Yay! It's All Me

[dybmh]

I don't know much about Judaism but I know a little about the Kether.

@SalixIncendium , please note the word above ^^ "kether". This is the "occult" which was referenced earlier. It is the "practice" I referenced earlier. Like I said, there is a blend of this with hinduism which is becoming increasing overt. And this is important, because, just as the concepts in Hinduism can be applied towards "non-judgemental-acceptance-and-simultaneous-detachment", they can be applied in the reverse, even beyond the individual's awareness. The result is extreme judgement and extreme attachment, aka Religion, capital "R" ( basically, I think you know what I mean). This is a direct consequence from the occult philosophy which uses the word "kether", Qabbalah.

To be clear, I am not judging "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong". I am observing a blend of philosophies which is producing a conclusion which is not congruent with Hinduism.

The result is "extreme", in my judgement, because the originating concepts are so "lofty" and "magnificent", for lack of better words, that when they are applied in reverse, the result is profound / extreme. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

There are indicators when this happens. For me, the strongest indicator here is the usage of the word "corrrupt" applied towards all others. But there is also a certain tone and timber to the words used which can be observed.

 

[The Dreamer]

While the experience is happening, it would not be role-play. I think a fair objective assessment of your intro thread is indeed role-play. If you are not actively having that experience, then the title of this thread is inapproriate.

And I've already expressed that I consider it an insult for you or anyone to claim to be MY GOD who is creating me. I also consider it an insult for anyone to assert that THEY ARE ME and I AM THEM. True or not, if one knows it is insulting, it should be avoided unless there is very good reason, agreed?

I think, if you are currently having the experience, that, would be a good reason, because it would be literally unavoidable. Otherwise it's a person pretending to be having that experience, or perhaps they are trying to have another experience like it at the expense of others. And this ignores the natural human desire to become a Brahmin.

For "someone" who called me silly in another forum "you are" very sensitive to insults.

I am not playing a role but playing with the illusion.

You haven't replied to the rest of my post?

 

[dybmh]

I didn't say all others excluding myself are corrupted.

I respectfully request that you go back to the first page, and search for the word "corrupt" using your internet browser's search function. It's true you did not use the word "all" but what is written MEANS "all those which do not match your perception are corrupt".

 

[The Dreamer]

And this is important, because, just as the concepts in Hinduism can be applied towards "non-judgemental-acceptance-and-simultaneous-detachment", they can be applied in the reverse, even beyond the individual's awareness. The result is extreme judgement and extreme attachment

No

 

[dybmh]

For "someone" who called me silly in another forum "you are" very sensitive to insults.

I am sensitive about certain things. That's true. I'm not sure that I called you silly, but, if you would like me to either apologize or explain, it would probably be ideal to go back to that thread.

If not, then, I will simply and virtually point to your screen-name "riddler" which should indicate that one does not take offense to the implication of "silly".

I am not playing a role but playing with the illusion.

That is nothing more than semantic rationalizing to me. Different words are being chosen, but they mean the same thing.

You haven't replied to the rest of my post?

True. I was highlighting what you said for the purpose of making a point to another participant.

You haven't answered my question either. If one knows it is an insult, it should be avoided unlesss there is good reason, agreed?

Now I will go back to your post and look for any unansswered questions. I am literally looking for question marks.

You are just thinking in a dualistic manner like good/evil

I don't see any question marks. But this stands out. My friend, "Kether" is precisely that, dualism. You quoted wikipedia ( which I affectionatley call the wiki-monster ). I'll bold-blue-highlight the places that should be of concern.

The first Sephirah is called the Crown, since a crown is worn above the head. The Crown therefore refers to things that are above the mind's abilities of comprehension. All of the other Sephirot are likened to the body which starts with the head and winds its way down into action. But the crown of a king lies above the head and connects the concept of "monarchy", which is abstract and intangible, with the tangible and concrete head of the king.
[citation needed]

This first Sefirah represents the primal stirrings of intent in the Ein Soph (infinity), or the arousal of desire to come forth into the varied life of being.[2] But in this sense, although it contains all the potential for content, it contains no content itself, and is therefore called 'Nothing', 'The Hidden Light', 'The air that cannot be grasped'. Being desire to bring the world into being...

