The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

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

My point is, simply, that what our ordinary mind tells us is reality, is not.

You may think you 'understand', but it still may mean nothing until you see beyond your ordinary, conditioned mind.

What most people call 'reality' is nothing more than a conditioned view. Because the conditioned view does not match what reality actually is, whenever someone points to true reality, it appears as nonsense to the conditioned mind, which expects to get answers that fit its preconditioned view. Therefore the answers from true reality appear paradoxical to the rational mind.
*****

"[A mystical view such as] Zen is paradoxical because life is paradoxical and Zen is a simple mirror-reflection of life. Zen is not a philosophy. Philosophies are never paradoxical, philosophies are very logical -- because philosophies are mind-constructions. Man makes them. They are manufactured by man. They are manmade, tailored, logically arranged, comfortably arranged so that you can believe in them. All those parts which go against the construction have been dropped, rooted out, thrown away. Philosophies don't reflect life as such; they are chosen from life. They are not raw, they are cultured constructions.

Zen is paradoxical because Zen is not a philosophy. Zen is not concerned about what life is,

Zen is concerned that whatsoever is should be reflected as it is.

We create a certain theory and then there is the honeymoon with the theory. For a few years things go perfectly well. Then reality asserts itself. Reality brings up a few things and the theory gets into difficulty because we had excluded a few facts. Those facts will protest, they will sabotage your theory, they will assert themselves. In the eighteenth century science was absolutely certain, now it is certain no more. Now a new theory has come: the theory of uncertainty. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)

Just a hundred and fifty years ago Immanuel Kant came across this fact in Germany. He said that reason is very limited; it sees only a certain part of reality and starts believing 'that this is the whole. This has been the trouble. Sooner or later we discover further realities and the old whole is in conflict with the new vision. Immanuel Kant attempted to show that there were ineluctable limits to reason, that reason is very limited. But nobody seems to have heard, nobody has cared about Immanuel Kant. Nobody cares much about philosophers.


But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason. They open up to us a glimpse of a nature which is irrational and paradoxical to the very core. Whatsoever we have been saying about nature has all gone wrong.


All principles go wrong because nature is not synonymous with reason, nature is bigger than reason.



And Zen is not a philosophy; Zen is a mirror, it is a reflection of that which is. As it is, Zen says the same. It does not bring any man-made philosophy into it, it has no choice, it does not add, it does not delete. That's why Zen is paradoxical -- because life is paradoxical. You just see and you will understand."


Osho
*****

 

[InfidelRiot]

You may think you 'understand'

The same could be stated of you.

 

[godnotgod]

The same could be stated of you.

In what respect? I have provided an explanation for my statement. (see above, again, please) The least you could do is the same.

I'm afraid I am not playing the childish game of tit for tat, here.

 

[godnotgod]

Properly read, the bible is the most potent force of atheism ever conceived ~ Isaac Asimov

Mr. Asimov, as much as I respect him, is missing an important dimension of the myth, which points to something very real in man.

 

[Thief]

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

Nay...they see it as I do....

That someone else calls your postings 'word salad'...and I agree...
doesn't mean I am the one hiding.
You're hiding in your rhetoric.

 

[godnotgod]

Nay...they see it as I do....

That someone else calls your postings 'word salad'...and I agree...
doesn't mean I am the one hiding.
You're hiding in your rhetoric.

Hiding from what, Thief? All my statements are out front, as clear as I can state them. The reason they appear as 'word salad' to you is because you are still trying to understand the nature of reality with your rational mind, just as loon is, and that is not possible, no matter how hard you try. You even want to apply Reason and Logic to the spiritual world with your notion of a 'next life', which is neither here nor there, but creating a nice, comfortable, and secure scenario of an afterlife is a way of dealing with the uncertainty of our existence, and its resultant anxiety....for awhile. It is a superficial way of resolving the issue, which does'nt resolve it at all.

