The Debate of God.

[Prophet]

Hi godnotgod:

That link you gave me starts with a few paragraphs of guesses stated as fact, and extrapolates new facts from these guesses. Why should anyone be expected to read on when the writing reveals immediately that it is built on a foundation of BS?

You're a hypocrite, godnotgod. You pretend to know about enlightenment but all you know is what others have told you. You're an actor. When I read your communications with those who disagree, even when I agree with you conceptually, I can clearly see how attached you are to talking about enlightenment as if you are reciting the Tao Te Ching. If you UNDERSTAND, translate it into English so that these people may understand as well.

Or continue blowing out religious hot air to be mocked. Your call really.

 

[godnotgod]

Hi godnotgod:

That link you gave me starts with a few paragraphs of guesses stated as fact, and extrapolates new facts from these guesses. Why should anyone be expected to read on when the writing reveals immediately that it is built on a foundation of BS?

I have read the first 8 paragraphs of the link in question, and nothing in them is not common knowledge. Pursuit of Paul and his credibility, however, I think requires a separate topic at this point.

You're a hypocrite, godnotgod. You pretend to know about enlightenment but all you know is what others have told you. You're an actor. When I read your communications with those who disagree, even when I agree with you conceptually, I can clearly see how attached you are to talking about enlightenment as if you are reciting the Tao Te Ching. If you UNDERSTAND, translate it into English so that these people may understand as well.

Or continue blowing out religious hot air to be mocked. Your call really.

A hypocrite has several meanings. You seem to be associating it with that of a religious hypocrite, which is 'a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.'

I would like to know where, in any of the discussion so far, I have ever stated any religious beliefs of any kind, while pretending to be in possession of them.

I have never claimed to be more virtuous or enlightened than anyone else here or anywhere. I have, instead, always stated and stressed the idea that everyone is already enlightened, and that all they need do is go see for themselves; that this is our ordinary state of being. A hypocrite would attempt to portray himself as better than others by advertising the fact.

Who, Prophet, is it that advertises himself as an 'Enlightened Being'?

Who, Prophet, is it that becomes upset and angry when confronted with disagreement, making it a personal issue, because he is still attached to his beliefs?

Who, Prophet, is it that referred to belief in himself as his: 'Prophethood.'?

My goodness! It all smacks of such narcissistic self-adulation!

Has anything I have said, or anything quoted from other sources about enlightenment been false? If that is the case, as you seem to be implying, please point out the erroneous passages so that I may correct them.

re: 'translation into English': Excuse me, but the Tao te Ching is written originally in Chinese. The excerpts I have posted are all English translations. I suppose what you are after is for me to water the passages down into some sort of palatable 'common sense' or logical explanations, which would ruin their meanings, as they are intuitive statements, and require one to see them with the intuitive mind.

The whole point in presenting a view other than the standard ones is that it IS something to be focused on, (as opposed to being attached to), in the sense that there is a genuine desire for others to awaken and have an opportunity to experience it, but I think I have been careful NOT to advance it as a doctrine of BELIEF, as it cannot be so advanced, but merely pointed to as the act of seeing itself, rather than something to be seen, which is precisely why I am being hounded, as my pursuers continue to press me to show them what it is there is to see, attacking my pointing finger, rather than going to see for themselves. They want a nice, neat little concept or doctrine they can sink their teeth into and feel secure and comfortable with, which I refuse to provide. I have no candy for them.

In quoting others and providing links to videos, etc, it is simply because they can say it much better than I, that's all.

You and they can mock all you want. I don't mind a bit, since it is not a personal issue with me.

I will admit, however, to one thing, as Alan Watts put it:

"I approach you in the same spirit as a musician. I am not trying to sell you anything. I am not trying to convert you or get you to join an organization. I just want you to enjoy a point of view that I enjoy as a musician wants you to enjoy the music he performs. I am an entertainer."

 

[godnotgod]

Everything is a product of mind, including the physical world and mystical notions.

Including 'mind' itself!

You're still focused on the foreground, which you see because of the background, but which you are still unaware of, just as the fish is completely IN the sea, but is unaware of it being both inside and outside.

