The Debate of God.

[waitasec]

You haven't really thought about that line...have you?

ENLIGHTENMENT is to KNOW "maya".
And maya is not reality?

:biglaugh:
i know about santa clause...so is santa real?

 

[waitasec]

And so everything you have posted is also fiction.

:biglaugh:
and you have yet to prove your fiction as non fiction

 

[godnotgod]

Sure. And to speak directly with the Holy Spirit is to veryfy that one can speak with the Holy Spirit.

So anything claimed by anyone is verifiable, at least in your view. To me, that seems a chaotic view.

No! Your logic is completely erroneous as you are jumping to an erroneous conclusion from the first statement to the second!

Once again, the point has been proverbially missed:

There is verification by oneself, and verification by others. We are primarily speaking of self-verification, in which one goes oneself to see for oneself.

The idea of Enlightenment is not Enlightenment.

The direct experience of Enlightenment is not an idea about it.

The orthodox belief in a Holy Spirit is not the experience of it. At that point it is mere doctrine.

'Tongues of fire' descending on your forehead is a direct experience of what some call the Holy Spirit descending, or The Pentecost, in official doctrine.

In the East, this may be somewhat equivalent to the opening of the Third Eye.

Many Buddhists undergo a common experience called makyo, in which they claim they have seen Jesus, Buddha, or the Virgin Mary standing right in front of them. Their teachers know, from their own experience, that these are hallucinations, and the student is calmly instructed to return to his meditation mat and focus on his breath, much to the protest of the student.

How can these experiences be verified by others? Without getting into detail, they cannot by the ordinary person, but by those who have had the same experiences, by Zen Masters, for example, it can be so determined via of questioning and examination. Zen, for example, maintains frequent sessions between student and teacher to determine progress. This process has been likened to a mother hen and her unhatched chick. The mother hen listens to the egg, and knows when the chick is about to hatch via the sound of its pecking on the inside of the eggshell.

I have spoken with Christians who make claims, such as that they 'saw the arm of Jesus', but in speaking with some of them further, it becomes painfully clear that it is their ego talking; that they make such claims as a way of appearing wise and 'chosen' to others.

I also suspect anyone who make claims of being enlightened; enlightened people do not find it necessary or desirable to do so.

 

[godnotgod]

ahh but that is the way the individual looks at enlightement

That enlightenment is a delusion or that it represents true reality?

 

[godnotgod]

Very true. Enlightenment could just mean being on a different level. Maybe one that seems or is clearer.

'Seems' and 'is' are worlds apart

 

[godnotgod]

ahh but that is the way the individual looks at enlightement

You see, by what vantage point is he looking at it that way? In other words, if one sees enlightenment as delusion, then he must be detecting it as such from the point of view of being enlightened himself, if he is certain; if he is not certain, then he may himself be deluded.

The only way to be certain is to be enlightened.

 

[godnotgod]

Taken in, in what sense?
It is a horrible mess, as presented in the Abrahamic model.

It is presented as such because of incorrect vision. For example, the orthodox version of the Fall is that God forbade A&E the eating of the Forbidden Fruit, but they disobeyed God and ate anyway, after which they were driven from Paradise. The orthodox issue is that of disobedience to Law and its consequences. This is a moral issue. The result of this view is the horrible mess you allude to.

The mystical view is that God, in forbidding them to eat, actually was telling them to do so, as the Forbidden Fruit was a symbol of Higher Consciousness, and the eating of it imparted divine union, which is, of course, the goal of all religious effort. This view achieves the desired goal and all live happily ever after. This is not about sin and obedience to Law, but about essence and the dissolution of ignorance via light. It is about seeing, and seeing alone is the solution.

It is for the reasons given above that what is crucial is not to change the world, but to change one's vision. The elements that are distorting vision are illusions. Don't work on the illusions; work on that which is causing the illusion, which in turn are causing the horrible mess.

