Experiencing God

[Blastcat]

An embarrassment of misguided gibberish. You're still putting words in my mouth.

I NEVER SAID that Reality is an illusion. Learn to read.

oohhhhhh i can be wrong.. so what did you say about reality?

 

[godnotgod]

oohhhhhh i can be wrong.. so what did you say about reality?

You see? You don't pay attention and then just go ahead and interject what you want me to say. Not gonna pursue this; you go back and fetch. You have missed the point throughout this entire discussion, so it's futile to continue with you.

 

[Blastcat]

You see? You don't pay attention and then just go ahead and interject what you want me to say. Not gonna pursue this; you go back and fetch. You have missed the point throughout this entire discussion, so it's futile to continue with you.

Good for you.
You really told me off.

 

[godnotgod]

Good for you.
You really told me off.

Which was never the point. Sometime when you can tear yourself away from attacking the pointing finger becaue it's method doesn't conform to your concepts about Reality, take a glance at the lovely Moon that you may see it for the very first time.

 

[Demonslayer]

take a glance at the lovely Moon that you may see it for the very first time.

That's no moon, it's a space station.

Question reality!

 

[Blastcat]

Which was never the point. Sometime when you can tear yourself away from attacking the pointing finger becaue it's method doesn't conform to your concepts about Reality, take a glance at the lovely Moon that you may see it for the very first time.

Ohhh you told me off again.
Good for you.

What do you imagine are my concepts about reality and how do you imagine yourself discussing those if you can't use reason?
You don't make sense. Delusional people seldom do.

Feel free to tell me off again.

 

[Sonofason]

Believers talk about their experiences not to convince unbelievers, but for the edification and mutual satisfaction of fellow believers. Given the intimacy and personal nature of the experience, any debate would indeed be like casting pearls before swine.

Like you, my certainty in God's presence in my life is etched in stone. I don't have anything to prove nor am I obliged to answer skeptics. I am the swine for their pearls.

Opening myself up to the Divine Milieu allowed me know the certainty of God's presence, but I only did so because I had nowhere else to go. It does not give me all the answers, but it does give me all the assurance I need to know that "God is in his heaven and all's right with the world."

Hi Agondonter, thanks for your response. You're right, those of us who have experienced the presence of God are not, in any way, obligated to share our experiences of God with others, especially those who might trample on them. I personally love metaphors like this one, (throwing pearls to swine) as it tends to expose those who would indeed trample upon these, our most precious experiences. Honestly, if we see someone becoming offended by metaphors such as this, we can know with great certainty that they are not the person we want to be sharing our most valued experiences with. When we see someone identifying themselves with the swine of our metaphor, whether they feel insulted by it or not, we can know they have tried on the shoe, and it fits. Idioms are useful too.

 

[Sonofason]

You can call it metaphor all you want. - Once you use it against people in the real world - you are insulting them.

*

In the opening statement of this thread, I offered a reason why many believers that have had "spiritual" experiences do not share their experiences with others. I had said, "I gather that the telling of such experiences puts one at risk of throwing one's pearls to the swine." I'm not sure why you have taken this metaphor so personally. I did not share a religious experience on this thread. I did not suggest that any particular person on this entire planet is the swine of the metaphor I used, and have therefore insulted no one. So why do you find it so offensive? Who exactly was insulted? And if you can think of someone, anyone, who would it be?

 

[godnotgod]

Ohhh you told me off again.
Good for you.

What do you imagine are my concepts about reality and how do you imagine yourself discussing those if you can't use reason?
You don't make sense. Delusional people seldom do.

Feel free to tell me off again.

