The Debate of God.

[PolyHedral]

[..] And as long as you cling to the idea that only what has name [...] the Supreme [...] When you understand that names [...] are hollow shells without any content whatsoever, and what is real is nameless ...

It really looks like this is a contradiction. "Supreme" looks like a name.

 

[Willamena]

It really looks like this is a contradiction. "Supreme" looks like a name.

Each word, as a pointer to reality, is a name.

 

[cottage]

What is being transcended is the illusion of a self, so no, there is not 'first a Self', as you reason. The snake never existed in the first place.

Something that imagines it exists, but doesn’t exist, transcends its non-existent self and finds its True Self. You couldn’t make it up! Well, actually you could – you have in fact!

Life on the illusory Third Level eventually leads to a state of unsatisfactoriness, which causes one to seek something more satisfying.

The ‘one’ seeking satisfaction is by definition selfish.

The True Self is not a definable entity like the ordinary self, and so cannot be 'self-ish'.

Contradict yourself as much as you like, but all you’re doing is talking non-sense.

The purpose of meditation is not, as Suzuki tells us, to attain Enlightenment. It is to express our true nature. We meditate in order to meditate.

The thing that is ‘expressing’ its true nature is self-centred.

Meditation creates a set of conditions that are conducive to the realization that Enlightenment is already the case.

If Enlightenment is already the case then why meditate? I’ll answer that for you. It is because you cannot but acknowledge the phenomenal world, an unfortunate and inconvenient fact. Amusingly, you have to go via what you say doesn’t exist.

 

[cottage]

When will you snap out of black and white brainlock mode to realize the simple logical fact that the world of illusion cannot provide evidence for the world of reality?

Evidence from the phenomenal world to prove something true within the sphere of the phenomenal world consists of that which can be seen, felt, smelled, heard, tasted, calculated, predicted, or otherwise proven valid via logic and analysis.

The Absolute is odorless, tasteless, silent, invisible, and formless, and can only be accessed and verified via of not-knowing. It exists only in this living Present Moment, and therefore cannot be predicted. It is Infinite, and therefore cannot be calculated. It behaves in ways paradoxical to the rational mind, and so is not subject to its limited systems of analysis and logic which attempt to encapsulate that which cannot be finitely contained within any fact or set of facts.

All efforts to prove its existence or understand it via rational thought are futile. Only when these methods are finally exhausted and surrendered can the Absolute become evident. Logic and Reason are obstructions.

One can either get a glimpse, or an explosion, or over a long period of exposure, gradually become transformed into a new consciousness.

The above has all the hallmarks of a fundamentalist religion, which is to say it doesn’t allow anything to count against it. It is absolutism bordering on the fanatical. There is no credibility in such an obsessive belief, where things are said as if they were true while expecting never to have to answer for the extravagant claims. It is proselytising rather than argument, dogma rather than discussion.
Western philosophy generally comprises intelligible arguments, including those that argue to God, whereas the eastern philosophies seem to consist mainly as instruction. Although to be fair, none are as arrogantly stated as the above or at least not the ones I’ve looked at.
The absurdity is that any attempt to argue beyond the rational mind presupposes the rational mind: for to deny sense experience you are obliged to use the tools of sense data and rationality. But if those things are illusory then so too must be the thoughts and words that deny them, which means the argument is self-refuting.

 

[PolyHedral]

Each word, as a pointer to reality, is a name.

All of which are, allegedly, non-real. Including the thing that is supposed to be real.

 

[cottage]

The real question is why a thought requires a self, let alone your self-created 'prior' self, at all. You are still thinking 'my thought', and 'your thought' because you are attached to the concept of a separate ego acting upon the world you call "I", which no one has ever been able to locate. Yoo hoo! Are you in there, LOL? In other words, you are still attached to "I think", and "I act", and blah blah blah ad nauseum, when, in fact, there is no such agent of thinking or acting or anything else.

A thought doesn’t require a self unless the personal pronoun is asserted. So either you have some loss of memory or you are misrepresenting the argument. And you know full well that personal identity has been rejected as being metaphysically untenable. So do you need to be directed to some previous responses in this discussion where that’s been made quite plain?

You are jumping to conclusions. Pure consciousness can exist without mind or thought, both of which are concepts created by the self-created mind. Consciousness is what is prior to both thought and mind because consciousness is non-local and intemporal. It is unborn, ungrown, and deathless. It is not 'defined' by thought; thought is defined by consciousness.

Poppycock! You’re just making a special plea from faith to your doctrinal belief system. Consciousness simply means mind without reference to any material substance, and since there cannot be thoughts without mind, and it cannot be denied that there are no thoughts, the conscious mind therefore exists.

