It really isn't possible is it?

[Majin Buu]

Unfortunately a person could prove existence of the Mona Lisa by simply telling you where it is hanging, in which you could easily prove or disprove their story. You simply saying that god exists isn't good enough.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Anything more insightful to add?

Nope.

While most believers and non-believers are conditioned to believe science, religion, psychology, and philosophy are the only tools and disciplines we have to guide us in the pursuit of the question of God's existence, they are really curtains that obscure the object of discourse. In this vein, agnosticism ignores the fact that nearly all the world's religions have “mystical” traditions that posit there is a mystery that underlies life and confounds the ego-mind, which sees only the ripples playing on the surface in the form of ideas and not the cause. An eye, the “mystics” tell us, cannot see itself: the eye, the source of our vision, is “heard,” “known” or “felt” by the seeing, not the seen. Seeking God, we fail because He is not found or discovered through intellection. Rather, He am only realized in oneness, unity, and wholeness.

Agnosticism is simply a way of saying there is insufficient reason to observe: agnostics see but do not see the seeing.

There is nothing new or mysterious about all this. I'm merely pointing to things that have been known for thousands of years and in many disguises. We all see through a “glass darkly,” but for some, the glass is so opaque as be uninteresting. Once an interest is acquired, however, the ego-mind will pound away until, feeling frustrated and somewhat distrustful, it gives up in its struggle to conceptualize the structure that underlies all of existence. Sometimes it walks away, sometimes it discovers suddenly and quite by accident that the door opens in the other direction. Sometimes, instead pounding and pushing at the door, it tries another tactic: it slowly and cautiously pulls, opening the door from within.

 

[Phasmid]

Nope.

While most believers and non-believers are conditioned to believe science, religion, psychology, and philosophy are the only tools and disciplines we have to guide us in the pursuit of the question of God's existence, they are really curtains that obscure the object of discourse. In this vein, agnosticism ignores the fact that nearly all the world's religions have “mystical” traditions that posit there is a mystery that underlies life and confounds the ego-mind, which sees only the ripples playing on the surface in the form of ideas and not the cause. An eye, the “mystics” tell us, cannot see itself: the eye, the source of our vision, is “heard,” “known” or “felt” by the seeing, not the seen. Seeking God, we fail because He is not found or discovered through intellection. Rather, He am only realized in oneness, unity, and wholeness.

Agnosticism is simply a way of saying there is insufficient reason to observe: agnostics see but do not see the seeing.

There is nothing new or mysterious about all this. I'm merely pointing to things that have been known for thousands of years and in many disguises. We all see through a “glass darkly,” but for some, the glass is so opaque as be uninteresting. Once an interest is acquired, however, the ego-mind will pound away until, feeling frustrated and somewhat distrustful, it gives up in its struggle to conceptualize the structure that underlies all of existence. Sometimes it walks away, sometimes it discovers suddenly and quite by accident that the door opens in the other direction. Sometimes, instead pounding and pushing at the door, it tries another tactic: it slowly and cautiously pulls, opening the door from within.

See, now that's what we're here for. Well said.

 

[Quagmire]

Agnosticism is the only logical stance with regards to religion. Discuss...

When it comes down to it, I think "I don't know" is the sanest, most logical, and most honest answer to most of life's questions. Especially when it comes to something that by it's nature is supposed to be beyond comphrehension

 

[Rolling_Stone]

"He am only realized in oneness, unity, and wholeness." Sbeesh. where were my head when I wrote that? :sarcastic

 

[Phasmid]

"He am only realized in oneness, unity, and wholeness." Sbeesh. where were my head when I wrote that? :sarcastic

Same place I am I imagine... sleep deprived.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

When it comes down to it, I think "I don't know" is the sanest, most logical, and most honest answer to most of life's questions.

Not if the "knowing" is experiential.

Especially when it comes to something that by it's nature is supposed to be beyond comphrehension

Just because something is incomprehensible doesn't mean it can't be known experientially. (This is so obvious that to cite an example would be rather dumb.)

Edit: Read The Woman, Castle & Moat

 

[Quagmire]

Not if the "knowing" is experiential.

How do you know you've ever actually experienced anything?

Just because something is incomprehensible doesn't mean it can't be known. (This is so obvious that to cite an example would be rather dumb.)

I think you're confusing "know" as in "is familiar with", with "know" as in "am certain".

