Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

What difference does it make if they are enlightened or not? No difference.

In a nutshell, delusion and suffering, not just for themselves, but for others as well, sometimes on a mass scale, such as the Holocaust and the Inquisition.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Uhm... no..

Elaborate?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you're saying that the absolute has somehow forgotten it is the absolute, and has become deluded, in this case due to hardship?

Sort of...the incarnate soul has eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and now sees itself separate from God....ie. the conceptual mind no longer knows what and who it really is.... And yes...there is divine purpose in this process apart from the survival in the physical world, the ego development brings about self awareness that was not present in the pure divine awareness that first incarnated...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Except that they don't know/remember that they are enlightened.

Yes..relying on the conceptual mind to interpret reality...they get lost in the maya which obscures the pure source of what and who they really are...

 

[Desert Snake]

Elaborate?

It isn't important. In the manner that you are using the word, you would be correct, at least to an extent. That merely isn't how I use the word/.

 

[godnotgod]

Sort of...the incarnate soul has eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and now sees itself separate from God....ie. the conceptual mind no longer knows what and who it really is.... And yes...there is divine purpose in this process apart from the survival in the physical world, the ego development brings about self awareness that was not present in the pure divine awareness that first incarnated...

I don't think I'm buying that interpretation. There are many serious flaws with the story of The Fall as handed down to us. The earlier, more authentic version that was corrupted by the priests for their gain goes like this:

God tells Adam & Eve they can have anything but of the Forbidden Fruit, they are not to eat; then God goes away, and then re-appears to them as a serpent to insure that they eat of the Fruit. The Fruit is a symbol of Higher Consciousness. Remember that the serpent tells A&E that God does not want them to eat of the Fruit because their eyes will be opened and they will 'see as He sees'. This is God Consciousness, which God is giving to man as a free gift out of unconditional love. But God, knowing the mind of man, must set up a piece de resistance so man will partake of His gift. Hence the taboo. This version achieves divine union, the goal of all religious endeavor, while the corrupted modern version achieves exactly the opposite, that of separation. If the story is made so man believes himself to be fallen and sinful, the priests can intervene on man's behalf...at a price, of course. Hence, organized religion.

Consider instead that the divine nature, intrigued by its own maya, wants to get involved with it for pure adventure. But in order to partake fully of the role it is about to play, must deliberately and completely obliterate its memory of its divinity. This role is called The Player. God is playing all the parts of the Universe simultaneously. Never is there any real separation, because it is all just a dream from which the godhead, you and I, must awaken, in order to realize our true natures.....and perhaps have a good laugh.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes..relying on the conceptual mind to interpret reality...they get lost in the maya which obscures the pure source of what and who they really are...

So the divine nature becomes immersed in its own maya, as I had said.

 

[godnotgod]

Stop getting so mad at yourself.

I can't help it. It feels so good when I stop.

 

[Desert Snake]

And, ironically, both Lucifer and satan are traditionally thought of as entities.

..^

I suppose you think you're saying something clever, but you're actually not making a bit of sense. Who cares?

Ironically, the person who doesn't care is you, the self described Luciferian.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't think I'm buying that interpretation. There are many serious flaws with the story of The Fall as handed down to us. The earlier, more authentic version that was corrupted by the priests for their gain goes like this:

God tells Adam & Eve they can have anything but of the Forbidden Fruit, they are not to eat; then God goes away, and then re-appears to them as a serpent to insure that they eat of the Fruit. The Fruit is a symbol of Higher Consciousness. Remember that the serpent tells A&E that God does not want them to eat of the Fruit because their eyes will be opened and they will 'see as He sees'. This is God Consciousness, which God is giving to man as a free gift out of unconditional love. But God, knowing the mind of man, must set up a piece de resistance so man will partake of His gift. Hence the taboo. This version achieves divine union, the goal of all religious endeavor, while the corrupted modern version achieves exactly the opposite, that of separation. If the story is made so man believes himself to be fallen and sinful, the priests can intervene on man's behalf...at a price, of course. Hence, organized religion.

