The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

lol!

You make me laugh, then you make me sad as that's probably exactly what he means...

Show me the doctrine I am forcing on you. That's all I ask.

 

[godnotgod]

No difference at all! A belief system is where a thing is said to be true, ie not merely possible or probable, but held as an article of faith, notwithstanding the inability to demonstrate certainty. The perfect exemplar is where you claim to 'see the universe for what it is' when you have not the first idea what it is, and have no way to show you cannot be mistaken in what you believe.

Belief follows perception, but seeing is beyond either.

If I say the universe is illusory via of seeing into its nature, and ten thousand others say the same thing, all having arrived at the same conclusion in the same manner independently of one another and at different times, as well as the fact that their view has remained consistent and constant through time, is that proof enough that they are not mistaken as to what they are witnessing? (I am not speaking here of divergent religious beliefs and their views) In a court of law, testimony based on such independent corroboration would be accepted as authentic.

On the contrary, science, for example, still cannot agree on certain ideas about the universe, their view changing all the time.

The difference between the religious and the mystical views, is that the one is based on 'faith of things unseen', causing it to remain a belief, while the other is based on that which is seen and understood beyond the shadow of a doubt, because it is the universe itself showing you what the true nature of reality is. Belief foisted as Truth is dogma, but the apprehension of reality itself, with nothing in the way such as belief or analysis, cannot be dogma, since reality is without doctrine. In other words, Reality maintains no ideas or concepts regarding itself.

Somehow you don't seem to think that is possible.

 

[godnotgod]

Correct. And without evidence there is no reason to believe in him.

No one is asking you to believe in anything, but you choose NOT to believe, which is a belief in and of itself. What do you see when you neither believe, nor not-believe? That is to say, what is the true nature of reality?

 

[Prophet]

'Brainwashing' requires a doctrine, which you have to date failed to produce. You just want to brainwash people with the idea that they are being brainwashed, with no evidence to support it.

Show us this 'brainwashing' doctrine which you say is being foisted upon the unsuspecting.

The only one I see so far is: "I am an Enlightened Being, (see my wall plaque to that effect?) and have the authority to tell you the Truth, so you had best listen to me, and blah, blah, blah..."

Your doctrine is: Stop thinking and start agreeing with me to join me in Enlightenment. While this doctrine or a near clone of it is foisted upon the unsuspecting wherever ignorance proliferates, thankfully these debaters are rationally suspicious for the most part.

 

[godnotgod]

Your doctrine is: Stop thinking and start agreeing with me to join me in Enlightenment. While this doctrine or a near clone of it is foisted upon the unsuspecting wherever ignorance proliferates, thankfully these debaters are rationally suspicious for the most part.

But that is not my message. That is what you are reading into it. Besides, even if that IS what I were saying, it is still not a doctrine. You have to state exactly what it is I am demanding that they agree with. For example, a real religious doctrine is something like:

"Drink, for this is my blood, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sin."

You have to believe that the shedding of blood somehow magically washes 'sin' away.

'Stop thinking and start agreeing with me to join me in Enlightenment' is not a doctrine in and of itself; it is what one would require of others in their belief of a doctrine.

I never said to 'join me in Enlightenment'. This is not a club or church, nor is Enlightenment a belief or doctrine. As I stated, everyone is already enlightened, so it would be contradictory for me to ask them to 'join me', would'nt it? If everyone is already enlightened, there is nothing to believe in, nor any doctrine to uphold, is there? All that is required is to realize one's own enlightenment. Realization is not a thinking process. You don't realize your Enlightenment via of rational thought, via Reason, though Reason can be one part of the path. Realization is about seeing, not thinking. Therefore, it cannot be a belief or a doctrine.

Having said that, one does not suspend intellectual thought. It's just that it is utilized differently by an enlightened person. One does not stop going about his ordinary life as before. It's just that one sees himself in ordinary life differently than before. It is a transformation of the ordinary into the extraordinary.

What I am saying is this: we are raised in a social culture that conditions us into certain modes of thought, which are actually altered states of consciousness, since our original conscious awareness is not attached to any particular view whatsoever. Our original pure consciousness is one which simply sees things as they are, without making judgments about what it is one sees; without being influenced by technique. Our original consciousness is non-dual; that is to say, it is one that is, for example, neither scientific, nor non-scientific; neither religious, nor non-religious. It does not adhere to any position. It just sees.

Those here who are 'rationally suspicious' are so because their consciousness is in an altered state away from their original consciousness. This was precisely the case when Yeshua presented his ideas to a suspicious audience, whose consciousness was in an altered state, either by religion on the one hand, or politics on the other. Yeshua's consciousness was not altered. He was speaking from his original, pure consciousness, which is of the living Present Moment, and which took the form of "I Am", meaning he is pure being, and pure being is unborn, and therefore non-historical. 'My kingdom is not of this world' is a denial of the false state of altered consciousness, which holds that Time, Space, and Causation are actual realities. They are held as true because of Logic, Reason, and Analysis. Original consciousness is beyond Time, Space, and Causation.

What you are implying by suggesting that I am fostering a doctrine of 'stop thinking' equates to lobotomy and mind control to what end I haven't a clue. I am fostering nothing of the sort. No one is attempting to turn people into unquestioning mindless zombies who simply follow orders. Seeing directly into one's own nature simply renders thought an unnecessary, even obstructive activity. It is not to say that one cannot intellectualize on what one sees afterwards. It's just that one's thinking mind is transformed via the intuitive.

I'm glad that you provided what you think is my 'doctrine' so that I could have an opportunity to prove you incorrect. In short, there is no doctrine which I am seeking to convert anyone to. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[Prophet]

You want them to agree that rational conceptions of the universe are laughable so much so that you could better understand the universe by shutting off all rationality and agreeing with you.