Ein-Soph is the opposite of nothing. Lifting up "nothing" as an ideal is Qabbalah, which is a system which borrowed/stole words and ideas from Jewish philosophy and twisted them for a specific purpose: absolute avoidance of responsibility, rule, and law.

It's a deep and diverse topic. If you have questions, please ask. But if they are important, and you are wanting an answer, please end them with a question mark so that it is absolutely clear to me they are not comments or opinions you would simply like to share.

 

[dybmh]

No

They cannot be applied in the reverse? Really?

 

[The Dreamer]

I'm not sure that I called you silly, but, if you would like me to either apologize or explain, it would probably be ideal to go back to that thread.

www.religiousforums.com/threads/i-am-alone.272751/post-8294251

I think I have a right to discuss my ideas as long as I am not using degradatory words against others. I find the ideas in some religions insulting too but I don't go to their forums and demand they stop posting about their religions.

If you find my religious ideas insulting you can simply not participate in my topics . After all this is a discussion forum and not a debate forum.

 

[The Dreamer]

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that without you nothing would exist?

Does your dream continue after you wake up?

 

[dybmh]

I think I have a right to discuss my ideas as long as I am not using degradatory words against others. I find the ideas in some religions insulting too but I don't go to their forums and demand they stop posting about their religions.

I did not demand. I asked a question. You have not answered that question. Not answering it says alot though.

If you find my religious ideas insulting you can simply not participate in my topics . After all this is a discussion forum and not a debate forum.

It is against the rules here, BTW, to use the discussion forums as a shield to critisize/bash other religions without retort. I understand that you would not want someone like to me not to participate, but, unless I am breaking the rules, this is a public forum.

None the less. If the intention is to pursue Hinduism, I am not alone in the opinion that considering all others who are not in your "camp" to be corrupt, is about as far as one can get from that.

PS, if you have a question about the screenshot, please ask it.

 

[Jimmy]

Does your dream continue after you wake up?

So let me get another thing straight. When you “wake up” or die everything will cease to exist?

 

[The Dreamer]

I did not demand. I asked a question. You have not answered that question. Not answering it says alot though.



It is against the rules here, BTW, to use the discussion forums as a shield to critisize/bash other religions without retort. I understand that you would not want someone like to me not to participate, but, unless I am breaking the rules, this is a public forum.

None the less. If the intention is to pursue Hinduism, I am not alone in the opinion that considering all others who are not in your "camp" to be corrupt, is about as far as one can get from that.

PS, if you have a question about the screenshot, please ask it.

Then I will not use the word "corrupt" to refer the religions anymore. I want to discuss my religious views but not debate. I don't have anything against you. After all how can I hate someone I created? Just kidding

 

[dybmh]

Then I will not use the word "corrupt" to refer the religions anymore. I want to discuss my religious views but not debate. I don't have anything against you. After all how can I hate someone I created? Just kidding

Thank you. I very much appreciate it. I will try very hard not to imply or attach silliness to your posts or ideas. But, if there is a playful tone, it is tempting for me to play along.

 

[The Dreamer]

So let me get another thing straight. When you “wake up” or die everything will cease to exist?

Yes since the existence is created within my consciousness but as I said in a previous post when I die I will just forget about this existence and a new existence will be created again in my consciousness. Consciousness=god=immortal.

 

[Little Dragon]

Yes since the existence is created within my consciousness but as I said in a previous post when I die I will just forget about this existence and a new existence will be created again in my consciousness. Consciousness=god=immortal.

Shame you cannot test such a hypothesis. Which for me renders it a metaphysical thought game.
Which is why I do not subscribe to any religion.
However, interesting concept, stating you are God dreaming me and everything else. I can't help but feel that this a somewhat egotistical religion, that by definition, can't have any other followers, they being mere simulacrums, mere illusions, in your almighty head space. You according to your creed, are the only thing that exists in any tangible, non abstract way. Unless I've got it wrong?

 

[Little Dragon]

My personality and my body are also part of the illusion that is created by me but behind the illusion there is the real me, consciousness.

Actually this isn't a religion this personality and body came up with. I discovered it in my consciousness in the form of ancient wisdom. Such as within the texts of religions.

There is a way to test it. It is called magic or the paranormal. As I realize/remember my true nature and as the veil is lifting the illusion will weaken. The physical world will be bending and changing as I want it to.