Well at least you are consistent in your erroneous paraphrasing of what I've said.

I did not say: ‘pure act of giving with no motive’

I said: 'there is only the pure act of giving with no ulterior motive'

Simply put, a genuine act of giving is one in which there is no expectation of receiving something in return for such giving. Either you have never freely given anyone anything out of a genuine sentiment, always harboring an ulterior motive, or have always received under the impression of the giver's ulterior motive.

Splitting hairs again. There was no erroneous paraphrasing. The term ‘ulterior’ makes no difference whatsoever, despite your careful choice of words. No motive means there are no motives, ulterior or otherwise. And nor does the prefix ‘genuine’ make a jot of difference. ‘Pure giving’ is still tripe. And you’ve still to explain what this motiveless thing is that so generously gives, and what is the deserving thing that receives?

It is relative because it sees itself in terms of 'self and other', which is illusory. Therefore, there is only the Absolute, just as there is only the rope.

There never was a self to begin with, just as there never was a snake.

As I’ve said, there cannot be anything relative if there is only the Absolute. That’s contradiction 1. And ‘the Self decides to transform itself into all the myriad forms of the world’ is contradiction 2.

But you are the one who stated a few posts back that:

'giving also requires a receiver'

How can 'giving and receiving' be 'two actions'? That is utter nonsense! There is no giving without receiving, or vice-versa. The fact, as you yourself point out, that a 'receiver still involves another party' is just another way of saying that giving and receiving are one act, as in: 'giving-receiving'.

The terms in question here are ‘giving’ and ‘receiving’, not ‘giving and receiving.’ And you are absolutely correct to agree with me: there is no giving without receiving. And the two actions are as in the cause (1) and an effect (2): a ball is struck (give); the ball moves (receive).

There is no 'thing that gives to itself': there is only giving-receiving, without an agent of giving or receiving.

Then it isn’t charitable, but a pointless and purposeless act. But anyway, what is it that is being given?

There is no self.

Aye! I agree, there is no demonstrably existent self or Self.

The only place there are two actions are in your dualistically-minded head! In other words, you're seeing double! You are in dire need of vision correction. :foryou:

Ahem! ‘Absolute’ and ‘relative’.

 

[Willamena]

All of which are, allegedly, non-real. Including the thing that is supposed to be real.

That just means you don't have to listen when they speak.

 

[godnotgod]

Poppycock!... Consciousness simply means mind without reference to any material substance, and since there cannot be thoughts without mind, and it cannot be denied that there are no thoughts, the conscious mind therefore exists.

Poopycock! You're just iterating your silly religious doctrinal belief that 'consciousness means mind', when there is not a scrap of evidence to indicate such. Consciousness means nothing other than consciousness itself. Your insistence that mind is a reality is equivalent to the religious fundie who insists on the existence of a God.

Who said there cannot be thoughts without mind? You? More religious dogma! You are self-creating an agent of thought out of whole cloth.

Once again, you are still squirming around within the realm of duality and cannot seem to get off the ground. You make the dualistic distinction between the material and the non-material, when, in fact there is no such thing.

'Mind' is just a conceptual frozen reality the self-created mind names itself.

Your assertions exhibit all the hallmarks of religious fundamentalism.

Your arrogant statement that:

"since there cannot be thoughts without mind, and it cannot be denied that there are no thoughts, the conscious mind therefore exists"

is exactly and precisely the same kind of religious tripe as the religious fundie's notion that:

"since there cannot be a world without God, and it cannot be denied that there is no world, God therefore exists"

Now go to your room!

 

[PolyHedral]

You are arguing the names of the references, which distracts you from what they point at.

 

[Tiberius]

When will you snap out of black and white brainlock mode to realize the simple logical fact that the world of illusion cannot provide evidence for the world of reality?

First of all, that's not logic. I've never seen any logic in your posts.

Secondly, I'm glad to see you recognise that there is no evidence. So if you have no evidence, why should I believe you?

The Absolute is odorless, tasteless, silent, invisible, and formless, and can only be accessed and verified via of not-knowing.

So the only way you can know is to not know.

And you don't see a problem with this line of reasoning?

It exists only in this living Present Moment, and therefore cannot be predicted. It is Infinite, and therefore cannot be calculated. It behaves in ways paradoxical to the rational mind, and so is not subject to its limited systems of analysis and logic which attempt to encapsulate that which cannot be finitely contained within any fact or set of facts.

In other words, it's nonsense. And you have no evidence.

