|
|
Post by merrick on Mar 29, 2012 11:48:13 GMT -5
It has been discussed here, therefore it's true. Is that what you're saying? Has it now become a dogma to you? Merrick No, I am not saying that it's true because it has been discussed here. It is true simply because: No human can experience God,Oneness,All, etc., as God,Oneness,All is beyond anything, and certainly beyond a human experience, encompasses infinite times more than what is in those experiences, and cannot be checked out in Its totality by means of any experiences. What is experienced in those experiences is obviously not God,Oneness,All. What it is can be discussed if somebody wishes. Who says that? |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 29, 2012 12:02:19 GMT -5
Because you don't answer. In all discussions about Oneness you have never said directly that realization of Oneness is possible. I've said it a few times, including yesterday. They're confused by their own minds just as you are. Some peeps like to play word games rather than notice the obvious. It's not unanswered, it's unheard. So again, the question is, why can't you hear? I've given a couple, and agreed with Andrew's yesterday. Why can't you hear? You refuse to hear, then you write a story about shame, dishonesty and fooling people. If you have given definitions in your talk with Andrew today, then ,- I am sorry. I haven't read them yet, I will read them later, when I have time. (But why haven't you given them long ago, they are the basics?  ) |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 29, 2012 12:06:31 GMT -5
No, I am not saying that it's true because it has been discussed here. It is true simply because: No human can experience God,Oneness,All, etc., as God,Oneness,All is beyond anything, and certainly beyond a human experience, encompasses infinite times more than what is in those experiences, and cannot be checked out in Its totality by means of any experiences. What is experienced in those experiences is obviously not God,Oneness,All. What it is can be discussed if somebody wishes. Who says that? That a human cannot experience God? It was said many times, by many, in all religions. It is obvious even without any authorities or religious authorities having said that. How is it possible to be sure that those experiences are experiences about God? Did God in person inform you ? Why do you think it was God? Because he said he was? What if you misunderstood the message and the meaning of those experiences? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2012 12:11:45 GMT -5
I've said it a few times, including yesterday. They're confused by their own minds just as you are. Some peeps like to play word games rather than notice the obvious. It's not unanswered, it's unheard. So again, the question is, why can't you hear? I've given a couple, and agreed with Andrew's yesterday. Why can't you hear? You refuse to hear, then you write a story about shame, dishonesty and fooling people. If you have given definitions in your talk with Andrew today, then ,- I am sorry. I haven't read them yet, I will read them later, when I have time. (But why haven't you given them long ago, they are the basics? ) Once again, I've talked repeatedly about the simplicity of what oneness means, and you've said repeatedly that I'm wrong. Saying I'm wrong doesn't mean I didn't talk about it, it just means it doesn't make sense to you because you can't see past your ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2012 12:16:45 GMT -5
That a human cannot experience God? It was said many times, by many, in all religions. It is obvious even without any authorities or religious authorities having said that. Yes, it's true one can't experience the source of experience, though it's not because there's too much but rather because there's nothing to experience. As I think Andrew has been suggesting, the word 'God' doesn't actually point to something. It's intended to point AWAY from some illusions. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 29, 2012 12:22:12 GMT -5
If you have given definitions in your talk with Andrew today, then ,- I am sorry. I haven't read them yet, I will read them later, when I have time. (But why haven't you given them long ago, they are the basics? ) Once again, I've talked repeatedly about the simplicity of what oneness means, and you've said repeatedly that I'm wrong. Saying I'm wrong doesn't mean I didn't talk about it, it just means it doesn't make sense to you because you can't see past your ideas. I haven't read your definitions yet, but simplicity is not a definition. Is that all you can add? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Mar 29, 2012 13:44:23 GMT -5
Once again, I've talked repeatedly about the simplicity of what oneness means, and you've said repeatedly that I'm wrong. Saying I'm wrong doesn't mean I didn't talk about it, it just means it doesn't make sense to you because you can't see past your ideas. I haven't read your definitions yet, but simplicity is not a definition. Is that all you can add? Would it be polite to read his definitions then? And after you've read them read them again. Copy and paste them and take them out of this forum. Show them to a few friends, find out if it really is just you who can't understand what he's saying. Or don't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2012 14:17:07 GMT -5
I haven't read your definitions yet, but simplicity is not a definition. Is that all you can add? Would it be polite to read his definitions then? And after you've read them read them again. Copy and paste them and take them out of this forum. Show them to a few friends, find out if it really is just you who can't understand what he's saying. Or don't. I second that. Here's my little gift to you Arisha spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=misc&thread=2100&page=7#52538 |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 29, 2012 17:29:05 GMT -5
That a human cannot experience God? It was said many times, by many, in all religions. It is obvious even without any authorities or religious authorities having said that. Yes, it's true one can't experience the source of experience, though it's not because there's too much but rather because there's nothing to experience. As I think Andrew has been suggesting, the word 'God' doesn't actually point to something. It's intended to point AWAY from some illusions. Yep, thats basically what I was suggesting. And the intention may be honourable, but the results of the pointing are mixed! |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 29, 2012 22:13:22 GMT -5
