The Debate of God.

[Thief]

There is no 'next' world that anyone knows of or has ever gone to and returned from to tell the tale; there is only THIS world right under your very nose that we know of for certain. The 'next' world is none other than 'this' world. All you need do is to arrive. That is the only thing that 'waits for you'.

So when are you going to get off the merry go round, Thief, and arrive so that you can begin living your new life here on Paradise Earth?

Next stop: The Kingdom of God Within, Here, Now.:yes:

This one part would be correct.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.... on earth as it is in heaven.

When spoken it is the kingdom coming into you.
Your response should move in that direction.

The Kingdom, however....is not of this world.

The action you perform day by day, displays your ability to make that move...from this world to the next.

Unless of course, you know a prophet greater than the Carpenter.
Would that be 'you'?

 

[confused453]

An excellent question...
it falls to the category of 'proving God'.

You just have to think about it.

Perhaps you prefer the word 'if'.....?

'If' there is not god....your are dust headed for the grave....nothing more.
'If' there is a God....you have many things to consider.

Like two sides of a coin....chose....
Tails you lose and die an empty shell.
Heads you win....but you then have to think about it.

We, as humans, can't even agree on a single definition for God. Then why bother with God at all? The real truth will be discovered when we die anyway. If God exists, why would he care if we believe in him or not?

'If' there is not god....your are dust headed for the grave....nothing more.

If that's the truth, there's no much you can do about it.

'If' there is a God....you have many things to consider.

If that's the truth, you're God's slave for eternity. I don't see how that can be good. Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thief]

We, as humans, can't even agree on a single definition for God. Then why bother with God at all? The real truth will be discovered when we die anyway. If God exists, why would he care if we believe in him or not?

And you suggest then ....we crossover into the next life....
stand before heaven....with no consideration in mind?

If that's the truth, there's no much you can do about it.

You might consider heaven...and what it takes to be there.

If that's the truth, you're God's slave for eternity. I don't see how that can be good. Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Going along with the scheme of things is not slavery.

To walk in heaven, some requirements will be met.
(Do unto others as you would have them do unto you)

Otherwise...it's all free.

 

[godnotgod]

This one part would be correct.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.... on earth as it is in heaven.

When spoken it is the kingdom coming into you.
Your response should move in that direction.

No, it should not. That is not what Yeshu said, or implied. What he said exactly, was:


Luke 17:20-21
King James Version (KJV)

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Notice his words: 'not with observation', meaning without looking for it 'out there'.

The Kingdom, however....is not of this world.

You are misunderstanding scripture. He does not mean some 'other' world beyond this world. He means that this world has been corrupted. There is but one world, and this is it, and the Kingdom of God, or Paradise, lies within, as he says. So you see, what he is really saying when he says it is within, is that Paradise is a state of spiritual consciousness, not a physical place, let alone a place somewhere 'out there'.* This is further corroborated when he says that, in order to enter into Paradise, one must 'become ye as little children'. That does not mean they are astronauts and journey to a heaven in the clouds; it means that children have a certain way of looking at things; it means looking without judgment. We call this kind of view that of being in the mind of innocency (no, not innocence!). The mind of innocency is a mind which sees things as they are, without taking up a position either for or against, without contending, without any idea of right or wrong, good or evil. It is exactly the mind which Yeshu refers to when he also says:


"Judge not, lest ye be judged"

The action you perform day by day, displays your ability to make that move...from this world to the next.

Any such 'next' world is always 'this' world 'within', again:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!

Unless of course, you know a prophet greater than the Carpenter.
Would that be 'you'?

More like you, since you like to make things up that Yeshu did not say or imply. But, then again, the Truth IS bent to fit YOUR teeth, is it not?
*****

*In Zen, there is a story of a Samurai warrior creating heaven and hell on earth:


The Gates of Paradise

A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a hell?"

"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.

"I am a samurai", the warrior replied.

"You, a soldier!" sneered Hakuin, "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? You look like a beggar".

Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword.

Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably to dull to cut off my head."

Nobushige drew his sword.

Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of hell!"

At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, put away his sword and bowed.

"Here open the gates of paradise", said Hakuin.