That might mean however, that reality is a cooperative construct, a joint effort of observation, from every spark of mind. Magic would not prove godhood. It would prove or rather demonstrate that reality is not limited to the 4 dimensional construct that we are familiar with and more importantly, constrained and bounded within.
However even magic would be logically reducible. Given enough information.
I wish you well on your search would be godling. However heed a word of warning, do not peer too deeply into the abyss, do not poke into what one knows little about, lest ye disturb greater powers than you or I. The bible and other holy books warn of interfering with magic and other such things, I would heed their warnings. Personally. However, I am just a fantasy, a figment of your imagination, what do I know? I mean, you know?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Mysticism is considered by many to be an occult practice.

Why would people lump these two together? They are quite distinct things. Sure, both can be practiced by one person, and in congruity, but that does make one identical with one another.

You can wave around incense while you pray, but this doesn't mean praying and waving incense are the same thing.

Do you consider mysticism to be an occult practice?

 

[Little Dragon]

Yes, there may be others but I realized in my dreams at night there are other people and they seem so real. When I meet them it is as if I am meeting with people completely alien to me. I may love them, I may fear them but when I realize I am in a dream and they are part of my dream suddenly they become an extension of mine. They have no power over me and I have all the power. Then I realize I am alone. So if I can gain enough control over the "real world" then it would mean people in the "real world" are also extensions of mine.

You see, your senses, your sight, your hearing, are all recreated in your brain via electrochemical signals, your mind re constructs reality, from these packets of information. It is very good at doing this. It had to be, what was re recreated in the mind, had to match what was happening, outside. Because if there was a mismatch between constructed reality and objective reality, then early humans, would have been Hyena fodder, food for hungry bellies on the plains and meadows. So the brain has become very good at what it does.
Dreams are so real, because, theyre constructed from electrochemical signals as well as visual and other stimuli. There is no functional difference, except, dreams get their information from retained memories and the capacity for imagination, conscious senses are cut off.

However, dreams maybe also be accessing things that go beyond just memories and the imagination...moving electric charges generate magnetic fields and produce virtual photon pair creation and annihilation events. More may be afoot.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why would people lump these two together? They are quite distinct things. Sure, both can be practiced by one person, and in congruity, but that does make one identical with one another.

You can wave around incense while you pray, but this doesn't mean praying and waving incense are the same thing.

Do you consider mysticism to be an occult practice?

Using the definition of 'occult' I provided earlier in this thread, mysticism can be considered an occult practice. It's certainly not mainstream or readily available to everyone, is it?

 

[vulcanlogician]

"Occult" merely means "hidden" or "not readily understood."

But if this is your definition, there are certainly things that can be "mystical" or "experiential" that don't necessarily deal with "the hidden." In fact, doesn't mysticism oftentimes deal with the opposite? With the revealed? With a "vision"... not a "blind spot." (I'm not trying to be contradictory, annoying, or overly-semantic, man. Trust me. This is actually an important distinction for me.)

The reason I tend to distinguish the two is that I have sympathy for the mystic's argument for belief. If you experience something, believing in it is a bit more justified than say dogma or scriptures-say-so. I think it's one of the best arguments believers have.

Not so with occultism, which, as you point out, deals with the mysterious and unknown. To me, that sort of thinking, while anyone is welcome to think that way if they want, is not convincing at all when trying to justify belief.

Like I admitted in my last post, mysticism and occultism can be practice in congruence. But I would also argue that you can have one without the other.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But if this is your definition, there are certainly things that can be "mystical" or "experiential" that don't necessarily deal with "the hidden." In fact, doesn't mysticism oftentimes deal with the opposite? With the revealed? With a "vision"... not a "blind spot." (I'm not trying to be contradictory, annoying, or overly-semantic, man. Trust me. This is actually an important distinction for me.)

The reason I tend to distinguish the two is that I have sympathy for the mystic's argument for belief. If you experience something, believing in it is a bit more justified than say dogma or scriptures-say-so. I think it's one of the best arguments believers have.

Not so with occultism, which, as you point out, deals with the mysterious and unknown. To me, that sort of thinking, while anyone is welcome to think that way if they want, is not convincing at all when trying to justify belief.

Like I admitted in my last post, mysticism and occultism can be practice in congruence. But I would also argue that you can have one without the other.

I never claimed this was my definition. I was merely looking at a dictionary definition (M-W), IIRC. I'm also not claiming the terms are synonymous.

But now that you mention it, revealed to whom?