OK. I never said I don't use Reason; I just said it must be set aside if you want to access the true nature of Reality. I must still live in the ordinary world of Time, Space, and Causation that humans with ordinary consciousness have superimposed over nature, and must also use Reason and Logic in order to communicate with them, as that is the primary system of thought. But the true nature of Reality lies beyond thought, and therefore, beyond Reason. No, I don't 'make sense' because pointing to the moon is a wordless and non-conceptual means for the direct transmission of information, and people using the conceptual mind are looking for something they can latch onto, a concept, idea, belief, doctrine, or image which helps them 'make sense' out of a world they don't quite understand, and in which they feel alien to. When ordinary people finally realize that they're conceptual models are what don't 'make sense', or become obsolete until the next 'new' model comes along, they can develop Metaphysical Anxiety, and mostly invent a God which, for them, relieves them of such anxiety, or choose atheism, in which they consider themselves to be merely a fluke of nature, a meat-sack of blood that is born and dies in a meaningless gyrating stupidity they call 'the universe', and that is the end of it.

It is pretty clear that you value a conceptual model of Reality, which includes Reason, Logic, and Analysis, basically the tools of Science. Nothing wrong with science; however, it creates an extremely limited view, and cannot yield what the true nature of Reality actually is; all it can do is to provide a model, based on data and facts, and make predictions based on that model, but the model is clinical in nature. It lacks another dimension. The mystical view, OTOH, is holistic and balanced, providing both the flesh and the bones. It has no argument with science, except when science thinks it is one day going to come up with The Answer by dissecting the whole into component parts, and then reassembling them into a functional model with a final 'Ah HA!'....not gonna happen.

“the mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be
experienced,”
Soren Kierkegaard

 

[godnotgod]

That's no moon, it's a space station.

Question reality!

Question what we only think is reality; then experience true Reality.

Look at the Moon, but do not name it, classify it, conceptualize about it..

Now what do you see? Who is it that is looking? Does observer/observed, subject/object still remain?

Now see if you can get a clue about this famous Zen story:

Koan: No Water, No Moon


When the nun Chiyono studied Zen under Bukko of Engaku she was unable to attain the fruits of meditation for a long time.

At last one moonlit night she was carrying water in an old pail bound with bamboo. The bamboo broke and the bottom fell out of the pail, and at that moment Chiyono was set free!

In commemoration, she wrote a poem:

In this way and that I tried to save the old pail
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and about to break
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!
Emptiness in my hand!

 

[Sonofason]

It is very simple.

YOU are not swine, for not believing in my "pearls," spirituality, or philosophy, etc.

And I expect the same from you.

This was discussed on page one.

It is wrong to refer to people as despised or dumb animals, just because they do, - or might, - disagree with your "pearls."

*

This proverb, which is a metaphor makes no mention of "believing" in someone else's pearls. Someone not believing in that which is highly valued by another person does not fit anyone into the metaphorical swine category. But someone who takes another person's treasure, tramples all over it, and then turns to tear them to pieces does.

 

[Sonofason]

I'm reasonable, I'm in a society, and you are wrong.

Forgive me, but I'm about to judge you, and that is my right of course. This comment of yours is completely illogical, and possibly one of the most childish responses I've seen on this entire forum. While you have ever right to be illogical and say childish things, I just wanted you to know that I noticed, and no one on this forum is more reasonable than I. If you are truly reasonable, please give a logical reason why you think Agondonter was wrong. If you are indeed just a child, forgive me for pointing out the obvious.

 

[godnotgod]

This proverb, which is a metaphor makes no mention of "believing" in someone else's pearls. Someone not believing in that which is highly valued by another person does not fit anyone into the metaphorical swine category. But someone who takes another person's treasure, tramples all over it, and then turns to tear them to pieces does.

