Divine Simulation?

[Eddi]

I no longer believe that this reality is a computer simulation

I do however believe that God's creation is like a computer simulation

Perhaps our reality is a Divine Simulation???

Run by the Supreme Being rather by some kind of futuristic computer?

Maybe the Hindus have it right? With their notions of Maya?

Are these compatible with Christianity?

I don't know, will have to do some thinking

 

[SalixIncendium]

To be clear, as a Hindu, I don't think transactional reality is a simulation "run" by a Supreme Being. I think it's a manifestation caused by ignorance of one's true nature as Brahman. In other words, ignorance manifests time, space, and causation. Brahman has no intent to create a simulation.

When I fall into a dream state of consciousness, I have no intention of creating a dream world. But my dream-self lives and participates in that dream world ignorant of his true nature of the sleeping and dreaming person lying in bed. It is ignorance of the dreamer that creates the dream reality.

 

[Eddi]

To be clear, as a Hindu, I don't think transactional reality is a simulation "run" by a Supreme Being. I think it's a manifestation caused by ignorance of one's true nature as Brahman. In other words, ignorance manifests time, space, and causation. Brahman has no intent to create a simulation.

When I fall into a dream state of consciousness, I have no intention of creating a dream world. But I live and participate in that dream world ignorant of my true nature of the sleeping and dreaming person lying in bed. It is ignorance of the dreamer that creates the dream reality.

That's some mind-bending stuff

 

[Kenny]

I no longer believe that this reality is a computer simulation

I do however believe that God's creation is like a computer simulation

Perhaps our reality is a Divine Simulation???

Run by the Supreme Being rather by some kind of futuristic computer?

Maybe the Hindus have it right? With their notions of Maya?

Are these compatible with Christianity?

I don't know, will have to do some thinking

As a Christian, yes and no. The ultimate end is the end of the program but you have play time before you get there. Even as you are playing (free will) - you are still playing toward what is the end of the story..

 

[RabbiO]

I no longer believe that this reality is a computer simulation

This week anyway.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't think transactional reality is a simulation "run" by a Supreme Being.

Transactional reality is mirage, an image created by evolution and our minds. It is a reality at its own level. And we, transactional beings ourselves, have to follow its rules.

 

[Aupmanyav]

- you are still playing toward what is the end of the story.

 

[Brian2]

To be clear, as a Hindu, I don't think transactional reality is a simulation "run" by a Supreme Being. I think it's a manifestation caused by ignorance of one's true nature as Brahman. In other words, ignorance manifests time, space, and causation. Brahman has no intent to create a simulation.

When I fall into a dream state of consciousness, I have no intention of creating a dream world. But my dream-self lives and participates in that dream world ignorant of his true nature of the sleeping and dreaming person lying in bed. It is ignorance of the dreamer that creates the dream reality.

What became ignorant?

 

[syo]

What simulation???

Our cosmos is not a simulation.

 

[Eddi]

What simulation???

Our cosmos is not a simulation.

It would be if it was designed and made to resemble a pre-existing cosmos that came into existence in some other way

 

[SalixIncendium]

What became ignorant?

I'm not sure "became" is the right word. That would imply the beginning of samsara, and I'm afraid I don't know if and where the beginning of samsara is. Perhaps a Hindu scholar would be able to answer this.

But to answer your question to the best of my ability, what is ignorant is that which is attached and desirous of the effects of Maya.

It is attachment to samsara that keeps one in samsara.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not sure "became" is the right word. That would imply the beginning of samsara, and I'm afraid I don't know if and where the beginning of samsara is. Perhaps a Hindu scholar would be able to answer this.

But to answer your question to the best of my ability, what is ignorant is that which is attached and desirous of the effects of Maya.

It is attachment to samsara that keeps one in samsara.

If we are God, how did we become ignorant and attached to samsara?
OR If say my ego is ignorant and attached to samsara, how did that happen and how is that ego not God if I all is God?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If we are God, how did we become ignorant and attached to samsara?
OR If say my ego is ignorant and attached to samsara, how did that happen and how is that ego not God if I all is God?

I'm not sure how you're defining "God," as until now, I made no mention of a "God."

I said nothing about becoming. Becoming implies time. Time is intrinsic to Maya.