 

[Thief]

Hiding from what, Thief? All my statements are out front, as clear as I can state them. The reason they appear as 'word salad' to you is because you are still trying to understand the nature of reality with your rational mind, just as loon is, and that is not possible, no matter how hard you try. You even want to apply Reason and Logic to the spiritual world with your notion of a 'next life', which is neither here nor there, but creating a nice, comfortable, and secure scenario of an afterlife is a way of dealing with the uncertainty of our existence, and its resultant anxiety....for awhile. It is a superficial way of resolving the issue, which does'nt resolve it at all.

I understand the 'reality of my mind'...just fine.

And to enter into the spiritual world without reason and logic?
walk among angels without a thoughtful mind?
No....that won't happen.

 

[waitasec]

You're hiding in your rhetoric.

:spit:
the irony

 

[godnotgod]

I understand the 'reality of my mind'...just fine.

Then why do you create fantasies of a 'next life' when you have no real basis for doing so, other than conjecture, based on the idea that you see the grave as a dreadful end?

And to enter into the spiritual world without reason and logic?

If the spiritual world were one of reason and logic, man would have proven the existence of God and his heaven long ago by such means. The fact is that even this world is not explainable via reason and logic any longer, ala Quantum Mechanics. Why? Simply because 'this world' and 'that world' are one and the same world. Our rational mind incorrectly divides them into two worlds.

Reason and Logic, which are products of the finite mind, cannot encapsulate the spiritual world, which is the world of the Infinite. Any attempt to capture the wind in a box yields only dead air.

walk among angels without a thoughtful mind?
No....that won't happen.

Were such beings to actually exist, one would want to walk among them with a completely empty mind so as to have it filled with something totally beyond the grasp of your limited human mind. The point in walking among them is to experience something other than where the flawed rational mind of man had previously led, as evinced by the current state of the world. Any such 'thoughts' would only serve to detract from the ecstatic experience of walking amongst such beings.

 

[Curious George]

Then why do you create fantasies of a 'next life' when you have no real basis for doing so, other than conjecture, based on the idea that you see the grave as a dreadful end?

If the spiritual world were one of reason and logic, man would have proven the existence of God and his heaven long ago by such means. The fact is that even this world is not explainable via reason and logic any longer, ala Quantum Mechanics. Why? Simply because 'this world' and 'that world' are one and the same world. Our rational mind incorrectly divides them into two worlds.

Reason and Logic, which are products of the finite mind, cannot encapsulate the spiritual world, which is the world of the Infinite. Any attempt to capture the wind in a box yields only dead air.

Were such beings to actually exist, one would want to walk among them with a completely empty mind so as to have it filled with something totally beyond the grasp of your limited human mind. The point in walking among them is to experience something other than where the flawed rational mind of man had previously led, as evinced by the current state of the world. Any such 'thoughts' would only serve to detract from the ecstatic experience of walking amongst such beings.

Well, I would actually disagree that reality is distinct from logic and reason. I would suggest that even your philosophy as you have described it falls within a domain of logic and reason.

However, I am still curious as to how interaction within the illusion of duality is manifest.

Moreover, I am curious as to your implication that "you [any given individual under the sway of Maya] do..." If the self does not truly exist (i.e. no Descartes) nor are we a product of our history (no Hume), then you would refer collectively to all not individually as you have used it.

Moreover, Kant would have argued that Maya is equally as real as any other reality which you could suggest, for in Synthesis it is Maya that provides the necessary elements to generate logic and reason which together with experience allow us to interact and live.
And now for my reasoning for my original disagreement. Were one subject to experience a different reality that was more true or alternatively true then one(individually or collectively) could create logic and reason based on that experience.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, I would actually disagree that reality is distinct from logic and reason. I would suggest that even your philosophy as you have described it falls within a domain of logic and reason.

However, I am still curious as to how interaction within the illusion of duality is manifest.

Moreover, I am curious as to your implication that "you [any given individual under the sway of Maya] do..." If the self does not truly exist (i.e. no Descartes) nor are we a product of our history (no Hume), then you would refer collectively to all not individually as you have used it.