'Swine' is a metaphor for humans who do not value someone else's doctrine because they do not believe in that doctrine, which, in their mind, allows them to trample over that doctrine, and attack those who believe in it because they consider their belief false. This happens in all areas of society. But Jesus seems to be addressing not the swine, but those who freely give of their gifts to those who do not value them. So the fault does not lie in the swine, but in those who irresponsibly share precious teachings with them. But the label 'swine' is still a demeaning word to use for those who simply do not value your beliefs as you do. It implies disrespectful, ignorant, even brutal humans who don't give a hoot about what you hold most precious to your heart. It is, in Jungian terms, the foisting of one's Shadow onto another in order to scapegoat them, exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews by labelling them 'untermenschen' (ie; 'sub-human'), thereby rendering them expendable. Imagine a day when what those in political power consider certain groups as 'swine', and then proceeds to pass laws to exterminate them in a bloody pogrom*. That is the danger and implication of Shadow.**

* po·grom
ˈpōɡrəm,pəˈɡräm/
noun
noun: pogrom; plural noun: pogroms
an organized massacre of a particular ethnic [or religious] group, in particular that of Jews in Russia or eastern Europe.
synonyms: massacre, slaughter, mass murder, annihilation, extermination, decimation, carnage, bloodbath, bloodletting, butchery, genocide, holocaust, purge, ethnic cleansing

Google

** Come to think of it, ISIS considers certain people quite expendable, and has wantonly executed thousands to date.

 

[Ingledsva]

This proverb, which is a metaphor makes no mention of "believing" in someone else's pearls. Someone not believing in that which is highly valued by another person does not fit anyone into the metaphorical swine category. But someone who takes another person's treasure, tramples all over it, and then turns to tear them to pieces does.

We are on a debate site, - people are going to challenge other people's "pearls" as a matter of discussion. It is obviously why we debate.

To use that verse here is to cast an obvious insult.

*

 

[Sonofason]

'Swine' is a metaphor for humans who do not value someone else's doctrine because they do not believe in that doctrine, which, in their mind, allows them to trample over that doctrine, and attack those who believe in it because they consider their belief false. This happens in all areas of society. But Jesus seems to be addressing not the swine, but those who freely give of their gifts to those who do not value them. So the fault does not lie in the swine, but in those who irresponsibly share precious teachings with them. But the label 'swine' is still a demeaning word to use for those who simply do not value your beliefs as you do. It implies disrespectful, ignorant, even brutal humans who don't give a hoot about what you hold most precious to your heart. It is, in Jungian terms, the foisting of one's Shadow onto another in order to scapegoat them, exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews by labelling them 'untermenschen' (ie; 'sub-human'), thereby rendering them expendable. Imagine a day when what those in political power consider certain groups as 'swine', and then proceeds to pass laws to exterminate them in a bloody pogrom*. That is the danger and implication of Shadow.

* po·grom
ˈpōɡrəm,pəˈɡräm/
noun
noun: pogrom; plural noun: pogroms
an organized massacre of a particular ethnic [or religious] group, in particular that of Jews in Russia or eastern Europe.
synonyms: massacre, slaughter, mass murder, annihilation, extermination, decimation, carnage, bloodbath, bloodletting, butchery, genocide, holocaust, purge, ethnic cleansing

Google

Yes indeed...Jesus was addressing the pearl holders, and potential pearl holders, not the swine. But we should remember that he was also speaking to swine who did eventually turn and tear him to pieces. He did not practice what he preached, and as a result, He was torn to pieces. The swine are swine. The world is full of them, and I imagine we each play that role from time to time. But I really couldn't care less if a swine should feel insulted by me noticing and mentioning that I think they are swine. But if I do, I ought to expect judgement to follow - but not from God, from the swine. Swine are disrespectful, ignorant, and brutal, and sadly yes, many of them are human beings. What the Nazis did ought not be surprising. What they did was done before, and it will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun. There is no enlightenment for human beings except in God.

 

[Sonofason]

We are on a debate site, - people are going to challenge other people's "pearls" as a matter of discussion. It is obviously why we debate.

To use that verse here is to cast an obvious insult.

*

OK, so putting this into the context within which this thread was started, I can surely say this...I am not going to tell anyone on this forum of my experiences of God, because I do not dare to throw my pearls before swine, because I don't want that which is most dear to me to be trodden by pigs. So tell me, who exactly have I insulted with this statement?