I recognize this fundamentalist doctrine well from my childhood, but it was worded differently. It stated that "God works in mysterious ways," implying that God acts without apparent reason and followed accordingly that the path to faith was the burial of reason.

"Stop thinking and start agreeing with me," is the basis for every fundamentalist religion. The reason for this that when Knowledge of Good and Evil is lost, a religious movement which before had the power of the Enlightenment behind it is now headed by beings who are not qualified. To secure their insecure positions of power, they resolve to agree with one another. Much of the corrupted scriptures you quote are likely a result of this groupthink phenomenon.

I'm obviously not needed here to defeat you. Most of the posters who are responding to you got you covered easily. I'm just here as a reminder to them that there is an alternative view of Enlightenment here that isn't based upon suspension of reason, adherence, or agreement with me. There's a meaningful transformation available to all beings that goes beyond the meaningless drivel you are pushing.

To those who seek answers, I invite questions and honest disagreement.

 

[godnotgod]

Enlightenment [edited]

Many people think about enlightenment. Sometimes we talk about 3 kinds of enlightenment. There’s 1st enlightenment, original enlightenment and final enlightenment. 1st enlightenment is perceiving our substance.

Before thinking is my true substance. My before thinking is my true substance, your before thinking is your true substance. Then your before thinking substance, my before thinking substance, the substance of the sun, the moon, the stars, all universe’s substance is the same substance.

So when you keep a mind that doesn’t know, when you keep a mind that has no thinking, that is when know you are the universe, the universe is you. That substance has no name no form. No life, no death. [and therefore, no memory or history, ie: "I Am" = Pure Being; Pure Consciousness that only sees without a see-er].

So if we perceive our true nature, our true substance, then we have no life no death. Only body has life and death. True self has no life and death. This is just a physical example, but its like this:

Ice, water, steam. Name and form are all different, function’s different. But everybody understands that the substance is the same: H2O. When ice melts, nobody cries, "the ice has died!" When water appears nobody says, "the water is born!" We know each of them is just changed form.

If we understand that point, then when we die, crying is not necessary. Our body is just like a rented car. That is a “not me”. It is rented from the universe. The rental agent is my father and mother. Then when you die you return the car to the universe. That time you must pay for the rental. So now my rented car has a problem, maybe soon broken, then return to the universe. Then get a new car, no problem. So if we are attached to this car then when we die we have a big problem. But if we find the driver, then when we die, no problem. Driver just continues with a new car.

So if we realize our true nature, then our mind is not suffering. The body may suffer, but the mind is not suffering. So the first thing Buddha said when he realized his own Enlightenment was, “Amazing! Everything in this universe has this Buddha nature, has this substance.” So even when we are in ignorance, we still have it. It's simply that we don’t recognize it.

So 1st enlightenment is to realize one's true nature.

“When the Buddha has a moment of opposite thinking, then he is a sentient being. When a sentient being has a moment of clarity, he is a Buddha.” Conversely:

"When an ordinary man gains wisdom, he becomes a sage; when a sage gains understanding, he becomes an ordinary man."

So moment to moment is most important. Enlightenment is easy to get, but difficult to keep moment to moment. That means, it is easy to be clear one moment, but not easy to be clear moment by moment.

zen mind ordinary mind: 3 Kinds of Enlightenment: Substance, Truth and Function - a talk by Zen Master Dae Bong

 

[godnotgod]

You want them to agree that rational conceptions of the universe are laughable so much so that you could better understand the universe by shutting off all rationality and agreeing with you.

Well, the very fact that they are rational conceptions is what renders them laughable! I have no way of controlling the laughability factor, which comes as a result of the realization that the Infinite cannot be contained within the finite. Rational conceptions are merely the mind's futile attempt to encapsulate reality. There's no doctrine here that I want anyone to accept or agree to. If anything, rational concepts are a form of doctrine, while seeing into the nature of reality without these preconceived notions is completely doctrineless, a true liberation of the mind. Having said that, the rational mind is perfectly OK by me in terms of factual knowledge about the universe, but as repeatedly stated, it is incapable of ever knowing what its true nature is, and more importantly, what man's true nature is, as the Buddha himself emphasized, in the parable of the man fatally shot with an arrow.

I recognize this fundamentalist doctrine well from my childhood, but it was worded differently. It stated that "God works in mysterious ways," implying that God acts without apparent reason and followed accordingly that the path to faith was the burial of reason.

Your reasoning is seriously flawed here, I am afraid. I, too, was raised a Christian, but the meaning of 'God works in mysterious ways' does not imply the suspension of Reason, but a special and secret use of it, to which man is not privy or entitled to. Therefore, man should stop trying to figure out God's intent and, as you say, bury 'reason' (which is merely futile rational conjecture about the nature of reality) and foster a kind of blind faith. All of this because Reason is the culprit here, since it is Reason which first creates the mystery of God, and then proceeds to try to 'figure him out'. 'Even though we don't understand the paradoxes and ironies of this life via Reason and Logic, there must be a creator-God who has Perfect Reasons for everything that occurs.' All of this because Reason forces a conceptual overlay of morality (which is an oxymoron) onto the natural world with unexpected outcomes.

"Stop thinking and start agreeing with me," is the basis for every fundamentalist religion. The reason for this that when Knowledge of Good and Evil is lost, a religious movement which before had the power of the Enlightenment behind it is now headed by beings who are not qualified. To secure their insecure positions of power, they resolve to agree with one another. Much of the corrupted scriptures you quote are likely a result of this groupthink phenomenon.

