Omniscience

[apophenia]

Yes! really there's nothing to discuss, and am saying this to MYSELF/YOU/WE again and again in my arguements.

Read this ^

...to yourself (again and again if necessary) and see if you can understand why you are "saying this to MYSELF/YOU/WE again and again in my arguements"

Let me know if you ever do understand it !

 

[apophenia]

I suppose that the three omni-s go together.

Suppose, a person knows the awareness as all that is, it's infinite potential of so-called creation, and has absolute control over the awareness.

Will this be bollocks? D actually I do not understand what bollocks means. It seems to be a very attractive backside of a very attractive girl ).

It's the bit that says " Suppose, a person ....has absolute control over the awareness" that could probably stand some investigation.

I was impressed (in the sense of receiving a lasting impression) by a talk given by Traleg Rinpoche during a retreat I attended. He spent some time discussing the tendency for exaggeration, particularly in reference to students of a guru. He discussed how, in his view, this tendency was often entertained and tolerated as legends of the extraordinary feats and abilities of the guru.

In relation to that, I also remember the biography of the very early Tibetan buddhist teacher, Marpa the Translator. It is recounted how his students observed him undergoing various transformations in front of their eyes. Marpa himself commented 'that is the interaction of my egolessness and your devotion'.

In other words, there is a strong tendency to not only idealise, legendise and exaggerate, but also this same tendency can cause people to hallucinate !

Why am I saying this ? Because of your proposition "" Suppose, a person ....has absolute control over the awareness"

We could suppose anything.

Perhaps you are suggesting that the Whole Cosmic Being is a person who "has absolute control over the awareness" ?

Once again .... we could suppose anything.

My point is - there are valuable transformations which do happen when people pursue the practice of yoga/meditation. These positive values of meditation do not require the kinds of notions we 'suppose'. A lot of supposing happens though. Harmless enough I suppose.

Will this be bollocks? D actually I do not understand what bollocks means. It seems to be a very attractive backside of a very attractive girl ).

No. Bollocks means testicles. Don't ask me why it is used the way it is. People (from the UK) use it the same way as "BS ! ". Language is weird.

 

[atanu]

It's the bit that says " Suppose, a person ....has absolute control over the awareness" that could probably stand some investigation.

I was impressed (in the sense of receiving a lasting impression) by a talk given by Traleg Rinpoche during a retreat I attended. He spent some time discussing the tendency for exaggeration, particularly in reference to students of a guru. He discussed how, in his view, this tendency was often entertained and tolerated as legends of the extraordinary feats and abilities of the guru.

In relation to that, I also remember the biography of the very early Tibetan buddhist teacher, Marpa the Translator. It is recounted how his students observed him undergoing various transformations in front of their eyes. Marpa himself commented 'that is the interaction of my egolessness and your devotion'.

I agree.

Perhaps you are suggesting that the Whole Cosmic Being is a person who "has absolute control over the awareness" ?

No. Not that really. What would be the nature of awareness itself?

No. Bollocks means testicles. Don't ask me why it is used the way it is. People (from the UK) use it the same way as "BS ! ". Language is weird.

Eeesh. You spoiled the magic.

 

[apophenia]

Perhaps you are suggesting that the Whole Cosmic Being is a person who "has absolute control over the awareness" ?

No. Not that really. What would be the nature of awareness itself?

No idea. So back to your thought experiment ... how could a person have absolute control over awareness ? What do you mean by that ?

Eeesh. You spoiled the magic.

Yeah. That's my job

 

[Desert Snake]

It means all-knowing.

 

[ratikala]

dear apophenia ,

Read this ^

...to yourself (again and again if necessary) and see if you can understand why you are "saying this to MYSELF/YOU/WE again and again in my arguements"

Let me know if you ever do understand it !

excuse me plese mr walrus but it is perfectly clear to me .... :yes:

Yes! really there's nothing to discuss, and am saying this to MYSELF/YOU/WE again and again in my arguements.

Ha this is true there is nothing to discuss ! better we go descover it for ourselves , .....

what chinu bai says is very true .....:yes:

"All creatures belong to him, and he resides within everyone. Thus.. to whom to say wrong ? as there's nobody insted of him"

then what he said above also is making perfect sence , as he is asking himself , he is asking you and he is asking the walrus , he is constantly reminding all three of this question , .....because unfortunately us embodied beings are prone to forgetfullness


so chinu bai is trying to wake up all embodied beings including himself ! ....he is taking one approach to the problem of forgetfullness !
apophenia is taking another

both is equaly valid in my opinion .....:yes:

 

[chinu]

Read this ^

...to yourself (again and again if necessary) and see if you can understand why you are "saying this to MYSELF/YOU/WE again and again in my arguements"

Let me know if you ever do understand it !

