|
Post by razkolnikov on May 30, 2017 10:33:04 GMT -5
If there was a God, not arguing for or against. Let's say there was. Wouldn't the idea of a God, an absolute being demand that he/she/it not be bound by space and time. God in fact would have to be the source of space and time. We can't say prior to space and time because there is no time until God invents it or creates it or whatever.
So based on this notion, God can never be an object in the field of perception. Perception requires space and time.
Interestingly, the perceiver also can never be an object in the field of perception, but for a different reason. If it is an object, then "who" is now perceiving the object.
Is this a coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by razkolnikov on May 30, 2017 10:52:19 GMT -5
My bad. God can't be a "being" absolute or otherwise if God can't be perceived or a he/she or it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2017 5:50:26 GMT -5
If there was a God, not arguing for or against. Let's say there was. Wouldn't the idea of a God, an absolute being demand that he/she/it not be bound by space and time. God in fact would have to be the source of space and time. We can't say prior to space and time because there is no time until God invents it or creates it or whatever. So based on this notion, God can never be an object in the field of perception. Perception requires space and time. Interestingly, the perceiver also can never be an object in the field of perception, but for a different reason. If it is an object, then "who" is now perceiving the object. The concept of a personal God has always been a problematic one. It creates more questions than answers. And welcome to the forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 7:20:26 GMT -5
If there was a God, not arguing for or against. Let's say there was. Wouldn't the idea of a God, an absolute being demand that he/she/it not be bound by space and time. God in fact would have to be the source of space and time. We can't say prior to space and time because there is no time until God invents it or creates it or whatever. So based on this notion, God can never be an object in the field of perception. Perception requires space and time. Interestingly, the perceiver also can never be an object in the field of perception, but for a different reason. If it is an object, then "who" is now perceiving the object. The concept of a personal God has always been a problematic one. It creates more questions than answers. And welcome to the forum. I think he's arguing the case for an impersonal God. He says, "God can never be an object in the field of perception." That can't be personal.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 31, 2017 13:00:49 GMT -5
If there was a God, not arguing for or against. Let's say there was. Wouldn't the idea of a God, an absolute being demand that he/she/it not be bound by space and time. God in fact would have to be the source of space and time. We can't say prior to space and time because there is no time until God invents it or creates it or whatever. So based on this notion, God can never be an object in the field of perception. Perception requires space and time. Interestingly, the perceiver also can never be an object in the field of perception, but for a different reason. If it is an object, then "who" is now perceiving the object. Is this a coincidence? Yes, you are right, the perceiver cannot be an object in the field of perception, but the perceiver can be conscious of itself. I seem to be out of the ordinary here. I consider there to be originating Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence (SOCI). IOW, "God" ~who~ is conscious of Itself. SOCI is the unmanifest, formless. SOCI formed the manifest universe. Previously trying to say in many ways, but not succeeding, I am a panentheist, that is, not a nondualist. That is, everything is in SOCI, but SOCI is not contained within everything. IOW, SOCI exists also outside of All This. IOW, there is a ~dividing line~ (being) which the consciousness of man cannot participate with SOCI. Saying another way, there is a Whole which the part is not a part. (In Jewish mysticism this [SOCI] is called En Sof). IOW, I don't agree with what you are suggesting, that we are God. {Dostoevsky fan?}
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 22, 2019 6:22:42 GMT -5
If there was a God, not arguing for or against. Let's say there was. Wouldn't the idea of a God, an absolute being demand that he/she/it not be bound by space and time. God in fact would have to be the source of space and time. We can't say prior to space and time because there is no time until God invents it or creates it or whatever. So based on this notion, God can never be an object in the field of perception. Perception requires space and time. Interestingly, the perceiver also can never be an object in the field of perception, but for a different reason. If it is an object, then "who" is now perceiving the object. Is this a coincidence? Yes, you are right, the perceiver cannot be an object in the field of perception, but the perceiver can be conscious of itself. I seem to be out of the ordinary here. I consider there to be originating Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence (SOCI). IOW, "God" ~who~ is conscious of Itself. SOCI is the unmanifest, formless. SOCI formed the manifest universe. Previously trying to say in many ways, but not succeeding, I am a panentheist, that is, not a nondualist. That is, everything is in SOCI, but SOCI is not contained within everything. IOW, SOCI exists also outside of All This. IOW, there is a ~dividing line~ (being) which the consciousness of man cannot participate with SOCI. Saying another way, there is a Whole which the part is not a part. (In Jewish mysticism this [SOCI] is called En Sof). IOW, I don't agree with what you are suggesting, that we are God. {Dostoevsky fan?} ......bump......