We don't continue to play with Plato's Cave wall shadows; we leave them and ascend upwards toward the Sun. The idea is to show, via light, that those perpetuating the horrible mess are in error. When you become a source of light yourself, you can then illuminate the paths of others so they can see.

 

[Tiberius]

The fruit of knowledge of good and evil, remember. Yeah, God didn't want them to have knowledge of good and evil.

 

[godnotgod]

The fruit of knowledge of good and evil, remember. Yeah, God didn't want them to have knowledge of good and evil.

Thanks for bringing that up. I see that I must elaborate a bit more on the mystical view of the story:

After God forbade them, he 'went away', as you may recall. Then the serpent appears to A&E to 'tempt' them, telling them that God did not want them to eat of the Fruit because he was jealous God, and did not want them to 'see as He sees'. Seeing as God sees is Higher Consciousness. But, in this alternate (original) version, THE SERPENT IS THE GODHEAD HIMSELF, re-appearing to A&E in that form as a means of ensuring their eating of the Fruit. Get it? Telling A&E that God does not want them to 'have the knowledge of Good and Evil' is just part of God's ploy (a piece de resistance) to get them to eat. It is typical of children that when you tell then NOT to do something, they can't understand why they are being restricted, and their curiosity becomes aroused to the point that they feel compelled to disobey. After all, the authority figure is not watching, so there won't be consequences. In this story, God knows the minds of his children and how they work. So he sets up a resistance against which they feel compelled to push, by dangling an irresistible temptation in front of them.

A&E did'nt stand a snowflake's chance in hell of obeying, and God knew it.

 

[waitasec]

this is an interesting take...

where i get tripped up is
in order to understand the concept of "no" one would have to experience it first.
everything else was a yes.

i know i didn't understand what "no" meant the 1st time i heard it...nor did my young son.

 

[Curious George]

You see, by what vantage point is he looking at it that way? In other words, if one sees enlightenment as delusion, then he must be detecting it as such from the point of view of being enlightened himself, if he is certain; if he is not certain, then he may himself be deluded.

The only way to be certain is to be enlightened.

The vantage point is not necessarily his. Perhaps we are all sharing the vantage point but with Maya in our eyes we still think ourselves separate.

You said there is no self. If this is true then there can neither be enlightenment once Maya dissolves. There can only be enlightenment before maya dissolves and we view the world from our duality. So, with Maya, I could say hey look Ambiguous has reached enlightenment. But Ambiguous would reply that we are unenlightened and fully blown enlightened. Because as self dissolves so to would the confines of perception. Thus, He would not see as He did. He would see as We see.

 

[Renji]

:biglaugh:
i know about santa clause...so is santa real?

If you're referring to St. Nicholas, yes he did existed. But if you're referring to the fat man with the red coat and a big hat, then no.

 

[godnotgod]

this is an interesting take...

It is far more than interesting; it is totally compelling! But besides that, it makes the allegory make complete sense in terms of divine union. Every single element in the story fits perfectly all culminating in a perfect ending.

The corrupted orthodox version we have all been brought up with ends in (seeming) separation from God. Buddhists call this scenario 'the long way home'.

where i get tripped up is
in order to understand the concept of "no" one would have to experience it first.
everything else was a yes.

i know i didn't understand what "no" meant the 1st time i heard it...nor did my young son.

Hmmm...that's a good point, but we know that 'yes' cannot exist without 'no', so they are an obvious duality. Perhaps the answer to the dilemma lies in the consciousness that exists prior to yes or no. Desire may be the clue here. In the A&E story, what drives them toward sin or divine union (depending on which version you accept) is desire. What makes desire fit the story even more is the Eastern view, that "though you must become desireless, it is through desire that you must be born".

It is a paradox to the rational mind.

 

[godnotgod]

The vantage point is not necessarily his. Perhaps we are all sharing the vantage point but with Maya in our eyes we still think ourselves separate.

Good so far. The vantage point I was referring to is an impersonal one.

You said there is no self. If this is true then there can neither be enlightenment once Maya dissolves.