Apophenia, have you ever seen chinu in any discussion ?

 

[atanu]

No idea. So back to your thought experiment ... how could a person have absolute control over awareness ? What do you mean by that ?

Yeah. That's my job

Give me some time. Let me get over the disappointment over the bollocks.

 

[apophenia]

dear apophenia ,


excuse me plese mr walrus but it is perfectly clear to me .... :yes:

Ha this is true there is nothing to discuss ! better we go descover it for ourselves , .....

what chinu bai says is very true .....:yes:

"All creatures belong to him, and he resides within everyone. Thus.. to whom to say wrong ? as there's nobody insted of him"

then what he said above also is making perfect sence , as he is asking himself , he is asking you and he is asking the walrus , he is constantly reminding all three of this question , .....because unfortunately us embodied beings are prone to forgetfullness


so chinu bai is trying to wake up all embodied beings including himself ! ....he is taking one approach to the problem of forgetfullness !
apophenia is taking another

both is equaly valid in my opinion .....:yes:

I was pointing out the irony of expressing that we are all god so there is nothing to discuss.

It was a humorous and good-natured observation.

 

[apophenia]

Apophenia, have you ever seen chinu in any discussion ?

Right there ^

 

[Windwalker]

What is meant when it is said that the God is omniscient? I do have a view that I am reserving for discussion after the basic definitions and concepts develop.

I invite everyone to please define the term, preferably illustrated with examples.

Thanks.

The notion of omniscience is of course something I am familiar with from my Christian past. I disagree with that which imagines it to mean knowing all things, all data, past, present, and future in the details of everything like some sort of hyper-scientific and Greek Fates sort of encyclopedic knowledge. That is not omniscience.

I understand omniscience as deeply simple. It is seeing past all facades, all forms, all illusions to the very nature of all that is. Bare, naked, pure, true.

That is all. That is everything. It has nothing to do with specific information, but purity of insight into the bare soul of all that is. That is omniscience.

 

[chinu]

Right there ^

Do responding means discussion ?

 

[atanu]

On the subject of Omniscience, the Upanishads appear to be much subdued. The following extract from Chandogya Upanishad equates knowing everything to knowing the One --similar to knowing the clay to know all clay products.

On contemplating, however, I find, the idea to be more deep than apparent.

Chandogya Upanishad
SIXTH PRAPATHAKA
FIRST KHANDA

1. Harih, Om. There lived once Svetaketu Aruneya (the grandson of Aruna). To him his father (Uddilaka, the son of Aruna) said: 'Svetaketu, go to school; for there is none belonging to our race, darling, who, not having studied (the Veda), is, as it were, a Brahmana by birth only.'

2. Having begun his apprenticeship (with a teacher) when he was twelve years of age, Svetaketu returned to his father, when he was twenty-four, having then studied all the Vedas, -- conceited, considering himself well-read, and stern.

3. His father said to him: 'Svetaketu, as you are so conceited, considering yourself so well-read, and so stern, my dear, have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?'

4. 'What is that instruction, Sir?' he asked. The father replied: 'My dear, as by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the difference being only a name, arising from speech, but the truth being that all is clay;

5. 'And as, my dear, by one nugget of gold all that is made of gold is known, the difference being only a name, arising from speech, but the truth being that all is gold?

6. 'And as, my dear, by one pair of nail-scissors all that is made of iron (karshnayasam) is known, the difference being only a name, arising from speech, but the truth being that all is iron,-thus, my dear, is that instruction.'

The notion of omniscience is of course something I am familiar with from my Christian past. I disagree with that which imagines it to mean knowing all things, all data, past, present, and future in the details of everything like some sort of hyper-scientific and Greek Fates sort of encyclopedic knowledge. That is not omniscience.

I understand omniscience as deeply simple. It is seeing past all facades, all forms, all illusions to the very nature of all that is. Bare, naked, pure, true.

That is all. That is everything. It has nothing to do with specific information, but purity of insight into the bare soul of all that is. That is omniscience.

I agree. My teacher says: Omniscience means knowing all that which is required to be known.

 

[ratikala]

dear apophenia ,

without wish to offend , please may I rase a question purely because I am finding this conversation very interesting .

Originally Posted by chinu
Do responding means discussion ?

Yes, responding is discussion.

I have written responses to you in the past pointing out that you only ever point out what you think are the follies of others who don't know god as you believe you do.

this whole idea of discussion is very interesting , and how we each perceive eachother is even more interesting .

when you are reading chinu's questions you are perceiving something very different to me , it is not to say that there is a right or wrong way but simply that they are different .

I do not see chinu doing much more than asking questions , and to me they are very interesting questions , the sort of questions that I have asked myself for years , so I see chinu to be asking the questions that we should all be asking ourselves , it is just that he asks out loud , so to whom is he addressing the question ?

from where I stand it appears that he is asking the question to any one who is interested , but that he is equaly asking the question to himself .