You're obviously trying to imply something derogatory here, but what it is is not exactly clear, which I suspect is really your intent to mislead. What on earth is the 'groupthink phenomenon'? I don't suppose you are actually going to try to answer that, but if you ask me, I would have to say the shoe that fits is the idea of Christians shouting in the dark to lend comfort to one another, LOL. You're being pretty vague here, but I gather that you are either referring to the Romanized version of Christianity over that of Yeshua's original teachings, or what what some refer to as New Age thinkers as the unqualified. Not sure to which 'corrupted scriptures' you refer, but it appears that you don't really know what you are talking about, but once again, it appears that your vague allusion to them is deliberate as a means of discrediting anything I say without actually providing evidence to support your accusation.

If any scriptures are corrupted, they are those which you seem to have first expressed an intimate affinity for, namely those of Paul, one of the most corrupt of all writers of scripture, and for whom you later disavowed interest in.

What does the knowledge of Good and Evil have to do with Enlightenment? You sound like a Moralist, rather than the 'Enlightened Being' that you prop yourself up as. The more you talk, the more I suspect that you still carry around your old moralist Christian baggage, in spite of the fact that you draw attention to yourself by advertising yourself as an 'Enlightened Being', something no truly enlightened being would ever think of doing. It just smacks of the carnie-barker/used car salesman atmosphere.

A true understanding of the 'knowledge of Good and Evil' is one which sees that they are two halves of the same coin, rather than the distorted view of their being in opposition to one another.

I'm obviously not needed here to defeat you.

I was unaware that was the intent, but that is quite impossible, as I have nothing to defend, as you and they have.

Most of the posters who are responding to you got you covered easily.

I haven't noticed. We are still at Square One. They continue banging their heads against a non-existent wall, demanding 'factual evidence' for something that is beyond the conceptualizing mind. They haven't gotten that yet because everything they see is governed via their notions about reality, rather than by reality itself. They have the cart before the horse, in the same manner of those Yeshua referred to, who mistakenly thought to find eternal life within the scriptures. In other words, get the goods first, THEN we can talk about it. The more you form opinions about it, the further away you get from it.

I'm just here as a reminder to them that there is an alternative view of Enlightenment here that isn't based upon suspension of reason, adherence, or agreement with me. There's a meaningful transformation available to all beings that goes beyond the meaningless drivel you are pushing. To those who seek answers, I invite questions and honest disagreement.

If you are presenting Reason as the pathway to Enlightenment, then agreement with you is necessary.

I have referred in my posts to the statements of many enlightened people, which you are labeling as 'meaningless drivel', which is nothing but a veiled ad hominem attack. These statements are those reflecting universal principles, not personal views. It all sounds as if what you are really promoting is 'Prophet's Personal View of Enlightenment'. Ad hominem attacks on others without grounds to prop oneself up as a credible authority are nothing more than the machinations of the ego, wherein one's Shadow is projected onto a scapegoat.

So here's a question: What does Prophet's Personal View of Enlightenment tell us about the nature of reality?

 

[cottage]

I haven't noticed. We are still at Square One. They continue banging their heads against a non-existent wall, demanding 'factual evidence' for something that is beyond the conceptualizing mind. They haven't gotten that yet because everything they see is governed via their notions about reality, rather than by reality itself.

It is your argument that remains firmly at square one simply because you are unable progress from making empty assertions, merely echoing what others have said and quoting material that you’ve adopted uncritically and bought into wholesale. And it is because you cannot escape the experiential world that it suits your argument to misleadingly speak of objectors demanding ‘factual evidence’, rather than addressing the proper question of truth and knowledge. Obsessively and constantly saying things as if they were true, without offering the least argument to show they are true, is entirely akin to religious belief-as-faith.

So here's a question: What does Prophet's Personal View of Enlightenment tell us about the nature of reality?

Shouldn’t the question be what is godnotgod’s personal view of enlightenment tell us about the nature of reality, because nowhere in the many thousands of words you’ve written have you actually been able to explain what the ‘nature of reality’ is?

 

[cottage]

No shouting, just emphasis, OK?

Emphasising a word in lieu of truth and knowledge is pretty vacuous when nothing follows from it but a disappointing anti-climax!

The Absolute is non-demonstrable in terms of logical proof simply because it is beyond an intellectual logic, but not beyond intuitive logic, which is determined not via the thinking mind, but via of seeing. That makes it demonstrable only to the person having the experience. So all I have been saying is that, if you want to see about the authenticity of the Absolute, you will have to go see for yourself, but if you bring your baggage with you, you will never see it. [/quote

on't scratch your head, because the answer to this question is not in there.

So you’re saying it isn’t true because it cannot be false but it is true because the person experiences it! Well since no experience can be true then no person can have a true experience, self-evidently, as no case can be made for the concept of personhood! And btw, intuitive logic is demonstrable logic, for that is precisely the meaning of the term.

Now take note, in light of the accusation that I am brainwashing people, that I have pointed you to no specific doctrine or belief of any kind. All I have done is to point you towards seeing. That is all. I never told you WHAT to see, or that once seen, you must BELIEVE in what you see, or threatened you that if you did not believe in what I have told you you would be punished. Did I? Asking you to go see for yourself is to respect your freedom. Brainwashing destroys freedom. It's like you're wearing lenses that show you the world through their distortions, and I suggest you remove them and take another look. That is all. But every time I do, you think I am trying to force my view onto you. Is not MY view; it is just The View.)

In these particular cases it is my view that brainwashing, if ‘brainwashing’ is the correct term, is a self-directed process, where the advocate promotes a doctrine as dogma through constant repetition and reinforcement of the believed-in thing. I’m not sure the object is even to win over converts, although that would certainly aid the reinforcement, but has more to do with the constant stating and re-stating of the belief in line with what other believers have said so that the doctrine appears self-confirming.