What you refer to as 'mystical notions' is due to the fact that you are still on the outside looking in, and see them in terms of the conceptual mind. You are like the fundie who says: 'You have YOUR beliefs, and I have MINE', but that is not the case, as the mystical view is never about beliefs. What it is about is being aware of both background and foreground at the same time, so that reality can be seen as it is, wherein 'mind' is completely understood as being a self-created principle.

 

[godnotgod]

Endlessly repeating the same dogma isn’t argument. This is really no different from a theist referring to the Bible to support his claim that God exists. With theists it’s allegory and with you it’s metaphors. It’s not argument; it’s belief as faith in both cases. You say things such as ‘when seen correctly’ but it would seem that you have no idea what form this ‘correctly seen’ thing takes.

When seen as the rope it is being seen correctly. What 'dogma' is there in seeing things as they are? Seeing correctly is reality itself. It is not about seeing reality as an object; as a 'thing'. There is no belief or doctrine in seeing reality as it is. Seeing reality as it is, is about SEEING, not BELIEVING.

If you understand the metaphor, you understand the principle the metaphor is referring to, but metaphor is limited in equating to what it points to, so the Absolute, unlike the rope, is formless and invisible, and that is why metaphor is necessary.

 

[Tiberius]

No-thing: that from which Every-thing ensues.

Meaningless claim.

No, silly: the true nature of reality is beyond right and wrong. That is why it is called the true nature of reality.

Is it beyond the concepts of "correct" and "incorrect"?

There is no 'objective' or 'subjective'. Those are merely conceptual ideas born of the rational mind in its feeble attempt to encapsulate reality.

Unsupported claim.

Never mind trying to 'test' anything. You're just fooling yourself.

Another unsupported claim.

Just get yourself beyond the dual world and then return here and tell me what you see.

Meaningless new age mumbo jumbo. Prove that there is a "dual world" and then explain how one can travel "beyond" it.

Until then, all you are doing is going back and forth, round and round in a gyrating fatuity.

Nonsensical.

But WHEN you do...OMG!... you will go dancing wildly in the streets unable to contain yourself as you revel in unison with the Absolute Joy of the Cosmos!...but, then again, you may deny what you see, and return to your predictable and therefore, dull and dead 'science', and the unmistakable odor of laboratory formaldehyde, having missed the sudden flash of light in the dark, the moment of truth, the moment of ecstasy.

Strangely enough, this is exactly what certain drugs do to your mind...

There is nothing I have for you. You will simply have to go and see for yourself. I cannot do your seeing for you. Enjoy!

Such arrogance, assuming that anyone who sees things "correctly" will reach the same conclusion as you.

Clue: the more you stimulate the 'objective', the more the 'subjective' will come into play.

Unsupported claim.

 

[godnotgod]

Meaningless claim.

Is it? That is exactly what your science is telling us at the moment. If it did not come out of no-thing, then what other choice is there?

Is it beyond the concepts of "correct" and "incorrect"?

Absolutely! The universe is neither. It just is what it is, without being correct or incorrect, right or wrong, good or bad, purposeful or purposeless.

Unsupported claim.

Think about it: can you have objectivity without subjectivity?

Another unsupported claim.

It is supported by the failure of science to find the nature of reality via testing. That is equivalent to a child tearing apart a moth to find out what a moth is.

Meaningless new age mumbo jumbo. Prove that there is a "dual world" and then explain how one can travel "beyond" it.

What? Where do you get the idea that the dual world is 'new age mumbo jumbo'? You're posting before thinking. You seem to still be hung up on hippies and new age and sugar and spice and their discrediting via your holy science.

The dual world is the outcome of the workings of the rational mind. Good and evil; right and wrong; light and dark; male and female; correct and incorrect; etc; It exists only in the mind. In reality, all dualities are one. To speak of one is to include the other. This is self-evident. To transcend duality is to travel beyond it. Please think about this before you post knee-jerk fashion.

Nonsensical.

Then get over it already!

Strangely enough, this is exactly what certain drugs do to your mind...

Except that drugs delude, while enlightenment enlightens.

Such arrogance, assuming that anyone who sees things "correctly" will reach the same conclusion as you.

It has nothing to do with any personal view. Why should what one person sees regarding reality be different than that of another, and if they do, why is that arrogant?

Unsupported claim.