From 'Zen flesh, Zen bones'

 

[Thief]

No, it should not. That is not what Yeshu said, or implied. What he said exactly, was:


Luke 17:20-21
King James Version (KJV)

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Notice his words: 'not with observation', meaning without looking for it 'out there'.



You are misunderstanding scripture. He does not mean some 'other' world beyond this world. He means that this world has been corrupted. There is but one world, and this is it, and the Kingdom of God, or Paradise, lies within, as he says. So you see, what he is really saying when he says it is within, is that Paradise is a state of spiritual consciousness, not a physical place, let alone a place somewhere 'out there'.* This is further corroborated when he says that, in order to enter into Paradise, one must 'become ye as little children'. That does not mean they are astronauts and journey to a heaven in the clouds; it means that children have a certain way of looking at things; it means looking without judgment. We call this kind of view that of being in the mind of innocency (no, not innocence!). The mind of innocency is a mind which sees things as they are, without taking up a position either for or against, without contending, without any idea of right or wrong, good or evil. It is exactly the mind which Yeshu refers to when he also says:


"Judge not, lest ye be judged"



Any such 'next' world is always 'this' world 'within', again:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!



More like you, since you like to make things up that Yeshu did not say or imply. But, then again, the Truth IS bent to fit YOUR teeth, is it not?
*****

*In Zen, there is a story of a Samurai warrior creating heaven and hell on earth:


The Gates of Paradise

A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a hell?"

"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.

"I am a samurai", the warrior replied.

"You, a soldier!" sneered Hakuin, "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? You look like a beggar".

Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword.

Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably to dull to cut off my head."

Nobushige drew his sword.

Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of hell!"

At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, put away his sword and bowed.

"Here open the gates of paradise", said Hakuin.

From 'Zen flesh, Zen bones'

All of that...and you forgot that thief on the cross beside Him.
What were those words?

It would seem a continuance was at hand.

Oh btw... have you seen my old thread ...Swordplay?

 

[godnotgod]

We, as humans, can't even agree on a single definition for God. Then why bother with God at all? The real truth will be discovered when we die anyway. If God exists, why would he care if we believe in him or not?

You can only 'see' as God 'sees' when you have completely exhausted all definitions of God. Any attempt to define God is an attempt to encapsulate the Infinite via the finite, and that is not possible.

You can only discover Truth in the here and now. The past is dead; the future non-existent.

Belief in God is not the question or concern. What you should care about is your own realization of your full potential as a human being, and that translates directly to a higher state of consciousness beyond the limited rational mind, or Absolute Joy. But it matters not whether you partake of it or not. That is your choice. It does'nt ultimately care, in the same manner that a bubbling mountain spring does'nt care whether you stop to partake of its refreshment.

 

[godnotgod]

All of that...and you forgot that thief on the cross beside Him.
What were those words?

It would seem a continuance was at hand.

Yes, but not a continuance of who you were, but a continuance of the Infinite as it was before any 'you' came into being, in the same manner as the sea continues on after the wave has broken, and whose form is no more.

Neither wave nor you ever existed from the very beginning.

 

[Thief]

Yes, but not a continuance of who you were, but a continuance of the Infinite as it was before any 'you' came into being, in the same manner as the sea continues on after the wave has broken, and whose form is no more.

Neither wave nor you ever existed from the very beginning.

You are so wishy washy....
Drawn a line and stick to it.

We ARE here to become 'you' and 'me'.
This form we walk around in can do nothing else.

And yes, the Carpenter did speak of continuance ....as in person.

Not much point in creating Man only to have his spirit dissipate.

 

[godnotgod]

You are so wishy washy....
Drawn a line and stick to it.

We ARE here to become 'you' and 'me'.
This form we walk around in can do nothing else.

And yes, the Carpenter did speak of continuance ....as in person.

Not much point in creating Man only to have his spirit dissipate.

So are you saying you were not really you before you 'became' you after arriving here? If not, then who were you prior to your becoming the you that you have become? And do you suppose you, as you have now become, will continue on into Paradise in your present incarnation? And if so, what the hell for, as you will be nothing more than a 'has been'?

I am very sorry, but we do not allow 'has beens' into Paradise.:slap:

Next!
*****

The Other Side of Life…

One day a young Buddhist traveller came to the banks of a wide and deep river. There was no way to cross and he walked along the edge of the water for miles, feeling hopeless. Just as he was about to give up and go back the way he had come, he saw a wise Zen Master on the opposite bank of the river. The young Buddhist called to the Master, “Oh great teacher, can you tell me how to get to the other side of this river?”