Moreover, Kant would have argued that Maya is equally as real as any other reality which you could suggest, for in Synthesis it is Maya that provides the necessary elements to generate logic and reason which together with experience allow us to interact and live.
And now for my reasoning for my original disagreement. Were one subject to experience a different reality that was more true or alternatively true then one(individually or collectively) could create logic and reason based on that experience.

Let me address your questions in part as follows:

In reality, Maya and the Absolute are one and the same. Those who do not realize that fact live in duality. They do not understand that the world is maya, but it is maya as manifested by the Absolute. They believe maya to be real. Upon awakening, we see the illusory nature of the world via of the reference that is the Absolute, rather than the phenomenal world itself, which Reason and Logic are attuned to fathoming in the form of factual knowledge. But this factual knowledge is limited. From the point of view of the awakened mind, it is perfectly useful within the confines of the phenomenal world, (we need the clock to get to work; the map to locate our destination; science to predict its behavior, etc) but ultimately is understood as temporal and illusory. The world has no enduring or intrinsic substance, and neither does the concept of a separate self that acts upon it. The real world of the awakened mind is not governed by logic and reason, although it still applies these principles (Time, Space, Causation) to the world that the unawakened see as real.

Logic and Reason tell us about appearances and the rules that govern such appearances, but which the rational mind labels as 'phenomena'; Enlightenment tells us what is behind those appearances.

Yes, that is correct about Kant, but again, only within certain restrictions.

To attempt to answer your last comment, I will say this:

It seems perfectly logical and reasonable to the ordinary mind to wage war, either physically or via other means, against those whom we perceive as an enemy. Basically, this kind of 'logic' is built around ideas of 'yours and mine', 'self and other'.

To the enlightened mind, this kind of thinking is counter-productive to what is in our best interest, and that is real happiness, not just for ourselves, but for everyone on the planet. Of course, this alternate way of thinking is far from the current reality, but the current reality has come about as a result of the 'logic' of the ordinary mind.

In our 'logical' world, we live by the clock, and in so doing, have basically and unwittingly enslaved ourselves to 'the machine' in the pursuit of what we call 'happiness'. For many, however, this pursuit seems to lead to misery and dissatisfaction. Most people who experience such discrepancies between what they see as a reasonable and logical approach compared to the actual outcome are totally perplexed, and fail to see how such outcomes can come about. 'We did all the right things. I don't understand!'

The difference in the use of the world between the ordinary man and the enlightened man is that the pursuits of Power, Sensation, and Security become addictions, whereas the enlightened man knows how to transform such addictions into preferences.

This difference is summed up in Yeshua's statement:

"There is a way that is right before a man, but its end is the way to death."
Proverbs 14:12

Maya is real to sensory perception, but illusory to higher consciousness that is beyond sensory awareness.

Reason and Logic are fine tools for navigating around the phenomenal world, to a point, but cannot provide the answers we need when it comes to piercing into the true nature of reality.

 

[Thief]

Then why do you create fantasies of a 'next life' when you have no real basis for doing so, other than conjecture, based on the idea that you see the grave as a dreadful end?

If the spiritual world were one of reason and logic, man would have proven the existence of God and his heaven long ago by such means. The fact is that even this world is not explainable via reason and logic any longer, ala Quantum Mechanics. Why? Simply because 'this world' and 'that world' are one and the same world. Our rational mind incorrectly divides them into two worlds.

Reason and Logic, which are products of the finite mind, cannot encapsulate the spiritual world, which is the world of the Infinite. Any attempt to capture the wind in a box yields only dead air.

Were such beings to actually exist, one would want to walk among them with a completely empty mind so as to have it filled with something totally beyond the grasp of your limited human mind. The point in walking among them is to experience something other than where the flawed rational mind of man had previously led, as evinced by the current state of the world. Any such 'thoughts' would only serve to detract from the ecstatic experience of walking amongst such beings.