All you need to do is to observe the process within your own mind, to SEE that it is so....or don't you trust your own mind?

 

[Tiberius]

Is it? That is exactly what your science is telling us at the moment. If it did not come out of no-thing, then what other choice is there?

You got a source where a reputable scientist working in cosmology claims that the universe came from nothing?

Absolutely! The universe is neither. It just is what it is, without being correct or incorrect, right or wrong, good or bad, purposeful or purposeless.

Ah, but we aren't talking about the universe. We are talking about the true nature of the universe. Something that you can explain to me. Something I can reach an understanding on.

If it isn't correct or incorrect, how can we ever know that it is TRUE?

Think about it: can you have objectivity without subjectivity?

Philosphical mumbo jumbo.

It is supported by the failure of science to find the nature of reality via testing. That is equivalent to a child tearing apart a moth to find out what a moth is.

Science has done more to understand the way the universe works than anything else.

Oh, but you don't agree with that, do you, so you dismiss it, claim that there's something else that science hasn't found, allowing you to claim that science is flawed for not finding it, which then justifies your belief that science can't find the true nature of the universe, and since it hasn't found the true nature of the universe, that nature must be something different, and since science hasn't found it, science is flawed, which shows that anything that science has found can't be the true nature of the universe, etc....

See the circular logic here? You must be getting very dizzy...

What? Where do you get the idea that the dual world is 'new age mumbo jumbo'? You're posting before thinking. You seem to still be hung up on hippies and new age and sugar and spice and their discrediting via your holy science.

The dual world is the outcome of the workings of the rational mind. Good and evil; right and wrong; light and dark; male and female; correct and incorrect; etc; It exists only in the mind. In reality, all dualities are one. To speak of one is to include the other. This is self-evident. To transcend duality is to travel beyond it. Please think about this before you post knee-jerk fashion.

There is no such thing as right and wrong. These are subjective moral viewpoints and cannot be proven objectively. What one person considers right, another may consider wrong.

So perhaps you need to learn to phrase things more clearly, although you seem to make a habit out of phrasing things in vague terms.

Then get over it already!

I would, but someone else keeps saying these nonsensical things. Maybe that person needs to get over it.

Except that drugs delude, while enlightenment enlightens.

Tell that to a drug addict. They seem to feel pretty enlightened.

It has nothing to do with any personal view. Why should what one person sees regarding reality be different than that of another, and if they do, why is that arrogant?

Ah, but is it reality you are seeing? Or is it coloured by your preconceptions?

All you need to do is to observe the process within your own mind, to SEE that it is so....or don't you trust your own mind?

Nothing objective can come solely from one mind. To do so will introduce personal biases without any way to remove them. True objectivity comes from many minds, so that a bias held by one mind can be detected and removed by others.

 

[godnotgod]

You got a source where a reputable scientist working in cosmology claims that the universe came from nothing?

ASP: A Universe from Nothing

Search Google: 'zero energy universe'

Ah, but we aren't talking about the universe. We are talking about the true nature of the universe. Something that you can explain to me. Something I can reach an understanding on.

Same thing. The true nature of the universe is that it is an apparition of the Absolute, just as the snake is an apparition of, but in reality, is the rope itself. Because science is looking at the universe through the illusions of Time, Space, and Causation, it cannot understand its true illusory nature. It therefore sees the phenomenon that is the universe as real. In the case of the snake, its true illusory nature is seen almost immediately, because the rope is a visible physicality. In the case of the universe, and on a higher level, we do not immediately see its illusory nature partly due to the invisible nature of the Absolute, partly due to the seeming 'physicality' of the universe, and partly due to our indoctrination via Logic, Reason, and Analysis which produce 'facts'. It is for these reasons that it is so difficult to awaken from the sleep of the Third Level of Consciousness into that of the Fourth and beyond, which shows us the true difference between delusion and reality.

I still cannot explain it to you. You need to see and realize this insight for yourself.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

If it isn't correct or incorrect, how can we ever know that it is TRUE?