|
|
|
Post by desertrat on Feb 22, 2019 10:52:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 11:20:12 GMT -5
Yes, you are right, the perceiver cannot be an object in the field of perception, but the perceiver can be conscious of itself. I seem to be out of the ordinary here. I consider there to be originating Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence (SOCI). IOW, "God" ~who~ is conscious of Itself. SOCI is the unmanifest, formless. SOCI formed the manifest universe. Previously trying to say in many ways, but not succeeding, I am a panentheist, that is, not a nondualist. That is, everything is in SOCI, but SOCI is not contained within everything. IOW, SOCI exists also outside of All This. IOW, there is a ~dividing line~ (being) which the consciousness of man cannot participate with SOCI. Saying another way, there is a Whole which the part is not a part. (In Jewish mysticism this [SOCI] is called En Sof). IOW, I don't agree with what you are suggesting, that we are God. {Dostoevsky fan?} ......bump...... I wrote this as Razkolnikov. One with a superman or God complex seemed an appropriate author of this suggestion. It highlights an inherent danger in that line of thinking. I am a great fan of said author. Reading your response, you would disagree with Jesus when he says I am in the Father as the Father is in me or words to that effect. It's an interesting distinction you make. Yet in one of the psalms I forgot which one -- traveling now and too lazy to look anything up-- God tells David, "you are Gods (usually not capilatized for obvious reasons). You are Sons of the most high." I suspect there'll be a dance after this, soft shoe. But Jesus used this psalm to deflect the ire of the Pharisees when they wanted to kill him for claiming to be God, John 10:34 in the New Testament. From my vantage, the distinction is of no consequence, certainly not worth nails to the flesh. I actually don't quite like what Jesus says, because it tends to prop up the illusion that there's even a separate "I". It feels more truthful to say: there is nothing that is not God. But even that doesn't feel quite right. To me the attempt to depict such a relationship is doomed to fail. I can't respond right away but will do so in a few days.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2019 5:07:39 GMT -5
I wrote this as Razkolnikov. One with a superman or God complex seemed an appropriate author of this suggestion. It highlights an inherent danger in that line of thinking. I am a great fan of said author. Reading your response, you would disagree with Jesus when he says I am in the Father as the Father is in me or words to that effect. It's an interesting distinction you make. Yet in one of the psalms I forgot which one -- traveling now and too lazy to look anything up-- God tells David, "you are Gods (usually not capilatized for obvious reasons). You are Sons of the most high." I suspect there'll be a dance after this, soft shoe. But Jesus used this psalm to deflect the ire of the Pharisees when they wanted to kill him for claiming to be God, John 10:34 in the New Testament. From my vantage, the distinction is of no consequence, certainly not worth nails to the flesh. I actually don't quite like what Jesus says, because it tends to prop up the illusion that there's even a separate "I". It feels more truthful to say: there is nothing that is not God. But even that doesn't feel quite right. To me the attempt to depict such a relationship is doomed to fail. I can't respond right away but will do so in a few days. OK, good to hear from you. No, I don't discount what Jesus said. He also said he came from above, from heaven, and would return to where he came from. He also said no man knows the Father, only the son (himself). So he made unique claims about himself. These later resulted in the claim that Jesus claimed HE WAS God. And the Trinity business resulted. I don't think a claim to be one with God is a claim TO BE God. Because he also said it is my sincere wish that you will some day be one with us, even as we are one (Father & son) {my paraphrase}. He also said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. I don't think this was either meant to indicate he was God. He also said, hey, I'm not that special, everything I am doing you also can do (my paraphrase). The church, and Christians, don't preach that too much, it would indicate they have something amiss. Jesus didn't do what he did FOR US (which is what the church claims). He did it to model-for-us what we can Be-come. It's complicated, but maybe not really. The church has just ceased to understand the mission and so has failed In the mission. Look forward to discussing it more.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Feb 24, 2019 5:37:37 GMT -5