The Zen Master stood for a moment, silently watching the rushing stream and then yelled to the traveller: “My friend - you ARE on the other side!”

 

[Thief]

So are you saying you were not really you before you 'became' you after arriving here? If not, then who were you prior to your becoming the you that you have become? And do you suppose you, as you have now become, will continue on into Paradise in your present incarnation? And if so, what the hell for, as you will be nothing more than a 'has been'?

I am very sorry, but we do not allow 'has beens' into Paradise.:slap:

Next!
*****

The Other Side of Life…

One day a young Buddhist traveller came to the banks of a wide and deep river. There was no way to cross and he walked along the edge of the water for miles, feeling hopeless. Just as he was about to give up and go back the way he had come, he saw a wise Zen Master on the opposite bank of the river. The young Buddhist called to the Master, “Oh great teacher, can you tell me how to get to the other side of this river?”

The Zen Master stood for a moment, silently watching the rushing stream and then yelled to the traveller: “My friend - you ARE on the other side!”

There's that double talk again.
First you would insist on a prior existence....
then no existence...
and THEN deny your fellow man an after life!!!!

I don't see that you have any sense of direction.
Some 'traveler' you are!

 

[godnotgod]

There's that double talk again.
First you would insist on a prior existence....
then no existence...
and THEN deny your fellow man an after life!!!!

Aw! Poor babies! All they wanna do is muck up some 'afterlife' with toxic residues from the dead past. Gee. What's wrong with that?

Better they go the crisp trip. *ppfffftttt!*LOL:nightcraw:

 

[Thief]

Aw! Poor babies! All they wanna do is muck up some 'afterlife' with toxic residues from the dead past. Gee. What's wrong with that?

Better they go the crisp trip. allelujah![/COLOR:nightcraw:

It won't be mucky.
To walk among angels you need a little self discipline and grace.

Muddled thinkers will more than likely fall behind.

 

[cottage]

It's illusory nature, and that it is not made up of separate 'things'.

I asked you what is true of the world and not what you believe to be true!
What is true of the world is that it exists (anti-sceptical), and I can confidentially say there is nothing more that can be said of the world that doesn’t refer to the contingent world, either directly or compounded from experience.

]I think you are quite ignorant in your refusal to go see for yourself. You persist on clinging to your rational, analytical viewpoint which creates a barrier against your being able to see something different than what your conditioned view tells you. I point to the moon, and you rabidly attack my pointing finger instead. How is that different than the ignorant minds enslaved in Plato's Cave? Everything I have pointed to is seen through your intellectual filters. You have yet to see things as they are, as you don't even think that is possible. Once again, you persist, in spite of what I have told you, that what I am presenting is a religious belief. I pointed you toward the reference work especially because it is mainly an intellectual approach which I thought you would appreciate.

I am not going to trade insults with you, and so we’ll carry on as if your first sentence wasn’t there.
My position is that all things are possible, unless in the same breath it is said they are not, in which case there is no argument to be brought to a discussion forum. Like all humans I have my prejudices and I’m a ‘lover of sights and sounds’, to quote Plato, as a matter of everyday necessity. But like the rest of humanity I’m also an open book or even a tabula rasa, and the world (whatever it is) does not depend upon my will. When I sleep images come to me quite regardless of any reasoned thought, and indeed they are often contrary to reason. And awake or asleep images and or impressions are projected onto my mind of which I am not the cause, and at the point of a new projection the impression is not encumbered with the processes of my selective or conditioned mind. I am open to any possibility or even a supposed impossibility at the point of its presentation and like many other folk I’ve have had unusual experiences for which I’ve not always been able to find a rational explanation; but I do not on that account grandly presume to have discovered some mystical notion of ultimate reality. Why? Because just like you I am contingent being, given to making mistakes, and with no way to establish that the vision or experience wasn’t illusory.

And as to an ‘intellectual approach’, I have to say it isn’t one that stands up well except within the confines of its own internal system. It is the same thing stated over and over again and also expressed as parables, poems, metaphors and slogans. Nothing is being said other than making indirect references to a supposed state. And even use of the term ‘intellectual’ is misplaced if what is claimed is supposedly beyond or outside the intellect.