 

[little_monkey]

When it comes down to it, I think "I don't know" is the sanest, most logical, and most honest answer to most of life's questions. Especially when it comes to something that by it's nature is supposed to be beyond comphrehension

I guess you would have to make the same rational thinking for the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster and a whole sle of imaginary friends...

 

[Rolling_Stone]

How do you know you've ever actually experienced anything?



I think you're confusing "know" as in "is familiar with", with "know" as in "am certain".

Part 2 first: I said it was so obvious it was kinda dumb to cite an example, but here goes: you can know scuba diving from a book or you can know it from experience. Whose knowlege is more certain as to what it is like? Do I not know what color is better than a colorblind person?

I will answer part 1 with a Discourse from Wingmakers:


Experiencing the Wholeness Navigator (part 1)

Student: What prevents me from experiencing my innermost self?

Teacher: Nothing.

Student: Then why don’t I experience it?

Teacher: Fear.

Student: So, then fear prevents me?

Teacher: Nothing prevents you.

Student: But didn’t you just say that fear is the reason I can’t experience this state of consciousness?

Teacher: Yes, but it does not prevent you.

Student: Then what does?

Teacher: Nothing.

Student: Then what role does fear play?

Teacher: If you are in prison, what do you fear most when you dream of being liberated?

Student: Returning to prison… So, you’re saying that I fear experiencing my inmost self because I will return to my ignorance.

Teacher: No. I am saying that your fear of ignorance holds you in ignorance.

Student: I’m confused. I thought you were saying that I feared the experience of my highest self, but now it sounds like you’re saying that I fear my human self. Which is it?

Teacher: You fear the return to your human self after experiencing the God-fragment within you.

Student: Why?

Teacher: If you are thirsting in the desert, what is it that you desire above all else?

Student: Water?

Teacher: So if I gave you a glass of water, you’d be satisfied?

Student: Yes.

Teacher: For how long?

Student: Okay. I see your point. What I would desire above all else is to be near water so I could drink whenever I wanted, or better yet, I would want to leave the desert entirely.

Teacher: And if you loved the desert, wouldn’t you fear to leave it?

Student: You’re saying that I fear the experience of my inmost self because I would want to leave this world behind, but how can I fear this when I have no experience of it whatsoever?

Teacher: This is not the fear that floods your body when someone is about to kill you. It is the fear of a shadow so mysterious, ancient, and primordial that you know immediately that it transcends this life and this world, and its knowing will change you irrevocably.

Student: So it’s really this change that I fear?

Teacher: It’s the irrevocability of the change that you fear.

Student: But how do you know? How do you know I fear this so much that I cannot experience my inmost self?

Teacher: In order to keep the human instrument in stable interaction with its world, the designers of the human instrument created certain sensory constraints. Because these were not absolutely effective, there was also designed into the Genetic Mind of the human species an instinctual fear of being displaced from its dominant reality. For these two reasons, I know.

Student: But this isn’t fair. You’re saying my capacity to experience my inmost self has been diminished by the very beings that designed it. Why? Why should I be continually frustrated to know I have a God-fragment inside me, but not be allowed to interact with it?

Teacher: Do you love this world?

Student: Yes.

Teacher: You are here as a human instrument to interact with this world and attune to its dominant reality, and bring your understanding of your inmost self to this world even if this understanding is not pure, strong, or clear.

Student: But if I had this experience of my inmost self, couldn’t I bring more of this understanding into this world?

Teacher: This is the fallacy that frustrates you. Do you think the experience of this sublime energy and intelligence can be reduced to human translation?

Student: Yes.

Teacher: Then how?

Student: I can teach others how it feels to be in rapport with their souls. I can bring more light to this world and inspire others to seek this out within themselves. Isn’t this what you do?

Teacher: Have I taught you how to achieve this state?

Student: No. But you have inspired me.

Teacher: Are you sure? Haven’t I just told you that you can’t experience this state in the human instrument? Is that inspiration by your definition?

Student: I didn’t mean in this specific case, but you inspire me to think deeper into the issues or problems that confront me.

Teacher: If you want to bring more light into this world, why will interaction with your inmost self enable you to do so?