From the collective works of Sri Bhakti Ananda Goswami: " Behold Jesus Christ as the Mature Asklepios-IASAS (Serapis and Charaka), the Great Physician and All-Healing Savior of All Worlds! Lord Ananta Baladeva as the Ayur Vedic Great Physician Charaka was traditionally a mature unshorn (bearded and long haired) wandering mendicant healer. As the Deity Charaka (not the later court physician Charaka), His identity as GOD (Sam-Karshana, Baladeva) was ‘hidden’ to the World, but when He appeared as Jesus Christ, it was revealed to His Disciples."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 13:54:20 GMT -5
I wrote this as Razkolnikov. One with a superman or God complex seemed an appropriate author of this suggestion. It highlights an inherent danger in that line of thinking. I am a great fan of said author. Reading your response, you would disagree with Jesus when he says I am in the Father as the Father is in me or words to that effect. It's an interesting distinction you make. Yet in one of the psalms I forgot which one -- traveling now and too lazy to look anything up-- God tells David, "you are Gods (usually not capilatized for obvious reasons). You are Sons of the most high." I suspect there'll be a dance after this, soft shoe. But Jesus used this psalm to deflect the ire of the Pharisees when they wanted to kill him for claiming to be God, John 10:34 in the New Testament. From my vantage, the distinction is of no consequence, certainly not worth nails to the flesh. I actually don't quite like what Jesus says, because it tends to prop up the illusion that there's even a separate "I". It feels more truthful to say: there is nothing that is not God. But even that doesn't feel quite right. To me the attempt to depict such a relationship is doomed to fail. I can't respond right away but will do so in a few days. OK, good to hear from you. No, I don't discount what Jesus said. He also said he came from above, from heaven, and would return to where he came from. He also said no man knows the Father, only the son (himself). So he made unique claims about himself. These later resulted in the claim that Jesus claimed HE WAS God. And the Trinity business resulted. I don't think a claim to be one with God is a claim TO BE God. Because he also said it is my sincere wish that you will some day be one with us, even as we are one (Father & son) {my paraphrase}. He also said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. I don't think this was either meant to indicate he was God. He also said, hey, I'm not that special, everything I am doing you also can do (my paraphrase). The church, and Christians, don't preach that too much, it would indicate they have something amiss. Jesus didn't do what he did FOR US (which is what the church claims). He did it to model-for-us what we can Be-come. It's complicated, but maybe not really. The church has just ceased to understand the mission and so has failed In the mission. Look forward to discussing it more. There is no trinity or Christ until way after the fact. Jesus certainly never used that word. And in all honesty we can never be sure what Jesus did or did not say. The oral tradition and the methods of putting words to paper, especially for the New Testament books, were less than perfect. But we're pretty sure he intimated, like our friend E, that he was in fact God, now what that is, is open to debate. Your objection, I think, is to those who believe, think or claim to know that there is no separate person called sdp who can, given some practice, evolve into God. Now I'm of the ilk that believes, that there is no separate person, like E, but to see that, to live that and know that, requires some work. This is the case just for me, this body/mind typing now. E spontaneously, for no reason, saw the truth and now lives it. I have no reason to doubt him other than I'm bratty like him and enjoy yanking his chain. ZD had a CC that woke him up. I have no reason to doubt him either. I am not so lucky. I meditate and practice something very similar to what you call self-remembering, some call it being aware of being aware. In that process of shifting perspective, I gain insight into the working mind, the thought generating mechanism and gain an ever greater appreciation of its subtle machinations, you call it becoming aware of the "conditioning." This has gradually caused me to note that the body/mind's self-deception and denial are anathema to the "seer". This exposure to the inner workings of mind helps me detach, mostly, from the self centeredness and pettiness and humbles me. But I'm with E and ZD in thinking that a separate I is an illusion and that SR is reduction, not adding anything to the person. Like Hedderman says "it's not freedom of self, but freedom from self." What I have a problem with is when E or others claim their credit cards aren't real, but yet they show the same reluctance to share the number that I do. I believe the credit card isn't real, but I feel the sting of hypocrisy whenever I say so.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 25, 2019 14:48:35 GMT -5