But it seems you are just too busy with yours sceptical mind to even have a look. When I point to something outside my own words, it is because I see the validity of the other reference in a way which can be expressed better than I can do. This is not a classroom where you are the instructor and mandate that your students do it your way. But then again, Zen is compared to a bubbling mountain spring. As a passerby, you may stop and partake of its refreshing waters, or simply move on. No matter. The spring simply continues to bubble forth. If Zen were the belief system you claim it to be, it would insist you drink of its waters, that you MUST believe, and in some cases, believe, or else. So I suggest it is time for you to move on with your intellectual baggage to the next town. You have nothing on this party.

You keep saying ‘have a look’ when you don’t know yourself what that could possibly mean. Tell me where to go and go there I will. And maybe you could tell me what ‘validity’ you see in other references, other than their confirming what you yourself believe to be true? Arguments from other believers simply show that others share the belief; they do not confer validity upon the claim itself. And there seems to be a great partiality in the way you find it quite acceptable to apply validity (an aspect of logic) to your arguments and yet reject it out of hand when I’ve shown your statements to be illogical or invalid.

...and therein lies your problem; you set your first foot forward employing the baggage of your so-called 'method', which determines the results of your investigation. Instead of making certain your vision is first without flaw so that you can see correctly, you go forth with preconceived notions already flaring. This is the same problem the believer has. Neither of you are aware of it, nor will you admit to it. All you can do is erect more barriers to seeing things as they actually are, and that has to do with vision correction.

Here we have a mixture of contradiction, prescription, and false assumption. First you said it was all about simply ‘seeing’ and ‘to see it as it is’, dispensing with logic and any question of truth or falsity, but now there is need for certitude and an admission of possible imperfection in what is seen! Not only does that monumentally contradict everything you’ve said previously, it also brings us once again to the fundamental problem, which is that there is no way for you to distinguish whether everything that is ‘seen’ is anything more than an illusion or a dream. And then there is that false generalisation, declared in the most sweeping terms that people ‘erect barriers to seeing things as they are.’ You know full well that the holding of a preconceived notion does not prevent it being overturned, and nor does it prevent an experience at its inception. If a thing is, then it is, notwithstanding any prior beliefs.

None of this about the sceptic, it is about the extraordinary assertion, expressed in a rather lofty manner, that contingent being can somehow see and understand necessary being. And it is an assertion entirely devoid of credibility, because the advocates can neither say what is seen nor say with conviction that they cannot be wrong.

 

[cottage]

Necessity/non-necessity is not an issue with being. I believe you mean 'existence'.

‘Being’ is the quality, state, or essence of entities, and contingent being is an entity that may or may not exist, ie that doesn’t exist of necessity. We can conceive of a thing being without having existence but we cannot conceive of existence devoid of being. A circle has being, but there need be no circles anywhere in the world. So if we talk about ‘Being itself’, as I believe you have, all we’re doing is identifying the noun and saying there are things that don’t necessarily exist. And yet if ‘Being itself’ is to have any meaning in the context of absolute reality then it must be necessary. This is where theists have the upper hand. ‘God’ is not a proper name, and yet God cannot be God if he is not the Supreme Being and his being cannot be supreme if it is not necessary. Therefore God is the Absolutely Necessary Being by definition. So theists have something of an advantage over your Zenist metaphysic, and that is the separation of contingent being from necessary being. They don’t have to pretend that there is only the one state and that appearances to the contrary are illusory, while having to account for the fact that no argument can be made to the ‘Absolute’ without reference to the illusion, which at once renders quite absurd the Zenist’s case for a unified, singular and immutable reality.

When the moon is pointed to, do you turn your attention to the moon, or to the pointing finger?

Is the pointing finger a doctrine to be believed in, so that looking at the moon becomes irrelevant, and one need only believe and have faith?

When you point to the moon I see the moon. When you point to a doctrine I see a doctrine, and in that case, yes, of course the moon is irrelevant!

But if you spontaneously respond, and you turn to look at the moon, prior to your forming any thought about what you see, is there a subject/object? That is to say, does there exist the see-er of a purported object called 'moon', or is there only the act of 'moonseeing' itself, with no 'moon-see-er'?

