Classic God Debate

[evan]

Okay, I know i'm new to this board, but I was sorta hoping that someone would want to have a good ol' fashioned classic discussion about the question: does god exist.

What I mean by classic, is that I'm talking not about how a god might exist, or the nature of what that god might be like. I simply mean a discussion of theism vs. atheism, and true agnostisism. Starting basic, and maybe we can move from there.

Now, I'm actually willing to take any position, (though I'd like to take the theist position), but I didn't want to write out some long shpeal, unless there was someone interested. So if anybody is, just speak up, and take a position, as I'd rather not start it off.

[vicente]

Although there is a myriad of ideas regarding what is God in todays therapeutic society of self-centered, self-expressive, self-consecrative mediocrity, there are some generally agreed upon definitions of what a God is.

God defined by Webster's Unabridged:

1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).
2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).
3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).
4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol (conditions).
5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (conditioned).
6. A very handsome man (condition).
7. A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).

Definition #1. remix:
"God is an omnipotent being (that's assumption #1).
We have free will (that's assumption #2).
God can do whatever he likes regardless of what we want, because he's
omnipotent.
We can do whatever we want provided god lets us.
We can't do whatever we want if god doesn't let us.
Therefore we don't have free will.

Or we can do what we like regardless of what god wants. Therefore god is not omnipotent. Thus, one can't have omnipotency and free will in the same universe.

Or,...from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Overall, since no god exists ("God is the property of the brain, only the brain, and has little to do with what is out there". Michael Persinger, neuroscientist),
http://website.lineone.net/~kwelos/parietal.htm
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html
I could expound on a variety of evidence that shows that no god exists,...however, lets focus on just one other perceived divine quality,...that he's creative.

"He" of course implies one aspective (the male, centripetal or light ) of duality's reality. However, since duality does not exist, neither does "he".

"Creative",...that is, having the power or quality of creating,...lets say, to cause into being. Actually, in my opinion, this is why man created god, because he thinks there must be a cause, a beginning, a Singularity. In reality, according to Quantum Cosmology, there is no cause, no beginning, no Singularity, in fact, there was never a so-called Big Bang, because time does not exist.

To create is an action, thus a condition within time. Anything requiring movement/energy is a condition within time.

One absolute fact about Reality is that it is in the Now.

Can one create in the Now? No,...its impossible. All creation is in the past. Lets prove it. (1 Thess 5:21) Show me something present in time. You cannot. There is no present or instant in time. Everything you "see" is a projection in the perceived present.

The Now is Unconditional (Timeless, Causeless). Creation is Conditional (within time). God is a condition. In fact, the Bible of the Abrahamic religions clearly shows that their god is a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, CONDITIONAL god. The Source of us however is Unconditional and Causeless,...like the fulcrum of a playground seesaw. We cannot call the Unconditional and Causeless god, because that is not the definition of god.

One cannot "merge" the conditional (creative beliefs of a god)with the Unconditional (Reality),...if such could possibly occur, the Unconditional would no longer be Unconditional.

My personal favorite proof that no god(s) exist is Light. Not the light which is an antonym of dark,...like the Christan god in the lare 2nd Century apology 1John (1John 1:5),...but Light as the Unconditional fulcrum upon which duality's light effects its motion.

Quantum cosmologically speaking,...Light is proof that no god exists.

Vicente Marco
:)

[sonrisa]

ok Vicente. I have been marinating over this god/light thing. Well off & on I have. I looked up elohim, it means gods. I know you made a big deal about the singular/plural stuff but I still don't get it. So what if a bunch of gods said, "let there be light" or if 1 god said it. What's the diff? And how do you know that 1 god wasn't using the royal we?

[vicente]

Sonrisa,...I agree that in the Abrahamic religious belief the Elohim (plural of god) are reported to have said "let there be light",...but that light is not 'Light', only a projection of 'Light'.

On one hand perhaps it would seem more appropriate to have a different word for 'Light', to differenciate from the moving light of duality. Yet more appropriate would be the reverse, that is, a name for duality's light that distinguishes it from the Still Light of Source.

The point I'm making is this,...if the name of the Still, Causeless, Unconditional Light of Source was 'god', then this 'god' could not be a Creator, a Being, omnipotent, the principal object of the universe, etc. Those attributes and characteristics do not describe Still Light, but the moving light of the projection.

Simply realize this,...energy is merely the manifestation, or a perceptual indication, of being separate from the Stillness of Light. Wherever you observe energy, you are witnessing separation from Light. What man has done is invent a 'god' as the presumed creator of the illusion,...that is, of energy and the projected, moving light of duality.

Duality is an illusion, and the invention of a god for that duality is a delusion.

:)

[sonrisa]

ok that's making more sense. :)

I agree with you about the god(s) in the bible being petty, vacillating, racist (& sexist), etc.... I think that the god(s) in the bible are different & separate entities from an all powerful omnicient supreme being, if there is one. I tend to think of such a being along the lines of "the Spirit of the Lord moving over the waters" (& then saying "let there be light") which is why the god/light thing was confusing to me. Explaning the concept of Light vs light as a projection is helpful too.

I know somebody who has Eckhart Tolle tapes. I'm really gonna have to borrow them. :)

[vicente]

I know somebody who has Eckhart Tolle tapes. I'm really gonna have to borrow them

Unfortunately, considering Tolle's first book, Power of Now, he has yet to grasp what the Now is. That is to say, Tolle still beLIEves in a god.

be·lief n. from ME bileve, v, influenced by bileven\gelfan\leubh, to hold dear/to make palatable.
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing confidence in another without proof that one is right in doing so.
2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something not susceptable to validation.
3.Something believed or unquestioningly accepted as true in the absence of reason, especially a particular ideology accepted by a group of persons.
4.a religious tenet or tenets.

belief is always limiting
beliefs suppress, deny, disempower, disconnect
belief always keep us unfulfilled
belief begins when reason ends
belief is in something else
belief is a barrier to Love
belief is a substitute for perceived incompleteness
beliefs are negative emotional investments
belief produces unnatural thought
belief always expects
belief implies doubt
belief is an attachment to self-bondage
belief is always dishonest.

Experience born of belief, is only experienced through the condition of that belief.

[...]

..fortunately, not everyone shares your views Vicente ;) How are you doing?

[vicente]

..fortunately, not everyone shares your views Vicente How are you doing?

Actually that should read "unfortunately",...however, at some point everyone will, or continue in their dead end mediocity.

By the way,...with the Freedom From Religion celebrations approaching (2009), I'm doing excellent,...although the U.S. new 5 cent coin, with Thomas Jefferson looking at a huge 'in god we trust', is totally nauseous.

Vicente

[Corri]

..fortunately, not everyone shares your views Vicente

Actually that should read "unfortunately",...however, at some point everyone will, or continue in their dead end mediocity.

Experience born of belief, is only experienced through the condition of that belief.

[...]

Actually that should read "unfortunately",...however, at some point everyone will, or continue in their dead end mediocity.

..better watch Vicente, before you know it you'll start a religion <_<

[vicente]

..better watch Vicente, before you know it you'll start a religion

No,...I'm not dishonest.

http://www.christianitymeme.org/

:)

[...]

No,...I'm not dishonest.

..you're not? That's the same as saying: "you can trust me" and whenever someone says that, you know the opposite is true :lol:

[vicente]

That's the same as saying: "you can trust me"

An apple and an orange may both be fruit, but they are different fruit. Because I'm not dishonest, I would never say "trust me",...for an honest person is not interested in stepping between someone and their direct experience, but rather encourages everyone to have a direct experience.