OK, good to hear from you. No, I don't discount what Jesus said. He also said he came from above, from heaven, and would return to where he came from. He also said no man knows the Father, only the son (himself). So he made unique claims about himself. These later resulted in the claim that Jesus claimed HE WAS God. And the Trinity business resulted. I don't think a claim to be one with God is a claim TO BE God. Because he also said it is my sincere wish that you will some day be one with us, even as we are one (Father & son) {my paraphrase}. He also said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. I don't think this was either meant to indicate he was God. He also said, hey, I'm not that special, everything I am doing you also can do (my paraphrase). The church, and Christians, don't preach that too much, it would indicate they have something amiss. Jesus didn't do what he did FOR US (which is what the church claims). He did it to model-for-us what we can Be-come. It's complicated, but maybe not really. The church has just ceased to understand the mission and so has failed In the mission. Look forward to discussing it more. There is no trinity or Christ until way after the fact. Jesus certainly never used that word. And in all honesty we can never be sure what Jesus did or did not say. The oral tradition and the methods of putting words to paper, especially for the New Testament books, were less than perfect. But we're pretty sure he intimated, like our friend E, that he was in fact God, now what that is, is open to debate. Your objection, I think, is to those who believe, think or claim to know that there is no separate person called sdp who can, given some practice, evolve into God. Now I'm of the ilk that believes, that there is no separate person, like E, but to see that, to live that and know that, requires some work. This is the case just for me, this body/mind typing now. E spontaneously, for no reason, saw the truth and now lives it. I have no reason to doubt him other than I'm bratty like him and enjoy yanking his chain. ZD had a CC that woke him up. I have no reason to doubt him either. I am not so lucky. I meditate and practice something very similar to what you call self-remembering, some call it being aware of being aware. In that process of shifting perspective, I gain insight into the working mind, the thought generating mechanism and gain an ever greater appreciation of its subtle machinations, you call it becoming aware of the "conditioning." This has gradually caused me to note that the body/mind's self-deception and denial are anathema to the "seer". This exposure to the inner workings of mind helps me detach, mostly, from the self centeredness and pettiness and humbles me. But I'm with E and ZD in thinking that a separate I is an illusion and that SR is reduction, not adding anything to the person. Like Hedderman says "it's not freedom of self, but freedom from self." What I have a problem with is when E or others claim their credit cards aren't real, but yet they show the same reluctance to share the number that I do. I believe the credit card isn't real, but I feel the sting of hypocrisy whenever I say so. FWIW, a CC only woke me up to the fact that reality was not what I thought it was. 15 more years went by before the "me" vanished, and I finally understood, non-conceptually, that the "me" had never existed in the way that I had imagined (as a volitional entity inhabiting a body and making things happen). Only then did the search for truth come to an end. During a CC experience dualistic perception ceases, and many things are seen and realized (some of which can't even be described), but the primary realization is that what we call "reality" is an infinite unified field of being, and that awareness and love are foundational to all else. All mystics who have that kind of experience later claim that the world is perfect just as it is and that death is an illusion. From my POV, all physical things are real in the sense that they can be directly experienced through direct sensory perception and unreal in the sense that they are separate from anything else. It's easier to see that what we call a "hand" is one-with a "wrist" than it is to see that a credit card or a rock is one-with the field it appears within. It's the idea of separation that's imaginary. I use the word "THIS" to point to the entire field of reality, and until one can "feel in one's bones" that what one is is an intimate and integral aspect of THIS, it's unlikely that one will fully understand what the word "flow" points to. One of the reasons I often write about samadhi is that it can help people get a general sense of what's being pointed to. Most people have experienced the samadhi of getting involved in some activity so completely that they psychologically lose themselves in it. Afterwards, however, the old sense of selfhood as a separate person usually returns. Ramana, Zen Masters, and other sages point to a way of life that is something like permanent samadhi (in which the old sense of selfhood never returns). Life simply flows like a river, and the body/mind is carried along in the flow. This is why its often said that a sage doesn't do anything, but everything gets done. From a sage's POV there's no entity who feels separate from the totality of the flow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 15:50:59 GMT -5
