The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

everything all at once?

All 'things' are manifested in limitless variety from a single source. In getting in touch with the source, we understand the nature of all 'things'. To the ordinary mind, the world appears to be composed of separate things; to the enlightened mind, they appear interconnected as The One.

Even though no two ocean waveforms are alike, they are all composed of water, as is their source, the formless sea.
*****

 

[waitasec]

All 'things' are manifested in limitless variety from a single source. In getting in touch with the source, we understand the nature of all 'things'. To the ordinary mind, the world appears to be composed of separate things; to the enlightened mind, they appear interconnected as The One.

Even though no two ocean waveforms are alike, they are all composed of water, as is their source, the formless sea.
*****

so it is not all at once...i would imagine if it were, one would cease to physically exist.

how does one come to recognize the source in order to get in touch with it?
is there a sense of familiarity that sets the source apart from everything else?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Are you making sense? You stated that "I came into Enlightenment full blown".
What was your state of mind prior to your having 'come into Enlightenment full blown'?

You must give up your belief in language. Enlightenment? It's just a word.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why? What's so Special about you? Even the Buddha himself claimed Nothing Special about HIS enlightenment, and his was the highest state of Enlightenment possible, that of Supreme Enlightenment.

Even the Buddha? What can I say to you. To speak of 'even the Buddha himself' is to indulge one's monkey mind, in my view.

 

[waitasec]

indeed.
why should i limit myself to someone else's experiences?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

but for myself i don't see enlightenment anymore important than finally reaching one of those "ah ha" moments..which is learning something, gaining or expanding ones perspective

I think that Enlightment is very much like fundamentalist Christian faith. It's the unshakable belief that one in in direct contact with The Truth.

They're both driven by the same human need for certainty, in my estimation.

 

[godnotgod]

so it is not all at once...i would imagine if it were, one would cease to physically exist.

...and yet, we are each a microcosm of the entire universe.

how does one come to recognize the source in order to get in touch with it?

You're already in touch with it. You've never been separate from it. But we usually don't detect it because the chatter of our thinking mind takes precedence.

is there a sense of familiarity that sets the source apart from everything else?

The source IS everything else. Nothing is separate from it.

 

[godnotgod]

indeed.
why should i limit myself to someone else's experiences?

You should'nt, and neither did the Buddha. The Buddha himself instructed people not to accept things on someone else's authority; to question everything until one is satisfied with the answers.

Read the Kalama Sutta, here:

Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

 

[godnotgod]

I think that Enlightment is very much like fundamentalist Christian faith. It's the unshakable belief that one in in direct contact with The Truth.

They're both driven by the same human need for certainty, in my estimation.

No. Enlightenment is not a belief. It is a state of being in which one sees things as they actually are, rather than how one believes them to be. That is why it is called 'Enlightenment'.

 

[godnotgod]

You must give up your belief in language. Enlightenment? It's just a word.

Then cease and desist from its use.

 

[waitasec]

...and yet, we are each a microcosm of the entire universe.



You're already in touch with it. You've never been separate from it. But we usually don't detect it because the chatter of our thinking mind takes precedence.



The source IS everything else. Nothing is separate from it.

i'm still not understanding how one is to recognize the source.

our collective rationality is a part of who we are...would that be the source?

 

[waitasec]

You should'nt, and neither did the Buddha. The Buddha himself instructed people not to accept things on someone else's authority; to question everything until one is satisfied with the answers.

Read the Kalama Sutta, here:

Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

ok i see what you mean.


thanks for setting me straight

 

[godnotgod]

ok i see what you mean.


thanks for setting me straight

I did'nt do anything...you did it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is a way of looking at things that is impersonal and universal, rather than personal and specific.

That's a fine personal opinion. But I have encountered many men who claimed the power to see life universally and impersonally. Curiously, each one of them held different beliefs and opinions about life. So I am forced to conclude that no such ability exists. If it does, it's of no use to anyone outside the guy who 'experiences' it, and in that way it is indistinguishable from the Christian who claims to commune directly with the Holy Spirit.

He might be deluded. He might actually be in touch with the Holy Spirit. There's just no way for anyone to test it.

So the Buddha should sit under his tree and never speak. Jesus should stay in the gospels. Once either of them comes into this world of human language and thought... well, he's disadvantaged.

