The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

And 'you' include 'yourself' and 'I'....in this illusion?

Why would you and I not be included? Are we 'Something Special'?

And all of God's creation is a lie?

Not a lie, but play.

When you put on a costume or mask and act out, are you lying?

If you take life too seriously, and form preconceptions about it, you will never detect the playful facade.

Or maybe you do not allow God his recreation? If that is so, then why should God allow you an afterlife where you can romp around with glee?

 

[Thief]

Why would you and I not be included? Are we 'Something Special'?



Not a lie, but play.

When you put on a costume or mask and act out, are you lying?

If you take life too seriously, and form preconceptions about it, you will never detect the playful facade.

Or maybe you do not allow God his recreation? If that is so, then why should God allow you an afterlife where you can romp around with glee?

So you think God and the devil are just playing around?
No such thing as consequence and suffering?

If anything denotes individual existence...pain and suffering.

The creation is not an illusion or a lie.
It is real.

Have you done that experiment 'I' suggested?
Bang your head on the wall til you bleed.....then say its not real.

 

[godnotgod]

So you think God and the devil are just playing around?
No such thing as consequence and suffering?

Consequence and suffering occur when you fail to realize that they are playing around.

If anything denotes individual existence...pain and suffering.

Sure. Then maybe the notion of 'individual existence' is an illusion. So you suffer because your notion does not synch with reality.

The creation is not an illusion or a lie.
It is real.

It may not be a lie, but it comes and goes, shape-shifting, just like an illusion. So what is the difference?

Have you done that experiment 'I' suggested?
Bang your head on the wall til you bleed.....then say its not real.

The head-banging comes to an end;
the bleeding eventually stops;
the pain ceases;
the incident is eventually forgotten.

So what is real about it?

Where do you see substance or permanence to make it so?

It's empty.

Let all sharpness be blunted,
All tangles untied,
All glare tempered.
All dust smoothed.

Tao te Ching, Ch 56

 

[Willamena]

It may not be a lie, but it comes and goes, shape-shifting, just like an illusion. So what is the difference?

The illusion of permanence contending with the permanence of illusion?

 

[godnotgod]

The illusion of permanence contending with the permanence of illusion?

There is no contention. That which is manifesting the illusion is what is permanent, so there is complete harmony.

The friction comes when the illusion is mistaken for reality, when the 'rope' is mistaken for a snake.

 

[atanu]

There is no contention. That which is manifesting the illusion is what is permanent, so there is complete harmony.

The friction comes when the illusion is mistaken for reality, when the 'rope' is mistaken for a snake.

This is nice. Another source of friction is the assertion/notion that there is no rope too, negating the very foundation of such (or any) notion/assertion.

Thanks.

 

[godnotgod]

This is nice. Another source of friction is the assertion/notion that there is no snake too, negating the very foundation of such (or any) notion/assertion.

Thanks.

I see what you mean. So shall we 'negate negation', as the Buddha once instructed?

 

[atanu]

I see what you mean. So shall we 'negate negation', as the Buddha once instructed?

Please enlighten.

 

[Thief]

Consequence and suffering occur when you fail to realize that they are playing around.

Sure. Then maybe the notion of 'individual existence' is an illusion. So you suffer because your notion does not synch with reality.


It may not be a lie, but it comes and goes, shape-shifting, just like an illusion. So what is the difference?

The head-banging comes to an end;
the bleeding eventually stops;
the pain ceases;
the incident is eventually forgotten.

So what is real about it?

Where do you see substance or permanence to make it so?

It's empty.

Let all sharpness be blunted,
All tangles untied,
All glare tempered.
All dust smoothed.

Tao te Ching, Ch 56

The permanence is in a spirit full of experience.
The empty cup (empty head) maybe fine for you.

 

[Thief]

Consequence and suffering occur when you fail to realize that they are playing around.

Sure. Then maybe the notion of 'individual existence' is an illusion. So you suffer because your notion does not synch with reality.


It may not be a lie, but it comes and goes, shape-shifting, just like an illusion. So what is the difference?

The head-banging comes to an end;
the bleeding eventually stops;
the pain ceases;
the incident is eventually forgotten.

So what is real about it?

Where do you see substance or permanence to make it so?

It's empty.

Let all sharpness be blunted,
All tangles untied,
All glare tempered.
All dust smoothed.

Tao te Ching, Ch 56

btw....the above is also the desire of the devil.
all of God's creation....undone.

So I've heard.

 

[atanu]

I see what you mean. So shall we 'negate negation', as the Buddha once instructed?

There was typographic error made in hurry. It has been edited now, as reproduced below:

This is nice. Another source of friction is the assertion/notion that there is no rope too, negating the very foundation of such (or any) notion/assertion.

Sorry.

 

[godnotgod]

Please enlighten.

Hope this helps:

[youtube]0AwlC1IdE-Q[/youtube]
Zenless Zen (Negating the Negation) - YouTube

(Sorry about the computer-generated voice)

and......

“Before I began my study of Zen,
mountains were just mountains,
and trees were just trees.

During my study of Zen,
mountains were no longer mountains,
and trees no longer trees.

When I became Enlightened,
mountains were once again mountains,
and trees once again trees.”

 

[godnotgod]

The permanence is in a spirit full of experience.