There is no trinity or Christ until way after the fact. Jesus certainly never used that word. And in all honesty we can never be sure what Jesus did or did not say. The oral tradition and the methods of putting words to paper, especially for the New Testament books, were less than perfect. But we're pretty sure he intimated, like our friend E, that he was in fact God, now what that is, is open to debate. Your objection, I think, is to those who believe, think or claim to know that there is no separate person called sdp who can, given some practice, evolve into God. Now I'm of the ilk that believes, that there is no separate person, like E, but to see that, to live that and know that, requires some work. This is the case just for me, this body/mind typing now. E spontaneously, for no reason, saw the truth and now lives it. I have no reason to doubt him other than I'm bratty like him and enjoy yanking his chain. ZD had a CC that woke him up. I have no reason to doubt him either. I am not so lucky. I meditate and practice something very similar to what you call self-remembering, some call it being aware of being aware. In that process of shifting perspective, I gain insight into the working mind, the thought generating mechanism and gain an ever greater appreciation of its subtle machinations, you call it becoming aware of the "conditioning." This has gradually caused me to note that the body/mind's self-deception and denial are anathema to the "seer". This exposure to the inner workings of mind helps me detach, mostly, from the self centeredness and pettiness and humbles me. But I'm with E and ZD in thinking that a separate I is an illusion and that SR is reduction, not adding anything to the person. Like Hedderman says "it's not freedom of self, but freedom from self." What I have a problem with is when E or others claim their credit cards aren't real, but yet they show the same reluctance to share the number that I do. I believe the credit card isn't real, but I feel the sting of hypocrisy whenever I say so. FWIW, a CC only woke me up to the fact that reality was not what I thought it was. 15 more years went by before the "me" vanished, and I finally understood, non-conceptually, that the "me" had never existed in the way that I had imagined (as a volitional entity inhabiting a body and making things happen). Only then did the search for truth come to an end. During a CC experience dualistic perception ceases, and many things are seen and realized (some of which can't even be described), but the primary realization is that what we call "reality" is an infinite unified field of being, and that awareness and love are foundational to all else. All mystics who have that kind of experience later claim that the world is perfect just as it is and that death is an illusion. From my POV, all physical things are real in the sense that they can be directly experienced through direct sensory perception and unreal in the sense that they are separate from anything else. It's easier to see that what we call a "hand" is one-with a "wrist" than it is to see that a credit card or a rock is one-with the field it appears within. It's the idea of separation that's imaginary. I use the word "THIS" to point to the entire field of reality, and until one can "feel in one's bones" that what one is is an intimate and integral aspect of THIS, it's unlikely that one will fully understand what the word "flow" points to. One of the reasons I often write about samadhi is that it can help people get a general sense of what's being pointed to. Most people have experienced the samadhi of getting involved in some activity so completely that they psychologically lose themselves in it. Afterwards, however, the old sense of selfhood as a separate person usually returns. Ramana, Zen Masters, and other sages point to a way of life that is something like permanent samadhi (in which the old sense of selfhood never returns). Life simply flows like a river, and the body/mind is carried along in the flow. This is why its often said that a sage doesn't do anything, but everything gets done. From a sage's POV there's no entity who feels separate from the totality of the flow. I get it. You and your credit card are One.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2019 20:01:41 GMT -5