And you are insisting there is no spiritual life?
Nothing greater than this existence?
You cannot testify to a greater existence that has no terms.
You cannot make such report.

And you then do so.
All the while denying my report.

As if no one can look ahead and see that eternal darkness is physically real.
And all of this life around you fails ...absolutely.... in to dust.

Top of the line life form are you?
And your dying ambition is to be ....dust?

'This world and that world' are not the same......obviously.
The kingdom of God is not of this world.

 

[godnotgod]

And you are insisting there is no spiritual life?

When did I insist upon that? ALL life is spiritual, whether you realize it or not.

Nothing greater than this existence?

"The Kingdom of God is within you"

You cannot testify to a greater existence that has no terms.
You cannot make such report.

If it is greater, then it's terms are unconditional. Only man's terms are conditional, and he is guilty of putting words in his God's mouth.

And you then do so.
All the while denying my report.

Your 'report' is nothing but conjecture and belief, without real substance. You have yet to tell us what you base the idea of a 'next life' upon.

As if no one can look ahead and see that eternal darkness is physically real.
And all of this life around you fails ...absolutely.... in to dust.

If you're dead, you won't be there to notice either darkness or dust. Darkness and dust are present NOW, due to man's ignorance. He needs Enlightenment, and that is only realizable now.

Top of the line life form are you?
And your dying ambition is to be ....dust?

I am not my history. I am not my body. I am not the dust. If my true nature is Unborn, it is then deathless. Who is it that lives? Who is it that dies?

From the very beginning, not one thing exists, so where is the dust to settle?

'This world and that world' are not the same......obviously.

Oh, but they are exactly the same. It's just that your vision needs correcting, since you still see two worlds, where there is but one.

Are you still seeing 'this world' and 'that world', Thief?

The kingdom of God is not of this world.

Once again, you misinterpret scripture: Yeshu's reference to 'this world' is simply the world as it has been corrupted by delusional thought. It is the same world Yeshu says is his Kingdom, which he points to as being within. 'of this world' means the world as created out of delusion. Once this delusion is dissolved, the world is no longer created in a manner that creates suffering. Yeshu's real kingdom (within) is the world of Enlightenment.

As I recall, there was something about a parable of the sinner, in which the sinner knelt before Yeshu and pleaded:

"Oh, Lord, please help me reform the world beginning with myself"

When one transforms oneself from the inside out, the world also becomes transformed, since YOU are the world. This is the basically the message from Eastern wisdom, and also the original teachings of Yeshu the mystical Essene Nazarene, before they were corrupted by the Roman Church. It was the Essenes who were heavily influenced by Eastern teachings. Modern Christianity has it that one transforms a sinful world evangelically.

 

[Thief]

When did I insist upon that? ALL life is spiritual, whether you realize it or not.

"The Kingdom of God is within you"

How then to enter if you leave 'yourself' in the dust?'
You cannot enter with 'you'.

If it is greater, then it's terms are unconditional. Only man's terms are conditional, and he is guilty of putting words in his God's mouth.

So God is a person and has terms of His own?

Your 'report' is nothing but conjecture and belief, without real substance. You have yet to tell us what you base the idea of a 'next life' upon.

We can call it an assumption if it makes you feel better.
I think I've mentioned a repeated event?...billions of unique souls?

If you're dead, you won't be there to notice either darkness or dust. Darkness and dust are present NOW, due to man's ignorance. He needs Enlightenment, and that is only realizable now.

And the Carpenter said....'let the dead bury the dead'.

I am not my history. I am not my body. I am not the dust. If my true nature is Unborn, it is then deathless. Who is it that lives? Who is it that dies?

Only God is unborn.

From the very beginning, not one thing exists, so where is the dust to settle?

God has existed from the very beginning.