'Correct' and 'incorrect' is to discriminate one thing against another. The universe is the Absolute. There is no other. But to realize the truth of this, you need to first transcend duality. Transcending duality, you will see the singularity of all reality. It is unmistakable. If there is no 'other', then only the Absolute can be the True Reality. Since the dual world is unreal, it does not actually exist, and cannot be the True Reality. There is only the rope; there never was a 'snake'. Beyond this, when you awaken, you enter the state of 'self-remembering', in which you recall your own true nature, and that you have never left it. You have always been here, now.

Philosphical mumbo jumbo.

Can you tell me the difference between the subjective and the objective? YOU are the one who brought it up. Come on, now!



Science has done more to understand the way the universe works than anything else.

Oh, but you don't agree with that, do you, so you dismiss it, claim that there's something else that science hasn't found, allowing you to claim that science is flawed for not finding it, which then justifies your belief that science can't find the true nature of the universe, and since it hasn't found the true nature of the universe, that nature must be something different, and since science hasn't found it, science is flawed, which shows that anything that science has found can't be the true nature of the universe, etc....

See the circular logic here? You must be getting very dizzy...

I explained why science cannot find the true nature of the universe above. But yes, I agree with you about science understanding the way the universe works, but that is not to say anything about what its nature is. The closest so far to science understanding that the universe is illusory is QM, but QM at the moment has science stumped. That is why Anton Hellinger, the famous Quantum physicist, has regular conferences with the Dalai Lama and his monks. He wants their input.

The only people who have found the answer as to the nature of the universe are the mystics, who have been saying what it is for thousands of years, who all come to the same conclusion independently of each other. That is because the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere.

There is no such thing as right and wrong. These are subjective moral viewpoints and cannot be proven objectively. What one person considers right, another may consider wrong.

So perhaps you need to learn to phrase things more clearly, although you seem to make a habit out of phrasing things in vague terms.

The point is that ALL dualities are illusory.

Tell that to a drug addict. They seem to feel pretty enlightened.

So you are making the distinction between delusion and reality, correct?

Ah, but is it reality you are seeing? Or is it coloured by your preconceptions?

I just got through making the point that it is not due to any PERSONAL view. To see the true nature of reality is to go beyond the personal view to the universal view.

Nothing objective can come solely from one mind. To do so will introduce personal biases without any way to remove them. True objectivity comes from many minds, so that a bias held by one mind can be detected and removed by others.

That is a flawed argument, as the belief by just about everyone except Galileo that the world was flat proves. Again, to see clearly requires one to go beyond the distortions of the personal view of the self. In other words, in correct view, there is no AGENT of seeing; there is only seeing itself, wherein you are the universe looking at itself through your eyes, no "I" need apply.

 

[Tiberius]

ASP: A Universe from Nothing

Search Google: 'zero energy universe'

A universe with a net energy of zero is very different to the whole "One day there was nothing and then it magically exploded" argument.

Same thing. The true nature of the universe is that it is an apparition of the Absolute, just as the snake is an apparition of, but in reality, is the rope itself. Because science is looking at the universe through the illusions of Time, Space, and Causation, it cannot understand its true illusory nature. It therefore sees the phenomenon that is the universe as real. In the case of the snake, its true illusory nature is seen almost immediately, because the rope is a visible physicality. In the case of the universe, and on a higher level, we do not immediately see its illusory nature partly due to the invisible nature of the Absolute, partly due to the seeming 'physicality' of the universe, and partly due to our indoctrination via Logic, Reason, and Analysis which produce 'facts'. It is for these reasons that it is so difficult to awaken from the sleep of the Third Level of Consciousness into that of the Fourth and beyond, which shows us the true difference between delusion and reality.

I still cannot explain it to you. You need to see and realize this insight for yourself.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

You claim that time space and causation are illusions yet there is no good reason to do so. You are intentionally biasing your own opinions. I do not believe what you tell me.

'Correct' and 'incorrect' is to discriminate one thing against another. The universe is the Absolute. There is no other. But to realize the truth of this, you need to first transcend duality. Transcending duality, you will see the singularity of all reality. It is unmistakable. If there is no 'other', then only the Absolute can be the True Reality. Since the dual world is unreal, it does not actually exist, and cannot be the True Reality. There is only the rope; there never was a 'snake'. Beyond this, when you awaken, you enter the state of 'self-remembering', in which you recall your own true nature, and that you have never left it. You have always been here, now.

New age hippy psychobabble. meaningless drivel "Transcend duality". Meaningless buzzwords.

