I am Starting to Think God is Sadistic

[Nakosis]

Put simply emotions is ignorance and oneness is how to get passed it. Should oneness be desired it defeats the purpose.

Emotional pleasure is temporary and dependent on materialistic ideas.

Materialism is not satisfying really. It's imperfect.

Dualism is entertaining but it's not real. I think one can only accept its reality for so long before we begin to see the flaws.


I like dualism. It's like going on a scary rollercoaster frightening and you want to get off but after the ride is over, you want to go again for the thrill. After the thousandth time, maybe not so thrilling anymore.

Assuming the universe started in unity if it was so great why leave it in the first place?

The benefit of "enlightenment"?... You can enjoy the ride without enslavement to the emotional highs and lows that come with material attachment.

Though I suspect the novelty of that will eventually wear off.

Hell, eternal torture, devils, demons... wow all scary stuff right? Death, suffering, pain, loss... We write books, make movies, play games. This stuff entertains us.

To enjoy a movie, you have to forget it's all pretend. Get emotionally involved in the script, suspend disbelief.

(I suppose this is really more in response to Koldo)

 

[Koldo]

Sort of. The word 'God' as it's used in western cultures implies a duality; God and creation are two separate things. Advaita is non-dual; God and creation are not two.

Yes, I am aware of that.

 

[Koldo]

I am not following, I don't thing that is true.

Then in what sense death is an illusion?

Put simply emotions is ignorance and oneness is how to get passed it. Should oneness be desired it defeats the purpose.

What purpose?

 

[Koldo]

Emotional pleasure is temporary and dependent on materialistic ideas.

Materialism is not satisfying really. It's imperfect.

Dualism is entertaining but it's not real. I think one can only accept its reality for so long before we begin to see the flaws.


I like dualism. It's like going on a scary rollercoaster frightening and you want to get off but after the ride is over, you want to go again for the thrill. After the thousandth time, maybe not so thrilling anymore.

Assuming the universe started in unity if it was so great why leave it in the first place?

The benefit of "enlightenment"?... You can enjoy the ride without enslavement to the emotional highs and lows that come with material attachment.

Though I suspect the novelty of that will eventually wear off.

Hell, eternal torture, devils, demons... wow all scary stuff right? Death, suffering, pain, loss... We write books, make movies, play games. This stuff entertains us.

To enjoy a movie, you have to forget it's all pretend. Get emotionally involved in the script, suspend disbelief.

(I suppose this is really more in response to Koldo)

I find that to be a sad existence, honestly, as I have mentioned before.
To put yourself, all powerful, through a lot of suffering just to gain the so desired sense of entertainment, happiness and fulfillment.

 

[Nakosis]

I find that to be a sad existence, honestly, as I have mentioned before.
To put yourself, all powerful, through a lot of suffering just to gain the so desired sense of entertainment, happiness and fulfillment.

Even if you're not all powerful. It's what we do. You can judge it, that's fine but it is who we are. Though I suppose it is perhaps easier to see God as a separate entity so it doesn't seem like we are judging ourselves...

 

[Koldo]

Even if you're not all powerful. It's what we do. You can judge it, that's fine but it is who we are. Though I suppose it is perhaps easier to see God as a separate entity so it doesn't seem like we are judging ourselves...

We do that because of our shortcomings. In other words, those created by the natural world. The god you portray doesn't have chains binding it from the outside. Its chains come from inside.

 

[Nakosis]

We do that because of our shortcomings. In other words, those created by the natural world. The god you portray doesn't have chains binding it from the outside. Its chain come from inside.

This is the you I portray. You who claim your binding is external. You judge your existence as sad. Ok, you have the same ability as any to change it. What is stopping you?

Oh, that's right, you are a victim of this imaginary separate entity.

 

[Koldo]

This is the you I portray. You who claim your binding is external. You judge your existence as sad. Ok, you have the same ability as any to change it. What is stopping you?

Oh, that's right, you are a victim of this imaginary separate entity.

Are you speaking from a dualist or from a non-dualist perspective on this post?
Because the interpretation varies according to the point of view.

 

[Koldo]

This is the you I portray. You who claim your binding is external. You judge your existence as sad. Ok, you have the same ability as any to change it. What is stopping you?

Oh, that's right, you are a victim of this imaginary separate entity.

To answer it from a dualist point of view, I would say: What is stopping me is reality itself. I don't have the power to change it in a way that some suffering is no longer a prerequisite to achieve some ( kinds of ) pleasure.

To answer it from a non-dualist point of view, I would say: What is stopping me/us/it from changing ourselves/myself/itself ? I would like to know that answer.

 

[Nakosis]

Are you speaking from a dualist or from a non-dualist perspective on this post?
Because the interpretation varies according to the point of view.

We experience existence as dualism. It is the human point of view.

Non-dualism is the "spiritual" point of view.

You can't explain our apparent existence without dualism,

Non-dualism, you want to see yourself as entirely material or entirely spiritual. Neither is apparently true to our experience. However in accepting either, there is nothing else to blame.