:)

[...]

..ahwell, that's a nice sentiment, but it does brings on the assumption of similar experiences pointing towards a similar view or expression of that experience. It is not likely that someone else will have a likewise experience and shares your views, Vicente. The classic god debate will go on forever, especially when people insist on a truer view of things, but you'd disagree?

[vicente]

It is not likely that someone else will have a likewise experience and shares your views, Vicente. The classic god debate will go on forever, especially when people insist on a truer view of things, but you'd disagree?

1. Someone having a direct experience, that is, free from conditions/beliefs, should share a similar experience.

2. The god debate shouldn't go on much longer. There is no god (as defined in accepted dictionaries), so the growing of more honesty and insistence of truth will bring about the emancipation of the god idea rather soon in my view,...sometime between 2009-2012.

:)

[Corri]

Vicente:

Proclaiming will always find you followers and attackers.

Handing one a map and pointing in the right direction allows one to find truth for themselves, if they so chose. It takes following and attacking out of the equation.

Corri

P.S. It defines god in the dictionary? SMACK my head. Why did I not think to look there? If it is in print in the dictionary, surely it must be THE definition.

[...]

1. Someone having a direct experience, that is, free from conditions/beliefs, should share a similar experience.

..but then you must be assuming the experiences you think you had were free from beliefs, right? Suppose someone else feels the same way but still has had a different experience, or explanation of that experience, what then? If this is about being right, one always has to be wrong. Thus perpatuating the god debate...

2. The god debate shouldn't go on much longer. There is no god (as defined in accepted dictionaries), so the growing of more honesty and insistence of truth will bring about the emancipation of the god idea rather soon in my view,...sometime between 2009-2012.

..yet you fuel this debate by insisting on being right, and those who believe are wrong, why can't you see that? I'm not saying you are wrong, nor am i saying i'm right, but you are using your experiences as a means to separate people, and that can't be what you intented, can it?

[vicente]

It defines god in the dictionary? SMACK my head. Why did I not think to look there? If it is in print in the dictionary, surely it must be THE definition.

Imagine if I'm speaking of apples (as per the accepted definition) and anothers personal definition of apples is stainless steel concrete forms. In other words, if someone, using the english language is discussing "god", I must assume they are using the dictionary definition, not a personal one.

:)

[vicente]

Suppose someone else feels the same way but still has had a different experience, or explanation of that experience,...

There is no, nor can be, separate or different direct experiences. If two people claim to have different direct experiences, then either one or both or being dishonest.

..yet you fuel this debate by insisting on being right, and those who believe are wrong, why can't you see that?

As I said,...Experience born of belief, is only experienced through the condition of that belief.,..therefore not an honest, valid experience; but merely someones self-imagined truth, which is not truth at all.

you are using your experiences as a means to separate people, and that can't be what you intented, can it?

Correct,...I have no intentions of feeding the perception of separation. Nor do I wish that anyone, for any reason, believe me, or anything. What I am advocating is that "the believer" is not real,...identification with beliefs manifests the illusion, or delusion, that the believer, the you that you are not, is real.

:)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by vicente@Sep 25 2004, 07:38 PM

2. The god debate shouldn't go on much longer. There is no god (as defined in accepted dictionaries), so the growing of more honesty and insistence of truth will bring about the emancipation of the god idea rather soon in my view,...sometime between 2009-2012.



Vicente, call it your view, opinion, whatever you want, but since 2009 hasn't happened yet, wouldn't what you posted also qualify as a beLIEf?

[...]

There is no, nor can be, separate or different direct experiences. If two people claim to have different direct experiences, then either one or both or being dishonest.

..ofcourse the importance of a direct experience goes only so far, and the nature of experiencing itself is such that i would not consider it to be a form of 'proof'. It is obvious you believe you are right, and by that discount someone as Tolle who, next to using the word god, has a wonderful way of pointing. Who is being dishonest?

As I said,...Experience born of belief, is only experienced through the condition of that belief.,..therefore not an honest, valid experience; but merely someones self-imagined truth, which is not truth at all.

..why would any experience not be a honest, valid experience? Even you Vicente are experiencing self-imagined truth, for who is there to percieve and to establish? By separating truth into valid/not-valid experiences you are playing the duality game, made out of conditions...

Correct,...I have no intentions of feeding the perception of separation. Nor do I wish that anyone, for any reason, believe me, or anything. What I am advocating is that "the believer" is not real,...identification with beliefs manifests the illusion, or delusion, that the believer, the you that you are not, is real.

..physician heal thy self. As shown above, feeding the perception of separation is exactly what you are doing, or you must not understand what experiencing means. How's therapy going?

[vicente]

Vicente, call it your view, opinion, whatever you want, but since 2009 hasn't happened yet, wouldn't what you posted also qualify as a beLIEf?

I see it more as 'speculation', that during the Thomas Paine Freedom From Religion Celebrations in 2009 there will be much media attention on the subject, thus a swelling of America's now 14% atheist population.

"It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible; but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything."
Thomas Paine

:)

[vicente]

..ofcourse the importance of a direct experience goes only so far

I understand my statement can be scary, but it remains,...experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief'. This implies that fewer than 90% of Americans have ever had a direct experience. Have I've met all Americans to be certain of that figure? Of course not,...but the ignorance of the average American (ie, 87% believing Saddam caused 9-11, has WMD's, and should be illegally invaded) is enough proof.

..why would any experience not be a honest, valid experience?

For one thing, beliefs are not true,...therefore experiences arising from beliefs are equally not true. On another hand, duality and the illusion of this perceived reality are not true,...thus how can an experience identified with this reality be true?

"all that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once". René Descartes

As shown above, feeding the perception of separation is exactly what you are doing

By calling a spade a spade? By suggesting that I am advocating that "the believer" is not real,...identification with beliefs manifests the illusion, or delusion, that the believer, the you that you are not, is real?

Of course one may push what I'm saying aside and say "How's therapy going? ",..."in the Valley of the Blind, the one-eyed man is treated for his illness".

:)

[...]

..let's see: I understand my statement can be scary

..if value is placed on specific kinds of experiences, and one believes those experiences contain a greater truth than the mundane ones, i can see why you believe it's a scary statement to some. Is, from your POV, truth experiential?

For one thing, beliefs are not true,...therefore experiences arising from beliefs are equally not true. On another hand, duality and the illusion of this perceived reality are not true,...thus how can an experience identified with this reality be true?
..and ofcourse this direct experience you keep us telling about is without identification? Even when you share those experiences or tell us about your subsequent findings concerning those experiences, it's without identification?

By calling a spade a spade? By suggesting that I am advocating that "the believer" is not real,...identification with beliefs manifests the illusion, or delusion, that the believer, the you that you are not, is real?

..yet you somehow feel a need to engage a negative through therapy, thus believing there's a 'you' to refine?

[vicente]

Is, from your POV, truth experiential?

It is so simple! If one perceives an experience through a belief it is not an authentic, direct experience. For more than 90% of Americans that is saying that though all the ponderings in their media-ted head, not once did they have a direct experience. Thus, because they in fact cling to their beliefs for their identity, they attack both the message and messenger which suggests that a "direct experience" is only realized by letting go of their identification with the beliefs that condition their perceived experience.

:)

[...]