Can you tell me the difference between the subjective and the objective? YOU are the one who brought it up. Come on, now!

Objective = true for everyone, empirically verifiable. It will produce predictable results when subjected to testing, no matter who does the test.

Gravity is objective. If I perform an experiment in which I drop a hammer and time how long it takes to fall, I can determine the acceleration caused by gravity. You can then perform your own experiments and get the same results.

Subjective = based on personal opinion and different for different people.

I can watch a certain movie and think it is wonderful, yet another person can watch that same movie and think it is worthless and terrible.

Do you agree or disagree?

I explained why science cannot find the true nature of the universe above.

And was this explanation subjective or objective? Can I test it and see for myself?

But yes, I agree with you about science understanding the way the universe works, but that is not to say anything about what its nature is.

Define "IS" in the context of this sentence.

The closest so far to science understanding that the universe is illusory is QM, but QM at the moment has science stumped. That is why Anton Hellinger, the famous Quantum physicist, has regular conferences with the Dalai Lama and his monks. He wants their input.

You got a source for this?

The only people who have found the answer as to the nature of the universe are the mystics, who have been saying what it is for thousands of years, who all come to the same conclusion independently of each other.

Again, got a source? And if this is true, why aren't the mystics' explanations being used to produce usable results?

That is because the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere.

Ah, post a simple metaphor and think that it proves your point.

How very quaint of you.

The point is that ALL dualities are illusory.

Can you explain how in clear scientific terms?

So you are making the distinction between delusion and reality, correct?

The drug addict is delusional when the drugs make him feel like everything is wonderful, yes.

I just got through making the point that it is not due to any PERSONAL view. To see the true nature of reality is to go beyond the personal view to the universal view.

And how do you propose we see it in an OBJECTIVE fashion?

Weren't you proposing meditation a while back? Is meditation objective or subjective?

That is a flawed argument, as the belief by just about everyone except Galileo that the world was flat proves. Again, to see clearly requires one to go beyond the distortions of the personal view of the self. In other words, in correct view, there is no AGENT of seeing; there is only seeing itself, wherein you are the universe looking at itself through your eyes, no "I" need apply.

What nonsense are you talking about. I am saying that if one person reaches a conclusion by himself then his own opinions can bias him without his knowledge. If he has other people repeat his work - who will NOT share his own personal opinions - then it is likely that they will be able to expose any bias caused by the first person's opinions. And the more people who repeat the work, the more chances there are of any bias caused by one person's opinions will be detected and corrected for.

How do you not agree with this?

Or is this a case of you reading what you want to read and not what I am saying?

 

[Prophet]

I have read the first 8 paragraphs of the link in question, and nothing in them is not common knowledge. Pursuit of Paul and his credibility, however, I think requires a separate topic at this point.[/COLOR]

Don't care that much about Paul, and our theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

A hypocrite has several meanings. You seem to be associating it with that of a religious hypocrite, which is 'a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.'

I would like to know where, in any of the discussion so far, I have ever stated any religious beliefs of any kind, while pretending to be in possession of them.

I have never claimed to be more virtuous or enlightened than anyone else here or anywhere. I have, instead, always stated and stressed the idea that everyone is already enlightened, and that all they need do is go see for themselves; that this is our ordinary state of being. A hypocrite would attempt to portray himself as better than others by advertising the fact.

I have no problem with your virtues. I have no bearing on your virtues. However, you sell yourself as a being who understands Enlightenment. And you do this by battling common straightforward English arguments by saying some flowery prose or the lovely *pondfrogleapsplash* as your retort, often adding on that they have to still their mind or stop thinking so that they can finally see what you are talking about.

You are a hypocrite in that you say you are offering understanding of Enlightenment when, in actuality, you offer the same brainwashing techniques employed by all fundy religions.

Who, Prophet, is it that advertises himself as an 'Enlightened Being'?

Both of us. You just tacitly half-claim it by attempting to teach it, feigning understanding when all you see are the outcomes. Were you to understand it, you would certainly realize that claiming an understanding of Enlightenment is tantamount to claiming it. Enlightenment is full understanding. If your words have understanding behind them, they will have power. If your words have only feigned certainty and similarly flawed understanding, your words will be religious hot air.