All efforts to prove its existence or understand it via rational thought are futile. Only when these methods are finally exhausted and surrendered can the Absolute become evident. Logic and Reason are obstructions.

More nonsense, and still no evidence.

One can either get a glimpse, or an explosion, or over a long period of exposure, gradually become transformed into a new consciousness.

More of the same.

And also, notice how you just make statements? I'm waiting for you to provide MORE than a statement. All you are doing is saying that you are correct. Well, I'm sorry, but your word isn't enough.

Paradox

God is not the root of contradiction, but God is the simplicity itself prior to every root. Nicholas of Cusa

In the Way of search for God everything is upside down. Rumi

The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open. Nicholas of Cusa

I observe how needful it is for me to enter into the darkness and to admit the coincidence of the opposites, beyond all grasp of reason, and there to seek the Truth, where impossibility meets us. Nicholas of Cusa

Its formless Nature produces all forms, and in It alone Not-being is an excess of Being, and lifelessness an excess of life and Its mindless state an excess of wisdom. Dionysius the Areopagite

Paradox

Woopee doo. Quotes from people who agree with you. That is not evidence.

 

[godnotgod]

First of all, that's not logic. I've never seen any logic in your posts.

Excuse me? It's illogical to say that you cannot derive evidence for reality from illusion? Is it possible for the prisoners in Plato's Cave to deduce that the Sun exists just outside their cave from those dancing cave wall shadows? Nyet!

If you are a bird raised in captivity, is it possible for you to understand what flight is? Nyet!

Secondly, I'm glad to see you recognise that there is no evidence. So if you have no evidence, why should I believe you?

Have I ever asked you to believe anything I've said? No. All I have asked of you is to go see for yourself, haven't I?

So the only way you can know is to not know.

And you don't see a problem with this line of reasoning?

Absolutely not! A glass must first be empty before it can be filled. How can you know what Reality is until you first empty your glass of all your preconceived notions that your Holy Science keeps stuffing into your head?

In other words, it's nonsense. And you have no evidence.

It's nonsense to you because you cannot contain it within your silly little system of Anal Sterile Analysis which tells you it is infallible, and you believe it!

More nonsense, and still no evidence.

You stubbornly persist to ignore what is being said to you. As long as you continue to demand factual evidence for something that is beyond mere fact, you will never see what is right inside.

More of the same.

And also, notice how you just make statements? I'm waiting for you to provide MORE than a statement. All you are doing is saying that you are correct. Well, I'm sorry, but your word isn't enough.

All my statements are a queue for you to use your own mind and go see for yourself. Are you capable of using your own mind, or not? Perhaps the problem is that you don't trust it, and need a crutch, like Holy Science, to tell you what Reality is. You're only tricking yourself by doing so.

Woopee doo. Quotes from people who agree with you. That is not evidence.

It's unimportant that they agree with me; what is important is why.

Try to understand what they are saying to see if it is true on your own. Can you do that, or do you need to run to the refuge of Holy Science each time for assurance and security?

 

[godnotgod]

It really looks like this is a contradiction. "Supreme" looks like a name.

You are taking things out of context. Here is the statement you refer to in its entirety:

"In reality only the Ultimate is. The rest is a matter of name and form. And as long as you cling to the idea that only what has name and shape exists, the Supreme will appear to you non-existing. When you understand that names and shapes are hollow shells without any content whatsoever, and what is real is nameless and shapeless, pure energy of life and light of consciousness, you will be at peace - immersed in the deep silence of reality."

That which is named is named because of its shape. So if you are going to refer to the name of something, you must include its shape, but the Supreme has no shape that can be so named.

The word 'Supreme' is not a name that is a noun, but a descriptive term. However, that which is Supreme is still beyond its own description. There is no limit to what is 'Supreme', and so it cannot be contained or encapsulated via names or shapes and that is why it is called 'Supreme', 'Ultimate', and 'Absolute'.

 

[Tiberius]

Excuse me? It's illogical to say that you cannot derive evidence for reality from illusion? Is it possible for the prisoners in Plato's Cave to deduce that the Sun exists just outside their cave from those dancing cave wall shadows? Nyet!

So you are saying that ILLUSION can tell us something about reality?

And yet you seem to fail to comprehend that anyone who knows what a shadow is will understand that SOMETHING must be producing the light!

If you are a bird raised in captivity, is it possible for you to understand what flight is? Nyet!

Well, let's test it. Let's take such a bird, toss it in the air and see if he flaps his wings. What do YOU think he'll do, GNG?

Have I ever asked you to believe anything I've said? No. All I have asked of you is to go see for yourself, haven't I?