..a pity you don't adress the other comments, but there you go. Let's adress yours instead:

If one perceives an experience through a belief it is not an authentic, direct experience.

..if this experience is translated back into a viable/palatable framework of reference, not unlike you do Vicente, it perverts the experience. The experience itself should be left untouched because no interpretation does it justice. Now, you would want other's to have such experiences too, but you are tainting these possible experiences by your interpretation of it [no God] and those tirades against christianity...

Thus, because they in fact cling to their beliefs for their identity

..over the past 4 years i've gotten to know you as someone who revels in his experiences and views, Vicente. That's pretty funny, don't you think?

[vicente]

Now, you would want other's to have such experiences too, but you are tainting these possible experiences by your interpretation of it [no God] and those tirades against christianity...

???. Is god not a belief? Therefore, an experience attached to a belief is not a direct, authentic experience,...it is a perception conditioned by that belief.

A direct experience is free from belief. A direct experience is only realized when thinking stills. Without thinking their is no god,...god is a manifestation of thinking. No one who believes in a god will ever realize enlightenment,..period!

..a pity you don't adress the other comments, but there you go

Calling a spade a spade is not perverting experience, but pointing to (neti-neti) what direct experience is not.

..over the past 4 years i've gotten to know you as someone who revels in his experiences and views, Vicente. That's pretty funny, don't you think?

Why would you think I'm reveling? If you have been reading my sharings for 4 years, you must recall my challenge to think of something, anything, in the Now. As I've been saying since at least 1988, it cannot be done,...no one can think in the Now. Thinking is always in the past. That isn't New Age mumbo-jumbo,...but an indisputable fact.

Thus,...if one is perceiving an experience, while identified with thinking and belief, that perceived experience is in the past,...and as you should be aware, the past is not real. Of course, those whom have never realized a direct experience will challenge that,...believing their blindness is normal in their Valley of the Blind.

As you also may know,...over the years I've made suggestions regarding how to realize a direct experience (ie., the supermarket activity),..so in my opinion I've pointed quite honesty to the difference between delusion and reality.

:)

[...]

???. Is god not a belief? Therefore, an experience attached to a belief is not a direct, authentic experience,...it is a perception conditioned by that belief.

..any experience is through the conditions of a belief, or interpreted afterwards through a belief. Experience is always divided, separated into this and that, which is also called illusion. Maintaining that specific kinds of experiences are not illusion, and other's are, is dishonest...

A direct experience is free from belief. A direct experience is only realized when thinking stills. Without thinking their is no god,...god is a manifestation of thinking. No one who believes in a god will ever realize enlightenment,..period!

..believe this as you will, but beliefs do not require active thinking to have influence. The experiencer is belief, enlightenment is realising no-one's there. Dreaming Vicente believes someone's there to have experiences, this dreamcharacter believes there are other's that believe in God and can't realize enlightenment because of it, he doesn't know that everything is a manifestation of thought, whether that's extraordinary or mundane is of no consequence...

Calling a spade a spade is not perverting experience, but pointing to (neti-neti) what direct experience is not.

..it's not pointing what Vicente does...

Why would you think I'm reveling? If you have been reading my sharings for 4 years, you must recall my challenge to think of something, anything, in the Now. As I've been saying since at least 1988, it cannot be done,...no one can think in the Now. Thinking is always in the past. That isn't New Age mumbo-jumbo,...but an indisputable fact.

..and i would agree with you on that Vicente...

Thus,...if one is perceiving an experience, while identified with thinking and belief, that perceived experience is in the past,...and as you should be aware, the past is not real. Of course, those whom have never realized a direct experience will challenge that,...believing their blindness is normal in their Valley of the Blind.

..direct experience or not, you are still there to perceive. If you weren't there to perceive, how could you possibly tell us about it? As long as this separation exists, experiences are false and everything concluded from such experiences are false. Yes, they can point, but there's no intrinsic value except that which you attach to them, and from 4 years of Vicente it's quite obvious you are very much attached to what you believe is experienced by Vicente...

As you also may know,...over the years I've made suggestions regarding how to realize a direct experience (ie., the supermarket activity),..so in my opinion I've pointed quite honesty to the difference between delusion and reality.

..doing this, or reading the bible and pray, what is the difference? Claiming truth can be realised if only you follow certain procedures is doing the same thing religion does, it denies the immediate reality of truth...

[...]

PS

What is the difference between God and Consciousness? Are they not both labels for The Nameless Origin, from which everything arises?

[vicente]

Dreaming Vicente believes someone's there to have experiences, this dreamcharacter believes there are other's that believe in God and can't realize enlightenment because of it, he doesn't know that everything is a manifestation of thought, whether that's extraordinary or mundane is of no consequence.

That's an interesting point. Yes, I agree that it appears as if most of the time all the characters and actions in one's dream arise from their thoughts,...they invented the character/action. The dream of waking perception is somewhat different, in that there is no 'Dreamer', just the dream. So, if one viewed the situation from the macrocosm to the microcosm, or the BigView to the Humancentric view, instead of the Humancentric to its conception of Wholistic,...the view is different.

For example, from a humancentric viewpoint light travels at 186K MPS,...yet from Light's own point of view (which is the point of view we should be viewing light from) it travels no distance in no time, and therefore has no need of speed.

What is the difference between God and Consciousness? Are they not both labels for The Nameless Origin, from which everything arises?

con·scious·ness n.
1. The state or condition of being conscious.
2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group: Love of freedom runs deep in the national consciousness.
3. Special awareness or sensitivity: class consciousness; race consciousness.
4. Alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation: a movement aimed at raising the general public's consciousness of social injustice.
5. In psychoanalysis, the conscious.

God n.,
1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).
2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).
3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).
4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol (conditions).
5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (conditioned).
6. A very handsome man (condition).
7. A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).

Are they not both labels for The Nameless Origin, from which everything arises?

A Buddhist wouldn't say so.
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm

:)

[...]

That's an interesting point. Yes, I agree that it appears as if most of the time all the characters and actions in one's dream arise from their thoughts,...they invented the character/action.

..most of the time? If those dreamcharacter are just that, dreamcharacters, why oh why would you deem it necessary to wake up? If it's just a dream, in which you and i play our parts without condemnation, what is all the effort for?

The dream of waking perception is somewhat different, in that there is no 'Dreamer', just the dream. So, if one viewed the situation from the macrocosm to the microcosm, or the BigView to the Humancentric view, instead of the Humancentric to its conception of Wholistic,...the view is different.

..what is different about it?

For example, from a humancentric viewpoint light travels at 186K MPS,...yet from Light's own point of view (which is the point of view we should be viewing light from) it travels no distance in no time, and therefore has no need of speed.

..can you view light from it's own point of view? Can the eye see itself? From what you project Vicente, it does appear that it doesn't matter if one has such an experience, the dreamcharacter still plays it's part [that therapy thing again]...

[vicente]

..most of the time?

From my observations, a charcater or action in a dream arises from a source somewhat other then the dreamer,...although the dreamers vibratory pattern has attracted such situation to it. For example, one may project the character of their grandmother in their dreams (non-waking consciousness), but that doesn't mean a projection of the actual grandmother could not penetrate the dreamers screen.

If it's just a dream, in which you and i play our parts without condemnation, what is all the effort for?

If you need a reason, try this one (last post):
http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index...ct=ST&f=3&t=196 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=196)

..can you view light from it's own point of view?