 

[cottage]

Belief follows perception, but seeing is beyond either.
If I say the universe is illusory via of seeing into its nature, and ten thousand others say the same thing, all having arrived at the same conclusion in the same manner independently of one another and at different times, as well as the fact that their view has remained consistent and constant through time, is that proof enough that they are not mistaken as to what they are witnessing? (I am not speaking here of divergent religious beliefs and their views) In a court of law, testimony based on such independent corroboration would be accepted as authentic.

That is a very weak argument indeed. If all else fails resort to an Argument from other Believers (argumentum ad populum). If a thing is true it doesn’t need lots of bodies to make it true. In the late nineteenth century a certain Dr Greenleaf published a paper in which he sought to establish the truth of the Resurrection by the application of Municipal Law (Testimonies of the Evangelists). I had great fun in picking that testimony based argument to pieces and would dearly love the opportunity to do the same with your particular mystical claim from (popular?) belief.

On the contrary, science, for example, still cannot agree on certain ideas about the universe, their view changing all the time.

I’m baffled as to why you imagine that statement is an argument for the truth of a metaphysical belief?

The difference between the religious and the mystical views, is that the one is based on 'faith of things unseen', causing it to remain a belief, while the other is based on that which is seen and understood beyond the shadow of a doubt, because it is the universe itself showing you what the true nature of reality is. Belief foisted as Truth is dogma, but the apprehension of reality itself, with nothing in the way such as belief or analysis, cannot be dogma, since reality is without doctrine. In other words, Reality maintains no ideas or concepts regarding itself. Somehow you don't seem to think that is possible.

I’m saying it isn’t actual, and I say that because a) it isn’t something true, and (b) because the contradictions and logical bulwarks make your arguments impossible. Just look at the last two clauses of your first sentence. Here you presume to ‘understand without a shadow of a doubt that the universe is showing you what the true nature of reality is’ when in fact the universe is the sum total of contingent existence. The Universe is chunks of matter and temporal appearances; it doesn’t exist necessarily, and is the same stuff in all respects that you want to understand as ‘illusory’! So if it is illusory then so is your ‘true reality.’

 

[godnotgod]

That is a very weak argument indeed. If all else fails resort to an Argument from other Believers (argumentum ad populum).

You make this statement from the point of view that belief and mystical experience are one and the same. I have already explained that they are not, so your logic does not apply. Once more, the mystical view is not a belief; it is seeing without thought, and since belief requires thought, it cannot be belief. Belief is a condition of the ordinary conditioned mind; mystical view is transcendent of all conditioning. It is a freeing of the mind so that it can see things as they are, not as conditioning dictates. But because you are still seeing everything from within an intellectual sphere, all you see is what your conditioned mind tells you about it, which is from the outside looking in. It's like I am saying 'go inside and have a look-see for yourself, but please leave your intellectual baggage of Logic, Reason, and Analysis behind as they only get in the way', but you refuse to enter, while continuing to interpret what I am saying through your intellectual manipulations of the mind. The bottom line at this point is: Do you allow for authentic views other than that of the intellect? If you cannot do so, then there is no point in continuing this conversation, since you are so indoctrinated by your view that it will automatically disallow all other views. It seems to me that I allow for Logic, Reason, and Analysis as valid views within certain limits, but you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge all views other than your own.

No, I am not making this argument because 'all else fails'; I am making it because there is no factual evidence to support it, but because there is no factual evidence available does not make it untrue, while you are saying it is untrue without any factual evidence! If you were a true scholar, your position would be that you take no particular position, simply because you do not know, and you don't know because you cling to your intelectual baggage and refuse to go see for yourself.

If a thing is true it doesn’t need lots of bodies to make it true.

That is not my position. You are interjecting a false logic here.
You can't even use your own tools of Reason correctly! One more reason they should be wrenched from you and smashed to bits. You'd be better off without them, rather than using them erroneously.

No one is claiming that truth requires large numbers of witnesses to make it true; the argument is that because large numbers corroborate the claims, the likelihood of their truthfullness is increased, especially when such corroborations occur independently of one another over time, constantly, and consistently.

In the late nineteenth century a certain Dr Greenleaf published a paper in which he sought to establish the truth of the Resurrection by the application of Municipal Law (Testimonies of the Evangelists). I had great fun in picking that testimony based argument to pieces and would dearly love the opportunity to do the same with your particular mystical claim from (popular?) belief.

Except for one small detail: The Resurrection is considered a singular, unique, and factual, historical, as well as a miraculous event. I had even posted a topic on evidence to support the historicity of the Resurrection awhile back on these forums, and I believe it is still available for your inspection. But the mystical experience is non-historical. It does not live in the past, but in the Present Moment, where there is no history, no memory, no birth, no death, no causation, no beginning and no end. It is always present, always available to anyone who wishes to access its power. It is as close to you as your next breath; in fact, it IS your next breath. It fully supports you, but does not interfere with you, just as the sea fully supports sea life, but does not interfere with it. You don't understand it, but it understands you. Now go and have your childish fun, but when it ends up picking you apart, let us see if you can still have a good laugh. I know I will.

I’m baffled as to why you imagine that statement is an argument for the truth of a metaphysical belief?

I was contrasting it to the mystic's view, which does not change, and has remained constant over the centuries, as well as enjoying a relative amount of agreement amongst mystics in differing places and times. The nature of reality does not change over time. It is changeless, causeless, and undivided, so why should there be differing views? If we are seeing correctly, we should both see the same reality. The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere.

I’m saying it isn’t actual, and I say that because a) it isn’t something true, and (b) because the contradictions and logical bulwarks make your arguments impossible. Just look at the last two clauses of your first sentence. Here you presume to ‘understand without a shadow of a doubt that the universe is showing you what the true nature of reality is’ when in fact the universe is the sum total of contingent existence. The Universe is chunks of matter and temporal appearances; it doesn’t exist necessarily, and is the same stuff in all respects that you want to understand as ‘illusory’! So if it is illusory then so is your ‘true reality.’

