The Debate of God.

[Thief]

Who you think you are is not who you actually are.

The former is the you of your social indoctrination; the latter your true nature prior to mental conditioning.

And without terms of definition (thought)....
There is no discussion.

And you are using terms that come about full circle.
If I think I am....I am.
You say, I am really someone else.
Well then...'I' still exist.

 

[godnotgod]

What godnotgod seems to be referring to is the same concept that seems to exist in Buddhism. It is but it is not, etc. It makes absolutely no rational sense.

That is because the rational mind attempts to encapsulate reality within concept, and reality is non-conceptual. The rational mind creates concepts in order to 'make sense' out of what it cannot understand, but the discrepancy between reality and concept creates the impression of 'making absolutely no rational sense'. We are experiencing this now in the discovery of Quantum Mechanics, wherein all classical logic is now turned upside down.

As for Buddhism, yes, Zen reveals to us that what we thought was reality, is not.

 

[godnotgod]

And without terms of definition (thought)....
There is no discussion.

And you are using terms that come about full circle.
If I think I am....I am.
You say, I am really someone else.
Well then...'I' still exist.

No, you do not. There is no "I" that exists, just as there is no wave on the ocean's surface that exists. 'Wave' is not a thing; "I" is not an entity.

The 'someone else' that is the real you is not "I", but the Source itself. That is the discovery via awakening that we must all make if we are to become realized beings.

 

[Gui10]

It's very simple: that fictional character you call "I"? Once the illusory self is self-created, it must necessarily include an 'other', and that 'other' is the idea of 'God', which is only a projection of the self. So, to extrapolate a bit further on YOUR position, that the word 'God' is ONLY a word, it is more than just a word, as it conjures up images thought to be real which are then acted upon. This is the God of which belief is the target. It is the realm of the orthodox believer.

Having said that, what lies beyond concept and belief is what is real, and can only be accessed via of the non-conceptual, intuitive mind. This is the realm of the mystic.

Even the atheist is attached to the idea of God, and has not gone beyond the world of conceptual thought to direct spiritual experience.

The believer and the atheist/sceptic are two peas in a pod. In order to get anywhere, they must get out of the trap of dualism first.
*****

Neti, Neti

“Not this, not this” (Neti, Neti); for there is no other and more appropriate description (of Brahman) than this “Not this.”...

We can never truly define God in words. All we can say, in effect, is that "It isn't this, but also, it isn't that either". In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine. In this sense, neti-neti is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short, because we are limited in understanding, and words are limited in ability to express the transcendent.

Wikepedia

Ya, obviously its not just a word, it ''means'' something, it pops up images and ideas in our head when we hear it.

I just think we would be better off if no one had ever had the idea of ''supernatural powers being responsible for the universe''. There is nothing ''other worldly'' if its ''there'', it is worldly!

I'm okay with spirituality, which we can just call ''positive thinking'' or ''meditating'' but the idea of cherishing a master disgusts me.

 

[Thief]

No, you do not. There is no "I" that exists, just as there is no wave on the ocean's surface that exists. 'Wave' is not a thing; "I" is not an entity.

The 'someone else' that is the real you is not "I", but the Source itself. That is the discovery via awakening that we must all make if we are to become realized beings.

You speak one way and then the other.

Nay to existence and then refer to the Source.

Nay to thought and then claim to awaken.

'YOU' can't realize anything.
"YOU' are trapped in your own rhetoric.

 

[semmedro]

Nobody can definitively prove that god exists or that he doesn't. At least so far.

 

[godnotgod]

Nobody can definitively prove that god exists or that he doesn't. At least so far.

Why would anyone want to do so?

A proven God is an encapsulated, and therefore, dead God.

 

[godnotgod]

Ya, obviously its not just a word, it ''means'' something, it pops up images and ideas in our head when we hear it.

You're still thinking in terms of a conceptual God.

I just think we would be better off if no one had ever had the idea of ''supernatural powers being responsible for the universe''. There is nothing ''other worldly'' if its ''there'', it is worldly!

Maybe it's more like the universe IS the Absolute itself, but seen through the distorting glass of Time, Space, and Causation.

I'm okay with spirituality, which we can just call ''positive thinking'' or ''meditating'' but the idea of cherishing a master disgusts me.

Spirituality is far more than the superficial self-help ideas of positive thinking and meditation, which suggests little more than the equivalent of a manicure or a shampoo. You seem to want to confine it to some safe distance where it is out of the way, as it is a nuisance to you. Ah, back to the warm, fuzziness and security of the rational mind, that is, until it's neat little pigeon hole system begins to unravel at the edges, a poor substitute for reality itself.

 

[godnotgod]

You speak one way and then the other.

Nay to existence and then refer to the Source.

The Source is Unborn, and therefore Deathless. It neither exists, nor not-exists. It is beyond such dualities.

Nay to thought and then claim to awaken.

Awakening is not thought into being. It is an unplanned, spontaneous unfolding of consciousness, at times brought on by such unexpected events as 'pondfrogleapsplash'.

'YOU' can't realize anything.
"YOU' are trapped in your own rhetoric.

But you can be the realized being that you already are. You just need to awaken to the fact. Waiting around to die and experience it in some concept of a 'next life' is futile. All we have for certain is this eternal Present Moment. Nothing else. But that is more than sufficient.

 

[Looncall]

The Source is Unborn, and therefore Deathless. It neither exists, nor not-exists. It is beyond such dualities.

<snip>

Word salad.

 

[Thief]

The Source is Unborn, and therefore Deathless. It neither exists, nor not-exists. It is beyond such dualities.

