The Debate of God.

[atanu]

Ooops! Sorry!

So I guess, using the car analogy, I could show the difference in how Halycon, you, and I are looking at it:

Halycon: there's a car, but no driver
Godnotgod: there's no car and no driver
Ouroboros: there's a car and a driver

Do I understand our differences correctly?

How about you Atanu? --

A non dual truth.

 

[Ouroboros]

A non dual truth.

YES! Non-dual. It's neither dualism nor monism. Good answer.

 

[Thief]

The last few posts are like talking about margarine....

I can't believe it's not butter!

And maybe the Creator Himself is an illusion!

No creator no physical reality.....no point of reference.....no words worth speaking.....
The quote...."I AM"....is a lie.....

And this thread is suppose to be about God.

 

[godnotgod]

Okay.


But you instructed such an entity. Who did you instruct?

That a 'who' entity exists which I instructed is YOUR concept of reality. Only the consciousness which insists that there is a thinker of thoughts was insructed.

How can I produce Him? :areyoucra

I do not know the self in waking state. I do not know the self in dreaming state. I do not know what are the causal seeds that bring out certain dreams and events. How can I produce Him?

Who is it that does not know, that is incapable of producing 'Him'?

 

[godnotgod]

Ouroboros: there's a car and a driver

So you see a snake. Are you sure it is not a rope?

 

[Ouroboros]

So you see a snake. Are you sure it is not a rope?

 

[atanu]

That a 'who' entity exists which I instructed is YOUR concept of reality. Only the consciousness which insists that there is a thinker of thoughts was insructed.

I understand. That YOUR is not known to me, who dwells in mind as of now. I think, let us not demean the Purusha, who is not different from the Absolute.

If there was no Seeing of "I Am", the 'you' and 'I' would not arise. So, prostrations to the Purusha, wherefrom the Word descends, and who is not different from the desireless Absolute.

(This is the teaching of Sanatana Dharma. Not all have to do believe it. However, the Purusha is same as God of all religions).

Who is it that does not know, that is incapable of producing 'Him'?

"I", who has discerned your question.

 

[godnotgod]

So you think you see a self that is the agent of some activity; ie; the 'doer'; Are you sure it isn't some action of the universe, like the ocean 'waving' the wave?

Who is it that sees a self?

 

[godnotgod]

"I", who has discerned your question.

And who is it that is referring to "I", who has discerned my question? There are two of you?

 

[atanu]

And who is it that is referring to "I", who has discerned my question? There are two of you?

There are not 2 "I"-s. But there are "I Am" and "I am this". The first is the higher truth that is not separate from the Absolute. The latter is a false notion.

However, as long as this knowledge is theoretical, a Seeker must submit to Lord "Om" or "I Am" and/or to Guru, instead of teaching the notion "I Am God" or "I Am Brahman".

That is what Shri Ramana Maharshi and most Hindu teachers teach. This is also taught in Veda, which says that the Atman in non-dual and that the first born Person (God/Word/Purusha) is not separate from that. All souls are of the Purusha. The truth is non-dual. Yet, it also teaches of two birds perched on the same tree: one non-Lord restless bird hankering for fruits and another Lord bird merely looks on. The restless bird obtains peace when it sees the Lord.

I am yet to see the Lord.

In summary: I believe that the truth is non-dual. But I do not think that it is practically true if the knowledge is merely theoretical. But it is me.

Your mileage may certainly vary. Each one should know for oneself.

 

[atanu]

There are not 2 "I"-s. But there are "I Am" and "I am this". The first is the higher truth that is not separate from the Absolute. The latter is a false notion.

However, as long as this knowledge is theoretical, a Seeker must submit to Lord "Om" or "I Am" and/or to Guru, instead of teaching the notion "I Am God" or "I Am Brahman".

That is what Shri Ramana Maharshi and most Hindu teachers teach. This is also taught in Veda, which says that the Atman in non-dual and that the first born Person (God/Word/Purusha) is not separate from that. All souls are of the Purusha. The truth is non-dual. Yet, it also teaches of two birds perched on the same tree: one non-Lord restless bird hankering for fruits and another Lord bird merely looks on. The restless bird obtains peace when it sees the Lord.

I am yet to see the Lord.

In summary: I believe that the truth is non-dual. But I do not think that it is practically true if the knowledge is merely theoretical. But it is me.

Your mileage may certainly vary. Each one should know for oneself.

I will add.

Satapatha Brahamana teaches that there are two methods:

1. Procure, by one's own effort, the freedom from various entities that would not enjoy a soul freed. Who enjoys when a serf is freed? This is the Jnana yoga or the Buddhistic path.
2. Submit to the Lord, variously called as "I am", Purusha, Om, etc.. This is the Theistic path.

The verse further says that the fruit of the above two paths are not same. I do not understand whether one leads to a higher plane etc.? But what is clear is that, whichever path one traverses, the way is through the Word, which we call OM (other religions may give other names to the same Word).

 

[Thief]

And this thread has once again fallen to digression..a discussion of existence.

Stepping up to a discussion about God would be nice.

In the scheme of superlatives.....
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.
The Almighty.

So I see it.

Anyone with a better description?

 

[godnotgod]

And this thread has once again fallen to digression..a discussion of existence.

Stepping up to a discussion about God would be nice.

In the scheme of superlatives.....
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.
The Almighty.

So I see it.

Anyone with a better description?

So you wish to continue talking about the ego projecting itself as God.

That is what the ego wants: to be stroked; adored; gratified; attracting attention; to be referred to as 'bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced'.

It would be better off as insignificant and inconsequential dust in the dark, cold grave.

''There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.'
TS Elliot

 

[Thief]

So you wish to continue talking about the ego projecting itself as God.