I'll grant you that.

But the fact is that many people have indeed tried doing exactly what you have suggested, and they've reached many different conclusions. This means that your process for finding things out is flawed, because even if we assume that it can produce the truth, it also obviously produces a whole lot of things that are not truth, and it gives us no way to figure out what is truth and what is not truth.

Absolutely not! A glass must first be empty before it can be filled. How can you know what Reality is until you first empty your glass of all your preconceived notions that your Holy Science keeps stuffing into your head?

So in order to fill your glass with water you are first tipping out the water that is already in there.

I heard a story once about a town that was in the middle of a drought, so they decided to dig a dam so they could store water. They spent millions of dollars to dig this dam, but once it was dug it was empty. So they paid even more money to get lots of trucks carrying big tanks of water to fill it up.

However, a few days before the trucks were due to arrive, there was a huge storm, and lots of rain, and the new dam was filled to the brim. But they still had these trucks coming. But instead of calling to say, "We don't need the water trucks anymore!" they paid even MORE money to pump the water out of the dam so they could fill it with water when the trucks turned up.

Stupid, huh?

I feel this is what you are doing. You are emptying your dam so you can just fill it up when the water trucks arrive.

It's nonsense to you because you cannot contain it within your silly little system of Anal Sterile Analysis which tells you it is infallible, and you believe it!

It's nonsense to me because it tells me nothing about the world I can use, it tells me nothing that I can verify and it tells me nothing about what could happen in the future.

You stubbornly persist to ignore what is being said to you. As long as you continue to demand factual evidence for something that is beyond mere fact, you will never see what is right inside.

What does that even mean, "beyond fact"?

All my statements are a queue for you to use your own mind and go see for yourself. Are you capable of using your own mind, or not? Perhaps the problem is that you don't trust it, and need a crutch, like Holy Science, to tell you what Reality is. You're only tricking yourself by doing so.

Yes, I can use my own mind. And my mind has a very powerful tool which has proved its use countless times. It's called science. You are asking me to throw away that tool and ignore it.

It's unimportant that they agree with me; what is important is why.

The WHY requires that they agree, so I'd say it IS important that they agree with you. After all, if they didn't, there wouldn't be a WHY at all, would there?

Try to understand what they are saying to see if it is true on your own. Can you do that, or do you need to run to the refuge of Holy Science each time for assurance and security?

What they are saying is nonsense.

 

[godnotgod]

So you are saying that ILLUSION can tell us something about reality?

No, exactly the opposite. Again, my point was that the illusory phenomenal world cannot tell you about reality, in the same way that Plato's cave wall shadows cannot tell the prisoners about the Sun.

And yet you seem to fail to comprehend that anyone who knows what a shadow is will understand that SOMETHING must be producing the light!

But, you see, in the case of Plato's Cave prisoners, their heads are locked onto the cave walls and can only see what they are forced to see. They see a manufactured play of light and shadows which they are told represents reality, and which keeps their minds enslaved. Likewise, modern man has his consciousness locked onto the intellect as a means of attaining factual knowledge, but this provides him with no understanding of himself or his world. For all his scientific and technological knowledge, he is as ignorant about his true nature and the nature of reality as ever.

Well, let's test it. Let's take such a bird, toss it in the air and see if he flaps his wings. What do YOU think he'll do, GNG?

Yes, but until the bird actually flies, it knows nothing about flight or freedom, so thank you for making my point, which is that, until you go see for yourself, you will not know what spiritual freedom is. However, just like the bird and it's true nature, once you take the leap into your first flight, you will also know intuitively how to fly. After all, you did get to where you are now in the same way, but you don't remember.

I'll grant you that.

But the fact is that many people have indeed tried doing exactly what you have suggested, and they've reached many different conclusions. This means that your process for finding things out is flawed, because even if we assume that it can produce the truth, it also obviously produces a whole lot of things that are not truth, and it gives us no way to figure out what is truth and what is not truth.

As I stated before, there is no reason why what one person sees as reality should be different than that of another. The reason they see differently is because they are still attached to a personal view. Until personal views are dropped, they will not see the same reality. So 'seeing things as they are' cannot possibly be flawed, which is the 'process' I have described; it's simply that vision correction is in order. What that comes down to is that either the person involved is still carrying his old conceptual baggage with him, or he is still attached to the idea of a self, or both. To see things as they are means to have nothing in the way of your view, including science and religion.

So in order to fill your glass with water you are first tipping out the water that is already in there.....
....I feel this is what you are doing. You are emptying your dam so you can just fill it up when the water trucks arrive.