Now aside from all this speaking in riddles, if you are asking me if am I receptive to ideas untainted by preconceptions then the answer is yes, as I’ve articulated in previous responses to you. But you are making a claim to ultimate reality and you base that claim upon your ability to see such a thing. I disbelieve you for two reasons that have existed since the very beginning of this debate. You have never explained the practicalities of this so-called seeing ability and you clearly have no means to justify its claimed truth or accuracy.

 

[godnotgod]

‘Being’ is the quality, state, or essence of entities, and contingent being is an entity that may or may not exist, ie that doesn’t exist of necessity. We can conceive of a thing being without having existence but we cannot conceive of existence devoid of being. A circle has being, but there need be no circles anywhere in the world. So if we talk about ‘Being itself’, as I believe you have, all we’re doing is identifying the noun and saying there are things that don’t necessarily exist. And yet if ‘Being itself’ is to have any meaning in the context of absolute reality then it must be necessary. This is where theists have the upper hand. ‘God’ is not a proper name, and yet God cannot be God if he is not the Supreme Being and his being cannot be supreme if it is not necessary. Therefore God is the Absolutely Necessary Being by definition. So theists have something of an advantage over your Zenist metaphysic, and that is the separation of contingent being from necessary being. They don’t have to pretend that there is only the one state and that appearances to the contrary are illusory, while having to account for the fact that no argument can be made to the ‘Absolute’ without reference to the illusion, which at once renders quite absurd the Zenist’s case for a unified, singular and immutable reality.

The problem with your argument is that when you define a 'necessary' being, you automatically imply its existence in contrast to that of a non-necessary being, rendering such a being subject to relativity, when this so-called 'necessary being' that is God, is assumed to be Absolute.

The original state of mind is not that of interpreting the Absolute in terms of any illusion; it is to interpret the illusion in terms of the Absolute. But since most of us are conditioned beings, in which we see the illusion as real, then that is the reference we use to suppose the Absolute. We might typically say, for example, that the world had to have come into being at the hands of a creator-God. So because the illusion is not real, there is only one reality, and that is the Absolute. The paradox is that the illusion and the Absolute are one and the same.

"The universe IS the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

This view says that Reality is undivided, wherein the Ordinary world is, in fact, none other than the Miraculous, in contrast to the theist's view that a supernatural force oversees the natural world.

It is because of the conditioned mind through which we see the Absolute, that the world is seen as real.

When you point to the moon I see the moon. When you point to a doctrine I see a doctrine, and in that case, yes, of course the moon is irrelevant!

You are missing the point: the 'moon' is a metaphor for Reality, and the pointing finger a metaphor for what Zen is, both of are empty of inherent doctrine, as Zen is a mirror reflection of reality.

BTW, did you have a look at all of the material I referenced you to?

Now aside from all this speaking in riddles, if you are asking me if am I receptive to ideas untainted by preconceptions then the answer is yes, as I’ve articulated in previous responses to you. But you are making a claim to ultimate reality and you base that claim upon your ability to see such a thing. I disbelieve you for two reasons that have existed since the very beginning of this debate. You have never explained the practicalities of this so-called seeing ability and you clearly have no means to justify its claimed truth or accuracy.

Why are you making such a fuss about seeing things as they are? You make it seem impossible, while seeming to imply that all man is capable of is seeing things as they are not.

 

[cottage]

The problem with your argument is that when you define a 'necessary' being, you automatically imply its existence in contrast to that of a non-necessary being, rendering such a being subject to relativity, when this so-called 'necessary being' that is God, is assumed to be Absolute.

Necessary being is implied by contingent being. Therefore the Supreme Being (if he/it exists) is necessary, unconditioned and sustains the contingent world; it is what Kant referred to as the ens realissimum or roughly translated as ‘the most real’. Now as it is logically impossible for there to be more than one Supreme Being, or for the contingent world to be the Supreme Being, it follows that whatever is the Supreme Being is absolutely necessary. So there is only the one ontological state, since everything is causally dependent upon the Being for its existence and conservation.