Now, I could surely tell of my experiences of God. And there would be some who would, with respect, as a matter of discussion and debate, challenge me with regard to my pearls, whether or not they are truly pearls, or whether my pearls are objective or subjective in nature, and that is fine. But pigs do not have respect for anyone's pearls, nor do they have respect for people who have them.

Given the fact that I have not given out any of my pearls to any member of this forum, all of the pigs are still in their pens, and all the pearls are safe in my pocket. Who have I insulted?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes indeed...Jesus was addressing the pearl holders, and potential pearl holders, not the swine. But we should remember that he was also speaking to swine who did eventually turn and tear him to pieces. He did not practice what he preached, and as a result, He was torn to pieces. The swine are swine. The world is full of them, and I imagine we each play that role from time to time. But I really couldn't care less if a swine should feel insulted by me noticing and mentioning that I think they are swine. But if I do, I ought to expect judgement to follow - but not from God, from the swine. Swine are disrespectful, ignorant, and brutal, and sadly yes, many of them are human beings. What the Nazis did ought not be surprising. What they did was done before, and it will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun. There is no enlightenment for human beings except in God.

Let's just say that what are being derogatorily referred to as 'swine' are those who are offensive in some way, 'the infidel' in Islam; 'sinners', in Christian terms, etc. The point of any religion is to try to stir the conscience of these people so they might see the errors of their ways so a change might come about. But to label them in this manner only drives them further away, as derision only stirs up their resentment and anger. This is not the way of spiritual people. All spiritual teachings recognize that hatred cannot be confronted with more hatred, contempt, or condemnation, because that approach only achieves the opposite of the intended goal. Yeshu, in some of his last words, asked that his transgressors be forgiven not for their sin, but for their ignorance. And in the minds of his transgressors, they firmly believed they were doing the correct thing in their moral system. Nazis believed in their doctrine of racial purity and acted upon it, as misguided as it was. In the US, many Christians dream of establishing an official 'Christian Nation', not understanding that this would then promote the nurturing of a non-Christian scapegoat worthy of righteous ostracization and persecution, and even death. Currently, Buddhist monks in Miranmar slaughter Muslim men, women and children as retribution for the rape and murder of a Buddhist nun. Everywhere we look, we see the projection of Shadow onto some scapegoat in the vicious ego game of one-upmanship as a means of fortifying the Persona. This has become the scourge of mankind, with the hatred spreading like wildfire throughout the world, even, or perhaps especially, amongst those who claim to be acting in the name (or guise) of spiritual and/or religious 'authority'. The ultimate punishment of the 'wicked' has come via flood, famine, disease, and even via The Avenging Angel of Death. We await the image of Jesus, the Conquering General who will vanquish the wicked in some near future, and establish his 'kingdom on Earth', Ultimately, the final image will be of the righteous in Heaven, peering over the battlements to the wicked writhing in agony down below, exclaiming and taking comfort in the fact that they are getting every bit of what they deserve, in the old and ignorant Eye for an Eye philosophy. We are caught in a vicious circle of never-ending righteous punishment and retribution which ultimately does not work, as the emergence first of Al Queada, and then of ISIS and Boco Haram, and prisons filled to the brim are testament to. And, oh yes, let us not forget the horrifyingly brutal 400 year long Inquisition, all done in the name of Good, and Light, and Right.

Essentially, much of what has been attributed to Jesus are words put into his mouth by others. A truly spiritual being would not have uttered the quote in question. Only here and there do we find tidbits of the mystical words of Yeshua in the Bible which survived the destruction of his original teachings that were overwritten with the pagan teachings of Mithra, replacing a doctrine of the breath as the life-force with that of blood as the life-force, where blood sacrifice took precedence plunging man back into ignorance, guilt, and fear, and keeping him there as a means of controlling the human spirit. The 'debt' that man owes to God for his disobedience and the murder of his son can never really be repaid. Either one remains underfoot as the unforgiven, or joins in with the ranks of the righteous moral authority which metes out punishment and control, and which reaps the benefits by making the 'unforgiven' and 'unworthy' pay up. None of these scenarios have anything to do with the authentic spiritual experience. They are all ego-driven. practices.