Consider instead that the divine nature, intrigued by its own maya, wants to get involved with it for pure adventure. But in order to partake fully of the role it is about to play, must deliberately and completely obliterate its memory of its divinity. This role is called The Player. God is playing all the parts of the Universe simultaneously. Never is there any real separation, because it is all just a dream from which the godhead, you and I, must awaken, in order to realize our true natures.....and perhaps have a good laugh.

Well if it works for you...fine.. It is interesting to note that the serpent symbolically plays an important role in awareness also in the ancient Egyptian and Sanatan Dharma Kundalini. In the first case the serpent seen arising from the head is explained as "that which the Gods see into the manifested worlds", aka a divine incarnation ...and in Hindu...the serpent arises open the seventh chakra to realize immortality.....aka divine incarnation...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So the divine nature becomes immersed in its own maya, as I had said.

It's' a quaint way of using putting it but ok.. The way I understand the process is this....the perfect eternal omnipresent divine nature incarnates in man and experiences apparent self consciousness....in the process of developing this self consciousness, it becomes imperfect, mortal, and is stuck in a historical time and spacial locale. So the third and final part of the pilgrimage of the created soul is to re-realize truly what is who is really is and in the process...translate the self awareness gained as a result of the journey and become that which no man can ever truly know...but one can presume that it is immortal, nearly perfect, and transcendent to time space limitations...

 

[Runewolf1973]

In a nutshell, delusion and suffering, not just for themselves, but for others as well, sometimes on a mass scale, such as the Holocaust and the Inquisition.

Even for those who realize oneness, there is still suffering present. What good does it do for humanity if the vast majority of people still continue to suffer? Animals in the wild suffer as well. How are they to end their suffering? It's not like animals in the wild are going to make some great realization that will end their suffering. So what is the true end to all suffering? Change. We cannot live permanently amid suffering because everything changes. Impermanence is the only true relief from suffering. Knowing that suffering is impermanent is relief in and of itself. Death ends suffering. Change ends suffering.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

With all due respect Christianity began as a near east religion, 'emerging' at the eastern edge of the Mediterranean. Rome and its authorities ignored the 'strange religion' for several reasons. First was that the Christians worked to help the poor etc. Wealthy Romans did not mix well with the lower classes, and considered Christianity beneath them. Next, this new religion ie Christianity taught that the overwhelming number of laws the Jewish people had to follow should be ‘relaxed’. (about 600> 680!), as well as making changes which highly POed the Jewish priests. Most of actions and teachings of Christianity were by eroding the powerful Priests power base and money collection rackets. Anyway the Romans wanted nothing to do with that mess that could blow up in a revolution at the very least a civil disobedience/disturbance. In fact the roman authorities ignored the Christians and did not even recognizing the christus (the Christ) or his followers until decades after it first emerged. So IMO Rome’s influence was little to nothing, at first.

I feel Christianity was most pure during those early decades. So I use much of the early 'primitive' Christianity in my worship, studies etc.and after world view (lol). Lastly, I agree with you where you said that the Greeks greatly influenced early Christianity (particularly their theology). However it wasn't all bad but some did damage what is now my religion. Also, Hellenism expressed itself weirdly at times such as a force for building better roads! (for missionaries to travel on.) small ways were not immune to Hellenism either. For example Saul adopting the name Paul. Ahh’ sorry for the length of the reply I wordy at times!

Huh? To be honest, what early Christianity actually was is very much an unknown. We just don't have much information about it and a lot of what we think we know was basically made up centuries later. There's a huge vacuum of information about Christianity in the first few centuries of it. Even the so-called "Church Fathers" lived over a period of centuries and had wildly differing viewpoints, much of which are now called heresies.

Anyway, I don't really feel like getting into it since it will derail this thread.