Awakening is not thought into being. It is an unplanned, spontaneous unfolding of consciousness, at times brought on by such unexpected events as 'pondfrogleapsplash'.

But you can be the realized being that you already are. You just need to awaken to the fact. Waiting around to die and experience it in some concept of a 'next life' is futile. All we have for certain is this eternal Present Moment. Nothing else. But that is more than sufficient.

And you see you are describing ...Genesis.
And God's 'spontaneous' creation....
And God said ....."I AM"

 

[godnotgod]

Word salad.

You need to add Enlightenment Dressing for Cosmic Dyslexic Vision Correction so you can see properly.

Mmmmm! Scrumptious! Wish you could have some.

Catalytic Cosmic Croutons with that? (They're reputed to stimulate Instant Enlightenment, ala 'What is the sound of one Crouton Crunching?'.)

 

[godnotgod]

And you see you are describing ...Genesis.
And God's 'spontaneous' creation....
And God said ....."I AM"

Right...God 'created' alright...created the first Sting Operation in which Man got der Shaft...at least according to the corrupted orthodox account of Genesis.

Then God said: "I AM the Greatest"!, and don't you ever forget it!

BTW: God's 'creation' according to Genesis was never, ever a 'spontaneous' event, not by a long shot. Genesis describes how He systematically and very methodically went about the un-spontaneous creation in 6 days.

 

[cottage]

And on top of that....this thread is suppose to be about God.

That’s right but in essence a believed-in entity is still a believed-in entity, whatever the claim, and which in every case comes down to an idea.

So far...no one wants to approach as if He is real.

The fundamental question concerns whether ideas are real and what qualifies a particular idea as real and others to be rejected? The question is never answered, except by proposing yet further ideas.

 

[Thief]

You need to add Enlightenment Dressing for Cosmic Dyslexic Vision Correction so you can see properly.

Mmmmm! Scrumptious! Wish you could have some.

Catalytic Cosmic Croutons with that? (They're reputed to stimulate Instant Enlightenment, ala 'What is the sound of one Crouton Crunching?'.)

more word salad.

 

[Thief]

That’s right but in essence a believed-in entity is still a believed-in entity, whatever the claim, and which in every case comes down to an idea.

Are you then suggesting this entire thread was pointless?

The fundamental question concerns whether ideas are real and what qualifies a particular idea as real and others to be rejected? The question is never answered, except by proposing yet further ideas.

And at the end of our days ours thoughts and feelings....our beliefs...
will be all the remains of us.

Even less if you don't believe in yourself.

Dust you are........

 

[godnotgod]

What we&#8217;re seeing in your posts is an example of a believed-in metaphysic. But because it is a belief-in (as opposed to a belief-that) it is not metaphysics as theoretical or hypothetical argumentation but a doctrinal belief-as-faith and thus no different to religion in the classic sense, where nothing is permitted to count against the stated belief.

Nay, it is what YOU are reading INTO my posts!

Your persistence and insistence in YOUR belief has now become dogma.

Once again, with feeling:

A finger pointing to the moon is not a religious doctrine that you can take a position for or against, as there is nothing for your grasping mind to grasp. The same goes for 'pondfrogleapsplash'.

But you are not answering my question. I addressed this point in my response previous to this one where I said that, for the sake of argument, even if we remove the see-er from the equation there is still a vision or the thing seen, which in fact is what you are saying. You are making a claim, that something is the case, that you cannot be mistaken about what you assert is true reality, and I&#8217;m asking what is this &#8216;vision&#8217; that enables you make and justify such an adamant assertion?

Once again: there is no object of seeing; seeing itself is the experience.

Either you see things as they are, or you do not.

Do you see things as they are, and if not, why is that, cottage?

This is just endlessly repeating a mystical narrative that consists of open-ended statements, asserted as if they were true, while still evading the question of how this true reality is seen and what makes it true, and please may we have an explanation of how mind is &#8216;self-created&#8217;, since the concept of personal identity cannot be demonstrated and you are claiming that all phenomena is an illusion?

&#8220;Put a stop to your grasping mind and just see, without seeking something to see.&#8221; This quasi-religious exhortation is just a meaningless allusion where you mean to propose something but are unable to do so explicitly because you don&#8217;t know yourself how such a thing might be done. At best it is just an empty assertion, or at its worst an example of mystical/religious conjuration

And that, sir, is merely your belief, based on..what? The flawed Western system of logic, analysis, and reason?

But you&#8217;ve not experienced this so-called true reality yourself and, even if you thought you had, you&#8217;ve no way to determine its truth or to know whether it was a dream. And your own argument counts against you in this respect, for you claim that the experiential world is an illusion but you are unable to show conclusively that life is not just a dream - or even that you are not dreaming now! So with no way to establish that what you supposed to be true reality is not an illusion, the need for the belief-as-faith is made apparent.

You're just twisting the argument to fit your teeth.

The way you know you have been dreaming is to awaken. To be awake, is to know. There is no belief or doctrine involved in being awake.

 

[godnotgod]

And at the end of our days ours thoughts and feelings....our beliefs...
will be all the remains of us.

Even less if you don't believe in yourself.

Dust you are........

not even...

 

[godnotgod]

more word salad.

Now you're taking refuge in loon and others for security.

 

[Gui10]

godnotgod ... thief is right about your word salad...you make a mean one. I honestly understand half of what your saying and it always means NOTHING!!!

GET TO YOUR POINT, STOP ARGUING ON SEMANTICS