Christianity: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do"
Taoism: "Requite hatred with virtue"
Hinduism: "Do only good to those who do evil against you"
Buddhism: "“Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.”

The Chinese Point of View:

When one formulates a concept of The Good, one has simultaneously also created a concept of Evil. In creating a concept of Evil, one must now oppose Evil, as dictated by The Good. In opposing Evil, one only makes Evil stronger. Therefore, the sage never tries to do moral Good.

 

[Blastcat]

Hi Agondonter, thanks for your response. You're right, those of us who have experienced the presence of God are not, in any way, obligated to share our experiences of God with others, especially those who might trample on them.

1. These experiences are not in any way proof or evidence to any other person than the one having them. They are personal.
2. Nobody can "trample" on your mystical experiences. People can trample all over bad reasoning.
3. If you don't want to share anything in a debate forum, it's your choice, but hardly CONVINCING.

I personally love metaphors like this one, (throwing pearls to swine) as it tends to expose those who would indeed trample upon these, our most precious experiences.

You want to protect and preserve your precious beliefs. We get that.
You can have them. If , however, you wanted to convince anyone that your beliefs are about something real, you have a big task ahead of you.
I don't notice that a lot of people succeed at convincing any outsider that their beliefs are justified in a rational way.

But, go ahead. Be as irrational as you like.
It's your choice, after all.

Honestly, if we see someone becoming offended by metaphors such as this, we can know with great certainty that they are not the person we want to be sharing our most valued experiences with. When we see someone identifying themselves with the swine of our metaphor, whether they feel insulted by it or not, we can know they have tried on the shoe, and it fits. Idioms are useful too.

You just called all outsiders to your faith "swines".
Good for you and your religious bigotry.

 

[godnotgod]

Given the fact that I have not given out any of my pearls to any member of this forum, all of the pigs are still in their pens, and all the pearls are safe in my pocket. Who have I insulted?

Insult or no-insult is not really the point. It is the fact that you not only hold others who are not like you in contempt, but that you categorize them as beneath you, in this case, as unworthy of being human. Once you do this, whether privately or publicly, you have made the object of your contempt expendable or unworthy. The real problem here is the self. When certain individuals attach themselves to some 'higher' power in a manner that makes them think they are in it's favor, they assume that those who are not attached are not in it's favor. So they develop a superiority complex of sorts, in a grand hen-pecking order, with the most 'favored' being the closest to their chosen higher power. I see this even within religious groups themselves. IOW, it is all about "I". "I" thinks it is now 'this' in comparison to 'that'. This is religious indoctrination and discrimination at work, when the reality of the authentic spiritual experience is such that "I" becomes dissolved away, like the drop of water merging with the sea. This is the end of Identity. Buddhists call this experience 'Nirvana', which literally means 'to extinguish', and what becomes extinguished is the illusion of "I"; of the self. There is no such "I" that is either favored or enlightened: there is only a transformation of consciousness from a personal view to a universal one. There is no such 'experiencer' of the experience. No authentic spiritually-transformed individual would ever think of himself as superior to anyone else to the point of labelling them as 'swine'. His new found humility would make him see himself as being like everyone else, and his compassion for those in darkness make him want to relieve them of their sufferings.

As for your 'pearls', you have yet to realize that they are Nothing Special, though you may regard them as such now. All sentient beings are in possession of the same Universal Consciousness that you are. It is simply that some have not yet awakened. All that the awakened can do is to point, in the hopes that some may turn toward the Light.

"Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special;
after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special"

Zen source
*****

"When an ordinary man gains wisdom, he becomes a sage;
when a sage gains understanding, he becomes an ordinary man"

Source unknown
*****

 

[Sonofason]

1. These experiences are not in any way proof or evidence to any other person than the one having them. They are personal.