The original state of mind is not that of interpreting the Absolute in terms of any illusion; it is to interpret the illusion in terms of the Absolute. But since most of us are conditioned beings, in which we see the illusion as real, then that is the reference we use to suppose the Absolute. We might typically say, for example, that the world had to have come into being at the hands of a creator-God. So because the illusion is not real, there is only one reality, and that is the Absolute. The paradox is that the illusion and the Absolute are one and the same.

Wow! There’s a couple of iffy statements in there: ‘The original state of mind’ (whatever that may be!), and ‘…most of us are conditioned beings’ (‘Most’?).

The universe IS the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

This view says that Reality is undivided, wherein the Ordinary world is, in fact, none other than the Miraculous, in contrast to the theist's view that a supernatural force oversees the natural world.

It is because of the conditioned mind through which we see the Absolute, that the world is seen as real.

But nothing is seen. It’s only a b-e-l-i-e-f.

You are missing the point: the 'moon' is a metaphor for Reality, and the pointing finger a metaphor for what Zen is, both of are empty of inherent doctrine, as Zen is a mirror reflection of reality.

I’m not missing the point at all. I’m rejecting the metaphor as being meaningless in the context of what is asserted. And to claim that Zen mirrors reality is nothing more than speculative metaphysics, taken to the level of a belief-as-faith.

BTW, did you have a look at all of the material I referenced you to?

No, I’m sorry but I do not open links or read posted articles. I’m debating you and not a third party, but do please summarise it in your own words and I will certainly give you my response.

Why are you making such a fuss about seeing things as they are?

Tell me what you mean by seeing things as they are? What are these ‘things’ to which you refer?

You make it seem impossible, while seeming to imply that all man is capable of is seeing things as they are not.

It is you who claims that the experiential world is illusory, that we ‘see things as they are not’. I’m saying that we see whatever it is that we see at the point of projection. But your argument isn’t about simply ‘seeing’, as you maintain, since you claim whatever is seen is to be accepted in terms of a metaphysical belief, supposedly a vision of ultimate reality. You have no way to justify such a belief, and nor have you ever described the physical or practical means of seeing beyond the phenomenal limitations while presuming to use the same apparatus. And then there is the similarity we see with religious faith in the adamant refusal to admit that you might be wrong.

 

[godnotgod]

Necessary being is implied by contingent being. Therefore the Supreme Being (if he/it exists) is necessary, unconditioned and sustains the contingent world; it is what Kant referred to as the ens realissimum or roughly translated as ‘the most real’. Now as it is logically impossible for there to be more than one Supreme Being, or for the contingent world to be the Supreme Being, it follows that whatever is the Supreme Being is absolutely necessary. So there is only the one ontological state, since everything is causally dependent upon the Being for its existence and conservation.

If a being is truly Supreme and therefore Absolute, it is neither necessary, nor not-necessary, as such a being is, by definition, beyond the constraints of duality. Since duality is purely a product of conceptual thought, and does not exist perse in actual reality, there is only the Absolute, and the uni-verse is IT. In other words, there is only one Reality, but, (yes, MOST of mankind, unfortunately) sees the Absolute through the filter of the conceptual mind, resulting in the dualistic view peculiar to most, including you, as your post here clearly demonstrates. To reiterate:

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation".
Vivekenanda

"Swami 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."

The Equations of Maya

 

[godnotgod]

Tell me what you mean by seeing things as they are? What are these ‘things’ to which you refer?

You are being much too literal. There are no 'things'. To 'see things as they are' is to see into the true nature of reality, that is to say, to see that what we ordinarily think to be reality, is not. To 'see things as they are' is simply to see without the filter of the rational mind, before it attempts to explain what is seen.

'Things' is used purely as a matter of convention.

 

[Thief]

You are being much too literal. There are no 'things'. To 'see things as they are' is to see into the true nature of reality, that is to say, to see that what we ordinarily think to be reality, is not. To 'see things as they are' is simply to see without the filter of the rational mind, before it attempts to explain what is seen.

'Things' is used purely as a matter of convention.

There's more of that double talk.

You see things as they really are...and no one else does?

You have a rational mind by making denial of 'things'?

 

[godnotgod]

You see things as they really are...and no one else does?

Where did I claim that?

You have a rational mind by making denial of 'things'?

No. I deny what the rational mind concludes: that 'things' exist. There are no such 'things'. If you think there are, show me one.