Once again, you misinterpret scripture: Yeshu's reference to 'this world' is simply the world as it has been corrupted by delusional thought. It is the same world Yeshu says is his Kingdom, which he points to as being within. 'of this world' means the world as created out of delusion. Once this delusion is dissolved, the world is no longer created in a manner that creates suffering. Yeshu's real kingdom (within) is the world of Enlightenment.

It was Jesus who said the kingdom is not of this world.
Your denial is noted.

I see your quotes and rhetoric to have been corrupted.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
When did I insist upon that? ALL life is spiritual, whether you realize it or not.

"The Kingdom of God is within you"

How then to enter if you leave 'yourself' in the dust?'
You cannot enter with 'you'.

Only the body is dust. You don't 'enter': you are already there.
*****************

If it is greater, then it's terms are unconditional. Only man's terms are conditional, and he is guilty of putting words in his God's mouth.

So God is a person and has terms of His own?

Last I looked, the Biblical God is anthropomorphic and issued at least two Covenants to his people. Terms.

God on earth, in the person of Jesus, states that no man goes to the Father except through him. Those are definitely terms.

The condition upon which the Gates of Heaven were re-opened after Original Sin were that Jesus must shed his blood in sacrificial death as payment. More terms.

All of these are man's egoic projections onto a deity.
********************

Your 'report' is nothing but conjecture and belief, without real substance. You have yet to tell us what you base the idea of a 'next life' upon.

We can call it an assumption if it makes you feel better.
I think I've mentioned a repeated event?...billions of unique souls?

So you're gambling with your fate, not knowing if water is in the pool, yet willing to jump, based on an assumption. What is this assumption based upon?

'Billions of unique souls' are but a manifestation of The One; One Light, though the lamps be many.
*********************

If you're dead, you won't be there to notice either darkness or dust. Darkness and dust are present NOW, due to man's ignorance. He needs Enlightenment, and that is only realizable now.

And the Carpenter said....'let the dead bury the dead'.

Jesus is saying: "Let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead". You are just confirming what I said: that darkness (ignorance) and dust (physical death) exist in the here and now. Enlightenment cures darkness.
**************************

I am not my history. I am not my body. I am not the dust. If my true nature is Unborn, it is then deathless. Who is it that lives? Who is it that dies?

Only God is unborn.

Everything is God, including you, so you, too, have an unborn, deathless nature.
************************

From the very beginning, not one thing exists, so where is the dust to settle?

God has existed from the very beginning.

The nature of God is that It neither exists nor not-exists, since God is an absolute, and not entrapped in a dualistic relative value. God is beyond existence/non-existence. God is absolute eternal being, not existence.
***********************


Once again, you misinterpret scripture: Yeshu's reference to 'this world' is simply the world as it has been corrupted by delusional thought. It is the same world Yeshu says is his Kingdom, which he points to as being within. 'of this world' means the world as created out of delusion. Once this delusion is dissolved, the world is no longer created in a manner that creates suffering. Yeshu's real kingdom (within) is the world of Enlightenment.

It was Jesus who said the kingdom is not of this world.
Your denial is noted.

There was no such person as 'Jesus'. 'Jesus' is a concoction of St Paul and the Roman Church, who overwrote the real teachings of Yeshu the mystical Essene Nazarene with those of Mithra. Yeshu never taught a virgin birth, blood sacrifice as redemption, or the eating/drinking of flesh/blood. Those doctrines were infused into his teachings and were part of the pagan Mithraic doctrines. Since Yeshu was a mystic, he taught that the Kingdom was within, not in some 'other world', in some future time and place. He taught that the Kingdom was 'at hand', meaning 'in the here and now'. So what that means, as I previously stated, is that the inner Kingdom and the outer world are one and the same. It's just that the outer world has become corrupted by the ignorant. There is no 'other world'.
******************************

I see your quotes and rhetoric to have been corrupted.

Yeah? Show me where, and I will respond accordingly.

PS: You never addressed my question about what 'become ye as little children' means. What does the mind of a child have to do with qualifying one for entry into Paradise?