First I will point out, as I hope and suspect you would agree, that proof and evidence are not identical terms, even though they can be and often are considered to be synonymous. Some evidence can be disproved. Proof cannot be legitimately disproved. Putting that aside, I have no expectation that the experiences that I have had, which I believe were experiences of God, ought to be considered proof of anything for anyone. I wouldn't even say with any great degree of certainty that even my own experiences which I believe were experiences of God ought necessarily be considered proof of an experience of God by even me. But I do, because I have been convinced that what I have experienced was God. Indeed, the cogent body of evidence that I have been subjected to, which includes my personal experiences compels me to accept and believe that my experiences were of God, and very very real. And that is my proof.

But of course, that which is considered to be proof by one person is not necessarily proof for all persons. Proof exists even if only one person is convinced. So it is nearly as you have said, but I would modify your statement in this way: I would have said, These experiences are not proof or evidence of God to any person, except the one's who have been convinced that the experience in question was in fact an experience of God.

2. Nobody can "trample" on your mystical experiences. People can trample all over bad reasoning.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can the word's that one person might consider to be words of wisdom be considered a pearl that could be trampled upon by another person (the swine)? There is an expression, "the early bird gets the worm". Some consider this expression words of wisdom. These words originated in a mind, as do some mystical experiences I would suppose. Can thoughts be trampled upon? No, you're thoughts cannot be trampled upon, not while they remain in one's own mind. But all thoughts can be captured, and written down, or vocalized to others, at which point they become subject to being trampled upon by others. Mystical experiences too can be captured, and the experience can be written down, where they to become subject to the possibility of being exploited and trampled upon. It is quite possible to trample on even the most solid ground. Bad reasoning only makes it easier for the swine to make refuse of the pearls just before they turn to you and tear you to pieces. If God exists, and if He is the perfect being as some say He is, I am quite sure there could be people capable of trampling on anything He could say. Whether they could do that reasonably is another question, but surely they could do it. After all, how can the early bird get the worm if he comes too early. Suppose another bird doesn't come early, but just in time to get the worm? Is it better to be too early, or right on time?

3. If you don't want to share anything in a debate forum, it's your choice, but hardly CONVINCING.

The very fact that I am making the claim that I have experienced God is evidence that I have experienced God. Yes, I could be lying. Yes, I could be wrong. But I and many like me have had these experiences, and we attribute them to God. Hopefully, you're asking yourself, or at least wondering why. I'm not so sure my telling of my experiences would do justice to the experiences I've had. I believe strongly that I am not deluded. I am certain I am not lying. But there is certainly the possibility that I am wrong. But the very fact that I believe what I am telling you, that I have experienced God, could be evidence for you that God exists, and people can and do experience Him. And in my opinion, you ought to be at least wondering why.

You want to protect and preserve your precious beliefs. We get that.
You can have them. If , however, you wanted to convince anyone that your beliefs are about something real, you have a big task ahead of you.
I don't notice that a lot of people succeed at convincing any outsider that their beliefs are justified in a rational way.

But, go ahead. Be as irrational as you like.
It's your choice, after all.

I am not so overly compelled to convince everyone, nor even anyone that I truly have experienced God. I am quite content that God has blessed me by allowing me to experience Him. If you were to believe me, and the millions of other people who also claim to experience God, then that would in my opinion be great -- for you. If the God that I believe in is real, and if what is written about Him is true, I would be most pleased to discover that I played a role in convincing you. Having proof of the existence of God has been pretty awesome for me. I'm guessing if you were to accept the evidence I have now shared with you as true, you would be well on your way to having the same kind of proof of God that I have.

You just called all outsiders to your faith "swines".
Good for you and your religious bigotry.

I believe that you believe that what you just said here is true. But you're going to have a hard time convincing me that what you've said is true. Because I have proof that you are wrong. I'm just not going to share it with you. Because it really doesn't matter to me if you believe me. But your hooves are beginning to kick up some mud, and we've only just begun our discussion.