Who, Prophet, is it that becomes upset and angry when confronted with disagreement, making it a personal issue, because he is still attached to his beliefs?

Not really feeling the anger too much now, though I may have been a bit testy before. If there is annoyance here, it was because you believed you were in agreeance with me, and you were speaking of me thus. I want them to know that Enlightenment or the attainment of it has nothing to do with the brainwashing techniques that you are teaching.

Who, Prophet, is it that referred to belief in himself as his: 'Prophethood.'?

My goodness! It all smacks of such narcissistic self-adulation!

Socrates became Enlightened and taught many. Siddhartha Gautama did the same. Lao Tzu did it. Jesus also did it. And many non-famous Prophets have lived and died. I became Enlightened. Everyone can become Enlightened. Very few on their own in a world at war. You saying that Enlightenment is always there and saying that everyone is already Enlightened shows you don't really understand whats going on. You need to spend a lot less time working on your zone-out brainwashing techniques and a lot more time trying to understand.

It seems like you think you had sufficiently curried my favor by claiming acceptance of me as a Prophet where I should let our disagreements slide. My problem is that you're spreading misinformation, and I don't even let my closest friends get away with this.

Has anything I have said, or anything quoted from other sources about enlightenment been false? If that is the case, as you seem to be implying, please point out the erroneous passages so that I may correct them.

Pages upon pages. No thank you.

re: 'translation into English': Excuse me, but the Tao te Ching is written originally in Chinese. The excerpts I have posted are all English translations. I suppose what you are after is for me to water the passages down into some sort of palatable 'common sense' or logical explanations, which would ruin their meanings, as they are intuitive statements, and require one to see them with the intuitive mind.

If you were Enlightened, I assure you that your expansion upon a verse from an Enlightened mind would water down nothing and actually add much to it. If you were not Enlightened, yes, you changing the words would "water down" the teaching. How, exactly, did these Scriptures get here in the first place if there is no higher level of awareness for you to yet attain? Does God drop them from the heavens? If you are not capable of writing Scripture, you surely are not Enlightened.

If you can't translate the message into plain speech in any language you know, you fall short of understanding. Show me which teaching which can't be spoken plainly and I will either speak it plainly and expand on it for you or expose it as a fraud.

 

[godnotgod]

Don't care that much about Paul, and our theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Now you change your tune. You previously said you and Paul had much in common. I am believing you less and less.

I have no problem with your virtues. I have no bearing on your virtues. However, you sell yourself as a being who understands Enlightenment. And you do this by battling common straightforward English arguments by saying some flowery prose or the lovely *pondfrogleapsplash* as your retort, often adding on that they have to still their mind or stop thinking so that they can finally see what you are talking about.

I never said that. I merely said that seeing into the true nature of reality is not the same as conceptualizing about it, and that enlightenment is simply to see things as they are. If you don't understand the simplicity of this, then you are not enlightened, though you claim to be. I have never, BTW, claimed to be enlightened.

If you knew anything at all, you would know that 'pondfrogleapsplash' is a reflection of one of the most famous of Japanese haiku poems, closely tied to the Zen experience of enlightenment. It has nothing to do with being flowery for its own sake.

'Straightforward English arguments' are rational arguments, that do not necessarily reflect a spiritually enlightened state. Spiritual enlightenment is transcendent of Reason. You cannot 'think' yourself into enlightenment, though I know YOU think you can.

You are a hypocrite in that you say you are offering understanding of Enlightenment when, in actuality, you offer the same brainwashing techniques employed by all fundy religions.

If I were actually offering a brainwashing doctrine, you might be right, but I challenge you to show me a single instance of any such doctrine or belief which I put forth as one which must be believed in as dogma. Seeing reality as it is is not a doctrine. I think you're quite confused, and seeing things through your own filters. Hypocrites are associated with moral facades; I am not discussing morality here. Enlightenment is not about morality, nor is it a doctrine. Shall we make that clear right now, or are you going to go on harping about what a hypocrite I am, when that is the first thing you said you realized about yourself when you became 'enlightened', which I seriously doubt.

