The Debate of God.

[Thief]

I will agree with you on this, in the sense that God, The Infinite, The Supreme Identity, is playing a cosmic game of Hide and Seek, hiding from himself within all the finite forms of his own creation, playing all the parts simultaneously, while pretending not to be God.

But do you not assert that 'self' is an illusion?
Then to play the notion that God can be infinite and finite?

There's that gray line you keep wanting to call definitive....again.

There is a Spirit or there is not.
You are spirit...or not.

I will accept your next post as an affirmative...even if it is made for denial.

 

[godnotgod]

But do you not assert that 'self' is an illusion?
Then to play the notion that God can be infinite and finite?

There's that gray line you keep wanting to call definitive....again.

There is a Spirit or there is not.
You are spirit...or not.

I will accept your next post as an affirmative...even if it is made for denial.

I have added the following to my post, as follows:

When God awakens from this dream of being something other than who he really is, the finite self is seen as an illusion because it never existed from the very beginning. The Infinite was simply pretending to be born, to live the character in the drama of life, and to then die, in short, to be a finite being. The Infinite awakened understands that it is really The Unborn, The Deathless, the Indestructible Sunyata.

The finite self that is an illusion is not what is writing this response; it is the Infinite nature, the authentic Self, that is responsible for it.

Thief is none other than the divine essence itself pretending to be Thief, who is going to die and return to God, to 'stand up from the dust', when, in reality, there is no one called Thief and no dust to stand up from. You have never been apart from God, so how can you return to God? Any idea of separation from God is an illusion of the mind, which creates a self that becomes separated.

 

[Thief]

I have added the following to my post, as follows:



The finite self that is an illusion is not what is writing this response; it is the Infinite nature, the authentic Self, that is responsible for it.

Thief is none other than the divine essence itself pretending to be Thief, who is going to die and return to God, to 'stand up from the dust', when, in reality, there is no one called Thief and no dust to stand up from. You have never been apart from God, so how can you return to God? Any idea of separation from God is an illusion of the mind, which creates a self that becomes separated.

Years ago, I started a thread.... Does God Dream.
A short lived item.

God does not sleep.
This is for real.

 

[godnotgod]

Years ago, I started a thread.... Does God Dream.
A short lived item.

God does not sleep.
This is for real.

If this existence we call 'reality' is not itself a dream of the Godhead, then what can you show me about it to demonstrate that it is real, and not an illusion?


"Those who dream of the banquet may weep the next morning, and those who dream of weeping may go out to hunt after dawn. When we dream we do not know that we are dreaming. In our dreams we may even interpret our dreams. Only after we are awake do we know that we have dreamed. But there comes a great awakening, and then we know that life is a great dream. But the stupid think they are awake all the time and believe they know it distinctly.

Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I, visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu. Between Tzu and the butterfly there must be some distinction. [But one may be the other.] This is called the transformation of things."


Chuang tzu

 

[jasonwill2]

No I mean that God is literally finite with limitations and that there are transcendent princibles that go above even him.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No I mean that God is literally finite with limitations and that there are transcendent princibles that go above even him.

If anything is finite, it is not 'God' by definition as I understand it, for God is one and infinite, eternal, and omniscient.

However I will go further and say that God is forever on the other side of the mind's conceptual descriptions and imaginations.

So if you want to believe God is finite, you have no argument with me, it's to be expected of a finite mind.

 

[jasonwill2]

If anything is finite, it is not 'God' by definition as I understand it, for God is one and infinite, eternal, and omniscient.

That is one definition, but not the one I use because it's ridiculous and unrealistic.

However I will go further and say that God is forever on the other side of the mind's conceptual descriptions and imaginations.

What? Other side of what on what scale and relative to what end?

So if you want to believe God is finite, you have no argument with me, it's to be expected of a finite mind.

I think it's a logical certainty if your a Pantheist (as I am).

1) God is the Universe

2) The Universe is finite

3) Therefore God is finite

alternatively;

1) God created the Universe

2) The Universe is finite

3) God cares for life to some degree

4) Finite resources/Universe means that there is suffering

5) God must be finite

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What? Other side of what on what scale and relative to what end?

Friend Jason, on the other side of the mental construct/concept created by the mind to represent the reality the concept stands for.

It seems you are taking your own mind's mental representation of reality to actually be that reality instead of just a bunch of neuron firings in a pattern that stands for it.

So while it is true that the conceptual language I'm using to explain this to you is no different, I'm only using it as a temporary expedient to say that the mortal mind can't ever realize actual reality because it true reality exists absolutely, not in the time based mental conceptual language/models meant to represent it.