The 'snake' never existed to begin with; it is, in actuality, the rope, which is the true nature of reality. Got that? \

BTW, you talk about MY inconsistencies, but just look at what you just said: "I’m saying it isn’t actual, and I say that because...it isn’t something true". I see. So it isn't true because it isn't true. It's not really, really, REALLY real. Right.

Uh...if it is 'illusory', you can only know that from the viewpoint of the non-illusory, since you cannot know that fact from the viewpoint of the illusory. From the viewpoint of the illusory, you would think it to be real, which is what most of us experience.

 

[Prophet]

Well, the very fact that they are rational conceptions is what renders them laughable! I have no way of controlling the laughability factor, which comes as a result of the realization that the Infinite cannot be contained within the finite. Rational conceptions are merely the mind's futile attempt to encapsulate reality. There's no doctrine here that I want anyone to accept or agree to. If anything, rational concepts are a form of doctrine, while seeing into the nature of reality without these preconceived notions is completely doctrineless, a true liberation of the mind. Having said that, the rational mind is perfectly OK by me in terms of factual knowledge about the universe, but as repeatedly stated, it is incapable of ever knowing what its true nature is, and more importantly, what man's true nature is, as the Buddha himself emphasized, in the parable of the man fatally shot with an arrow.

You reject reason as means to coming to Truth. In light of this, I doubt I'm the only person who thinks debating you with any intention of bringing you to see the light is a waste of time. You have stopped seeking because you are deceived into believing that you have found. I say to these people who debate you, "Never stop seeking as this fool has."

Your reasoning is seriously flawed here, I am afraid. I, too, was raised a Christian, but the meaning of 'God works in mysterious ways' does not imply the suspension of Reason, but a special and secret use of it, to which man is not privy or entitled to. Therefore, man should stop trying to figure out God's intent and, as you say, bury 'reason' (which is merely futile rational conjecture about the nature of reality) and foster a kind of blind faith. All of this because Reason is the culprit here, since it is Reason which first creates the mystery of God, and then proceeds to try to 'figure him out'. 'Even though we don't understand the paradoxes and ironies of this life via Reason and Logic, there must be a creator-God who has Perfect Reasons for everything that occurs.' All of this because Reason forces a conceptual overlay of morality (which is an oxymoron) onto the natural world with unexpected outcomes.

My reasoning is flawed because I rely upon reason too much and should instead shut my eyes to reason and agree with you as you continue your fruitless crusade online to convince yourself that you have found all that there is to find by zoning out and letting you shape my beliefs by the power of your irrational words. More religious hot air. Thank you.

You're obviously trying to imply something derogatory here, but what it is is not exactly clear, which I suspect is really your intent to mislead. What on earth is the 'groupthink phenomenon'? I don't suppose you are actually going to try to answer that, but if you ask me, I would have to say the shoe that fits is the idea of Christians shouting in the dark to lend comfort to one another, LOL. You're being pretty vague here, but I gather that you are either referring to the Romanized version of Christianity over that of Yeshua's original teachings, or what what some refer to as New Age thinkers as the unqualified. Not sure to which 'corrupted scriptures' you refer, but it appears that you don't really know what you are talking about, but once again, it appears that your vague allusion to them is deliberate as a means of discrediting anything I say without actually providing evidence to support your accusation.

When everyone is ignorant of the Truth, even those given the charge of keeping the Truth, the authority that has manifested in the religion collapses unless these ignorant authorities collude to form an agreed upon false truth. This is what I refer to when I say groupthink.

If any scriptures are corrupted, they are those which you seem to have first expressed an intimate affinity for, namely those of Paul, one of the most corrupt of all writers of scripture, and for whom you later disavowed interest in.

The key difference between you and I in this regard is that I don't bring the corrupt parts to bear in my arguments.

What does the knowledge of Good and Evil have to do with Enlightenment? You sound like a Moralist, rather than the 'Enlightened Being' that you prop yourself up as. The more you talk, the more I suspect that you still carry around your old moralist Christian baggage, in spite of the fact that you draw attention to yourself by advertising yourself as an 'Enlightened Being', something no truly enlightened being would ever think of doing. It just smacks of the carnie-barker/used car salesman atmosphere.

A true understanding of the 'knowledge of Good and Evil' is one which sees that they are two halves of the same coin, rather than the distorted view of their being in opposition to one another.

Yeah, you got me pegged.

I was unaware that was the intent, but that is quite impossible, as I have nothing to defend, as you and they have.

You're unbelievable.

I haven't noticed. We are still at Square One. They continue banging their heads against a non-existent wall, demanding 'factual evidence' for something that is beyond the conceptualizing mind. They haven't gotten that yet because everything they see is governed via their notions about reality, rather than by reality itself. They have the cart before the horse, in the same manner of those Yeshua referred to, who mistakenly thought to find eternal life within the scriptures. In other words, get the goods first, THEN we can talk about it. The more you form opinions about it, the further away you get from it.

...

If you are presenting Reason as the pathway to Enlightenment, then agreement with you is necessary.

Full agreement with me is an effect of Enlightenment, not a cause. I am, thus, uninterested in gaining support through thoughtless agreement from people like you who are no longer seeking. I am interested in the questions of those who think deeply about these topics, especially those who are secure enough in themselves to admit the uncertainty of their positions where it is exposed. These people are the ones who are ready to be reborn.

