godnotgod
Thou art That
During which time? We are talking about walking on rice paper now. In fact, I don't mean it in the literal, but in the metaphorical sense. Let's just call it the 'rice paper of the mind' shall we?
-
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!
The Debate of God.
- Thread starter Daviso452
- Start date
During which time? We are talking about walking on rice paper now. In fact, I don't mean it in the literal, but in the metaphorical sense. Let's just call it the 'rice paper of the mind' shall we?
Absolute Zero
fon memories
Rice paper I belive orginated in japan,Ill have to dubole check my facts anyways what are you talking about ?
godnotgod
Thou art That
My info indicates it originated in China in either the Han or Tang Dynasty and later introduced into the Middle East via the Silk Road.
Shaolin monks, in ancient times, had to purportedly learn to walk on a length of rice paper without tearing it as part of their rite of passage. This requires the stilling of the mind to achieve the necessary balance to do so.
Absolute Zero
fon memories
So what does that have to do with God
godnotgod
Thou art That
The rational mind must first be stilled before the divine nature comes into play.
Zennists call the thinking mind, 'monkey mind', not because it has the intellect of a monkey, but because it jumps about like a monkey. Only a mind that is perfectly calm is capable of traversing the rice paper without tearing it.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
So you don't believe in evolution either.
Man did not evolve from the ape?
And interactions between God and His prophets....Moses...Jesus...Muhammad...none of these are worthy and their words mean nothing?
That you have chosen an empty mind...
doesn't mean the rest of us have it wrong.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Of course evolution is a fact, but what has that to do with what I've said?
I suppose that by 'words' you mean scripture, which is a second-hand account of the first-hand spiritual experience. In many cases, scripture has passed through many hands and is corrupted. What is ultimately more important than the words of the prophets is your direct spiritual experience itself. What good is mere belief in their words without a true understanding? Jesus, or more properly, Yeshu, tried to tell his audience just that, when he said:
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me"
John 5:39
In other words, Yeshu knew they were placing the cart ahead of the horse; they had it backwards. So the mystics regard scripture as a secondary reference. It is the first-hand, direct experience with the divine nature within that is nurtured instead.
An empty mind is not concerned with right or wrong, gain or loss, heaven or hell, good or evil. It is free of these attachments to duality.
When Yeshu said:
'Except ye be converted, and become as little
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. ... '
Matthew 18:3
what do you suppose he meant?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
godnotgod
Thou art That
Adults like to learn things too, so learning is not a distinction of the mind of a little child. In fact, adults make a huge issue of knowledge, while children seem more concerned with play.
What does learning have to do with entering the Kingdom of Heaven?
So can you think of some other attribute for little children that makes their view different from that of adults? What do you suppose Yeshu was referring to?
confused453
Active Member
Here's what I believe so far. Humans are not God, god or gods. God is just a fictional character with no single universal definition. It's kind of like a substitution for "I don't know" for mentally lazy people.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Is there an Ultimate Reality, an Absolute not dependent upon the phenomenal world?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Your trying to lead with a poor question.
Is this not contrary to your stance concerning existence.
Children don't learn the same way adults do.
As with yourself, there is a mindset in the way.
The basic problem of teaching adults.
Last edited:
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Can you demonstrate that this is a meaningful question and not just word salad?
godnotgod
Thou art That
You're straying away from the issue at hand. Once again:
Yeshu said:
'Except ye be converted, and become as little
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. ... '
Matthew 18:3
So what does your answer, ie; that children have an attitude of learning, have to do with entry into the Kingdom of Heaven?
In other words, what does 'become ye as little children' mean, in terms of qualifying for entry into Paradise?
Do you understand the question?
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I understand ....completely.
Entry into heaven....
Their language...their territory...their scheme of things.
You get to drop your mindset...and learn all over again.
Of course dropping your mind altogether is spiritual death.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
It means that what is asked makes sense. I can construct grammatically correct questions about square triangles, for example, but those questions are meaningless.
I am not convinced that the phrase "Ultimate Reality" actually conveys anything, for example. It is not clear to me that "reality" is something to which the word "ultimate" can be applied, just as "triangle" is not something top which "square" can be applied.
godnotgod
Thou art That
OK. I'll try to have a conversation with you.