The only permanence is in non-experience; in no-action, which is pure being. Experience can only occur in the temporal world. It vanishes as soon as it occurs. If it did not, it could not be what it is. You cannot freeze experience; it is an action.

The empty cup (empty head) maybe fine for you.

How do you expect to grow spiritually unless you empty your cup? Jesus tried to tell you when he said:

'Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.'
Matt. 18:3

Little children see without judging, without forming preconceptions about what they are seeing. In other words, their minds are empty. This is not the kind of 'empty-headedness' we think of as a negative quality in the West. It is a positive value. It is otherwise known as 'innocency'. Because of repeated exposure to social conditioning, our minds become polluted and we lose touch with the true nature of reality. We conceptualize about reality, superimposing ideas over reality, mistaking the one for the other. That is when life becomes dull, boring and unrewarding. We begin to rely on dogma and doctrine to live by, instead of living life itself. The description of reality (Paradise) can never match the reality itself.

 

[godnotgod]

btw....the above is also the desire of the devil.
all of God's creation....undone.

So I've heard.

Excuse me?

 

[atanu]

Hope this helps:

[youtube]0AwlC1IdE-Q[/youtube]
Zenless Zen (Negating the Negation) - YouTube

(Sorry about the computer-generated voice)

and......

“Before I began my study of Zen,
mountains were just mountains,
and trees were just trees.

During my study of Zen,
mountains were no longer mountains,
and trees no longer trees.

When I became Enlightened,
mountains were once again mountains,
and trees once again trees.”

That is huge problem.)(

 

[jtartar]

I am simply going to use this thread as a means to discuss the existence of God with anyone. I am constantly discussing this with people, and feel I should have a main thread to post on.

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

Daviso,
I believe just as Paul said. There is no excuse for not believing in God, Rom 1:20.
There are two concepts, both about the same; Teleology, and Cosmological Proof.
There can be no other possible accounting of so many things created, except for a superior mind, far beyond any man's, isa 55:8,9, Job 37:5, 16.
It is rather comical when a man copies nature in some inferior way and is thought to be a genius. If he is a genius, what about the great mind that created the real thing and not an inferior copy???
The Bible tells us many things that no men on earth knew at the time of the writing, Job 26:7,10, Isa 40:22.
The Mosaic Law Covenant has many safty laws in it that no men knew then.
The most compelling thing of all is that the Bible is about a third PROPHECY. We know that there is NO MAN that can tell you what will happen tomorrow, accurrately.
Any time you want to talk about the Only True God, just let me know, for I have known Him for over 50ty years. His Proper or Personal name is Jehovah, in English!!

 

[godnotgod]

That is huge problem.)(

Again, it's sheer simplicity presents a seemingly insurmountable paradox to the thinking mind. The beauty of Zen is that it short-circuits the thinking mind, thereby dissolving the paradox.

heh..heh..heh..or were you referring to the computer-generated voice?

 

[godnotgod]

I believe just as Paul said. There is no excuse for not believing in God, Rom 1:20.

That kind of thinking is making belief in God an obligation or duty, and when coupled with the consequence of punishment makes it coercive, thereby destroying the whole idea of free will.

The nature of belief is that it is a voluntary action. Otherwise it cannot be called belief, but indoctrination.

I take the position of non-position, which is that I neither believe, nor not-believe. That frees my mind from coercion and fear so that I can see clearly, without a belief-based model of reality that gets in the way.

The nature of the divine essence is such that it would never coerce us into believing in its presence. That would indicate a God that is an insecure God. Instead, the experience of the divine essence comes to us directly, from within, just as Yeshu said. No belief required nor desirable.


Tao te Ching, Chapter 34

The great Tao is like a flood
It can flow to the left or to the right

The myriad things depend on it for life, but it never stops
It achieves its work, but does not take credit
It clothes and feeds myriad things, but does not rule over them

Ever desiring nothing
It can be named insignificant
Myriad things return to it but it does not rule over them
It can be named great

Even in the end, it does not regard itself as great
That is how it can achieve its greatness

 

[Thief]

I like poetry.

Now can we return to the discussion about God?

 

[Thief]

That kind of thinking is making belief in God an obligation or duty, and when coupled with the consequence of punishment makes it coercive, thereby destroying the whole idea of free will.

The nature of belief is that it is a voluntary action. Otherwise it cannot be called belief, but indoctrination.

I take the position of non-position, which is that I neither believe, nor not-believe. That frees my mind from coercion and fear so that I can see clearly, without a belief-based model of reality that gets in the way.

The nature of the divine essence is such that it would never coerce us into believing in its presence. That would indicate a God that is an insecure God. Instead, the experience of the divine essence comes to us directly, from within, just as Yeshu said. No belief required nor desirable.


Tao te Ching, Chapter 34

The great Tao is like a flood
It can flow to the left or to the right

The myriad things depend on it for life, but it never stops
It achieves its work, but does not take credit
It clothes and feeds myriad things, but does not rule over them

Ever desiring nothing
It can be named insignificant
Myriad things return to it but it does not rule over them
It can be named great

Even in the end, it does not regard itself as great
That is how it can achieve its greatness

You can't be nuetral and profess to be wise.

Anyone can apply such word paly to take such stance in anyform.

You are confusing technique with wisdom.