GENIUS FORUMS

Yeah, I don't generally use the word 'god', it's got too much baggage attached to it from thousands of years of use by religions. It's also so ambiguous as to be meaningless.

dejavu wrote:At bottom, to give the word god meaning is symptomatic of the failure to experience oneself before another.

It depends what you mean by "god".

dejavu wrote:There is no meaning that can be given to this word that is not somehow confounded by it.
To the noblest, god means nothing at all as a matter of preference. It is commonly used to obscure and hide meaning, to halt thought and create ambiguities in expression, --any purported poetry remaining to the word, isn't.

Genius against god! Who can suffer such importunity any more as to deny gods existence?! The question of belief separates us to all eternity!

At bottom, to give the word god meaning is symptomatic of the failure to experience oneself before another.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck,
if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

As much wood as a woodchuck would,
if a woodchuck could chuck wood.


(NOTE: Woodchucks chuck no wood on February 2nd,
in observance of Groundhog Day.)


.

Kevin Solway wrote:

dejavu wrote:At bottom, to give the word god meaning is symptomatic of the failure to experience oneself before another.

It depends what you mean by "god".

Of course, agreed; but the problem begins when "it" starts doing something.

Sapius,
I just use the word as shorthand for "the intelligent Kosmos Whose body is the cosmos"... including all of us, consciousness ItSelf and everything.
Baggage is only a problem for the one carrying it.
mikiel

mikiel wrote:Sapius,
I just use the word as shorthand for "the intelligent Kosmos Whose body is the cosmos"... including all of us, consciousness ItSelf and everything.
Baggage is only a problem for the one carrying it.
mikiel

I know some members here give you a hard time, mikiel, I'm not sure I know why, but I am sure I don't want to know why. However, I find myself agreeing with you more often than not. I hope you aren't just some New Ager spewing New Age platitudes.

I always take my concept of an intelligent cosmos to the next step, which is the realization that truth is known which I do not yet possess. Therefore, I not only can learn, I must.

Sapius wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:

dejavu wrote:At bottom, to give the word god meaning is symptomatic of the failure to experience oneself before another.

It depends what you mean by "god".

Of course, agreed; but the problem begins when "it" starts doing something.

"It" meaning "god," Sapius? Then the "problem" must be Creation.

dejavu wrote:There is no meaning that can be given to this word that is not somehow confounded by it.

This is just false. In this sentence, the word "it" can either take "meaning" or "word" as an antecedent. So this sentence would be claiming that a meaning counfounds itself, or that a word confounds its own meaning.

A word cannot by definition confound its own meaning. Either a word has a meanining - at least one - or it has no meaning. In reality, this translates to people either grasping the meaning(s) or not.

Dejavu, if what you intended to say was that any meaning people ascribe to the word "god" will be confusing once a person tries to share or compare this meaning with that of another person, I totally agree. But this confusion in no way implies that what the word refers to does not exist or has no meaning.

I for one think that God (in caps, yes) plays a different role in everyone's life. From within, you view God as you choose. You are free to admit God into your life or not and if you do, the extent is up to you as well. The same is true for everybody else. So from without, you either see God functioning or not, depending on where you are looking, how hard you are looking, and in what way you are looking. To declare that God does not exist is patently false, because it presumes to speak for every other person, which is not possible.

brokenhead,
First, I'm in full agreement with your last post.
Second, thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt re:
"I hope you aren't just some New Ager spewing New Age platitudes."

I've been a visionary mysitic (a Gift, not an accomplishment!) from my earliest memories. Nothing I share here comes from the "New Age Movement."
BTW, an integral part of gnosis (*knowing* our identity in/with God) is absolute certainty of the direct, immediate experience of the omni-Presence of the Divine. (But when most folks hear or read the word "omnipresence" it passes through a kind of "words to suspect or ignore" auto-program... same as "God" as per this thread title.)

In effect gnosis is knowing this Identity regardless of what all the rest of humanity believes or thinks about it. So all the heat I get here has no effect at all towards dissuading me from the Truth I *know* and share.... hence all the nasty judgements from the egoic level here. Equanimity prevais in this regard, and that includes compassion and motivation to keep "telling the truth."
mikiel

I also have come to most of my opinions via my own internal revelations, gnosis. Afterwards, I tried to make sense of it and began reading, which has certainly deepened my understanding, rounded it out a bit. But I feel an internal compass which I use to discern the truth.

I have been called New Age a few times, and I used to bristle at that, but now I think that a lot of the New Age ideas are really old ideas, and my own mystical revelations are also the same old ideas, because there is a great tendency for people, unfettered by dogma, to come to very similar conclusions, and for the most part, all mystics speak the same language.

Yes. What has been called the "Perennial Philosophy" has been "around" forever... throughout the living Kosmos. But I think the word "philosophy" diminishes the scope of the true wisdom of enlightenment. It is unity in universal consciousness, not just wise thinking in the human mind... "philosophy."
What do you "think" about that?
(I really enjoy our conversations.)
mikiel

Iolaus wrote:

all mystics speak the same language.

Yes, they all speak the same old claptrap - made evident by what a couple of them wrote:

mikiel:

an integral part of gnosis (*knowing* our identity in/with God) is absolute certainty of the direct, immediate experience of the omni-Presence of the Divine.

"the intelligent Kosmos Whose body is the cosmos"... including all of us, consciousness ItSelf and everything.

&

brokenhead:

God (in caps, yes) plays a different role in everyone's life. From within, you view God as you choose.

I always take my concept of an intelligent cosmos to the next step, which is the realization that truth is known which I do not yet possess. Therefore, I not only can learn, I must.

The inconsistency and irrationality of those thoughts show only too clearly the insincerity of their owner's attachment to Truth/God. 'Vague' is the name of their game - a popular pastime for the cow mentality.

Ensuring that they both remain in the shallows, neither take any responsibility for their thoughts: mik has the cosmos "intelligent" so that he doesn't have to be. And broke finds comfort in his gelatinous-"God".

Please tell me Iolaus that your "internal compass", which you say you use to "discern the truth", has a tad more connection to reason and logic than those cud-eaters.

Sue,

The manifestation of your being caused to look down upon mysticism is a sight to be caused to behold. However, your charge of vagueness is mostly unwarranted. Mikiel made two very specific statements in what you quoted. Where do you see "cow" in that?

Brokenhead's did come off somewhat unfocused, though you should know, from reading many of his other 1000+ posts, that he can be and usually is quite to the point -- only not like you like it to be, right?

I think you compare every view and every statement to your own standard of how strictly logical and cerebral any person ought to be. You appear to leave no room for other avenues. Thus you tend to come off narrow, pedantic, shrill, haughty, and dogmatic.

"Claptrap?"
Sue,
There is a huge body of wisdom/enlightenment throughout world history that testifies to the Truth of what you personally call "claptrap." (My link in a recent post to this wisdom from all Traditions is easily accessible.)

You say:
'The inconsistency and irrationality of those thoughts show only too clearly the insincerity of their owner's attachment to Truth/God."

There is an absolute consistency among the quotes shared at:
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless
and in all I have shared in in total synch with all the above.
And how can you presume to question my sincerity? You have no access at all to that level of mikiel's calling... which is absolutely sincere. Gives the lie to your whole egoic stance here in inappropriate judgement.

There is nothing at all "vague" in all the above. The vagueness is all in your hazy comprehension of what mystic trancendence into unity consciousness actually is... since you have obviously never experienced this universal epiphany. So you (as encapsulated in ego) must deny its validity.
It is an argument from total ignorance of ultimate Reality.

Ensuring that they both remain in the shallows, neither take any responsibility for their thoughts: mik has the cosmos "intelligent" so that he doesn't have to be. And broke finds comfort in his gelatinous-"God".