I have referred in my posts to the statements of many enlightened people, which you are labeling as 'meaningless drivel', which is nothing but a veiled ad hominem attack. These statements are those reflecting universal principles, not personal views. It all sounds as if what you are really promoting is 'Prophet's Personal View of Enlightenment'. Ad hominem attacks on others without grounds to prop oneself up as a credible authority are nothing more than the machinations of the ego, wherein one's Shadow is projected onto a scapegoat.

So here's a question: What does Prophet's Personal View of Enlightenment tell us about the nature of reality?

LOL. You thought that was veiled? Personally I thought it was a clear cheapshot at how meaningless everything you say is.

Here's an answer: I'd rather fly a kite than prove my level of understanding for a sneering hypocrite.

 

[godnotgod]

You reject reason as means to coming to Truth. In light of this, I doubt I'm the only person who thinks debating you with any intention of bringing you to see the light is a waste of time. You have stopped seeking because you are deceived into believing that you have found. I say to these people who debate you, "Never stop seeking as this fool has."

You don't 'come to Truth'. Reality is already complete as it is in this moment, but because we think we need to seek something, to become, to arrive, we never experience complete fulfillment. We have been told we are lacking something, or that we are 'separated from God', and so we seek, but we don't understand the nature of our seeking. We don't really know what it is we seek. When the seeking ceases, we can then SEE that we are already here, now, and fully part of this complete moment we call Now. We can remember that we never left it in the first place; that the idea that we are somehow separated from the Source is only an illusion. It is called Awakening, in which the Seeker and the object of his seeking become one and the same. But as long as you continue to seek, you are laboring under the illusion that you are an ego apart from Reality.

I cannot be deceived into 'believing that I have found' simply because there is nothing to 'find'. Stop the seeking, and it is all here, right in front of you, as it always has been, just as Yeshua told you it was:

"The Kingdom of God is within you", right here, right now, and if it is not right here, right now, where do you expect to go to find it? Your seeking is leading you by the nose into a future that does not exist.


"reason as a means to coming to Truth" and "seeing the light" are two different activities, based on two different things, arriving at two different places. Reason controls what the mind sees; seeing the light frees it.

My reasoning is flawed because I rely upon reason too much and should instead shut my eyes to reason and agree with you as you continue your fruitless crusade online to convince yourself that you have found all that there is to find by zoning out and letting you shape my beliefs by the power of your irrational words. More religious hot air. Thank you.

No. You should continue diligently and without fail to pursue Reason as a fool in his folly shall become wise.

I never said a thing about 'shaping your beliefs'. Your beliefs are creating your defensive attitude, making you think I am trying to do something harmful to you, because you are personally attached to them, and use them for your psychological security, which, as you can see, only end up keeping you insecure.

What I have been pointing to is SEEING reality as it is instead of BELIEVING in a doctrine about reality. All your reasoning can do is to perpetuate your beliefs about reality.

When everyone is ignorant of the Truth, even those given the charge of keeping the Truth, the authority that has manifested in the religion collapses unless these ignorant authorities collude to form an agreed upon false truth. This is what I refer to when I say groupthink.

Well I, for one, am not interested in seeking, perpetuating, or keeping 'The Truth', [whatever THAT is!] nor in any religion which deems itself an authority in doing so. All I care about is pointing others to seeing reality as it is. The way to do this is not to seek any so-called "Truth", but merely to cease the nurturing of opinion and belief, so that one's vision becomes clear. This clearing of one's vision is called Awakening. The difference between you and I is that you make Truth an object of seeking, whereas I am only concerned with clear vision. Once vision is clear, everything will fall into place of its own accord. Unfortunately, when Truth is made an object of seeking, it becomes a distorted doctrine of belief over time. Christians equate their belief with Truth. For them, they are one and the same, which, of course, is an erroneous view. Clear vision, on the other hand, maintains no doctrine or belief about reality. It sees directly into the nature of reality itself, with nothing in the way. It is a direct line to it, short-circuiting the rational mind.

Simply lower the net and allow the fish to swim in. Stop making such a fuss.

The key difference between you and I in this regard is that I don't bring the corrupt parts to bear in my arguments.

No, the key difference is that you rely on scripture at all, while I burn mine thoroughly and completely, with the understanding that they are merely second-hand accounts of the real Source within. I only use scripture as a handle to speak to those who still have their noses buried in it. As Yeshua said: 'Search the scriptures; for in them, ye think, there is life eternal for you; and they testify of me.' (Pe****ta). All he was saying is that the Truth is not to be found outside oneself, especially in word-symbols that cannot really point to the living Source itself.

You're unbelievable.

So when are you going to show me the doctrine of 'Truth' I am in defense of, the one you and the others are going to defeat? Hmmm?



...

Full agreement with me is an effect of Enlightenment, not a cause.

That's the problem: 'agreement with YOU', and YOUR personal view of what you THINK Enlightenment to be, arrived at via of Reason. I am afraid your so-called 'Enlightenment' is just another belief system in disguise as Higher Consciousness. You haven't yet dropped the baggage of your former religious doctrines. You're just presenting them in new clothing. I think you're just a Christian fundie hiding behind the label 'Enlightened Being'.

Enlightenment is not about 'agreeing' with anyone about some doctrine or belief; it is about seeing reality as it is.

I am, thus, uninterested in gaining support through thoughtless agreement from people like you who are no longer seeking.

Support for what? Clear vision has nothing to do with support for anything. It is just the ability to see things as they are, which requires no support, since no position is advanced in seeing.

Again, you deliberately distort the condition of no-thought with lobotomy and zombies.

I am interested in the questions of those who think deeply about these topics, especially those who are secure enough in themselves to admit the uncertainty of their positions where it is exposed. These people are the ones who are ready to be reborn.

What for? So they can continue going 'round in circles on the merry-go-round of delusion?