I'm pretty sure you will not understand what is being said to you and so if your response confirms my expectation, please do not be offended if I do not reply,...and in any event,..all the best in your quest for truth.

 

[jasonwill2]

Friend Jason, on the other side of the mental construct/concept created by the mind to represent the reality the concept stands for.

It seems you are taking your own mind's mental representation of reality to actually be that reality instead of just a bunch of neuron firings in a pattern that stands for it.

So while it is true that the conceptual language I'm using to explain this to you is no different, I'm only using it as a temporary expedient to say that the mortal mind can't ever realize actual reality because it true reality exists absolutely, not in the time based mental conceptual language/models meant to represent it.

I'm pretty sure you will not understand what is being said to you and so if your response confirms my expectation, please do not be offended if I do not reply,...and in any event,..all the best in your quest for truth.

Actually, I think I understand what your saying now.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, I think I understand what your saying now.

In that case let me say well done! It will save a lot of wasted time in arguing about the moving shadows on Plato's cave wall.

 

[godnotgod]

2) The Universe is finite

fi·nite


adjective 1. having bounds or limits;

dictionary.com
*****

If the Universe is finite, it is limited in size, and so must have an outer boundary.

If that is the case, what is on the other side?

 

[godnotgod]

As ben d points out, the Infinite cannot be encapsulated via conceptual thought, which is to say that it cannot be defined in positive terms. We can only speak of the Infinite in negative terms, about that which it is not:

"The Principle has ordained that all things should be limited, but is Itself unlimited, infinite. As to what pertains to manifestation, the Principle causes the succession of its phases but is not this succession. It is the author of causes and effects, but is not the causes and effects. It is the author of condensations and dissipations (birth and death, changes of state), but is not itself condensations and dissipations. All proceeds from It and is under its influence. It is in all things, but is not identical with beings, for it is neither differentiated nor limited."

Chuang-tzu

This is very interesting because in the West, we gain 'knowledge' via accumulation of data and facts, and then formulate concepts about reality with them. But in the East, it is the opposite. The enlightened mind is reached via subtraction of ideas, concepts, beliefs, opinions, until at last one is left completely empty, with nothing. But it is out of this emptiness that realization comes.

(You see, Thief? In all these pages after pages after pages, we have not strayed even one gnat's hair's nano-iota away from the divine essence, and that is a wonderful reaization!)

 

[jasonwill2]

fi·nite


adjective 1. having bounds or limits;

dictionary.com
*****

If the Universe is finite, it is limited in size, and so must have an outer boundary.

If that is the case, what is on the other side?

There is no boundary, it curves back on itself.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no boundary, it curves back on itself.

But don't you see? In order for you to say that, you must be seeing it against something that defines the curve. What is that 'something' which allows you to define it in that manner?

 

[Thief]

So now we are moving in a direction to discuss God by defining some portion of His creation?

Not a bad approach...if that is what you are doing.

 

[godnotgod]

neti neti =

"not this, not this", or "neither this, nor that"

"Thus, the Divine is not real as we are real, nor is it unreal. The divine is not living in the sense humans live, nor is it dead. The Divine is not compassionate as we use the term, nor is it uncompassionate. And so on. 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."

Wikipedia

 

[otokage007]

But don't you see? In order for you to say that, you must be seeing it against something that defines the curve. What is that 'something' which allows you to define it in that manner?

Couldn't that "something" be "nothing"? Like "the lack of dimensions"?

 

[godnotgod]

Couldn't that "something" be "nothing"? Like "the lack of dimensions"?

You know? You just might be on to something, LOL.
*****

Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;
It is the center hole that makes it useful.
Shape clay into a vessel;
It is the space within that makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room;
It is the holes which make it useful.
Therefore benefit comes from what is there;
Usefulness from what is not there.

Chapter 11, Tao te Ching

 

[Thief]

neti neti =

"not this, not this", or "neither this, nor that"

"Thus, the Divine is not real as we are real, nor is it unreal. The divine is not living in the sense humans live, nor is it dead. The Divine is not compassionate as we use the term, nor is it uncompassionate. And so on. 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."

Wikipedia

And all of this to support a living entity?

That you lean to a discussion that denies a line drawn....
doesn't mean that line can't be drawn.

The act of creation indicates a Creator.
That we are of God's image indicates emotional character.
That He refrains from mind control, indicates freewill.
And so on.

 

[jasonwill2]

But don't you see? In order for you to say that, you must be seeing it against something that defines the curve. What is that 'something' which allows you to define it in that manner?

Talk to a cosmologist, that or polyhedral.

Actually, when I see him I'll direct him to this.