My whole life has responded to the Truth I have been shown, and our land trust is the manifestation of the Truth I have been given. Your criticism is as shallow as it gets from your profound ignorance of this cosmic consciousness.
"My intelligence" was absorbed into "conscious unity" upon my awakening. You have absolutely no clue to the reality of this experience, as happened to me or any other in the long world history of awakening in all cultures. You are stranded in very shallow waters.

Please tell me Iolaus that your "internal compass", which you say you use to "discern the truth", has a tad more connection to reason and logic than those cud-eaters.

What a crass egoic materialistic worldview... and with such NASTY name calling... as if that gave more credibility to your profound ignorance of the subject!
If you think "reason and logic" can get you to unity with Kosmos... you are Way wrong. It requires surrender of your illusory "self" importance and pride in your all-important (robot like) logic.
Does the word "transcendence" mean anything to you?
Robots certainly have no comprehension of even free thinking, let alone consciousness as it transcends thinking.

Get over it. (Not a command... just a very weary-of-egocentric-confrontations suggestion.)
mikiel

[laughs] Fucking hel-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l! Talk about perpetual guided-missile vomit!

Wah-wah-wah...

Leyla Shen wrote:[laughs] Fucking hel-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l! Talk about perpetual guided-missile vomit!

Wah-wah-wah...

Can you vomit somewhere else, Leyla?

Aw, cute. You're such a funny and independently witty parasite, ain't ya b?

Coo-chee-coo...

Leyla Shen wrote:Aw, cute. You're such a funny and independently witty parasite, ain't ya b?

Coo-chee-coo...

Why I oughtta pound you!

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:And broke finds comfort in his gelatinous-"God".

The reason I like Sue is that she keeps coming up with words like "gelatinous." Who says the education Down Under is inferior to true British public school system? Not I. No, sir.

Carl,

I know that most folk aren't interested in whether or not their thoughts or lives are consistent with reason. Most folk just want to live in their own little bubble and not have anyone or anything upset it. But upset it will be as long as they persist in living irrationally ignoring the truths that are glaringly right in front of them.

You reckon Mikiel "made two very specific statements" - but I can't agree because his thinking is so full of poetry that any point he may be trying to make gets completely lost. All that stuff about the "integral part of knowing our identity in/with God" is just too puffed-up and overwrought. If he means EVERYTHING IS GOD then why not say that - but he can't say anything directly, for he himself obviously hasn't a clue as to what anything really is - otherwise he would actually say something.

Thought without reflection is "cow".

Broke is a traditional Christian, so fear is the driving force. Even though the ideas in his two sentences contradict one another (The truth is: "God as you choose". The truth is out there, but he is yet to "possess" it) he continues to grasp at whatever makes him feel safe, without considering how rational it is.

You are correct that I compare "every view and every statement" to my own standard of logic - but so does everyone else. It just happens that my logic is to value consistency through reason, whereas most other people's logic is to value comfort drawn from fantasy.

You also say that I leave no room for "other avenues" which "tends to come off narrow, pedantic, shrill, haughty, and dogmatic". It's the other way round actually. To me, the writings of Mikiel and Brokenhead are "narrow, pedantic, shrill, haughty, and dogmatic" due to their every sentence being a celebration of VAGUE as an acceptable life-philosophy.

I know that reason bursts people's bubbles - it is the nature of reason to do so. It is the reason one uses reason.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:If he means EVERYTHING IS GOD then why not say that

Because he didn't mean that. He's thinking in three dimensions, you are thinking in two. You cannot comprehend a thing by studying its shadow.

Mikiel wrote:

"There is an absolute consistency among the quotes shared at:
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless
and in all I have shared in in total synch with all the above."

God help us!
_________________________________________________

Sue wrote:

"You also say that I leave no room for "other avenues" which "tends to come off narrow, pedantic, shrill, haughty, and dogmatic". It's the other way round actually. To me, the writings of Mikiel and Brokenhead are "narrow, pedantic, shrill, haughty, and dogmatic" due to their every sentence being a celebration of VAGUE as an acceptable life-philosophy."