Ah...good point, but that assumes that there is a self that becomes enlightened, and that consciousness is local. How about if, when maya dissolves, so does the idea of self, as the notion of self is also maya. When awakening occurs, it is realized that there was no one seeking it to begin with, nor anyone who has attained it. All along, there was only enlightenment itself, and the delusion that there was a self that was unenlightened. Nirvana means to extinguish. The false self is what is extinguished, leaving only what has always been from the beginning: the authentic Self, which is The Absolute itself; that which is Unborn and Deathless; that which does not become, and to which there is no 'other'.

It is for these reasons that we say that no one 'becomes' enlightened, but instead, that enlightenment is realized, meaning that everyone and everything is already in the state of enlightenment, but only fail to see it for the fact that it is.

The key here is that consciousness is non-local, rather than local.

There can only be enlightenment before maya dissolves and we view the world from our duality. So, with Maya, I could say hey look Ambiguous has reached enlightenment. But Ambiguous would reply that we are unenlightened and fully blown enlightened. Because as self dissolves so to would the confines of perception. Thus, He would not see as He did. He would see as We see.

So if that which is unenlightened is dissolved with the realization that itnever existed from the beginning, why would that which is unenlightened survive ala Ambiguous's statement, that he is both at once? In other words, it is also maya that we are unenlightened. It is part of the deception that the divine nature has concocted in order to forget itself, and plunge itself into Identification as a player in this world, fully convinced that it is indeed the character that it is playing in all seriousness, when, in fact, such character is pure fiction.


"Realization is getting rid of the delusion that you haven't realized."

Ramana Maharshi

 

[godnotgod]

If you're referring to St. Nicholas, yes he did existed. But if you're referring to the fat man with the red coat and a big hat, then no.

He may be, however, a symbolic projection of some aspect of our own human nature.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh, my. I think my work here is done.

Why don't you just stay? You seem like an intelligent fellow, and have something to contribute.

 

[Thief]

:biglaugh:
and you have yet to prove your fiction as non fiction

Try using the perspective of ...'probable'....or....'most likely'.

There now....does that feel better?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why don't you just stay? You seem like an intelligent fellow, and have something to contribute.

I don't mind being spoken to as if a curdog, but don't think my time is well-spent with people who speak to me as if a curdog.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't mind being spoken to as if a curdog, but don't think my time is well-spent with people who speak to me as if a curdog.

Re-reading some of our posts/responses, I am not sure at which point you decided I was condescending, but I can tell you this: many people complain to me that I am being redundant, but I deliberately stick to the basics and repeat them repeatedly because it is there that many of the first errors in logic and comprehension are made. If we don't get the first steps right, the rest will be erroneous as well. Perhaps you read this kind of approach as condescension. It's nothing personal.

If I thought you were a curdog, I would not have recognized your intelligence as I did, but I did feel strongly that you were making an egoic point of it, as I pointed out to you several times, which you may also have read as condescension. In my view, I just find such things to be obstacles to the discussion.

At any rate, I enjoyed our discourse, but whatever you decide you need to do I am sure is in your best interests.

Cheers

 

[Thief]

Re-reading some of our posts/responses, I am not sure at which point you decided I was condescending, but I can tell you this: many people complain to me that I am being redundant, but I deliberately stick to the basics and repeat them repeatedly because it is there that many of the first errors in logic and comprehension are made. If we don't get the first steps right, the rest will be erroneous as well. Perhaps you read this kind of approach as condescension. It's nothing personal.

If I thought you were a curdog, I would not have recognized your intelligence as I did, but I did feel strongly that you were making an egoic point of it, as I pointed out to you several times, which you may also have read as condescension. In my view, I just find such things to be obstacles to the discussion.

At any rate, I enjoyed our discourse, but whatever you decide you need to do I am sure is in your best interests.

Cheers

You would claim linear thought as your own....?
after all of this redundant and circular posting you've done?

Really?