 

[Thief]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
When did I insist upon that? ALL life is spiritual, whether you realize it or not.

"The Kingdom of God is within you"

Only the body is dust. You don't 'enter': you are already there.
*****************

If it is greater, then it's terms are unconditional. Only man's terms are conditional, and he is guilty of putting words in his God's mouth.


Last I looked, the Biblical God is anthropomorphic and issued at least two Covenants to his people. Terms.

God on earth, in the person of Jesus, states that no man goes to the Father except through him. Those are definitely terms.

The condition upon which the Gates of Heaven were re-opened after Original Sin were that Jesus must shed his blood in sacrificial death as payment. More terms.

All of these are man's egoic projections onto a deity.
********************

Your 'report' is nothing but conjecture and belief, without real substance. You have yet to tell us what you base the idea of a 'next life' upon.



So you're gambling with your fate, not knowing if water is in the pool, yet willing to jump, based on an assumption. What is this assumption based upon?

'Billions of unique souls' are but a manifestation of The One; One Light, though the lamps be many.
*********************

If you're dead, you won't be there to notice either darkness or dust. Darkness and dust are present NOW, due to man's ignorance. He needs Enlightenment, and that is only realizable now.

Jesus is saying: "Let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead". You are just confirming what I said: that darkness (ignorance) and dust (physical death) exist in the here and now. Enlightenment cures darkness.
**************************

I am not my history. I am not my body. I am not the dust. If my true nature is Unborn, it is then deathless. Who is it that lives? Who is it that dies?



Everything is God, including you, so you, too, have an unborn, deathless nature.
************************

From the very beginning, not one thing exists, so where is the dust to settle?

The nature of God is that It neither exists nor not-exists, since God is an absolute, and not entrapped in a dualistic relative value. God is beyond existence/non-existence. God is absolute eternal being, not existence.
***********************


Once again, you misinterpret scripture: Yeshu's reference to 'this world' is simply the world as it has been corrupted by delusional thought. It is the same world Yeshu says is his Kingdom, which he points to as being within. 'of this world' means the world as created out of delusion. Once this delusion is dissolved, the world is no longer created in a manner that creates suffering. Yeshu's real kingdom (within) is the world of Enlightenment.

There was no such person as 'Jesus'. 'Jesus' is a concoction of St Paul and the Roman Church, who overwrote the real teachings of Yeshu the mystical Essene Nazarene with those of Mithra. Yeshu never taught a virgin birth, blood sacrifice as redemption, or the eating/drinking of flesh/blood. Those doctrines were infused into his teachings and were part of the pagan Mithraic doctrines. Since Yeshu was a mystic, he taught that the Kingdom was within, not in some 'other world', in some future time and place. He taught that the Kingdom was 'at hand', meaning 'in the here and now'. So what that means, as I previously stated, is that the inner Kingdom and the outer world are one and the same. It's just that the outer world has become corrupted by the ignorant. There is no 'other world'.
******************************



Yeah? Show me where, and I will respond accordingly.

PS: You never addressed my question about what 'become ye as little children' means. What does the mind of a child have to do with qualifying one for entry into Paradise?

Actually I have answered every point worthwhile.

At at this point you have become completely redundant and your discussion is going nowhere.

 

[Gui10]

I support Thief on this thought.

I really don't think godnotgod wants to be understood.

 

[Daviso452]

This is not what I had intended for this thread.

 

[godnotgod]

I hear the sounds of crawling back into ego shells for thumb-sucking comfort and safety.

OK. Guess I'm done with Thief and Gui10.

Neither had much to say after all.

Just a lot of hysteria on Thief's part about the darkness of the grave and the return to dust. Poor fellow.

Bye

 

[Daviso452]

It's hard to make someone understand something when you don't understand what they are responding with. I'm not saying that happened here. I haven't read you're guys whole conversation. But from personal experience, it can be hard at times to understand Thief, so don't start accusing him as the "loser" of this discussion. It seems you are implying that, godnotgod.