How could you be an individualist and a communist?? You must be defining individualist differently that what is the norm! ie

in·di·vid·u·al·ist [ìndi víjjoo əlist]
(plural in·di·vid·u·al·ists)
n
1. independent thinker: somebody who thinks or behaves independently
2. believer in individualism: somebody who believes in the social or political philosophy of individualism




Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 2014 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-communism-considered-evil-by-some-people
Communism and Marx reject both the sovereignty of the individual and, ... it
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/completely disregard human individuality, discourage innovation and self
motivation.....

(end)

MrMr

I'm an anarcho-communist, not a Marxist. Anarcho-communism is influenced by egoist anarchism and individualist anarchism. We view anarcho-communism as the best way for an individual to maximize their individual potential and the best solution for the conflict between the individual and the group.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ironically, the person who doesn't care is you, the self described Luciferian.

I'm only concerned with my own beliefs. Other Luciferians, Satanists and LHP people in general can speak for themselves. I'm not an atheist, personally.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Huh? To be honest, what early Christianity actually was is very much an unknown. We just don't have much information about it and a lot of what we think we know was basically made up centuries later. There's a huge vacuum of information about Christianity in the first few centuries of it. Even the so-called "Church Fathers" lived over a period of centuries and had wildly differing viewpoints, much of which are now called heresies.

Anyway, I don't really feel like getting into it since it will derail this thread.



I'm an anarcho-communist, not a Marxist. Anarcho-communism is influenced by egoist anarchism and individualist anarchism. We view anarcho-communism as the best way for an individual to maximize their individual potential and the best solution for the conflict between the individual and the group.

Sorry I do not agree with 90% of your reply. There is quite a bit known about early Christianity, especially after the first thirty years. Much of the information is extra biblical as well! Most of the comments against Christianity were so dated and error filled I thought they had been cybernapped from decades ago.

But you are correct, we are getting off topic. However the reason I brought up Christianity at all was its view of nothingness, ie; (it does not exist if we are speaking of the material universe). I see that most replies agree that true nothingness does not exist, at least not 'now'. Thanks for sharing your beliefs thoughts.

MrMr

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

-

Sshh, they'll only come back again!

Just like those white stains on my jammies.....I bet you know what I am talking about....those mayo stains from those sammages....no wait the absolute mayo is yellowish green color........HEY!!!!!!! where is my snot rag?

MrMr

 

[godnotgod]

. I see that most replies agree that true nothingness does not exist, at least not 'now'.
MrMr

It neither exists, nor not-exists. After all, it's pure unadulterated no-thing-ness, not even of itself, the negation of all negation, the no-concept of no-concept. But, the entire Universe is contained in it, and comes out of it. Nothing. Dig it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

-
Just like those white stains on my jammies.....I bet you know what I am talking about....those mayo stains from those sammages....no wait the absolute mayo is yellowish green color........HEY!!!!!!! where is my snot rag?

Yeah, we are wading knee deep in BS.

 

[YmirGF]

I love how you're acting like this is all fact, but it's not. The only thing I know is that I exist and I am aware. I know of no state of non-existence or "nothingness". I have no desire to pass out of existence and "become one" with anything. There's too much to explore, so much knowledge to gain. Far too much for one little human lifespan. Too much wonder to behold.

Hell, yeah! Assimilation is SO over-rated by those still attempting to annihilate their sense of self. They have to over-rate and denigrate as there is no alternative to the pine box of this kind of understanding. It's, quite literally, a dead end theology.

 

[godnotgod]

The only thing I know is that I exist and I am aware.

No you don't. All that is known is that there is awareness, without an awareness-er; existence, without an exist-er.

As for a you that exists, here is the problem with Descartes cogito:

Søren Kierkegaard's critique[edit]
The Danish philosopherSøren Kierkegaardprovided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

"x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#cite_note-26

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#cite_note-27

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but it spsychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

So since there is no such 'I' that thinks, and therefore, exists, there is only universal awareness. Your consciousness is not yours; it is that of the universe, sculpted by ego in such a way as to appear to be 'mine', possessed by an imaginary 'I' and 'me'.