Definitions....hmmm. Here are mine - Oneness - the condition/quality/state of being one. Realization - A process by which the idea that 'all is one' is embodied/integrated, and becomes dominant in our reality/experience. Hence why, although there is a connection between understanding and 'realization', they are not the same thing. It is possible to understand something and not 'realize' that understanding. The same applies to seeing. Its quite possible to see, and see again, and see again, and see again, and not 'realize' that seeing. Rezzzzing with that. So, this is the definition you are rezzing with. I've read other posts and haven't found anything significant which could add some more clarity, and explanation to what oneness and its realization mean. The definition given by Andrew is just derived from the meaning of the root morpheme of the word oneness, and can be applied to any other word with the same root morpheme. It says absolutely nothing about the spiritual meaning of Oneness, and everybody could imagine any additional meaning to be able to make wild guesses about what Oneness means in the spiritual sense. Andrew also says about "all is one", - how is it different from what God is? God is also everything, in everything, everywhere, etc. So, the definition of Oneness hasn't been elaborated yet. I think the reason is not only in the complexity of the issue ( to say it is so simple that it even doesn't require a definition, - and then to fail to provide any coherent definition means to be too imprudent and ... hmmm... I better stop here.). The question of the definition is very , very difficult. And one more reason why it has not been solved yet is the far-fetchedness, artificiality of the concept of Oneness. My God, does this Oneness exist at all? What? Experiences? They are psycho-physiological reactions of the brain (it's a different topic for discussion)! You can label them as you want - Onenesses, Half-Onenesses, Total Onenesses, or Complete Madnesses, - they are different with different people, and happen because of different reasons. Who needs this artificial concept of Oneness? I checked out the sites, and just saw some people who tried to make some money with it. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 29, 2012 23:19:10 GMT -5
So, this is the definition you are rezzing with. I've read other posts and haven't found anything significant which could add some more clarity, and explanation to what oneness and its realization mean. The definition given by Andrew is just derived from the meaning of the root morpheme of the word oneness, and can be applied to any other word with the same root morpheme. It says absolutely nothing about the spiritual meaning of Oneness, and everybody could imagine any additional meaning to be able to make wild guesses about what Oneness means in the spiritual sense. Andrew also says about "all is one", - how is it different from what God is? God is also everything, in everything, everywhere, etc. So, the definition of Oneness hasn't been elaborated yet. I think the reason is not only in the complexity of the issue ( to say it is so simple that it even doesn't require a definition, - and then to fail to provide any coherent definition means to be too imprudent and ... hmmm... I better stop here.). The question of the definition is very , very difficult. And one more reason why it has not been solved yet is the far-fetchedness, artificiality of the concept of Oneness. My God, does this Oneness exist at all? What? Experiences? They are psycho-physiological reactions of the brain (it's a different topic for discussion)! You can label them as you want - Onenesses, Half-Onenesses, Total Onenesses, or Complete Madnesses, - they are different with different people, and happen because of different reasons. Who needs this artificial concept of Oneness? I checked out the sites, and just saw some people who tried to make some money with it.  |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 30, 2012 0:18:45 GMT -5
So, this is the definition you are rezzing with. I've read other posts and haven't found anything significant which could add some more clarity, and explanation to what oneness and its realization mean. The definition given by Andrew is just derived from the meaning of the root morpheme of the word oneness, and can be applied to any other word with the same root morpheme. It says absolutely nothing about the spiritual meaning of Oneness, and everybody could imagine any additional meaning to be able to make wild guesses about what Oneness means in the spiritual sense. Andrew also says about "all is one", - how is it different from what God is? God is also everything, in everything, everywhere, etc. So, the definition of Oneness hasn't been elaborated yet. I think the reason is not only in the complexity of the issue ( to say it is so simple that it even doesn't require a definition, - and then to fail to provide any coherent definition means to be too imprudent and ... hmmm... I better stop here.). The question of the definition is very , very difficult. And one more reason why it has not been solved yet is the far-fetchedness, artificiality of the concept of Oneness. My God, does this Oneness exist at all? What? Experiences? They are psycho-physiological reactions of the brain (it's a different topic for discussion)! You can label them as you want - Onenesses, Half-Onenesses, Total Onenesses, or Complete Madnesses, - they are different with different people, and happen because of different reasons. Who needs this artificial concept of Oneness? I checked out the sites, and just saw some people who tried to make some money with it. Oh yes, this is what is going on here, on this site. Everybody is talking about Oneness, and nobody understands what it means. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 30, 2012 0:28:42 GMT -5
Oh yes, this is what is going on here, on this site. Everybody is talking about Oneness, and nobody understands what it means. It's simply a term referring to the fact that separation is wholly imagined. You're taking it to places that are totally irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 30, 2012 0:55:08 GMT -5
To what places, can you specify it, please?
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 30, 2012 1:16:48 GMT -5
To what places, can you specify it, please? Every idea that aims to debate, project and imagine oneness as anything more than the absence of separation. Which would be well, everything you've been going on about for days (weeks?) now. |
|
)