Student: That’s just it. I don’t know if it will. It just seems logical that it would. Don’t all good teachers have this insight? Don’t you?
​

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Experiencing the Wholeness Navigator (part 2)​

Teacher: It’s true that there are teachers who can switch their dominant realities, and have learned to integrate this in their life without losing balance or effectiveness in this world, but they are extremely rare.​

Student: I know this. But this is what I aspire to learn. It is learned isn’t it? Can’t you teach me?​

Teacher: No, it is not learned. It is not teachable. It is not acquired through instruction, esoteric technique, or revelatory process.​

Student: Then how do those teachers who have this ability acquire it?​

Teacher: No one acquires this ability. That’s my point. No teacher within a human instrument on Earth at this time, or any previous, has the ability to live as a human and simultaneously live as a God-fragment. Nor does any teacher juggle between these realities with certainty and control.​

Student: I’m surprised to hear this. Why is this so?​

Teacher: For the same reasons I told you earlier. Do you not think this applies to all humans?​

Student: Even Jesus?​

Teacher: Even Jesus.​

Student: Then why do I have this desire? Who put this notion into my head that I should be able to experience this inmost self or God-fragment?​

Teacher: If one experiences the wind, do they not understand something of a hurricane?​

Student: I suppose.​

Teacher: And if they experience the rain, don’t they understand even more about hurricanes?​

Student: Yes.​

Teacher: If you never experienced a hurricane, but you experienced wind and rain, might you be able to imagine a hurricane better than if you never experienced wind and rain?​

Student: I should think so.​

Teacher: Such is the case of the God-fragment within the human instrument. You can experience unconditional love, supernal beauty, harmony, reverence, and wholeness, and in so doing, you can imagine the features and capabilities of the God-fragment within you. Some teachers have simply touched more of the edges of the God-fragment than others, but I assure you, none have entered into its depths while living in the human instrument.​

Student: But don’t some teachers travel outside their body?​

Teacher: Yes, but they are still living in a human instrument whilst they travel. Everything I said still applies.​

Student: So what do I do? Give up the desire to have this experience?​

Teacher: There is a fish that can leave its underwater world upon the equivalent of wings. While it is only for a short time, it experiences the realm of the air-breathers. Do you think this flying fish ever desires to touch a cloud, climb a tree, or venture into a forest?​

Student: I don’t know… I doubt it.​

Teacher: Then why does it fly above the water?​

Student: I suppose it’s an instinct, something of an evolutionary imperative—​

Teacher: Exactly.​

Student: So you’re saying this is true of humans as well. We strive to experience our God-fragment out of an evolutionary imperative or compulsion?​

Teacher: Yes, and like the flying fish, when we break from our world it is only for a short time and we fall beneath the surface once again. But while we are above the surface of our world, we momentarily forget we are just a human with a beginning and an end. Yet, when we do this, we do not imagine that we can touch the face of God within ourselves.​

Student: But I do. I feel that I can, and even should, touch this God-fragment.

Teacher: You think this way because you have the hopeful exuberance and naïveté of a person unacquainted with the experience of First Source.

Student: So you don’t feel this way?​

Teacher: Anyone attuned to the highest vibrations of their innermost self will feel this and be guided by it. The only difference is that I am content in knowing that I will not experience it while I am embodied in a human instrument.​

Student: And what does this contentment provide you that I don’t have?
Teacher: The ability to channel my energy into this world rather than to apply it in the pursuit of another.​

Student: But I thought you said it is an evolutionary imperative? How do I control this desire or ambition?​

Teacher: Live in this world with all your passion and strength. See the God-fragment in this world, even if it is only a diminished beacon or tired light. See it! Nurture it! Do not be so quick to look for it in the depths of your heart or mind where you believe it might be.​

Student: It’s hard not to be disheartened at the sound of these words. It is like someone telling me that the vision I had was merely a mirage, or a trick of the light.​

Teacher: This is a world of shadows and echoes. You can chase the source of these if you desire, but you will likely do so at the loss of living in this world. You will diminish your experience of the shadows and echoes, and this is the very reason you incarnated upon this planet at this time.​

Student: But it sounds so passive, as if I should settle for experiencing this world, and not try to change it. I feel like I’m here with a mission to improve it, to change it for the better, and I’m missing some experience, some capability to do this. What is it I feel and why?​

Teacher: When you experience the warmth of the sun, do you change the sun?​

Student: No.​

Teacher: And if you hold a piece of ice in your hands, do you change it?​

Student: Yes. It begins to melt.​

Teacher: So there are some things you can only experience, and there are some things you can change.​

Student: And I should know the difference.​

Teacher: It helps.​

Student: I know this. It’s elementary. I’m not sure it helps me feel less disheartened.​

Teacher: You know this, I agree, but you have not necessarily practiced it. It is a principle of life to practice discretion and discernment, and while people will think this concept elementary, it is a critical difference in living life in a state of fulfillment or, as you put it, frustration.​

Student: So I can’t change the fact that the God-fragment within me is unknowable to my human mind, and I need to accept that. Is that the lesson to be learned here?