I also made no mention of what ego is not.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not sure how you're defining "God," as until now, I made no mention of a "God."

I said nothing about becoming. Becoming implies time. Time is intrinsic to Maya.

I also made no mention of what ego is not.

My mistake then if ego is the real me.
By God I was referring to my understanding of the Hindu God as being everything.
If time is intrinsic to Maya then there may be similarity with the Abrahamic God who is outside of time and not controlled by time.
When you said the statement below in post 8:
""When I fall into a dream state of consciousness, I have no intention of creating a dream world. But my dream-self lives and participates in that dream world ignorant of his true nature of the sleeping and dreaming person lying in bed. It is ignorance of the dreamer that creates the dream reality.""
Is that meant to apply to God being the dreamer or to us being the dream or what?

 

[SalixIncendium]

My mistake then if ego is the real me.

What does "me" point to?

By God I was referring to my understanding of the Hindu God as being everything.

So by "Hindu God as being everything," I'll conclude you are referring to Nirguna Brahman.

When you said the statement below in post 8:
""When I fall into a dream state of consciousness, I have no intention of creating a dream world. But my dream-self lives and participates in that dream world ignorant of his true nature of the sleeping and dreaming person lying in bed. It is ignorance of the dreamer that creates the dream reality.""
Is that meant to apply to God being the dreamer or to us being the dream or what?

In this analogy, the dreamer would be Nirguna Brahman. Your character in the dream would be the person.

Before you move forward in applying any qualities to the dreamer, remember, "nirguna" means without qualities or attributes, so in this analogy, the dreamer would have no qualities or attributes. The dreamer would simply be pure being.

 

[Brian2]

What does "me" point to?

Will the real me stand up?
As a human the real me is body, mind and spirit. The spiritual soul is the essence of me that lives on after the death of the body.

So by "Hindu God as being everything," I'll conclude you are referring to Nirguna Brahman.

It looked a bit complex when I looked it up. Nirguna, Saguna---------does it matter? Surely God is God is God.
But if you say so, OK.

In this analogy, the dreamer would be Nirguna Brahman. Your character in the dream would be the person.

Before you move forward in applying any qualities to the dreamer, remember, "nirguna" means without qualities or attributes, so in this analogy, the dreamer would have no qualities or attributes. The dreamer would simply be pure being.

The analogy might not be very good if a being without qualities can dream and especially if I have qualities. Maybe I misunderstand what "qualities" means.
In the analogy I would be a figment of the imagination of Niguna Brahman.
It sounds like to me that all that would have to happen is for the dreamer to wake up and I would not be except in the memory of Nirguna Brahman.
Is Nirguna Brahman waking up dependant on me remembering who I am?
And for Nirguna Brahman to be fully awake would that depend on all the dream characters waking up?

 

[SalixIncendium]

It looked a bit complex when I looked it up. Nirguna, Saguna---------does it matter?

Yes. It matters quite a bit in my worldview. But if you think it doesn't matter, then I see no point in pursuing this discourse.

The analogy might not be very good if a being without qualities can dream and especially if I have qualities. Maybe I misunderstand what "qualities" means.
In the analogy I would be a figment of the imagination of Niguna Brahman.
It sounds like to me that all that would have to happen is for the dreamer to wake up and I would not be except in the memory of Nirguna Brahman.
Is Nirguna Brahman waking up dependant on me remembering who I am?
And for Nirguna Brahman to be fully awake would that depend on all the dream characters waking up?

Imagination...memory...awake...

I've already said that "nirguna" translates to "without qualities," qualities defining as distinctive attributes or characteristics possessed by someone or something. Why do you insist on assigning Nirguna Brahman qualities?

 

[Brian2]

Yes. It matters quite a bit in my worldview. But if you think it doesn't matter, then I see no point in pursuing this discourse.

I'm just learning about it. For me God is God.

Imagination...memory...awake...

I've already said that "nirguna" translates to "without qualities," qualities defining as distinctive attributes or characteristics possessed by someone or something. Why do you insist on assigning Nirguna Brahman qualities?

As I said, I'm just learning and was responding to your analogy of a dreaming nirguna Brahman.
Maybe I misunderstood the analogy.
To me God is God and there is no nirguna or saguna God, it is all God.