'Step right up, folks! Just one thin dime gets you reborn onto this here wheel of birth and death. Just trust me'

Where do you get off, Prophet?

LOL. You thought that was veiled? Personally I thought it was a clear cheapshot at how meaningless everything you say is.

Oh, cheap shot it was, as that is all you are capable of. Well then, have it your way: 'overt ad hominem attack', which you do in order to make your own position seem more credible, or even credible at all. Just think: because you are now a self-professed 'Enlightened Being', your newfound 'authority' allows you go around slinging accusations of 'meaningless drivel' without having to explain anything. All we need is to realize is that 'Prophet' (*chuckle*:biglaugh::liturgy is an 'Enlightened Being', and dociley follow where Master leads. Those he accuses of mouthing 'meaningless drivel' are to be automatically shunned as unauthoritative by the others merely by the wave of his holy hand, after which we shall gaze unflinchingly 'pon his holy countenance forever and forever amen. How quaint. How thoroughly boring.

Here's an answer: I'd rather fly a kite than prove my level of understanding (oooooooooh!):danana::biglaugh: for a sneering hypocrite.

what's that you say? 'sneering criticrite'? LOL

Right, you've got your head so far up your behind it sure seems like Holy Shiit for Holy People.
*****

IN RECOGNITION OF THE ACHIEVEMENT OF AN UNDERSTANDING SO ESOTERIC AND RARIFIED THAT NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE HEREIN-NAMED RECIPIENT, CAN UNDERSTAND, THE 'HEAD IN THE CLOUDS SOCIETY' HEREBY AWARDS THIS HERE CERTIFICATE OF ENLIGHTENMENT TO ONE 'PROFIT', BECAUSE HE NEEDS IT. SHOULD ANYONE DARE QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF THE HEREIN-NAMED RECIPIENT, ALL THAT IS REQUIRED TO SILENCE THEM FOREVER IS TO POINT TO THIS HERE AUTHENTIC-LOOKING CERTIFICATE. DISPLAY IT PROUDLY! jUST DON'T LET THEM SEE THE FINE PRINT!

DON'T FERGET 'TA FLIP THE SWITCH, LOL!...ER..WHICH DIRECTION?...YOU NEED TO BE ENLIGHTENED TO KNOW THAT!

 

[godnotgod]

Say..did you know it takes seven full years to get over the stink of Enlightenment? Judging by the extremely high level of understanding Prophet has achieved, it appears he is now in his second year.

 

[godnotgod]

The Seeker can never realize Enlightenment because The Seeker is a fictional character. The illusion of The Seeker must simply dissolve away. There is no such thing as The Seeker simply because there is no self that is separate from that which it seeks. That which you are seeking is what is causing you to seek.

 

[godnotgod]

ENLIGHTENMENT VIA LOGIC ANAL-YSIS AND REASON

(How do I know I am enlightened? Because LOGIC, ANAL-YSIS UND REASON tell me so!)

 

[cottage]

You make this statement from the point of view that belief and mystical experience are one and the same. I have already explained that they are not, so your logic does not apply. Once more, the mystical view is not a belief; it is seeing without thought, and since belief requires thought, it cannot be belief.

Beliefs and experience are not necessarily the same species. There is nothing true of experience, whereas beliefs may be false or they may be certain and true. Anything in experience that is distinctly conceivable can be denied, whereas for example 0=0 is a belief that is true. The irony is that your own words testify that there is no seeing without thought. Something is seen, and there is a thought, although the thinking doesn’t have to be concurrent with the seeing. In fact nothing about your argument makes the least sense without the incorporation of thought and beliefs, which is to confirm the presence of the conscious mind.

[snipped] Belief is a condition of the ordinary conditioned mind; mystical view is transcendent of all conditioning. It is a freeing of the mind so that it can see things as they are, not as conditioning dictates.

Now tell me what ‘other views’ I’m to ‘acknowledge’: bald assertions perhaps? You seem to forget that it is the authenticity of the ‘views’ that I’m challenging. Your particular belief system cannot be ‘valid’ when everything about it consists as a special plea. And please explain to us what these ‘certain limits’ are that you apply to logic? This cherry picking only goes to show that nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of the dogma. Once again this has religious similarities, where logic is acceptable and is even used to demonstrate a favoured argument but rejected when it confounds or contradicts the beliefs.
And, with respect, it is you who are indoctrinated and obsessed. Anything I say may be wrong and my statements are subject to being proved false. Unlike you, I am making no claims about the Universe, other than to say that it simply needn’t be, whereas you cannot concede even the idea of error in what you claim. And that’s a pretty superior attitude to take when you cannot know for certain that everything you supposedly ‘see’ is not imagined or delusional.

No, I am not making this argument because 'all else fails'; I am making it because there is no factual evidence to support it, but because there is no factual evidence available does not make it untrue, while you are saying it is untrue without any factual evidence! If you were a true scholar, your position would be that you take no particular position, simply because you do not know, and you don't know because you cling to your intelectual baggage and refuse to go see for yourself. .

I have never said that a lack of factual evidence makes a thing untrue. And may I remind you that since this discussion began I’ve been inviting you to show what you say is true, but you’ve been unable to do that. So forgive me, but your last sentence is a piece of arrant nonsense: you say ‘go see for yourself’ when you don’t even know yourself where you’re supposed to be directing me, and that is made evident by the your failure to answer the simple question I’ve put to you many times. So here it is again: What is this world of facts, devoid of those same facts, that can be seen as ‘true’, and by what criterion of truth do you ‘know’ it to be such?

That is not my position. You are interjecting a false logic here.

You can't even use your own tools of Reason correctly! One more reason they should be wrenched from you and smashed to bits. You'd be better off without them, rather than using them erroneously.
No one is claiming that truth requires large numbers of witnesses to make it true; the argument is that because large numbers corroborate the claims, the likelihood of their truthfullness is increased, especially when such corroborations occur independently of one another over time, constantly, and consistently.

