Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Oh no, another bit of new-age jargon! I'm still waiting for a glossary of these pretentious proper nouns. Do you make them up as you go along?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
Oh no, another bit of new-age jargon! I'm still waiting for a glossary of these pretentious proper nouns. Do you make them up as you go along?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
To my perspective this so-called "The Changeless" could not possibly relate to change. Change would be a totally alien concept and experience, so your assertion is meaningless.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Oh no, another bit of new-age jargon! I'm still waiting for a glossary of these pretentious proper nouns. Do you make them up as you go along?
Critical analysis of vedAnta paribhAShA Part XVII
Dr. K. Sadananda
Part XVII - brahman is the changeless substantive
"....the whole universe is transitory; that is, it keeps changing continuously. If something is changing continuously, then there has to be some substantive that remains changeless in the changing things. If ring changes into bangle, and bangle into necklace, there has to be a substantive that is different from a ring or necklace that remain as changeless in all these changes. In this case, it is the gold that remains changeless as the ring changes to bangle and bangle to necklace, etc. Hence if the world is continuously changing as we can see, then there has to be a changeless entity in the changing things. Hence Brahman alone can be the changeless substantive for the transient universe."
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/brahman.htm
*****
"Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."
*****
http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html
You must have wasted all your precious time as a Buddhish, as you don't seem to understand that The Changeless is the ultimate goal of the spiritual quest.
Must be that stagnant backwater of ignorance you immerse yourself in.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Look inside your own mind, that's what producing all these strange ideas.
They're only strange to the stagnant mind of ignorance.
godnotgod
Thou art That
That is how it seems to the unenlightened. But the reality is that you cannot know change without it being seen against the background of that which is changeless, just as you cannot know black without knowing white. There is relative change and relative changelesness, which must go hand in hand. They are inseparable. Behind both is The Absolute; The Changeless.
You are seeing these values in opposition, when in reality, they are totally relative and complimentary. That is the problem with your 'perspective'.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
That's clearly a religious belief, one of many that you seem to have sewn randomly into your strange new-age tapestry.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Or somebody who thinks they are a god.
There are many who think they are god, but only a few who know they are.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
So are you claiming to be enlightened then? Or maybe you are claiming to be a god?! Where will it end?!
godnotgod
Thou art That
Another knee-jerk reaction executed without thinking things through. Do you even have a mind? You attack the pointing finger without bothering to look at what is pointed to. Did you understand what the author was even saying?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I get it, Godnotgod, I just don't buy into it. Realistically a changeless being could not relate to change as it would have no comparable experience. It would fully counter-intuitive. In other words change would not occur to a changeless "being".
PS: Thanks for outing yourself as being enlightened.
godnotgod
Thou art That
So are you claiming to be enlightened then? Or maybe you are claiming to be a god?! Where will it end?!
No, I am claiming that change and the changeless only seem to be in opposition to the unenlightened. Understand?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, I did, I just didn't find it very convincing. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant....delusions of grandeur perhaps?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I doubt the author understood what he was saying.
godnotgod
Thou art That
You clearly are NOT getting it! Who ever said anything about a 'changeless being'?
If you get it, then you've bought it. Problem is, you don't get it, but you pretend you do.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
How would you know though?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Again, pure projection on your part. I think you need to look at yourself much more closely.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I find that people who say they understand something but don't buy it are ignorant by choice. If you understand it, then what is your problem? I know: you're still attached to that stagnant backwater doctrine, where you can play it safe in your cozy little world of Buddhish.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Actually you're just not very good at this, my dear fellow.
My reading comprehension is quite far beyond the norm. I get what I am reading, however I see it as baloney.(Edit: Forgive the original typo, as I am typing in the dark.)