exists, Christians are claiming a god exists, and other religions are claiming gods exists. They are by definition theists. My lack of belief makes me an atheist, since atheist literally means “without a god”. My position is the most logical position there is given the evidence available.

    • jrfibonacci Says:


      We could trace back the word Zeus to deva and then trace from deva back to the word divine or divinity. You can do that yourself, though.

      Atheism is only a rejection of theism. Atheism is not a rejection of the existence of the concept of Brahman or the linguistic category “the universe,” which is a relatively new word in a relatively new language.

      To me, you are frightened, which leads to being argumentative and so you could then say “prove the existence of the universe, prove the existence of theism, prove the existence of language, prove that you exist.” That is just more foolish, frightened hysteria.

      I have experience with that myself, so I do not really mind, but unless you are willing to do something else, you will have to keep doing that, right? It is vain foolishness to speak of “The Christian God” or “The Hebrew God” or “The Muslim God.” Jesus and Isaiah and Mohammed did not speak of such nonsense. For you to reject their teachings based on the idiocy of some of their followers is like concluding that a professor who cannot train his dog to speak English must not know how to speak English.

      Do not reject the wise because the foolish misinterpret them. That is just an excuse. Either you lack the courage to explore these matters, or you lack an interest. The mere fact that you would repeatedly talk about these matters indicates an interest, doesn’t it? So, what does that demonstrate?

      • Michael Says:

        “Only those without understanding of the simplicity of the meaning of God would make reference to “proving the existence of God.” Everything that you perceive is evidence of God just as everything you perceive is evidence of you. It is silly to ask someone to prove that they exist. That kind of an inquiry is silly from the beginning. That you exist is a sufficient proof of God.”

        Yep, I do believe I made mention of this earlier. Existence is evidence of existence, nothing else.<- Was a sidetrack to point out a point in your post. Frightened? Maybe you dont understand what I do. I am trying to make the world a better place with less violence. Im not afraid of a god of any caliber. I know they do not exist, and are a creation of the human mind. They exist as much as a Santa Claus with the ability to cover billions of houses in a single night, or as much as a bunch of unicorns in the center of Jupiter controlling the universe. Why be frightened?

        "Jesus and Isaiah and Mohammed did not speak of such nonsense."

        Here, maybe you have yet to read the bible:

        That will show you some things you need to do to get to heaven and to God. He makes it quite clear. I do not lack courage, trust me. To assume such a thing is ignorant. Would you like some not so nice stuff from the Qur'an as well?

        If these are supposed to be teachings from such great people, then why would they preach such disgusting things? You can point out something nice, and I can point out something that contradicts what they say. The books are filled with contradictions on purpose, so they can be cherry-picked by the individual, while the person never really reads the entire book. Or they will claim "it was out of context" or something along those lines.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Actually, Michael, I assert that you are afraid of a few things: hysterical idiots, violence, anything disgusting to you, confusing misinterpretation of scriptural passages of words. Fear may be a sign of intelligence, by the way.

      Also, if you ever suspect that I might be using reverse psychology, I should tell you right now that I do not believe in reverse psychology, There is simply no such thing.

      Anyway, I know a few scriptures that say that heaven is eternal and within and that no one will experience it by making external observations or through good works, though a lot of folks seem to think that they can struggle to earn their way in to heaven. I could provide quotes if you like. Isn’t it interesting how many Christians will argue to defend their conviction that they are not in heaven?

      So, I wonder if those references to heaven are similar to the teachings about nirvana and satori and satchitananda. Then again, English is probably the only language with anything interesting in it, right? In fact, I think there is only one book with anything interesting- and only one translation that is valid, and I am extremely confident about that because I am a fanatical atheist who does not believe in the movie Star Wars.

      “It’s fiction, people! It’s not real. It’s just a story in language, okay? Stop talking about Darth Vader. There is no such thing. It is just a creative composition. Do not insult my intelligence.”

      It all reminds me of this parable that I once made up just to make a point. It went like this: once Allah and God and Brahman were out on the town looking to pick up some chics and they went in to this bar and then the bartender said…. ha ha, do you get it? There really was no bartender. I just made that up. Isn’t that hilarious?

      Atheists are clearly the best kind of people. Unless they are bartenders, in which case they contribute to alcoholism and sexual impropriety, which is disgusting.

      God exists. God is a word. It references a real experience, but anyone who is not familiar with that experience may find it to be a word that is rather foreign to them.

      God is the one who is in heaven. If you are not willing to be in heaven, then how are you ever going to experience God? Jesus Christ, you atheists sure are dense!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: