GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote:There's only God, nothing else.

Kevin Solway wrote:Consciousness makes distinctions because that is what it is designed to do.

Regarding the QRS philosophy, which is it? If there is only God and nothing else, then is consciousness God? If consciousness is other than God, then there is not “only God”.

And if there is only God and God is consciousness, then how does God make distinctions as there is only one simple God?

Or is it that God inexplicably manifests as the myriad of things? And if so, then consciousness, which is the ability to detect distinctions of the myriad of things God has inexplicably manifested, is one of those myriad of things that God has inexplicably manifested.

Do no harm,
clyde

note: I may just keep adding to this until there is a response . . . or not.

My responses:

The one gives rise to the ten thousand things. Form is formlessness; formlessness is form.

Dan;

That's a good start. From the Heart Sutra:

Shariputra, form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Form is not other than emptiness. Emptiness is not other than form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousness.

Yes. In my view, the experiential non-duality of these two complementary conceptual perspectives is what is being pointed to in the Tao Te Ching, the Heart Sutra, and similar texts.

Unity and differentiation are dependently arising perspectives.

Yes, I agree. In which case, I think the term “anekantavada” (non-onesideness) is appropriate.

clyde wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There's only God, nothing else.

Kevin Solway wrote:Consciousness makes distinctions because that is what it is designed to do.

Regarding the QRS philosophy, which is it? If there is only God and nothing else, then is consciousness God? If consciousness is other than God, then there is not “only God”.

And if there is only God and God is consciousness, then how does God make distinctions as there is only one simple God?

Or is it that God inexplicably manifests as the myriad of things? And if so, then consciousness, which is the ability to detect distinctions of the myriad of things God has inexplicably manifested, is one of those myriad of things that God has inexplicably manifested.

who may know his complete similitude,so much being hidden?the Astrals,Elemantals,Mind,Soul?we realize something of the body's mechanism and of the affectiveness of the whole; at its interrelationships we may only guess.every fact gleaned shows us merely greater ignorance of ourselves.therefore,speak not of God,speak for yourself alone,for when you know yourself you will know your gods.

clyde wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There's only God, nothing else.

Kevin Solway wrote:Consciousness makes distinctions because that is what it is designed to do.

Regarding the QRS philosophy, which is it? If there is only God and nothing else, then is consciousness God? If consciousness is other than God, then there is not “only God”.

And if there is only God and God is consciousness, then how does God make distinctions as there is only one simple God?

Or is it that God inexplicably manifests as the myriad of things? And if so, then consciousness, which is the ability to detect distinctions of the myriad of things God has inexplicably manifested, is one of those myriad of things that God has inexplicably manifested

...it is true that it is untrue,that we can not believe the unbelievable(unrelatable).if I can not relate to God,am I more than the fetish-maker?and can you say this is ungodly if all things are God?for al things being God and his Will,he also determines the will of man and is also sentenced to this prison of the body.again the same crapulence of Godliness!thank God we are not a conception from what is conceived as God..things are bad enough..

clyde wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There's only God, nothing else.

Kevin Solway wrote:Consciousness makes distinctions because that is what it is designed to do.

Regarding the QRS philosophy, which is it? If there is only God and nothing else, then is consciousness God? If consciousness is other than God, then there is not “only God”.

And if there is only God and God is consciousness, then how does God make distinctions as there is only one simple God?

Or is it that God inexplicably manifests as the myriad of things? And if so, then consciousness, which is the ability to detect distinctions of the myriad of things God has inexplicably manifested, is one of those myriad of things that God has inexplicably manifested.

the rationale of our beliefs and adoptions usually springs from pretentiousness or misconception,never as compensation for our failures.therefore ,do not believe in God because you have failed to realize yourself, but believe in God in order to realise that concept in yourself.even though the first stimulus comes from without,there is this way more likelihood of response.

clyde wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There's only God, nothing else.

Kevin Solway wrote:Consciousness makes distinctions because that is what it is designed to do.

Regarding the QRS philosophy, which is it? If there is only God and nothing else, then is consciousness God? If consciousness is other than God, then there is not “only God”.

And if there is only God and God is consciousness, then how does God make distinctions as there is only one simple God?

Or is it that God inexplicably manifests as the myriad of things? And if so, then consciousness, which is the ability to detect distinctions of the myriad of things God has inexplicably manifested, is one of those myriad of things that God has inexplicably manifested.

if God make personal our imperfections(inadequacy),then ,we thus personify his?

clyde wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There's only God, nothing else.

Kevin Solway wrote:Consciousness makes distinctions because that is what it is designed to do.

Regarding the QRS philosophy, which is it? If there is only God and nothing else, then is consciousness God? If consciousness is other than God, then there is not “only God”.

If there is only God then obviously there isnt anything else!
So like a rainbow or mirage, consciousness is merely appearance.
Not so difficult, is it?

keen;

And rainbows, mirages, consciousness, and all other “mere appearances” are also God. So why bother to designate them "mere appearances"? Are they somehow different from other things? Are other things more real?

It seems that all things are appearances, which is another way to say that all things are manifestations of God.

clyde

Yes, although I'm of the school that prefers to avoid the "God" term due to its cultural connotations.

clyde wrote:keen;

And rainbows, mirages, consciousness, and all other “mere appearances” are also God. So why bother to designate them "mere appearances"? Are they somehow different from other things? Are other things more real?

Nothing is more real than God (Allthereis). All other things, including appearances, are equally unreal. Even appearances are mere appearances.

It seems that all things are appearances, which is another way to say that all things are manifestations of God.
clyde

Things are less than just manifestations, they dont exist at all.

It seems that all things are appearances, which is another way to say that all things are manifestations of God.

Which immediately makes any concept of god completely irrelevant, and it is.

Nature simply is not any form of God, so I think we should cease using the term. While David might be right about using it for god-loving people to get a leg into their mind, once that occurs it should be dropped as it is something that people clearly hold on to no matter what truths they learn.

Personally I'm starting to think the QRS are far more religious about The Totality than a person enlightened about reality should be.

Nothing is more deserving of the title besides, long before the concept was distorted, wiseman in our holy books referred to Reality as such. I see no reason to abandon it simply because millions of readers have twisted its meaning.

No-one who writes a holy book is wise in the ways of reality.

Nature did not plan or pre-determine our existence, so therefore it deserves nothing from us - we have no need to respect it in a spiritual sense. That we may be awed by the scope and size of nature, is also spiritually meaningless.

keenobserver wrote:

clyde wrote:keen;

And rainbows, mirages, consciousness, and all other “mere appearances” are also God. So why bother to designate them "mere appearances"? Are they somehow different from other things? Are other things more real?

Nothing is more real than God (Allthereis). All other things, including appearances, are equally unreal. Even appearances are mere appearances.

Here you seem to be pointing to God (Allthereis) and "all other things" as if they are two separate things, one real and the other unreal.

keenobserver wrote:

It seems that all things are appearances, which is another way to say that all things are manifestations of God.
clyde

Things are less than just manifestations, they dont exist at all.

When you write "they dont exist at all,” what “they” are you pointing to?

p.s: Isn’t language a challenge?

The name "God" is a label, like Allthereis, Nature, Reality, Tao, Totality, etc. There are connotations to each label and personal preferences. I like them all and dislike them all.

clyde

Jamesh wrote:Personally I'm starting to think the QRS are far more religious about The Totality than a person enlightened about reality should be.

I tend to agree. Insisting on using the word "God" when the word "Totality" would do - I can't see any other reason for it. Even using it with religious people is a trick - a lie - because you know what they understand it to mean.

"God" should not mean anything to atheists. The Totality is not a deity. (If you think it is, you are a pantheist, not an atheist.)

DHodges wrote:

Jamesh wrote:Personally I'm starting to think the QRS are far more religious about The Totality than a person enlightened about reality should be.

I tend to agree. Insisting on using the word "God" when the word "Totality" would do - I can't see any other reason for it. Even using it with religious people is a trick - a lie - because you know what they understand it to mean.

"God" should not mean anything to atheists. The Totality is not a deity. (If you think it is, you are a pantheist, not anatheist.)

Before "God" was a deity, God was "what wise men know".
There is evidence of this in ancient writings, though I dont have access to such at this time.
No word is fitting, besides there is no thing to refer to in the first place. In fact, if other than a wise man even discusses this topic at all, it is meaningless and worthless to do so.

DHodges wrote:

Jamesh wrote:Personally I'm starting to think the QRS are far more religious about The Totality than a person enlightened about reality should be.

I tend to agree. Insisting on using the word "God" when the word "Totality" would do - I can't see any other reason for it. Even using it with religious people is a trick - a lie - because you know what they understand it to mean.

"God" should not mea youn anything to atheists. The Totality is not a deity. (If you think it is, you are a pantheist, not an atheist.)

"Totality" is misleading for all except the wise man.So it should never be used by anyone but. Since no word is fitting any word is as good as another. If people all agree on,say "keenobserver" well I'm not going to change my name to suite them!

DHodges wrote:

Jamesh wrote:Personally I'm starting to think the QRS are far more religious about The Totality than a person enlightened about reality should be.

I tend to agree. Insisting on using the word "God" when the word "Totality" would do - I can't see any other reason for it.

When I read the Bible, or the writings of Kierkegaard, or those of Meister Eckhart, it is obvious to me that the best interpretation of the word "God" is "Nature", or "The All", or "Totality", "the Infinite", etc.

Therefore I think my own use of the word God is correct, and the usage of modern Christians is wrong. Why should I let them hijack the word? Should I let them hijack the entire language? You have to draw the line somewhere, and I don't believe they should be allowed to diminish the language in any way at all. So I'm trying to steal the word back off them.

clyde wrote:

keenobserver wrote:

clyde wrote:keen;

And rainbows, mirages, consciousness, and all other “mere appearances” are also God. So why bother to designate them "mere appearances"? Are they somehow different from other things? Are other things more real?

Nothing is more real than God (Allthereis). All other things, including appearances, are equally unreal. Even appearances are mere appearances.

Here you seem to be pointing to God (Allthereis) and "all other things" as if they are two separate things, one real and the other unreal.

We normally regard things as real, really existing, while in ego-consciousness, right? We (ego) form attachments, place excess value on things, etc. To see their unreality is to cease from doing these things. AT the same time what remains is all there is and you are It and some call it God. (but it is not real or unreal, of course)

keenobserver wrote:

It seems that all things are appearances, which is another way to say that all things are manifestations of God.
clyde

Things are less than just manifestations, they dont exist at all.

When you write "they dont exist at all,” what “they” are you pointing to?

That which appears (to exist). Anything nameable.

p.s: Isn’t language a challenge?[/quote] yup.

keen;

All we experience are appearances, which appear as sensations, perceptions, feelings, thoughts, images, memories, etc. You say all these appearances are unreal and non-existent, and that God is not these appearances; therefore, (it would follow) God does not appear. While I accept appearances as mutually interdependent and impermanent, and believe God is omnipresent; you seem to believe that God is absent.

clyde