The 'water' your glass is filled with initially are your own ideas and opinions about reality, which are giving you a distorted view, when an undistorted view is available only when you fill your glass with reality itself.

NO system of thought, be it Logic, Reason, Analysis, or Religion, can render an unobstructed view of reality. Only reality itself can provide that for you. In other words, until nothing is between you and reality, you will not have a perfect view.

That's just logical, LOL.

It's nonsense to me because it tells me nothing about the world I can use, it tells me nothing that I can verify and it tells me nothing about what could happen in the future.

OK, if utility and prediction are what you are after, then science is what you need to pursue. But if understanding the true nature of reality is the goal, then you will need another approach. Science can verify facts, but the true nature of reality can only be verified by your direct insight.

What does that even mean, "beyond fact"?

It simply means that mere facts are not the entire story. The universe is not a mechanical apparatus that can be 'understood' via dissection and analysis of its 'parts' any more than Mozart's Piano Concerto #21 can be understood via dissection and analysis of the parts of a piano.

Yes, I can use my own mind. And my mind has a very powerful tool which has proved its use countless times. It's called science. You are asking me to throw away that tool and ignore it.

You have completely misunderstood my message if that is what you really think. I have never asked you to 'throw away' your precious science. I have only stated that it, as powerful a tool as it is, cannot tell you what the true nature of reality is. It's the wrong tool for that. Science utillizes dissection to gather knowledge, but understanding cannot come via studying the parts. For that you need a working whole, just as it is.

The WHY requires that they agree, so I'd say it IS important that they agree with you. After all, if they didn't, there wouldn't be a WHY at all, would there?

If they agree with me it is not because of any personal view I want them to agree with for ulterior motives, but because the true nature of reality is not different for me as it is for them. The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere. I am talking here about a UNIVERSAL view; not a personal one. So if they agree with me, fine; if not, that also is fine. "I" am not important in this process.

What they are saying is nonsense.

Then there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you are happy and content with your mind locked onto Holy Science, and if those impressive cave wall shadows provide complete fullfilment, then you need go no further. But if at some point you begin to itch and twitch, and your dead factual scientific 'knowledge' no longer gives you joy, then you will begin to make baby steps to higher ground. But if you carry your old baggage around with you, it will be nothing but a nuisance to you, and your progress will be slow. Then one day, you will simply and intuitively toss your captive bird up into the air and it will take flight, 'into the light of a dead dark night'.

 

[Marcion]

Science fails utterly when it comes to saying anything regarding God because it is preoccupied with objective reality only.

 

[confused453]

Can god travel faster than light?
If god is everywhere in the universe, wouldn't god gravitationally collapse into a black hole because of god's huge mass?
Or did god create the universe, the bible, and disappear

 

[godnotgod]

Can god travel faster than light?
If god is everywhere in the universe, wouldn't god gravitationally collapse into a black hole because of god's huge mass?
Or did god create the universe, the bible, and disappear

"There is no greater mystery than this:

Being Reality ourselves, we seek to gain Reality."

Ramana Maharshi

 

[godnotgod]

Can god travel faster than light?
If god is everywhere in the universe, wouldn't god gravitationally collapse into a black hole because of god's huge mass?
Or did god create the universe, the bible, and disappear

Can confused453 travel faster than light?
If confused453 is everywhere in the universe, wouldn't confused453 gravitationally collapse into a black hole because of confused453's huge mass?
Or did confused453 create the universe, the bible, and disappear

Stay tuned, folks, for the next exciting episode in:

"The Cosmic Adventures of Confused453", in which he attempts to walk on solid ground!:bow:

 

[godnotgod]

If Enlightenment is already the case then why meditate? I’ll answer that for you. It is because you cannot but acknowledge the phenomenal world, an unfortunate and inconvenient fact. Amusingly, you have to go via what you say doesn’t exist.

Now you're on to something! It is quite simple, but your rational mind can't seem to grasp it.

Amusingly, in order to acknowledge the phenomenal world, you must be doing it via of a reference, which is the not-phenomenal world, that is to say, what does'nt exist, and non-existence is within the realm of No-thing-ness, the Absolute.

 

[confused453]

Now you're on to something! It is quite simple, but your rational mind can't seem to grasp it.

Amusingly, in order to acknowledge the phenomenal world, you must be doing it via of a reference, which is the not-phenomenal world, that is to say, what does'nt exist, and non-existence is within the realm of No-thing-ness, the Absolute.

Are you talking about person's mind? If yes, that's not a realm, it's like simulation processing the possibilities, based on observation.:soccer: It's the brain:clap