Both of us. You just tacitly half-claim it by attempting to teach it, feigning understanding when all you see are the outcomes. Were you to understand it, you would certainly realize that claiming an understanding of Enlightenment is tantamount to claiming it. Enlightenment is full understanding. If your words have understanding behind them, they will have power. If your words have only feigned certainty and similarly flawed understanding, your words will be religious hot air.

Hey, don't include me in your fallacious claims! I have never claimed to be enlightened. What I post I take the time to understand. If you want to see it as my being enlightened or not, that is your view. I refuse to make the claim. I have never seen or heard a truly enlightened person ever make such a claim. Only an unenlightened person would do so. There is no need for an enlightened person to make such claims. That is like saying that one is human. What is the point, other than to draw attention to oneself? So go ahead and knock yourself out, banging your head on the glass repeatedly. I am thoroughly amused. For my words to be 'religious hot air' would be for them to include a religious message. I don't have one. Do you see one? Maybe it exists in your mind, where you see my discussion as an attempt to convert people to some religious doctrine. Sorry to disappoint, but I really and truly have no such doctrine to convert you or anyone else here to. All I have been saying is this: that what we ordinarily think we see as reality, is not the case. If you see a religious doctrine in that, then show it to me.

Not really feeling the anger too much now, though I may have been a bit testy before. If there is annoyance here, it was because you believed you were in agreeance with me, and you were speaking of me thus. I want them to know that Enlightenment or the attainment of it has nothing to do with the brainwashing techniques that you are teaching.

To quiet the discursive, conceptualizing mind so that one can see, is not brainwashing. Brainwashing is about indoctrination and forcing one to see what one wants others to see. All I have been saying is that it is precisely doctrine and belief that are in the way of seeing reality as it is. In other words, it is not about seeing anything in particular, but in seeing itself. To see things as they are is freedom, not brainwashing. If it is, then you show me how that is so.

Socrates became Enlightened and taught many. Siddhartha Gautama did the same. Lao Tzu did it. Jesus also did it. And many non-famous Prophets have lived and died. I became Enlightened. Everyone can become Enlightened. Very few on their own in a world at war. You saying that Enlightenment is always there and saying that everyone is already Enlightened shows you don't really understand whats going on. You need to spend a lot less time working on your zone-out brainwashing techniques and a lot more time trying to understand.

Well, I believe you less and less, as I stated, and even less after that last statement. There is no "I" that 'becomes' enlightened. Enlightenment is about the end of becoming; the realization that the self is illusory. There is no one who 'attains' anything, nor anything to attain. Even the Buddha said that:

"I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." -- Gotama Buddha

By setting yourself apart as 'enlightened' you are creating divisions between the 'enlightened' and the 'unenlightened', and are still in the realm of duality.

To say that everyone is already enlightened is like walking into a room filled with light, but with one's eyes closed. One need only open the eyes to authenticate that which already exists. There is nothing to 'get'. If you think there is something to get, you are being driven by cause and effect.


If you are going to persist in making the accusation that I employ 'brainwashing techniques', then I am going to have to call you on it. Now come forth here and present these so-called 'brainwashing techniques' you claim I employ, or cease your ridiculous claim.

It seems like you think you had sufficiently curried my favor by claiming acceptance of me as a Prophet where I should let our disagreements slide. My problem is that you're spreading misinformation, and I don't even let my closest friends get away with this.

Look, shall we just forget any 'favor' or 'disfavor' as far as you and I are concerned? Let's just say that at times I may agree with you, and at other times, I may disagree, as I would with anyone else, OK?

If there is some 'misinformation' you think I am trying to get away with, then I suggest you had best get on it right away. After all, this is a discussion forum, where people exchange ideas and sometimes correct one another.

Pages upon pages. No thank you.

Then why did you make the claim of falsehood if you are not going to defend it? This is a DISCUSSION forum. I say something, and if you find it erroneous, you should not just make a point of it without pointing TO it.

If you were Enlightened, I assure you that your expansion upon a verse from an Enlightened mind would water down nothing and actually add much to it. If you were not Enlightened, yes, you changing the words would "water down" the teaching. How, exactly, did these Scriptures get here in the first place if there is no higher level of awareness for you to yet attain? Does God drop them from the heavens? If you are not capable of writing Scripture, you surely are not Enlightened.