Absolutely! That would be a direct experience,...the experience that Buddhists for 2500 years been suggesting.

Can the eye see itself?

http://www.nonduality.info/ suggests:
"Looking for the Universal Awareness in the thinking is like shining a torch onto a wall and then looking for the torch on the wall. Will you ever find the torch by searching for it on the wall?...Imagine a torch shining on a wall ... The torch symbolises The SEEING, and the light which emanates from the torch and hits the wall symbolises the thoughts. The problem is that you are trying to find the torch, (ie: The SEEING), but you are looking for it on the wall, (ie: in the thoughts). "

From what you project Vicente, it does appear that it doesn't matter if one has such an experience, the dreamcharacter still plays it's part [that therapy thing again]...

A student in Siddhartha's entourage was said to have arose early one morning and asked Buddha if he dreamt,...Siddhartha replied, "I used to dream, then I became a Buddha (enlightened)".

:)

[...]

..you really should go into politics Vicente, there's seldom a straight answer from you :lol:

From my observations, a charcater or action in a dream arises from a source somewhat other then the dreamer,...although the dreamers vibratory pattern has attracted such situation to it.

..there's a difference between the dreamer, which is a dreamcharacter aswell, and the dreamcharacters in the dream? Why is the dream not wholely a dream to you, but with slight differences?

For example, one may project the character of their grandmother in their dreams (non-waking consciousness), but that doesn't mean a projection of the actual grandmother could not penetrate the dreamers screen.

..the dreamer is the dream Vicente, without exceptions. What you find [structure] concerning the dream is part of the dream, you can't get around that...

If you need a reason, try this one (last post):

..i need no reasons, but you sure seem to do :star:

Absolutely! That would be a direct experience,...the experience that Buddhists for 2500 years been suggesting
..buddhists say alot of things, but an experience coming from a dream is still a dream...

The torch symbolises The SEEING, and the light which emanates from the torch and hits the wall symbolises the thoughts.

..the SEEING is all there is, to which i would agree, yet you insist on a someone to be there to see, a someone who is able to open their eyes as if this seeing can be personalized, as if what happens can be affected by a dreamcharacter. Your philosophy is inconsistent due to egoic investment...

A student in Siddhartha's entourage was said to have arose early one morning and asked Buddha if he dreamt,...Siddhartha replied, "I used to dream, then I became a Buddha (enlightened)".

..sir, you are no Buddha [remember that one? :uninvolved:] Funny thing, this becoming. As if you're not that, but through a doing of somekind, you'll get there. Do you believe that?

[sahyo]

this becoming


seems fromto?

[...]

seems fromto?

..did read as if seems fromto?

[vicente]

..i need no reasons, but you sure seem to do

Then why did you ask "If it's just a dream, in which you and i play our parts without condemnation, what is all the effort for? "

..you really should go into politics Vicente, there's seldom a straight answer from you


Actually,...not only are my answers straight, they also point to very specific ways for one to realize what is being pointed to for themselves.

..the dreamer is the dream Vicente

Not from my observations. The dreamer only appears to be the dream in the non-waking state. In the so-called waking state, the one where you are reading this, it is merely a self-perpetuating dream from which the 'dreamer' no longer exists. In other words, this maya is a dream without a dreamer. Failure to grasp that is a basic problem of the humancentric mentality, which needs a cause for everything. Yet in Buddhism, especially the Vajrayana types, enlightenment instructs the letting go of this insanity of causes. Know god, no enlightenment; gnow enlightenment, no god.

..sir, you are no Buddha

You may not feel I am, but I would suggest you are. If you do not realize it, it is merely because you, the you you are not, has obscured that reality with layers of beliefs.

Funny thing, this becoming. As if you're not that, but through a doing of somekind, you'll get there. Do you believe that?

There is no doing, but undoing. Nor learning, but unlearning. There is no getting 'there', for there never was a 'here'.

A first century gnostic text said, "when you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments (beliefs) and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then you will no longer be afraid".

:)

[...]

Then why did you ask "If it's just a dream, in which you and i play our parts without condemnation, what is all the effort for? "

..to aquire insights into what you honestly feel drives you...

Not from my observations.

..and who would that be but a dreamcharacter?

The dreamer only appears to be the dream in the non-waking state. In the so-called waking state, the one where you are reading this, it is merely a self-perpetuating dream from which the 'dreamer' no longer exists. In other words, this maya is a dream without a dreamer.

..cool, i can go along with that, but it again beckons the question: who are you trying to wake up, if there are no dreamers?

You may not feel I am, but I would suggest you are. If you do not realize it, it is merely because you, the you you are not, has obscured that reality with layers of beliefs.

..well, thank you, thank very much :holy: but the label Buddha is just valid as the label Ed, wouldn't it? Labels don't apply to emptiness, so what, from your POV, does the word Buddha mean?

A first century gnostic text said, "when you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments (beliefs) and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then you will no longer be afraid".

..a quote from the Gospel of Thomas. Those words are attributed to Jesus but weren't included into the canon by some 'wise' men who felt it was a bit too mystic? Do try to be consistent Vicente, discounting the bible should also include other scripture related texts, especially when it concerns words uttered by someone who you say never existed :loveyou: :naughty:

[vicente]

..cool, i can go along with that, but it again beckons the question: who are you trying to wake up, if there are no dreamers?

There may no longer be a dreamer dreaming the dream because the dream has become self-sustaining, but the dreamt can still wake up,...which is another way of saying 'letting go' of the perception of separation, or the veils of beliefs which obscure the us we think we are from what we are.

from your POV, does the word Buddha mean

To me, Buddha means that which has disrobed to allow the light of us to flow unfiltered,...to be uncovered.

discounting the bible should also include other scripture related texts, especially when it concerns words uttered by someone who you say never existed"

A few points here. First, a Jesus did exist,...however, he would be more equivalent to a Joseph Smith then anything invented in the Bible. The prototype of a personified Christ was developed by Paul's followers and aristocratic admirers from the Talmud stories of Yeshua Ben Stada,...the notorious Yeshua the Notzri, who was born 7 BCE during a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, whose step father was Joseph and mother Mary, and who following his death was called by his followers the Passover Lamb, after being hung for sedition in 28CE, on the eve of passover.

:)

[...]

There may no longer be a dreamer dreaming the dream because the dream has become self-sustaining, but the dreamt can still wake up,...which is another way of saying 'letting go' of the perception of separation, or the veils of beliefs which obscure the us we think we are from what we are.

..to which i'd agree, but it doesn't explain why these dreamcharacters should wake up. See, the dream goes on regardless of the doings of the dreamcharacters, and because they're illusion, how would an illusion affect anything? See, the itch i get from these kinds of posts is the following: you're proposing that an illusory entity should wake up to a supposed truer reality, while that truer reality is still a dream. Why should an illusory entity do such a thing?

To me, Buddha means that which has disrobed to allow the light of us to flow unfiltered,...to be uncovered.

..agree once more. Whether that's realised or not is besides the point, isn't it? Who is there to realise this? Is there a doer, is there freewill to realise or not to realise Buddhahood? To me, life just happens irregardless of what we think/feel or realise. Basically, there's nothing to do...

A few points here. First, a Jesus did exist,...however, he would be more equivalent to a Joseph Smith then anything invented in the Bible. The prototype of a personified Christ was developed by Paul's followers and aristocratic admirers from the Talmud stories of Yeshua Ben Stada,...the notorious Yeshua the Notzri, who was born 7 BCE during a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, whose step father was Joseph and mother Mary, and who following his death was called by his followers the Passover Lamb, after being hung for sedition in 28CE, on the eve of passover.