That is what the ego wants: to be stroked; adored; gratified; attracting attention; to be referred to as 'bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced'.

It would be better off as insignificant and inconsequential dust in the dark, cold grave.

''There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.'
TS Elliot

Indeed!....and if you are held to your declaration?........

Nothing in the universe bigger faster stronger MORE INTELLIGENT and greatly experienced?

Top of the line life form are you?
No such thing as spiritual life having awarness?

 

[godnotgod]

Indeed!....and if you are held to your declaration?........

Let's not be silly, shall we? When you are dead, you won't know your remains are dust in a grave somewhere. You won't be there because there is no one who is alive to be there. You don't 'go to your grave' as dust or anything else. All that is in there are your REMAINS.

Nothing in the universe bigger faster stronger MORE INTELLIGENT and greatly experienced?

Top of the line life form are you?
No such thing as spiritual life having awarness?

I never said or implied that.

'Bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent' is dependent upon 'smaller, slower, weaker, and less intelligent' in order to be what it is. You are making God a relative entity, rather than the Absolute that it is.

The true nature of the divine nature is that it is not bound by dualistic descriptions such as 'bigger/smaller; faster/slower; stronger/weaker; less intelligent/more intelligent, etc. It is both, and neither; it is the All. It is the Absolute that has no 'other' to which it can be compared. And that is why it can be called 'The Absolute'.

 

[Thief]

Let's not be silly, shall we? When you are dead, you won't know your remains are dust in a grave somewhere. You won't be there because there is no one who is alive to be there. You don't 'go to your grave' as dust or anything else. All that is in there are your REMAINS.

I never said or implied that.

'Bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent' is dependent upon 'smaller, slower, weaker, and less intelligent' in order to be what it is. You are making God a relative entity, rather than the Absolute that it is.

The true nature of the divine nature is that it is not bound by dualistic descriptions such as 'bigger/smaller; faster/slower; stronger/weaker; less intelligent/more intelligent, etc. It is both, and neither; it is the All. It is the Absolute that has no 'other' to which it can be compared. And that is why it can be called 'The Absolute'.

I don't see superlatives as dualistic.

Nothing greater than you?
Absolute....are you?

Not made of dust are you?

Dust you are...dust you shall be.

Unless of course you believe in yourself...as spirit.
If not......how is it that 'you' respond?

The only proof you have left is to not respond.....
Go be the dust, that 'you' claim you are not.
(But I believe you can't.....and won't.
Your angenda now is to have the last post in this lengthy thread.
"YOU" can't let it go)

 

[godnotgod]

I don't see superlatives as dualistic.

Nothing greater than you?

Saying that something is greater, faster, stronger, etc. than something else is dualistic. Only if there is no 'other' can something be Absolute. Dualistic, or relative, is: faster vs. slower; greater vs. lesser; stronger vs. weaker, etc. The universe, for example, is an absolute, as it is everything, and there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

You are contradicting yourself.

Absolute....are you?

I am an expression of the universe, which is absolute, so 'yes'.

Not made of dust are you?

No.

Dust you are...dust you shall be.

It is not I that will become dust; perhaps my physical body will someday, but I will be long gone.

Unless of course you believe in yourself...as spirit.
If not......how is it that 'you' respond?

The only proof you have left is to not respond.....
Go be the dust, that 'you' claim you are not.
(But I believe you can't.....and won't.
Your angenda now is to have the last post in this lengthy thread.
"YOU" can't let it go)

I am not attached to dust, but you just can't let it go, can you?

Wood is wood and ashes are ashes. Wood does not 'become' ashes.

 

[Thief]

Saying that something is greater, faster, stronger, etc. than something else is dualistic. Only if there is no 'other' can something be Absolute. Dualistic, or relative, is: faster vs. slower; greater vs. lesser; stronger vs. weaker, etc. The universe, for example, is an absolute, as it is everything, and there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

You are contradicting yourself.




I am an expression of the universe, which is absolute, so 'yes'.



No.



It is not I that will become dust; perhaps my physical body will someday, but I will be long gone.



I am not attached to dust, but you just can't let it go, can you?

Wood is wood and ashes are ashes. Wood does not 'become' ashes.

Wood does not become ash?....oh really?
Where's my matchbook?

You do proof read what you post?

And for now we can't let go of the dust.
Out of body experience have you?....at will?

And yet it must be so at the hour of your last breath.

If you cannot escape your dust now....when you think you know so much....
how then when you have no control?
No speech to cry for help...
no grip to hold on with....
no means to save yourself....

Into the box and then into the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.

Scream all you want....if you can.

 

[atanu]

Wood is wood and ashes are ashes. Wood does not 'become' ashes.

Wood does not become ash?....oh really?
Where's my matchbook?

You do proof read what you post?

Dear Thief

What is true can never become untrue. What is untrue can never become true.

What is existing in you and me never can become non-existent. And what will be non-existent tommorrow, actually does not exist even at present.

I implore you to be a bit more pensive.

 

[Thief]

Dear Thief

What is true can never become untrue. What is untrue can never become true.

What is existing in you and me never can become non-existent. And what will be non-existent tommorrow, actually does not exist even at present.

I implore you to be a bit more pensive.

Only the Creator can claim....was ....is......shall always be.
As Creator he was before all things.
He is eternal.
The Source.

We are part at particle of the creation and have a linear existence.
We have beginnings.
We have the potential to be eternal.

But as assemblies we are subject to digression.
We are made of dust.
The dust will fail.

We are also spirit, and have the potential to continue.

But again....I believe heaven is a place of peace.
Not all enter in.
Some form of judgment takes hold at the Door.

If you enter in...it's because you belong there.

The only other possibility is the grave and the eternal darkness waiting there.