You obviously think you are mirroring what you deem an erroneous position, but it is your analogy that is erroneous. While the afterlife and the IPU cannot be so demonstrated, states of Higher Consciousness can indeed be so demonstrated and verified in this here and now. People have been doing it for centuries.

Then why have I never seen this verification? Why not simply offer your proof, here and now, rather than claiming that it exists elsewhere?

I tell you again: States of Higher Consciousness cannot be demonstrated and verified. The most I've ever heard about are a few parlor tricks which very-long-term meditators can do which non-meditators cannot. What evidence do you have of these Higher States?

But that is not the issue. There is something distinct about belief in the afterlife compared to that of the IPU or the enlightenment experience, that makes for all the difference in the world, but you seem not to be getting it.

I got it way back, before entering kindergarten. Now I twiddle my thumbs as I wait for my new k-garten teacher to see who I am.

Then why is it that you fail to understand what I am trying to tell you, and only put up walls?

Assume what you need to assume about my understanding and my walls.

True, but I am not outraged. I simply do not accept you in the capacity you see yourself in, as my teacher. You are not my teacher, OK?

Once upon a time the Buddha wandered into a kindergarten class, just to be there. But the k-garten teacher, being a k-garten teacher, mistook the Buddha for just another 5-year-old student and began to include the Buddha in his lectures. The Buddha smiled. The teacher insisted that the Buddha recite the alphabet, just like the other children. In a minute, the Buddha began to gently take the teacher by his hand and lead him upward, toward wisdom. Of course, the teacher, being a k-garten teacher was outraged! "You are not my teacher, OK!" he exclaimed at the Buddha.

Yes, the Buddha thought... and you are not mine. I wonder how long it will take for you to realize that.

No, that's not what I said. I said that there is no evidence, period.

Right. Exactly what the creationist says. There is no evidence, period. I tell him that the evidence exists and that I've shown it to him repeatedly. He replies that I have presented no evidence. So I conclude that my evidence is invisible to him, just as the evidence I've presented you seems invisible to you.

Of course, transcending language as I do, I realize that 'invisible evidence' and 'no evidence' are merely toys for monkey minds to juggle.

You have unfortunately missed the point, which is that 'monkey mind' does not refer to a level of intelligence, but to the fact that monkeys have a tendency to jump about, just like the thinking mind. The idea is to subdue this mental jumping about which will allow one to see things as they are.

That was my general understanding of your 'monkey mind' term. Why do you think I misunderstood it? I used some unhappy turn of phrase which is not yet approved Buddhist theology?

Buddhism has consistently stated that the body is an illusion, while Christianity places such importance on it to the extent that it will be resurrected and rejoined with their appropriate souls and live forever in Heaven or suffer forever in Hell. It's the way a child sees it.

OK. For myself, I see 'the body is illusion' as equally childish.

But we each see things as we see them, there being no state of Enlightenment and all.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No. Enlightenment is not a belief. It is a state of being in which one sees things as they actually are, rather than how one believes them to be. That is why it is called 'Enlightenment'.

Sure. And it is not the fundamentalist believing that he is communing directly with the Holy Spirit. It is just the fundamentalist communing with the Holy Spirit.

I think I understand how these things work, but you are welcome to suggest changes to my thought if you like.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then cease and desist from its use.

First, that would be like asking DaVinci to desist from making art <blush>.

Second, language is all we have, so we have to use it. But the wise will paint with words even while disbelieving in the words themselves.

 

[Curious George]

Are you making sense? You stated that "I came into Enlightenment full blown".

What was your state of mind prior to your having 'come into Enlightenment full blown'?

Perhaps enlightenment is maya. Perhaps, Ambiguous Guy has reached a transcendental point at which enlightened and unenlightened dissolve and fuse together.

 

[Curious George]

No. Enlightenment is not a belief. It is a state of being in which one sees things as they actually are, rather than how one believes them to be. That is why it is called 'Enlightenment'.

A state of being unfortunately from the perspective of one. Perhaps the concept of enlightenment is egocentric. If the concept of you and I dissolve, then we share enlightenment. In the dualistic illusion, our Atman is unconscious of this connection.
But I imagine that too is okay, for the connection would still be present.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

YOU are the world.

No, I am not.

 

[godnotgod]

No, I am not.

Then the world is not comprised of people.