This is you discussing Chinu, even if you don't mention your name. When you take up a position critiquing others, you are present as an ego making judgements about the state of others. That is the ordinary human position we are all in - even you, even if you believe that everything is god or whatever.

this is my question , is chinu actualy critiquing ?
it is not a question aimed specificaly at apophenia , it is just a question I am asking about how we perceive others ?

it is possible that whilst you percive critique , I do not , and where you percive ego , I do not , where you perceive judgement I do not , which makes a very big difference to how we veiw the question

My last observation to you in this thread was that it is self-contradictory to have the position expressed in your signature, which includes "Thus.. to whom to say wrong ? as there's nobody insted of him",and to suggest (even passively, by implication) that others don't understand this.

you observe contradiction , and I am observing questioning , I am enjoying such questioning , because again from where I stand we question and examine apparent contradiction untill we find an answer , untill we find no oppinion .

It is self-contradictory because, if you see everyone as God, why do you need to give God advice ?

I am not wanting to answer any question for chinu , chinu can do this for him self , he can even tell me that I am wrong , I do not mind . ....I am simply musing on the different ways we as individuals perceive things .

you ask why he feels that if all are god , that there is a need to give good advice ?

I see no contradiction as from a personal standpoint I am of the mind that yes we are all of god , but that we are in a state of forgetfullness , we are embroiled in worldlyness therefore we are not consciously aware of god , In a way I would have thought that due to your experiences you would be aware of this , that is why you in your way wish to chalenge peoples veiws , you have seen something of the vastness beyond our usual conception that I am calling worldliness .

and chinu likes to question peoples perceptions , chinu likes to shake our settled thinking , to me this is good .

Avoiding referring to yourself is not egolessness, it is a linguistic manoeuvre. You don't need to say "in my opinion", because it is implicit that it is your opinion.

even here there is another observation , (ok ...it is my observation but it is not my oppinion ,just an observation as I am not particularly attatched to it , it is just how it appears at this moment ) ....

when I am writing I often write without reffering to my self or my oppinion , as I am reasoning out loud , I am simply saying this is how it appears , I allso try to avoid "I am" ,..." I think ",.... "you should", .........but this is not a "linguistic manoeuvre" on my part but more an awareness that one canot discuss by taking a self and other approach and that anything said to another can equaly be applied to oneself , and should be

So when you ask "Do you see Chinu in any discussions ?", it seems to me that you are perhaps making the subtle suggestion that you are not making yourself a subject, or being an ego with opinions.

may be he is not having an oppinion , we need to concider this ?
if we concider this we learn something about ourselves :yes:

But that is simply not true.

how do you know ? how do you know for sure ?

You are an ego, and you are posting your opinions,

if I am thinking like this , If I am thinking , ...."you are this" , ..." you are that !"
I stop my self very quickly because that is my ego speaking , my ego creating a me and you , a my oppinin v your oppinion situation !

and they often ( mostly ) imply that you understand something which everyone else has missed.

this is prehaps how it appears , but is it so ? I am not seeing it like this , so prehaps it is not so ?

So, yes, you are in these discussions, no matter how you decide to phrase your posts.

haa haa .... chinu has become the subject of discussion but he is not discussing anything , he is simply asking questions .

 

[Desert Snake]

dear apophenia ,

without wish to offend , please may I rase a question purely because I am finding this conversation very interesting .

















haa haa .... chinu has become the subject of discussion but he is not discussing anything , he is simply asking questions .

Well, at least someone else has noticed that.

 

[apophenia]

Do responding means discussion ?

Yes, I think responding is discussion. Which is a good thing.

Asking other people for their opinions, asking questions, is also discussion, and reflects the person who asked the question. So the threads you have created are all in that sense discussions of Chinu, because they are the questions which Chinu has decided are the significant questions to ask.

 

[atanu]

So back to your thought experiment ... how could a person have absolute control over awareness ? What do you mean by that ?

I was about to broach the subject of Tuiya. Should I?

 

[vistascan]

I was about to broach the subject of Tuiya. Should I?

I don't think turiya is control over awareness

 

[apophenia]

I was about to broach the subject of Tuiya. Should I?

It is another subject entirely.

as vistascan said, turiya is not control over awareness. Turiya is generally described and defined as effortless, so controlling is not its nature. And turiya is not omniscience, certainly not in the way that omniscience is generally discussed.

I suggest that turiya is probably a subject for another thread, maybe a thread discussing turiya and sahaja samadhi.

 

[Kemble]

it means every act, our very thoughts/motives & desires are known to God....he knows what you are thinking right now as you read this.

Hence you just demonstrated the impossibility of free will. Bravo!