..oh, quite a different story from what you're used to enlighten us with regarding Jesus and alike. How do you know this? Where's the proof? And why is that proof valid?

[vicente]

you're proposing that an illusory entity should wake up to a supposed truer reality, while that truer reality is still a dream. Why should an illusory entity do such a thing?

Yes, I'm saying we, the we that we are, verses the we that we think we are, or the illusion, can realize there is a non-illusory reality (the projection on the 4D screen we call life), and thus unveil to our awareness the Light Still in the projector.
"Should an entity wake up?",...if they do not, they continue to be recycled within the dream until the dream is finally dissolved, at which point they dissolve with it. This understanding is very old,...ie., THE SIX YOGAS OF NAROPA:

"4. Yoga of the Clear Light. According to the Tantric tradition, everyone experiences the Clear Light of the Void shortly after death. Its brilliance, however, is so overwhelming that the departing consciousness usually recoils in fear and is drawn instead into another samsaric rebirth. By learning to recognize the transcendent Light of the Nirvanic Buddha Consciousness during his lifetime, an adept may return to it without difficulty when the shock of death threatens to disorient him."

Who is there to realise this? Is there a doer, is there freewill to realise or not to realise Buddhahood? To me, life just happens irregardless of what we think/feel or realise. Basically, there's nothing to do...

There is an Awareness, a connection with the core of the original Dreamer, upon which the dream effects its motion. Through this Awareness there can precipitate 'doing',...without consciousness of this fulcrum, I have to agree with Gurdjieff and the 4th Way that there is no doing.
Yes,...I agree that fundamentally there is nothing to 'do',...but what that statement is actually pointing to is encouraging this discussion. There is a way so to say, to do nothing and realize everything,...for most however, nothing points to something different.

..oh, quite a different story from what you're used to enlighten us with regarding Jesus and alike. How do you know this? Where's the proof? And why is that proof valid?

I don't recall (since 1988) ever suggesting anything else. What is my understanding of Christianity? In a nutshell: http://www.ontosophy.com/onreligion.html

:)

[...]

Yes, I'm saying we, the we that we are, verses the we that we think we are, or the illusion, can realize there is a non-illusory reality (the projection on the 4D screen we call life), and thus unveil to our awareness the Light Still in the projector.
"Should an entity wake up?",...if they do not, they continue to be recycled within the dream until the dream is finally dissolved, at which point they dissolve with it. This understanding is very old,...ie., THE SIX YOGAS OF NAROPA:

..this non-illusory state, would that still mean having a body? And, so what if dreamcharacters dissolve when the dream dissolves, they'd still be dreamcharacters, wouldn't they? As a side note, when will the dream dissolve?

"4. Yoga of the Clear Light. According to the Tantric tradition, everyone experiences the Clear Light of the Void shortly after death. Its brilliance, however, is so overwhelming that the departing consciousness usually recoils in fear and is drawn instead into another samsaric rebirth. By learning to recognize the transcendent Light of the Nirvanic Buddha Consciousness during his lifetime, an adept may return to it without difficulty when the shock of death threatens to disorient him."

..reeks of beliefs, big time. We are still talking about dreamcharacters, or not? Perhaps this goes back to a belief in souls? Can you clarify?

There is an Awareness, a connection with the core of the original Dreamer, upon which the dream effects its motion. Through this Awareness there can precipitate 'doing',...without consciousness of this fulcrum, I have to agree with Gurdjieff and the 4th Way that there is no doing. Yes,...I agree that fundamentally there is nothing to 'do',...but what that statement is actually pointing to is encouraging this discussion. There is a way so to say, to do nothing and realize everything,...for most however, nothing points to something different.

..what is this original Dreamer? The concept of no-DOER is very old, as you know. Does that correlate with your findings at all?

I don't recall (since 1988) ever suggesting anything else.

..but what you are saying is not different from any bible believing christian. You take the ancient account of one man,the Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus, and this should prove anything? :nono: You gotta do better than that :snooty: :boxing:

[vicente]

You take the ancient account of one man,the Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus, and this should prove anything? You gotta do better than that

I may see the problem,...one cannot read the first paragraph of a treatise/paper and grasp what the whole is pointing to,...especially mine. Laid out in the complete text are numerous "proofs" that the New Testament was manufactured,...including who, when and what for it was manufactured.

..what is this original Dreamer?

What happened to "..i need no reasons, but you sure seem to do"?

:)

[sonrisa]

Hi Guyz!! I don't mean to interrupt your discussion, which I have been following with some interest. But about this Jesus/Appollonius thing- there are folx who think they were one & the same, but Jesus was crucified, while Appollonius disappeared from the emperor's court in a flash of light & was never heard from again. Can somebody reconcile this discrepancy for me? Thanx. :)

[vicente]

but Jesus was crucified, while Appollonius disappeared from the emperor's court in a flash of light & was never heard from again. Can somebody reconcile this discrepancy for me? Thanx.*

It is very unlikely that Jesus was crucified. Actually, from all I've read of the times, crucifixion was relegated to Roman citizens only. As for Jesus (Yeshua the Notzri, or Nazarite), he was sent to death (by stoning) by Pilate, but before the stoners arrived, his followers persuaded the Romans to hang him, as it was nearing the Passover. From all non-biblical historic indications the crucifixion was a cruci-fiction.

As for Apollonius, much of what is attributed to him appears to have its way into the Bible,...but as I've said, Apollonius wasn't the prototype for Jesus,...the most likely single prototype was Sarapis. My 'paper' should have made that clear. http://www.ontosophy.com/onreligion.html

:)

[sahyo]

From my observations, a charcater or action in a dream arises from a source somewhat other then the dreamer



can happen seeming "a source somewhat other" when not happening "my observations"?



In other words, this maya is a dream without a dreamer.



"They say the soul is real and the body is unreal, maya, illusion. To me, both are half right, half wrong. It is like cutting a man into two parts. Dividing man is dangerous because man is an organic unity. But this is how it has been done down the ages and now it has become almost a routine thinking, a conditioning. You are still thinking in the old categories."

- Osho



"Should an entity wake up?",...if they do not, they continue to be recycled within the dream until the dream is finally dissolved, at which point they dissolve with it.



seems can happen dissolving 'not happening entity, dream'?

[sahyo]

And, so what if dreamcharacters dissolve when the dream dissolves, they'd still be dreamcharacters, wouldn't they?



when seeming dream not happening, seems "they'd still be dreamcharacters" happening ?



when will the dream dissolve?



seems can dissolve 'not happening' dream?

[...]

..and once again you've ignored most of that post Vicente, you don't care to adress the rest?

I may see the problem,...one cannot read the first paragraph of a treatise/paper and grasp what the whole is pointing to,...especially mine. Laid out in the complete text are numerous "proofs" that the New Testament was manufactured,...including who, when and what for it was manufactured.

..doesn't negate the fact that you accepted something as true without knowing it for a fact. That is belief. Who cares about what happened 2000 years ago? Why would you even bring it up?

QUOTE
..what is this original Dreamer?

What happened to "..i need no reasons, but you sure seem to do"?

..please answer the question Vicente, this is totally unrelated and could be seen as a diversion...

[sahyo]

..please answer the question Vicente


must?