Teacher: No.​

Student: Then what is?​

Teacher: The concept of the God-fragment within you has power. It can be contemplated, but it cannot be experienced as a dominant reality in a human instrument. Through this contemplative approach you can learn discernment, and through this discernment you will learn how to navigate in the world of shadows and echoes in such a way that you bring changes that are in accord with the objectives of First Source. You externalize the will of the God-fragment, rather than seek its experience. In so doing, you eliminate the fear and frustration energies that flow through your mind.​

Student: Thank you. Your teaching just struck the chord I have been seeking since I found this path, and I feel its resonance.​

Teacher: In resonance you will be guided. (emphasis mine)​

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I know this is off topic, but I want to make a a short comment on the dialogue's conclusion,"In resonance you will be guided."

Resonance leads to no-resonance; i.e., awareness without the intervention of self.

 

[Tiberius]

Agnosticism is the only logical stance with regards to religion. Discuss...

There are fairies that live in your wardrobe, but they vanish whenever you try to find them.

Do you believe this?

Are you a wardrobe fairy agnostic?

I didn't think so.

 

[Phasmid]

There are fairies that live in your wardrobe, but they vanish whenever you try to find them.

Do you believe this?

Are you a wardrobe fairy agnostic?

I didn't think so.

I think the God concept is a lot deeper than the wardrobe fairy concept.

 

[Troublemane]

If you have no personal experience with a phenomenon then logically you may not have any position on its existence or non-existence, except through the testimony of witnesses. now, while true you have to use your brains to determine the veracity of a person's story, we have to admit that MOST (if not all) of the religious texts we have today which give accounts of the various prophets' interactions with God, are second-hand information at best (most of the time fifth-hand, sixth or more...)so we can expect that over time and numerous persons adding their own little "flair" to the story, the actual facts are obscured by millennia of commentary, speculation and traditional belief.

But logic cant tell a person what to believe. You decide how you will believe based on perceptions, opinions you have heard from other people---in the absence of direct personal experience this is no better IMO than the fanatic who buys the entire story as factual.

 

[little_monkey]

There are fairies that live in your wardrobe, but they vanish whenever you try to find them.

Do you believe this?

Not to forget the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster, how do we know they exist or not?

Heck, to be fair we should all be agnostic to all those imaginary creatures that come out of our fertile imagination...

 

[little_monkey]

I think the God concept is a lot deeper than the wardrobe fairy concept.

That's because the wardrobe has expanded to infinity...

 

[Phasmid]

That's because the wardrobe has expanded to infinity...

And has changed the world in untold ways, has inspired billions, has given people unimaginable conviction... it's even brough the likes of you and I here to discuss it. It's not something to be shrugged off as a fairy tale.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I think the God concept is a lot deeper than the wardrobe fairy concept.

God is deeper than the God-concept, too.

If you have no personal experience with a phenomenon then logically you may not have any position on its existence or non-existence, except through the testimony of witnesses. now, while true you have to use your brains to determine the veracity of a person's story, we have to admit that MOST (if not all) of the religious texts we have today which give accounts of the various prophets' interactions with God, are second-hand information at best (most of the time fifth-hand, sixth or more...)so we can expect that over time and numerous persons adding their own little "flair" to the story, the actual facts are obscured by millennia of commentary, speculation and traditional belief.

But logic cant tell a person what to believe. You decide how you will believe based on perceptions, opinions you have heard from other people---in the absence of direct personal experience this is no better IMO than the fanatic who buys the entire story as factual.

True. The dialogue is just that: pointing to experience subject to personal interpretation. The magnitude of Infinite Being is such that, to man, Its vastness is both invisible and unavoidable, like water to a fish. God is the very same oneness that you feel when you are interconnected with all of life, for He is that alone. Its absence does not exist. Looked for, we will not find It. It is not something found or discovered, but only realized in unity, oneness and wholeness.

God cannot be conceived, but concept is necessary for contemplation. And those who canot see beyond concept have no vision--and we know what William James said about that.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

That's because the wardrobe has expanded to infinity...

Thanks to science, it has indeed not only expanded to infinity, but has also coalesced it into a unity.

(I get the impression atheists hate it when science seems to conspire against them)