When you want to go about blaming something that separate for yourself, that's dualism. Whether you want to blame the spirit or the flesh.

I see nothing separate from myself to blame. I deal with the apparency of dualism. However this apparency I also see as an illusion.

Still it is impossible? to describe/explain in non-dualistic terms.

 

[Nakosis]

To answer it from a dualist point of view, I would say: What is stopping me is reality itself. I don't have the power to change it in a way that some suffering is no longer a prerequisite to achieve some ( kinds of ) pleasure.

To answer it from a non-dualist point of view, I would say: What is stopping me/us/it from changing ourselves/myself/itself ? I would like to know that answer.

The answer I have, is I don't want to change it. I thought I did, until faced with the actual choice.

There are lows, there is suffering and pain, however there is also joy and love. There is failure and triumph. To experience the highs means the possibilities of the lows must also exist.

Here there are limits to what we can do, otherwise you'd be all-powerful. You take that away there is no separation. You'd have to accept the illusion for what it is and then none of it would matter to you.

If you really wanted out you could step out. The illusion would end. Is your existence so sad that you are ready to give up "separation"?

I don't think so or else you would.

When you dream, maybe you experience other people in the dream. Events happen, things you have no apparent control over. But that's all you. You actually have complete control but aren't aware of it. If you did become completely aware, you'd wake up, the dream would end. Maybe you liked the dream, maybe you didn't, but it was just a dream, none of it mattered. Maybe you dream you killed someone. You wake up and realize there was no other person. Maybe you dreamed someone else was killing you. Who is killing who? Who is causing who to suffer?

Christianity created a dualistic belief... Dualism is the illusion.

 

[idav]

Then in what sense death is an illusion?

Matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed. It simply evolves/changes.

What purpose?

Why purpose? Purpose requires desire. Why desire anything if everything is at your fingertips. If anything then everything.

 

[Koldo]

The answer I have, is I don't want to change it. I thought I did, until faced with the actual choice.

What actual choice?

There are lows, there is suffering and pain, however there is also joy and love. There is failure and triumph. To experience the highs means the possibilities of the lows must also exist.

Depends. Of course, it wouldn't be called 'high' if there were no 'lows'.

Here there are limits to what we can do, otherwise you'd be all-powerful. You take that away there is no separation. You'd have to accept the illusion for what it is and then none of it would matter to you.

If you really wanted out you could step out. The illusion would end. Is your existence so sad that you are ready to give up "separation"?

I don't think so or else you would.

I don't even believe in that concept of god.

When you dream, maybe you experience other people in the dream. Events happen, things you have no apparent control over. But that's all you. You actually have complete control but aren't aware of it. If you did become completely aware, you'd wake up, the dream would end. Maybe you liked the dream, maybe you didn't, but it was just a dream, none of it mattered. Maybe you dream you killed someone. You wake up and realize there was no other person. Maybe you dreamed someone else was killing you. Who is killing who? Who is causing who to suffer?

Christianity created a dualistic belief... Dualism is the illusion.

It is not like you ( the conscious self ) has total control over the dream though.

 

[Koldo]

Matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed. It simply evolves/changes.

That implies that you would consider death to no longer be an illusion if matter/energy was destroyed upon death. And yet you denied this is what you meant.
So I am left completely clueless on what you mean to say by that.

Why purpose? Purpose requires desire. Why desire anything if everything is at your fingertips. If anything then everything.

You said : ''Should oneness be desired it defeats the purpose.''.
What purpose? What is the purpose of oneness?

 

[idav]

That implies that you would consider death to no longer be an illusion if matter/energy was destroyed upon death. And yet you denied this is what you meant.
So I am left completely clueless on what you mean to say by that.

Cause matter/energy is not destroyed upon death. Again nothing is created or destroyed.

You said : ''Should oneness be desired it defeats the purpose.''.
What purpose? What is the purpose of oneness?

Purpose? Why should there be a purpose it is just the way things are. There is no getting out of what we are. We are all one already, always have been, always will be, anything else is illusory.

 

[Koldo]

Cause matter/energy is not destroyed upon death. Again nothing is created or destroyed.

Then that means that if matter/energy was destroyed upon death, you wouldn't consider it to be an illusion, correct?

Purpose? Why should there be a purpose it is just the way things are. There is no getting out of what we are. We are all one already, always have been, always will be, anything else is illusory.

You said there was a purpose to oneness.

 

[idav]

Then that means that if matter/energy was destroyed upon death, you wouldn't consider it to be an illusion, correct?

I suppose. It would mean consciousness has to be created rather than an emergent property of existence. As nothing is created or destroyed there is nothing to invoke a creator for it, let a lone a conscious creator.

You said there was a purpose to oneness.

I probably misspoke then. I get caught up in duality just as easily as anyone else but I don't believe it really exists. When jesus prayed for oneness, prayed for himself to be one with god, it is almost rhetorical cause it is already so, he was from the beginning already, he is part of his creation already etc etc...