[...]

..did seem as if 'must' Asheera?

[sahyo]

did seem as if might seem dots?

[sahyo]

does "please" seem to change "answer the question Vicente"?

[sahyo]

cannot questioning remain unresponded? :)

[a random hack]

nope :lol:

[vicente]

Asheera shares:
You are still thinking in the old categories."

Often, unfortunately, one must communicate through the old ways,...until enough layers of beliefs are dissolved.

... writes:
..and once again you've ignored most of that post Vicente, you don't care to adress the rest?


That is untrue ...
The question was addressed,...now the question is why you didn't understand it?

Did I suggest I knew something as true without knowing it for a fact? Not anywhere I recall. Sometimes even the "old catagories" of communicating cannot penetrate beliefs.

:)

[fu*]

This is AMAZING!!



Vincente
No one who believes in a god will ever realize enlightenment,..period!

Dotty
enlightenment is realising no-one's there.


Do we have a math person lurking that could figure out the odds of our luck here?

87 members, at least 2 who are "enlightened".

Two people on one tiny discusion board who have realized enlightenment! What an UNBELIEVABLE occurrence!


I am having a little trouble figuring out how I can be "enlightened" also though.
Should I consider some groups of people more "ignorant"? Or want to kill Bush for treason? :blink:

fu*

[vicente]

I am having a little trouble figuring out how I can be "enlightened" also though.

A sure way to enlightenment Fu is through neti-neti, that is, uncover truth by understanding what it is not. For example, let's suppose the clear, still Light that bodhisattvas speak of is unconditional. Therefore, anything that is conditional could not be clear, still Light, for if a condition entered the unconditional, it would render the unconditional conditional. In other words, no condition can enter the unconditionality of enlightenment,...no beliefs, no faith, no god(s).

Don't feel to bad about your not being aware of your own enlightenment,...for so many it is deeply buried/veiled in beliefs, faith, and an insane clinging to some imagined god for their identity.

:)

[...]

QUOTE
..and once again you've ignored most of that post Vicente, you don't care to adress the rest?

That is untrue ... The question was addressed,...now the question is why you didn't understand it?

- ..i was refering to the first part of that post, and it goes something like this:

..this non-illusory state, would that still mean having a body? And, so what if dreamcharacters dissolve when the dream dissolves, they'd still be dreamcharacters, wouldn't they? As a side note, when will the dream dissolve? ..reeks of beliefs, big time. We are still talking about dreamcharacters, or not? Perhaps this goes back to a belief in souls? Can you clarify? The concept of no-DOER is very old, as you know. Does that correlate with your findings at all?

..now the question is why you haven't adressed them and went political on me by suggesting i don't understand the one question from that post you did adress...

Did I suggest I knew something as true without knowing it for a fact?

- ..sure you did, by claiming this:

First, a Jesus did exist.

If an ancient text is enough proof of his existence, than all the other ancient texts are too. Besides, ranting on about believers being dishonest is then not an honest thing to do, is it?

[vicente]

..this non-illusory state, would that still mean having a body? ...Can you clarify?

Did I not reply "A student in Siddhartha's entourage was said to have arose early one morning and asked Buddha if he dreamt,...Siddhartha replied, "I used to dream, then I became a Buddha (enlightened)". Did that not answer your question? Buddha realized a non-illosory state, yet was still in a body. Or were you really seeking to discredit me through mundane reasoning and are angry I didn't bite your bait?

..now the question is why you haven't adressed them and went political on me by suggesting i don't understand the one question from that post you did adress...

From what I recall, Three Dots said "You take the ancient account of one man,the Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus, and this should prove anything? You gotta do better than that"

The truth,... you glanced at the first paragraph of a paper and said "I took the account of one man", which was absolutely untrue. You glanced at 1/100th of an article and imagined you understood what the article said, when your response indicates something merely sophomoric.

If an ancient text is enough proof of his existence, than all the other ancient texts are too

That depends on the text. The Talmud, for instance, had no reason to fabricate its 3 entries regarding the criminal Jesus the Nazarite. Of course, many of these inquiries are touched upon in the treatise/paper linked,...but for those who only read the first paragraph and think they then know what an article said, I can see, as I mentioned, their problem.

:)

[...]

Did I not reply "A student in Siddhartha's entourage was said to have arose early one morning and asked Buddha if he dreamt,...Siddhartha replied, "I used to dream, then I became a Buddha (enlightened)". Did that not answer your question?

..no, because that wasn't the answer to my question at hand. Above is a reply to:

From what you project Vicente, it does appear that it doesn't matter if one has such an experience, the dreamcharacter still plays it's part [that therapy thing again]...

..that answer was in an earlier post, and i apologize for not seeing the correlation between this answer and a, to me, unrelated question...

Buddha realized a non-illosory state, yet was still in a body. Or were you really seeking to discredit me through mundane reasoning and are angry I didn't bite your bait?

..mundane? Angry? Bait? Anyway, this reply does beckon further investigation, but i'll give you a break and save that one for another time...

The truth,... you glanced at the first paragraph of a paper and said "I took the account of one man", which was absolutely untrue. You glanced at 1/100th of an article and imagined you understood what the article said, when your response indicates something merely sophomoric.

..i'm not particularly interested in your justifications of why you believe Jesus existed. I do find it fascinating what reasoning is used to arrive at such findings, and it is very clarifying...

That depends on the text. The Talmud, for instance, had no reason to fabricate its 3 entries regarding the criminal Jesus the Nazarite. Of course, many of these inquiries are touched upon in the treatise/paper linked,...but for those who only read the first paragraph and think they then know what an article said, I can see, as I mentioned, their problem.

..discounting certain texts and claiming that others are true is a commonly used ploy by believers of all kinds Vicente, no amount of ad hom attacks can disguise that...

..okay, this classic god debate resulted in the same old stalemate. Neither side has come one step closer to understanding eachother, and share the same sentiments about eachother. Is this all very important? Yes. Altough this discussion did not result in actual war, in real life such opposing ideas and beliefs, more often than not, end in bloody conflict. Instead of letting things be, and not include others into such beliefsystems, inevetable clashes occur...

..i actually agree with Vicente on most points he brings forth, but substituting an old beliefsystem for a new one only perpetuates things. Having said all this, it still just happened, like everything just happens...

[vicente]

..no, because that wasn't the answer to my question at hand

Three Dots,...you cannot simply read the first sentence or paragraph of a post and honestly grasp the whole. Your question was:

..most of the time? If those dreamcharacter are just that, dreamcharacters, why oh why would you deem it necessary to wake up? If it's just a dream, in which you and i play our parts without condemnation, what is all the effort for?

My response was:
""A student in Siddhartha's entourage was said to have arose early one morning and asked Buddha if he dreamt,...Siddhartha replied, "I used to dream, then I became a Buddha (enlightened)".

Your question was answered.

..i'm not particularly interested in your justifications of why you believe Jesus existed. I do find it fascinating what reasoning is used to arrive at such findings, and it is very clarifying...

I find that difficult to see,...which is to say, if you were interested why I said "a Jesus existed", you would have read further than the first paragraph and subsequently assumed that Apollonius was Jesus, or something of that sort.

..discounting certain texts and claiming that others are true is a commonly used ploy by believers of all kinds Vicente, no amount of ad hom attacks can disguise that...

Again,...you're attributing things to me without having read my evidences.

