I am practically indistinguishable from god.

[Ingledsva]

As a student of Vedanta, I regard everything as an expression and part of Brahman, including Atman or self. Therefore, yes, we are in 'the image' of 'God' but this image is only a partial and altered representation of the whole. Consider light passing through a red filter. The red light we see is part of the original white light, but only part. So we are all expressions of 'God' but filtered through our Atman. The goal of Vedanta is to clear away this sense of self as seperate and to observe the anatman or 'non-self' and thus become more our true self, minus the filter, which is 'God'. I think to understand the original words quoted from Christianity requires the recognition that much of the dogma & doctrine (of all religions) has accrued to the original message through the passage of time and to make the teachings more accessible to the peoples of each historical time in the religions development. Once any faith is stripped bare down to the core, original teachings, those original teachings become much clearer.

Boy I definitely agree that it needs to be stripped back. But in some cases it isn't going to happen because the religion now has a vested interest in the "altered" text.

 

[apophenia]

Why does vitually no-one ever acknowledge the point that if we are made 'in the image of god', then god must be "dumb all over, and a little ugly on the side" ? (Frank Zappa).

And if we are all brahman filtered through egos, and the egos are also brahman, then brahman clearly has a tendency to ignorance, delusion and paranoia.

I am being quite serious here. How can a non-dualist claim that brahman is perfect and beyond delusion, yet brahman's manifestation ( us ! ) is ignorant imperfect and deluded ?

That is total rubbish.

My experience informs me that it is possible to experience moments of perfect peace and egoless absorption in the infinite - and then find oneself in a body and a mind with all its agitations and delusions.

Ignorance, delusion, narcissism etc etc are just as much qualities of 'The Supreme' as bliss, eternity and transcendental knowledge.

What is the problem with that exactly ?

 

[NIX]

Why does vitually no-one ever acknowledge the point that if we are made 'in the image of god', then god must be "dumb all over, and a little ugly on the side" ? (Frank Zappa).

And if we are all brahman filtered through egos, and the egos are also brahman, then brahman clearly has a tendency to ignorance, delusion and paranoia.

I am being quite serious here. How can a non-dualist claim that brahman is perfect and beyond delusion, yet brahman's manifestation ( us ! ) is ignorant imperfect and deluded ?

That is total rubbish.

My experience informs me that it is possible to experience moments of perfect peace and egoless absorption in the infinite - and then find oneself in a body and a mind with all its agitations and delusions.

Ignorance, delusion, narcissism etc etc are just as much qualities of 'The Supreme' as bliss, eternity and transcendental knowledge.

What is the problem with that exactly ?

No problem here. :cover:

 

[Ingledsva]

Why does vitually no-one ever acknowledge the point that if we are made 'in the image of god', then god must be "dumb all over, and a little ugly on the side" ? (Frank Zappa).

And if we are all brahman filtered through egos, and the egos are also brahman, then brahman clearly has a tendency to ignorance, delusion and paranoia.

I am being quite serious here. How can a non-dualist claim that brahman is perfect and beyond delusion, yet brahman's manifestation ( us ! ) is ignorant imperfect and deluded ?

That is total rubbish.

My experience informs me that it is possible to experience moments of perfect peace and egoless absorption in the infinite - and then find oneself in a body and a mind with all its agitations and delusions.

Ignorance, delusion, narcissism etc etc are just as much qualities of 'The Supreme' as bliss, eternity and transcendental knowledge.

What is the problem with that exactly ?

Well. There are philosophers whom say we create God in our own image, because we are God, experimenting and experiencing our creation.

 

[apophenia]

No problem here. :cover:

So, you're brain damaged too eh ?

It is fascinating observing the 'non-dualists' and proponents of 'divine perfection' of various flavors inventing rationalisations to exclude the 'ugly' facts of reality from Reality. LOL.


.

 

[apophenia]

Well. There are philosophers whom say we create God in our own image, because we are God, experimenting and experiencing our creation.

Sure, there are.

There are however very few who can accept the idea of an eternal creative intelligence which has no control over its own manifestation.

Even the idea that "we are God, experimenting and experiencing our creation" implies that somehow god, or us, has some control or intention.

There is no evidence for that.

All the evidence suggests to me is that 'we are what we is'.

Not 'because' , or 'as an experiment', or any other way of explaining it which implies some sort of willful control.

If god is eternal, then god never had any say in what god is or does ! Everything is just the way it is, and trying to dress it up as an achievement or intentional act is completely bogus.

 

[Ingledsva]

Sure, there are.

There are however very few who can accept the idea of an eternal creative intelligence which has no control over its own manifestation.

Even the idea that "we are God, experimenting and experiencing our creation" implies that somehow god, or us, has some control or intention.

There is no evidence for that.

All the evidence suggests to me is that 'we are what we is'.

Not 'because' , or 'as an experiment', or any other way of explaining it which implies some sort of willful control.

If god is eternal, then god never had any say in what god is or does ! Everything is just the way it is, and trying to dress it up as an achievement or intentional act is completely bogus.

Uummm! That would be Deism.

 

[apophenia]

[youtube]oblbLHYu6uY[/youtube]
Frank Zappa - You Are What You Is - YouTube

 

[apophenia]

Uummm! That would be Deism.

Ismism is an obsessive compulsive disorder on these forums.

I am making an observation about the nonsense which these isms devolve into when closely analysed, I am not suggesting another one !

 

[Ingledsva]

Ismism is an obsessive compulsive disorder on these forums.

I am making an observation about the nonsense which these isms devolve into when closely analysed, I am not suggesting another one !

Webster

Deism : a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.

 

[apophenia]

Yeah, so ?

What does that have to do with what I posted ?

I did not suggest "a Creator who does not interfere with the laws of the universe". Nor did I advocate 'natural religion', whatever the hell that is. Nor did I 'emphasise morality'.

So my post did not propose even one element of that definition.

And when I said "There are however very few who can accept the idea of an eternal creative intelligence which has no control over its own manifestation.", I was not suggesting that there is a creator. I was making a remark about ideas philosophers and religionists don't generally ever consider. I was not suggesting an improved theology.

It was an observation about philosophers and adherents of certain kinds of beliefs, not a theological proposition.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yeah, so ?

What does that have to do with what I posted ?

I did not suggest "a Creator who does not interfere with the laws of the universe". Nor did I advocate 'natural religion', whatever the hell that is. Nor did I 'emphasise morality'.

So my post did not propose even one element of that definition.

And when I said "There are however very few who can accept the idea of an eternal creative intelligence which has no control over its own manifestation.", I was not suggesting that there is a creator. I was making a remark about ideas philosophers and religionists don't generally ever consider. I was not suggesting an improved theology.

It was an observation about philosophers and adherents of certain kinds of beliefs, not a theological proposition.

Well then you should have been a little clearer. Yes?

 

[apophenia]

Well then you should have been a little clearer. Yes?

Probably. I didn't intend my remarks to be too serious. Sorry if I got a little spiky.