God is sharing the power which resided within all of creation, so to even say he is sharing is rather redundant. The power of existence is within and part of itself.

What we are talking about here is change. You prefer no change, a boring eternity with nothing ever going here and there. No scary roller coaster ride. Or you prefer god only do certain things and not others. When you can do anything and everything then god "prefers" to do EVERYTHING.

How else could it be? Without change there would be no good or evil, not that there is anyway since it is all in our heads, we see change, that is all there is, not life and death, good and bad, just change and progression until everything that is possible will be fulfilled. Power is potential and that means anything and everything is possible and will occur. So that if it is a possiblity then it is a reality, such is the power of existence and creation. To limit it to this or that is to limit god and to limit potential, to limit the limitless, nay.

Wow feel like i'm rambling.

 

[Nakosis]

What actual choice?

The choice to let go of "self". When you are asleep, if you are aware enough, you can choose to wake up or remain in the dream. If you choose to wake, the dream will no longer exist. The "self" of the dream will no longer exist.

The choice to accept "Brahman" or continue in illusion.
(Hinduism is not my religion but Brahman seems an appropriate understanding.)

Depends. Of course, it wouldn't be called 'high' if there were no 'lows'.

Kind of cliche, but I don't think there is anything mysterious about it.

I don't even believe in that concept of god.

All-powerful? Within, your imagination you are all-powerful. That state exists within the realm of human experience. It's a concept of you. It is the reality of you. What you'd have to believe though is that you could create a "virtual" reality. Be able to place yourself within it then cause yourself to forget there was any other reality outside this "reality" you've created for yourself. Of course if you had forgot, why would you believe that?

It is not like you ( the conscious self ) has total control over the dream though.

Not total, kind of stop dreaming if you become completely aware, but more control is possible. It's not easy and takes practice. You probably have more control over this, what you accept as reality. Not magic or miracles just control. I don't know the extent of what you are capable of. Do you? Have you found the limits of what you can control?

 

[Koldo]

The choice to let go of "self". When you are asleep, if you are aware enough, you can choose to wake up or remain in the dream. If you choose to wake, the dream will no longer exist. The "self" of the dream will no longer exist.

My ''self'' on the dream continues to exist after the dream is over.
Or do you mean something other the conscious part of us when you say 'self'?

The choice to accept "Brahman" or continue in illusion.
(Hinduism is not my religion but Brahman seems an appropriate understanding.)

That is a redundant choice.
By accepting a path that includes illusion you are accepting brahman. Both options are one and the same.

I have no idea how this relates to the 'choice to change' you mentioned.

Kind of cliche, but I don't think there is anything mysterious about it.

All-powerful? Within, your imagination you are all-powerful. That state exists within the realm of human experience. It's a concept of you. It is the reality of you. What you'd have to believe though is that you could create a "virtual" reality. Be able to place yourself within it then cause yourself to forget there was any other reality outside this "reality" you've created for yourself. Of course if you had forgot, why would you believe that?

I was referring to non-dualist concepts of god on that specific quote.

Not total, kind of stop dreaming if you become completely aware, but more control is possible. It's not easy and takes practice. You probably have more control over this, what you accept as reality. Not magic or miracles just control. I don't know the extent of what you are capable of. Do you? Have you found the limits of what you can control?

Depends on what you mean by control. I am aware of what I have direct control over. I am not aware of how much indirect control I have though.

To comprehend what I mean by direct and indirect, consider the following analogy: I am on direct control of the steering wheel in my car, and I have indirect control over the wheels themselves.

 

[Nakosis]

My ''self'' on the dream continues to exist after the dream is over.
Or do you mean something other the conscious part of us when you say 'self'?

The self consists of many things. Memories, thoughts, desires. The self is constantly changing because these things that make up the self constantly change. The self of tomorrow is not the same self of today. What remains consistent through all of this is the observer. The observer, observes the self so it is not the self.

That is a redundant choice.
By accepting a path that includes illusion you are accepting brahman. Both options are one and the same.
I have no idea how this relates to the 'choice to change' you mentioned.

Brahman is not illusion, the illusion is that there is anything other then Brahman. The "self" is illusion too. You asked what is stopping you from changing yourself. The answer is you don't want to let go of (your) self. However you can't make choices you are not aware of. You would have to become aware of Brahman to understand the choice you have and understand why you choose to remain yourself.

I was referring to non-dualist concepts of god on that specific quote.

Non-dualist means there is nothing separate from you. Non-dualism can't really have Gods. Maybe they speak of Gods because it is a common concept within our dualist existence people can relate to. There are no non-dualist Gods, its a contradiction.

Depends on what you mean by control. I am aware of what I have direct control over. I am not aware of how much indirect control I have though.

To comprehend what I mean by direct and indirect, consider the following analogy: I am on direct control of the steering wheel in my car, and I have indirect control over the wheels themselves.

If you become aware of the indirect control you have you can control it right? Knowledge gives you direct control. The more we learn, the more we can control. So I guess the question is, what are the limits of knowledge?

What are the limits of knowledge which relates to your ability to control?