..okay, this classic god debate resulted in the same old stalemate

I agree. However, to get past the stalemate, which you, as others, appear unwilling to do, simply discredit what I wrote,...and stop arguing about what I didn't write.

..i actually agree with Vicente on most points he brings forth

Then let's build upon what we agree with. It has been said that if two could come together they could move mountains. Have you heard of any misplaced mountains?

:)

[...]

Your question was answered.

..flipflop :thumbsup:

I find that difficult to see,...which is to say, if you were interested why I said "a Jesus existed", you would have read further than the first paragraph and subsequently assumed that Apollonius was Jesus, or something of that sort.

..nothing of the sort was assumed. If you meant something else with "a Jesus existed", just say so and be done with it...

I agree. However, to get past the stalemate, which you, as others, appear unwilling to do, simply discredit what I wrote,...and stop arguing about what I didn't write.

..you didn't write "a Jesus existed"?

Then let's build upon what we agree with. It has been said that if two could come together they could move mountains. Have you heard of any misplaced mountains?

..the North Koreans might have a handle on that one, but that was about the coming together of a whole lot of dynamite. Guess if you really want people to look at what they believe and why they believe, stirring up dissent by in your face christianity-bashing just won't work. Over the past years, have you had any succes in bringing down the walls of beliefs in one firm believer of christianity?

[vicente]

Over the past years, have you had any succes in bringing down the walls of beliefs in one firm believer of christianity?

Actually, yes I have. But I admit, only with those open-minded enough to read past the first paragraphs. Christianity is easy to disprove,...because it was a fabrication. Unfortunately, for most who realize that, they begin to imagine a new definition of "a god" to replace the delusion they were forced, through truth, to let go of,...thus for New Agers and those in the so-called Self-expression movement, 'The Last Emancipation' becomes most difficult. For some Christians however (to begin with) it is simply a matter of replacing their delusion with an acceptance of Light. Once that occurs, it is an easy transition to Let Go of their remaining attachments.

:)

[...]

..you speak about Light, Source, and other labels to illustrate your point of view, which one takes with them into the search for enlightenment the Vicente-way. Are you not worried that all they'll experience are further beliefs? Basically, that is what you doing, isn't it? Despite adament insistance on it not being a belief, an experience like that will be predicated on the expectancy which you created. If this is about an specific experience that points towards truth, shouldn't attention be focussed on the belief in an experiencer instead? One could argue that once the experience is there letting-go will follow, but from what you shared i wouldn't say that's the case with Vicente himself. Wouldn't it be prudent to let-go of the necessaty of having had such experiences to break through that last blockade?

[vicente]

..you speak about Light, Source, and other labels to illustrate your point of view, which one takes with them into the search for enlightenment the Vicente-way.

From a conceptual point of view (which most are attached to) the terms Light and Source are labels,...the difference however, is that these labels are at the threshold of the Unconditional, of enlightenment. The continuum or process of understanding Light is not a search, for a search keeps the object of the search obscured. "Seek and you will find" appears to work in the physical, but in the spiritual, or non-dual reality, the opposite is true, that is, seek, and more will be giving to you to seek.

Are you not worried that all they'll experience are further beliefs?

By pointing to Light? Not at all. Honesty sets one free of the lie of beliefs.

Despite adament insistance on it not being a belief

Light can be construed to be a belief, and yet, when understood, is true. Religion is said to be a set of beliefs, however they will never be proved to be true. The indisputable truth is that Light is a proof that no god exists. This may not now be understood, but when Light is understood it will be.

shouldn't attention be focussed on the belief in an experiencer instead?

That which directly, authentically experiences cannot experience through a belief. For most (in America for certain), few have ever realized even one direct experience in their lives. That may sound harsh,...to those who have never had a direct experience that is,...yet it also exposes that there are activities which can trigger such metanoia.

One could argue that once the experience is there letting-go will follow

It occurs simultaneously. The instant a direct experience is realized, beliefs, simultaneously and effortlessly, dissolve.

One cannot "seek" a direct experience, but it can be activated,...like in the Supermarket Activity which I've mentioned before.

Wouldn't it be prudent to let-go of the necessaty of having had such experiences to break through that last blockade?

Sure! We're talking 'neti-neti' here,...pointing to what is not real so we may uncover what is real. I'm pointing and saying that:
Experience born of belief can only be experience through the condition of that belief,...therefore that experience is not a direct experience, but merely a regurgitation of the belief. That does not mean it's a bad thing,...it is part of the vibrational process to help us see ourselfs. We are regiven what we give.

:)

[sahyo]

The continuum or process of understanding Light



The indisputable truth is that Light is a proof that no god exists. This may not now be understood, but when Light is understood it will be


seems-believes asthough awhatwho which needs "proof", which can "understand", and can proof-understand as though god/"nogod", "exists"/notexists?




That does not mean it's a bad thing,...it is part of the vibrational process to help us see ourselfs


seems-believes asthough an"ourselfs" to see?



does seem loving has forgotten cannot understood cannot begotten loving?



(not words)

[...]

"Seek and you will find" appears to work in the physical, but in the spiritual, or non-dual reality, the opposite is true, that is, seek, and more will be giving to you to seek.

- ..2 distinct realities, 2 ways of seeing things, one is false, the other is true. One can be proven the be true through a specific kind of experience, the other you can see to be false if you have the courage to do so. From your POV, it is necessary to emphasize separation in order to see the light?

By pointing to Light? Not at all. Honesty sets one free of the lie of beliefs.

- ..i've met several people online who have had direct experiences, and only a few insist on having the correct viewpoint...

Light can be construed to be a belief, and yet, when understood, is true. Religion is said to be a set of beliefs, however they will never be proved to be true. The indisputable truth is that Light is a proof that no god exists. This may not now be understood, but when Light is understood it will be.

- ..and you play your part well :)

QUOTE
shouldn't attention be focussed on the belief in an experiencer instead?

That which directly, authentically experiences cannot experience through a belief. For most (in America for certain), few have ever realized even one direct experience in their lives. That may sound harsh,...to those who have never had a direct experience that is,...yet it also exposes that there are activities which can trigger such metanoia.

- ..fine, that which directly, authentically experiences is still egomind Vicente, ego doesn't die, it transforms: http://www.egodeath.com/egodeath.htm but such a radically different experience from the mundane ones instill the welcome idea that there is another kind of reality, free of ego. Direct experiences are nice, they may point at truth, but there is no-one who will realise them, and there is no-one who can make them happen. Whether they happen or not is not important...

QUOTE
One could argue that once the experience is there letting-go will follow

It occurs simultaneously. The instant a direct experience is realized, beliefs, simultaneously and effortlessly, dissolve.

- ..including the believer of beliefs?

QUOTE
Wouldn't it be prudent to let-go of the necessaty of having had such experiences to break through that last blockade?

Sure! We're talking 'neti-neti' here,...pointing to what is not real so we may uncover what is real. I'm pointing and saying that:
Experience born of belief can only be experience through the condition of that belief,...therefore that experience is not a direct experience, but merely a regurgitation of the belief. That does not mean it's a bad thing,...it is part of the vibrational process to help us see ourselfs. We are regiven what we give.

..yes, that's true :lol:

[vicente]

From your POV, it is necessary to emphasize separation in order to see the light?


Perhaps I view it as pointing to separation/the illusion and saying "see, that is not Light". Many these days say "align with the light", but they are pointing to what is not Light.

..i've met several people online who have had direct experiences, and only a few insist on having the correct viewpoint...