FWIW, a CC only woke me up to the fact that reality was not what I thought it was. 15 more years went by before the "me" vanished, and I finally understood, non-conceptually, that the "me" had never existed in the way that I had imagined (as a volitional entity inhabiting a body and making things happen). Only then did the search for truth come to an end. During a CC experience dualistic perception ceases, and many things are seen and realized (some of which can't even be described), but the primary realization is that what we call "reality" is an infinite unified field of being, and that awareness and love are foundational to all else. All mystics who have that kind of experience later claim that the world is perfect just as it is and that death is an illusion. From my POV, all physical things are real in the sense that they can be directly experienced through direct sensory perception and unreal in the sense that they are separate from anything else. It's easier to see that what we call a "hand" is one-with a "wrist" than it is to see that a credit card or a rock is one-with the field it appears within. It's the idea of separation that's imaginary. I use the word "THIS" to point to the entire field of reality, and until one can "feel in one's bones" that what one is is an intimate and integral aspect of THIS, it's unlikely that one will fully understand what the word "flow" points to. One of the reasons I often write about samadhi is that it can help people get a general sense of what's being pointed to. Most people have experienced the samadhi of getting involved in some activity so completely that they psychologically lose themselves in it. Afterwards, however, the old sense of selfhood as a separate person usually returns. Ramana, Zen Masters, and other sages point to a way of life that is something like permanent samadhi (in which the old sense of selfhood never returns). Life simply flows like a river, and the body/mind is carried along in the flow. This is why its often said that a sage doesn't do anything, but everything gets done. From a sage's POV there's no entity who feels separate from the totality of the flow. I get it. You and your credit card are One. Yes, but it takes a financial realization to know it in your bones.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 25, 2019 20:16:12 GMT -5
OK, good to hear from you. No, I don't discount what Jesus said. He also said he came from above, from heaven, and would return to where he came from. He also said no man knows the Father, only the son (himself). So he made unique claims about himself. These later resulted in the claim that Jesus claimed HE WAS God. And the Trinity business resulted. I don't think a claim to be one with God is a claim TO BE God. Because he also said it is my sincere wish that you will some day be one with us, even as we are one (Father & son) {my paraphrase}. He also said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. I don't think this was either meant to indicate he was God. He also said, hey, I'm not that special, everything I am doing you also can do (my paraphrase). The church, and Christians, don't preach that too much, it would indicate they have something amiss. Jesus didn't do what he did FOR US (which is what the church claims). He did it to model-for-us what we can Be-come. It's complicated, but maybe not really. The church has just ceased to understand the mission and so has failed In the mission. Look forward to discussing it more. There is no trinity or Christ until way after the fact. Jesus certainly never used that word. And in all honesty we can never be sure what Jesus did or did not say. The oral tradition and the methods of putting words to paper, especially for the New Testament books, were less than perfect. But we're pretty sure he intimated, like our friend E, that he was in fact God, now what that is, is open to debate. Your objection, I think, is to those who believe, think or claim to know that there is no separate person called sdp who can, given some practice, evolve into God. Now I'm of the ilk that believes, that there is no separate person, like E, but to see that, to live that and know that, requires some work. This is the case just for me, this body/mind typing now. E spontaneously, for no reason, saw the truth and now lives it. I have no reason to doubt him other than I'm bratty like him and enjoy yanking his chain. ZD had a CC that woke him up. I have no reason to doubt him either. I am not so lucky. I meditate and practice something very similar to what you call self-remembering, some call it being aware of being aware. In that process of shifting perspective, I gain insight into the working mind, the thought generating mechanism and gain an ever greater appreciation of its subtle machinations, you call it becoming aware of the "conditioning." This has gradually caused me to note that the body/mind's self-deception and denial are anathema to the "seer". This exposure to the inner workings of mind helps me detach, mostly, from the self centeredness and pettiness and humbles me. But I'm with E and ZD in thinking that a separate I is an illusion and that SR is reduction, not adding anything to the person. Like Hedderman says "it's not freedom of self, but freedom from self." What I have a problem with is when E or others claim their credit cards aren't real, but yet they show the same reluctance to share the number that I do. I believe the credit card isn't real, but I feel the sting of hypocrisy whenever I say so. I will reply more fully later. For now, no, I don't believe we ever evolve into God. Whatever Jesus was (ultimately), I think he showed the full potential of possibility for man.
|
|