Firstly, what is meant here by 'Absolute', is a condition or state which has no opposite. It is not a relative state, such as relative joy and relative sorrow, or good and evil, for example.
In our ordinary reality, the world is made up of separate 'things', which are relative to one another. But it is in this very relationship that they are NOT separate things, but together all make up just one single reality, to which there is no comparison.
Secondly, it is independent of the phenomenal world, or the universe as manifested or created. So, if the phenomenal world as we know it, including ourselves, were to vanish altogether in the next moment, is there something against which it is manifested, ie; a background, or field, which is a constant, a something that is a no-thing, that has no beginning or end; that is 'always so'.
As for 'making sense', it is oxymoronic to expect the rational mind, which encapsulates what it knows via concept and idea, to 'make sense' of that which is beyond such encapsulation. It has been said that the only way one can speak of the Absolute is in negative terms, since any positive description is such an encapsulation.
*****
"Let's suppose you were able, every night, to dream any dream you wanted to dream, and that you could for example have the power to dream in one night 75 years worth of time. Or any length of time you wanted to have. And you would, naturally, as you began on this adventure of dreams, fulfill all your wishes. You would have every kind of pleasure you could conceive. And after several nights of 75 years of total pleasure each, you would say 'Well, that was pretty great. But now let's have a surprise. Let's have a dream which isn't under control, where something is going to happen to me that I don't know what it's going to be.' And you would dig that, and come out of it and say 'That was a close shave, now wasn't it?' Then you would get more and more adventurous, and you would make further and further gambles as to what you would dream, and finally you would dream where you are now. You would dream the dream of the life that you are actually living today. That would be within the infinite multiplicity of the choices you would have. Of playing that you weren't God. Because the whole nature of the godhead, according to this idea, is to play that he's not. The first thing that he says to himself is 'Man, get lost,' because he gives himself away. The nature of love is self-abandonment, not clinging to oneself....See? And that keeps things moving. That's the nature of life.
So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not. And it's perfectly OK to pretend you're not, to be perfectly convinced, because this is the whole notion of drama. When you come into the theater, there is an arch, and a stage, and down there is the audience. Everybody assumes their seats in the theater, gone to see a comedy, a tragedy, a thriller, whatever it is, and they all know as they come in and pay their admissions, that what is going to happen on the stage is not for real. But the actors have a conspiracy against this, because they're going to try and persuade the audience that what is happening on the stage IS for real. They want to get everybody sitting on the edge of their chairs, they want you terrified, or crying, or laughing. Absolutely captivated by the drama. And if a skillful human actor can take in an audience and make people cry, think what the cosmic actor can do. Why he can take himself in completely. He can play so much for real that he thinks he really is. Like you sitting in this room, you think you're really here. Well, you've persuaded yourself that way. You've acted it so damn well that you KNOW that this is the real world. But you're playing it...."
“You are the which than which there is no whicher.”
excerpted from 'The Nature of Consciousness', by Alan Watts
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
I can see by your answer that you do not understand the question. Let me try again:
Exactly what is it about a child's mind that qualifies him for entry into Paradise, according to Yeshua?
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
re: Ultimate Reality, for you Science-minded people:
"If we propose an observer-independent reality, we must realize that an observer-independent reality is not testable, so according to the current principles of science, we cannot say it exists: the scientific conclusion would be that an observer-independent reality does not exist.
It is an interesting paradox that science finds itself in. Science says that there is an observer-independent reality and you do not need a conscious observer to manifest reality. At the same time without an observer this reality is not testable, so it cannot exist."
Deepak Chopra
*****
[youtube]nIRPba6bO0A[/youtube]
Is There An Ultimate Reality? Ask Deepak! - YouTube
"If we propose an observer-independent reality, we must realize that an observer-independent reality is not testable, so according to the current principles of science, we cannot say it exists: the scientific conclusion would be that an observer-independent reality does not exist.
It is an interesting paradox that science finds itself in. Science says that there is an observer-independent reality and you do not need a conscious observer to manifest reality. At the same time without an observer this reality is not testable, so it cannot exist."
Deepak Chopra
*****
[youtube]nIRPba6bO0A[/youtube]
Is There An Ultimate Reality? Ask Deepak! - YouTube