Now that is surely one dogmatic pronouncement! Now who's talking brainwashing? Scripture is not a prerequisite for the state of Enlightenment; it is merely a second-hand account of the first-hand spiritual experience.

I am neither enlightened, nor not-enlightened, but as for the verses in question, they stand on their own merit, and are in no need of explanation, either by the enlightened, or the unenlightened. They are light themselves.

If you can't translate the message into plain speech in any language you know, you fall short of understanding. Show me which teaching which can't be spoken plainly and I will either speak it plainly and expand on it for you or expose it as a fraud.

I am perfectly happy with the messages as they exist. If you think you can clarify something you feel is unclear, then that is your business. As for the Tao te Ching specifically, there are umpteen versions, and one can devote a lifetime to their study.

"Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special;
After Enlightenment, is is Nothing Special"
Shunryu Suzuki

 

[predavlad]

I will try to address the challenge posted by the OP in my own way

The existence of a god, any god, can never be ultimately and absolutely neither proved or disproved.

But for any religious person to claim that there is a god and it is the god of religion X, he must first disprove - or demonstrate why all the other gods out there are man made and do not really exist. The same criteria used to disprove other religions and gods should be applied to their own religion as well.

If the believer gets to this point - there are 2 remaining alternatives: one god or no god, and the actual work to prove that their god exists can start. I don't know yet what evidence could be presented by a believer to determine that the possibility of the existence of their god is extremely high, almost certain.

I tried to get to this point, but the same criteria used to disprove one religion can disprove almost any other.


The next question to ask is if it's possible that there are 2+ gods (from different religions)?
Although it is possible, I would say it's not very likely. Very few religions are compatible with other religions. But even if there are religions who are compatible with eachother, they still must withstand the criteria mentioned above.


I would say that this is a fairly good trial for religious people who want to prove the existence of god.


Good luck !

 

[PolyHedral]

The existence of a god, any god, can never be ultimately and absolutely neither proved or disproved.

If your idea of God makes a testable prediction, it can absolutely be disproved. And if your idea of God doesn't make a testable prediction, then what's the point?

 

[predavlad]

If your idea of God makes a testable prediction, it can absolutely be disproved. And if your idea of God doesn't make a testable prediction, then what's the point?

That's pretty much true for Deist gods, which don't really make predictions.

For theist gods you are correct, there are testable predictions - but not consistent enough to be considered as definite proof.

 

[SaintAugustine]

God is God.

 

[Tiberius]

God is God.

Snargles are snargles.

But that gives you absolutely no understanding of what a snargle is, does it? it's meaningless, wouldn't you say?

 

[godnotgod]

The existence of a god, any god, can never be ultimately and absolutely neither proved or disproved.

I would say that this is a fairly good trial for religious people who want to prove the existence of god.

The authentic spiritual experience requires no proof. Anyone who has had this experience would know that. Those who think they must prove the existence of God do so only out of belief or non-belief, not direct experience. They feel compelled either way because they have a position to defend. The authentic spiritual experience puts one in a place where one has no such position to defend. Both theists and atheists are just barking at each other over this issue from their 'positions'.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It's curious how the most spectacularly truthful and revealed experiences are the ones that run the fastest and farthest from providing concrete proof.

What are your truths afraid of?

 

[godnotgod]

It's curious how the most spectacularly truthful and revealed experiences are the ones that run the fastest and farthest from providing concrete proof.

What are your truths afraid of?

Why are you afraid to go see for yourself? Does all that wretched excess baggage of Reason, Logic, Science, and Analysis give you so much thumb-sucking comfort that without them to cling to you think you would find yourself in a no-man's land, a babe in the woods, far, far from home with no way back? Consider that that may actually be the best possible place to be.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Why are you afraid to go see for yourself? Does all that wretched excess baggage of Reason, Logic, Science, and Analysis give you so much thumb-sucking comfort that without them to cling to you think you would find yourself in a no-man's land, a babe in the woods, far, far from home with no way back? Consider that that may actually be the best possible place to be.

lol, 'wretched excess'.

I notice you avoided answering the question. Do all enlightened persons fear questions?

It seems the ultimate truths are more frightened of truth than your average 4 year old is of the dark.

Out of the two of us, I am far more courageous than you. My religion essentially cornered the market on it.