I've also met several people who had a direct experience, then, as if, contaminated that experience through their desire to label it, by calling it a 'born again religious experience'. A direct experience which is after the fact attached to belief is a negated experience,...they merely cloaked themselves in more belief based obscurity.

..and you play your part well

I can legitimately call my self a Lightworker.

..fine, that which directly, authentically experiences is still egomind Vicente

Not true! Ego-mind Vicente cannot experience directly. A direct experience can only occur when the "ego-mind" is stilled. It is there, but it is not doing the driving. Thanks for the link,...I'll check it out.

Direct experiences are nice, they may point at truth, but there is no-one who will realise them, and there is no-one who can make them happen. Whether they happen or not is not important...


Direct experiences have been realized,...from Terrance McKenna to Tilopa, to thousands of years before that. I agree that no-one can "make" them happen, but they can be triggered, and they do happen. If they haven't happened for you, why? Do you analyse the triggers so much that you cannot be triggered?

"Not jumping to conclusions turns out to be a pretty good habit. So we encourage that in ourselves and in others. Notice the suggestion is not "don't ever come to any conclusion." Rather the suggestion is not to jump to a conclusion. Jump meaning to form a conclusion prematurely before all the data is in."
http://www.slimeworld.org/xxaxx/jbc_ndx.html

..including the believer of beliefs?

Yes,...including the believer of the beliefs,...the you you think you are. This has been shown in psychotherapy thousands of times. Once one sees a 'core belief' it effortlessly dissolves,...the vibrational patterning no longer is,...the frequency is no longer mirrored, because it is no longer there. Not that it was really there to begin with,...it was just a belief.

:)

:)

[...]

Perhaps I view it as pointing to separation/the illusion and saying "see, that is not Light". Many these days say "align with the light", but they are pointing to what is not Light.

- ..okay, here's how i see it: because you use so much techspeak, project an allknowing image and insist on 'rare' experiences, people don't look at where's pointed [i did that :) ] but look at the pointer instead. You can compare it to the responses Kow used to get for being obnoxious...

I've also met several people who had a direct experience, then, as if, contaminated that experience through their desire to label it, by calling it a 'born again religious experience'. A direct experience which is after the fact attached to belief is a negated experience,...they merely cloaked themselves in more belief based obscurity.

- ..yep, came across a couple of those too, and then some who did nothing of the sort. Perhaps the difference is only in the script...

QUOTE
..and you play your part well

I can legitimately call my self a Lightworker.

- ..yes, you sure like your labels :D

QUOTE
..fine, that which directly, authentically experiences is still egomind Vicente

Not true! Ego-mind Vicente cannot experience directly. A direct experience can only occur when the "ego-mind" is stilled. It is there, but it is not doing the driving. Thanks for the link,...I'll check it out.

- ..disagree, and i guess we'll have to agree on that :boxing:

Direct experiences have been realized,...from Terrance McKenna to Tilopa, to thousands of years before that. I agree that no-one can "make" them happen, but they can be triggered, and they do happen. If they haven't happened for you, why? Do you analyse the triggers so much that you cannot be triggered?

- ..what makes you think they haven't happened for me?

"Not jumping to conclusions turns out to be a pretty good habit. So we encourage that in ourselves and in others. Notice the suggestion is not "don't ever come to any conclusion." Rather the suggestion is not to jump to a conclusion. Jump meaning to form a conclusion prematurely before all the data is in."
http://www.slimeworld.org/xxaxx/jbc_ndx.html

- ..the conclusion was, after much investigation, that nothing substancial can be concluded, and even that conclusion is shaky...

Yes,...including the believer of the beliefs,...the you you think you are. This has been shown in psychotherapy thousands of times. Once one sees a 'core belief' it effortlessly dissolves,...the vibrational patterning no longer is,...the frequency is no longer mirrored, because it is no longer there. Not that it was really there to begin with,...it was just a belief.

- ..i'm proposing that when memory is in use, as long as language is used, when there is interaction outside of the walls of a retreat, or monastery, or a logcabin in the woods, altough maybe silent/passive, ego acts renewed. In any case, how can an illusion affect anything. How can an illusion move independantly and make choices? It can't, it doesn't and it never will. Life happens regardless ofcourse, that is why there's nothing to do :naughty:

[sahyo]

You can compare it to the responses Kow used to get for being obnoxious...



:goodlaugh:

dots trying labeling kow since couldn't understand the posts

[...]

..och Asheera, his posts weren't that hard to understand :peace:

[sahyo]

as though could :blink: :scatter: :silly: understand?

hehehe

[...]

..are you thinking of someone who is able to not-understand? Kow has been very beneficial after most of the commotion died down, altough his forumboard closed down now, quality time was spent there :applause:

[sahyo]

are you thinking of someone who is able to not-understand?


no

does seem "someone who is able to not-understand"?

:)

[sahyo]

:applause:


:)

[fu*]

Dotty... I do realize you are ignoring, but still....

..och Asheera, his posts weren't that hard to understand

I would say his posts were IMPOSSIBLE to "understand".

I have noticed some honesty in your posts of late, towards Vincente. And so I will take the chance to post honestly of "you".

Salesmanship is all about overcoming "objections"
One "sells"..... One hears objections..... One learns to overcome objections, and then becomes an effective salesman.
Like any salesman, I have seen you clumsy at first. But having determination, you have learned to overcome objections. Or "talk the talk". And you have become very good at that.

Is that what you were striving for?...... Words?......

Damn, I thought it might have been something else.

fu*

[sahyo]

............................:thumbsup:


his posts were IMPOSSIBLE to "understand".




:dancing:

[sahyo]

Dotty... I do realize you are ignoring, but still....

..och Asheera, his posts weren't that hard to understand

I would say his posts were IMPOSSIBLE to "understand".

I have noticed some honesty in your posts of late, towards Vincente. And so I will take the chance to post honestly of "you".

Salesmanship is all about overcoming "objections"
One "sells"..... One hears objections..... One learns to overcome objections, and then becomes an effective salesman.
Like any salesman, I have seen you clumsy at first. But having determination, you have learned to overcome objections. Or "talk the talk". And you have become very good at that.

Is that what you were striving for?...... Words?......

Damn, I thought it might have been something else.

fu*


.................................................. .:D

[...]

I would say his posts were IMPOSSIBLE to "understand".

- ..why? He certainly knew what he meant, and it turned out others on his board did too, so whatcha mean?

I have noticed some honesty in your posts of late, towards Vincente. And so I will take the chance to post honestly of "you".

- ..that's very kind of you, FU*...

Salesmanship is all about overcoming "objections"
One "sells"..... One hears objections..... One learns to overcome objections, and then becomes an effective salesman.
Like any salesman, I have seen you clumsy at first. But having determination, you have learned to overcome objections. Or "talk the talk". And you have become very good at that.

- ..thank you for that assessment FU* :P

Is that what you were striving for?...... Words?......

- ..no, and yes. It's undeniable that communication is joyful, as it would seem, communication is all there is, but in the end there's no striving, no end goal...

Damn, I thought it might have been something else.

- ..like what?

[sahyo]

He certainly knew what he meant, and it turned out others on his board did too, so whatcha mean?

dots sure that can assume that?

[sahyo]

It's undeniable that communication is joyful, as it would seem, communication is all there is

seems communication happening?

[sahyo]

assessment

trying labeling as though 'assessment'
doesn't convince assessing was happening