Unless I’ve misunderstood this entire discussion, the matter is focussed not upon the ‘likelihood’ of its ‘truthfulness’, but upon the question of its certainty. A thing is either true or false, notwithstanding the numbers who attest to its veracity and therefore an Argument from other Believers is entirely irrelevant to the debate if you are making a claim to the truth, which you are! And, as a matter of fact, large numbers do not corroborate the likelihood of a thing being true; large numbers only confirm there are x number of people who assent to what is being said or stated.

Except for one small detail: The Resurrection is considered a singular, unique, and factual, historical, as well as a miraculous event. I had even posted a topic on evidence to support the historicity of the Resurrection awhile back on these forums, and I believe it is still available for your inspection. But the mystical experience is non-historical. It does not live in the past, but in the Present Moment, where there is no history, no memory, no birth, no death, no causation, no beginning and no end. It is always present, always available to anyone who wishes to access its power. It is as close to you as your next breath; in fact, it IS your next breath. It fully supports you, but does not interfere with you, just as the sea fully supports sea life, but does not interfere with it. You don't understand it, but it understands you. Now go and have your childish fun, but when it ends up picking you apart, let us see if you can still have a good laugh. I know I will.

Do please re-post your piece on the Resurrection and I promise I will give you my critique by return.

I was contrasting it to the mystic's view, which does not change, and has remained constant over the centuries, as well as enjoying a relative amount of agreement amongst mystics in differing places and times. The nature of reality does not change over time. It is changeless, causeless, and undivided, so why should there be differing views? If we are seeing correctly, we should both see the same reality. The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere.

If any of that were true you would be able to say what this unchanging reality actually is, but you cannot. And time and again you’ve contradicted yourself by acknowledging causation

The 'snake' never existed to begin with; it is, in actuality, the rope, which is the true nature of reality. Got that?

You just keep making those sweeping statements, proclaiming them as something true when you cannot even demonstrate it to yourself. And you are completely missing the point of what was said. Snakes ropes and matter need not exist, but if I conceive of a snake or anything then I conceive it without any perceptual errors.

BTW, you talk about MY inconsistencies, but just look at what you just said: "I’m saying it isn’t actual, and I say that because...it isn’t something true". I see. So it isn't true because it isn't true. It's not really, really, REALLY real. Right.

I can see you don’t understand. This is what you said:

“Belief foisted as Truth is dogma, but the apprehension of reality itself, with nothing in the way such as belief or analysis, cannot be dogma, since reality is without doctrine.”

Then you said:

“Somehow you don't seem to think that is possible.“

I’ll make my previous answer more explicit for you. Anything is possible if it isn’t contradictory. A thing being possible does not make it actual, ie true, but if a thing is actual then it follows that it is also possible. If the Absolute were actual then it would be both possible and true. But since the denial of the Absolute involves no contradiction the Absolute is demonstrably not actual. And moreover, due to the many self-contradictory statements and absurdities, with your argument being predicated on contingent existence, the ‘Absolute’ doesn’t even manage to scrape into the realm of the logically possible.

Uh...if it is 'illusory', you can only know that from the viewpoint of the non-illusory, since you cannot know that fact from the viewpoint of the illusory. From the viewpoint of the illusory, you would think it to be real, which is what most of us experience.

Your argument is that contingent existence is illusory, and you’ve stated that ‘the universe is showing you what the true nature of reality is.’ I’ve pointed out to you that as the Universe is the sum total of contingency your ‘true reality’ must also be an illusion. By your very own words you annul your argument.

 

[Prophet]

Hi cottage:

I read the extraordinarily well thought out responses to godnotgod and can hardly believe that they are from the same person who posted this mind dump of feigned certainty to me:

The instant we presume a self or ego do we confirm that it is necessarily selfish. So if there is a Self it cannot be 'selflessness', since the self is logically prior to any act, thought or conception. Therefore anyone who claims to be enlightened is selfishly motivated. And any claim to 'Know yourself', or even an attempt to know yourself immediately confirms this. To be enlightened is to be empowered, which is giving consideration to the self.

And 'to see a thought without attachment' is nonsensical and therefore meaningless.

It seems that, like the religious fundies you like to rag on, you'll accept logic when it demonstrates your ends, but, on this occasion, where logic did not suit your needs you posted a long string of non-sequitur, purposefully seeing my arguments in the least charitable light possible to defeat a weakened straw man.

When understanding did not suit your aims you chose against it, too. Just like any religious fundamentalist. It would be quite an advance in understanding to realize that this manner of insane thinking goes quite beyond the bounds of religion.

 

[godnotgod]

Here's an answer: I'd rather fly a kite than prove my level of understanding for a sneering hypocrite.

YOU'RE the admitted hypocrite here, and you have provided NO doctrine about which you claim I am a hypocrite.

Unless you respond directly to my honest question, which YOU prompted, I will take your diversionary tactic here as proof that your claim of being an 'Enlightened Being' is pure hogwash, as the first thing any truly enlightened being would know is what the true nature of reality would entail.

Otherwise, go fly a kite.

Your continued accusations without foundation and/or explanation are adding up to an image of someone who thinks themselves superior, in that you project your Shadow onto others as a means of reinforcing the false idea of your superiority as an 'Enlightened Being'. You will have noticed that I am not the one who launched the first attacks; YOU did, and I am only returning them to you as my understanding dictates.

So the choice is yours. If you wish to have a discussion about the ideas I have advanced with which you disagree, that is fine. But as long as you are going to play your silly game of spiritual one-upmanship with personal attacks, my mirrored responses to you will continue in kind.