You can't put brokenhead and Mikiel in the same group. Brokenhead explains his views carefully and takes pains in doing it. I think he grasps well a certain incommunicability of the faith-orientation, and yet he makes the effort.

Mikiel is 'enlightened' and, as a result of that, we are all in deep trouble...

;-)

The upside is that as my shamanic cat is hunting his inner rodents I too am benefitting: As of today I openly renounce 'mysticism' and 'poetry'.

You reckon Mikiel "made two very specific statements" - but I can't agree because his thinking is so full of poetry that any point he may be trying to make gets completely lost.

Completely lost to you, maybe, but not to me.

All that stuff about the "integral part of knowing our identity in/with God" is just too puffed-up and overwrought. If he means EVERYTHING IS GOD then why not say that - but he can't say anything directly, for he himself obviously hasn't a clue as to what anything really is - otherwise he would actually say something.

He did not mean EVERYTHING IS GOD. Mikiel said:

an integral part of gnosis (*knowing* our identity in/with God) is absolute certainty of the direct, immediate experience of the omni-Presence of the Divine.

Poetry this is not, it is clunkier writing than that, but the meaning comes through. To me it says this: The deepest knowledge (ultimate truth, one could say) includes a personal experience of the vastness and power that is God.

Sounds like something David Quinn would say, using other words, doesn't it.

And mikiel said:

the intelligent Kosmos Whose body is the cosmos"... including all of us, consciousness ItSelf and everything.

Now this, Sue, is beyond logic. It is part of an esoteric body of knowledge of which probably most philosophers are unaware. It says that All Consciousness precedes All matter. It says first there was the Universal Mind and it begat all else. Nothing poetic there either. Very cut and dried. Specific.

Alex Jacob wrote:Mikiel wrote:

"There is an absolute consistency among the quotes shared at:
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless
and in all I have shared in in total synch with all the above."

God help us!
_________________________________________________

Sue wrote:

"You also say that I leave no room for "other avenues" which "tends to come off narrow, pedantic, shrill, haughty, and dogmatic". It's the other way round actually. To me, the writings of Mikiel and Brokenhead are "narrow, pedantic, shrill, haughty, and dogmatic" due to their every sentence being a celebration of VAGUE as an acceptable life-philosophy."

You can't put brokenhead and Mikiel in the same group. Brokenhead explains his views carefully and takes pains in doing it. I think he grasps well a certain incommunicability of the faith-orientation, and yet he makes the effort.

Mikiel is 'enlightened' and, as a result of that, we are all in deep trouble...

;-)

The upside is that as my shamanic cat is hunting his inner rodents I too am benefitting: As of today I openly renounce 'mysticism' and 'poetry'.

Alex clocks in with nothing.

Alex Jacob wrote:Mikiel wrote:

"There is an absolute consistency among the quotes shared at:
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless
and in all I have shared in in total synch with all the above."

God Help Us!

I can't help but notice that all of you who parrot the party line here also follow the ultra-cool mode of cryptic reply without specific content. Like "we" are way above actual substantive content, cuz the truth of the party line is already established if one diligently studies the archives since the beginning of this forum.

Alex,
Though I suspect that you are seriously psychotic (true statement), I am asking you to give a reasonable critique of the quotes from the many enlightened ones from the link above.

In a forum of serious debate and dialogue, there is no respect for these kind of totally vacuous replies, however "cool" they seem to be by the standards set forth by the admin. by their consistent example.
Discussion of ... enlightenment... is a serious topic. All traditions of enlightened mystics are represented in the above link.

"God help us" does not 'help us' in this "discussion."
But then, you are not a serious participant in the "discussion of enlightenment", are you? You are a seriously disturbed heckler who finds a perverse entertainmnet in flicking shit at those who take the stated purpose of this forum seriously.
I suggest you take a vacation and contemplate your purpose in life.

mikiel