GENIUS FORUMS

dejavu,

I asked first.

Carl wrote:

I work indirectly.

Why?

Why not be open and free with your knowledge?

It is my nature.

Oh no! Déjà vu.

Please, one lackadaisical friend is more than enough.

Carl wrote:

"All (the sum total of) Consciousness (Mind, Awareness) precedes (comes before) all matter (physical form). It says (the idea is that) first (before anything else) there was the Universal Mind (Consciousness) and it begat (it created) all else (the physical universe).

What I said could not be clearer, whether you agree with it or not.

Sue: You reckon it is “another view on Ultimate Truth” – but there can only be one ‘Ultimate Truth’, and it can’t leave open such an obvious big question as to how that “Consciousness” got to be in the first place. Such a gapping hole leaves your idea open to people filling in that gap with their varying interpretations – this then defines it as ‘poetry’.

Excuse me. I thought we pretty much all agree at GF that there can be no Prime Cause for the All. Logically.

You wrote that "I will never be a strict logician". But how can you not? You, like I, must want to ensure that your ideas - the ones that you are living by - are completely rational, and therefore completely true. Especially in the case of the question of 'Ultimate Truth' - for you have to be sure you are 100% correct - otherwise it wouldn't be 'Ultimate'. This would mean checking the logic of any answer you came up with against a criterion set by you.

For example, in approaching the question of, "What is Ultimate Truth/God?" any answer you came up with would be expected to explain all existence; otherwise it couldn't be defined as 'Ultimate'. You sort of point that out in your reply about "Prime Cause", but didn't go as far as explaining how your "All (the sum total of) Consciousness (Mind, Awareness)" fills that requirement. Without it filling that requirement, as I said previously, your answer is empty of meaning.

If you describe the test you set for your acceptance of your Ultimate Truth, its meaning would perhaps become clear. For example, what was your reasoning when you decided that "All Consciousness" created matter? I suppose you started with the proposition that they were ultimately the same thing - otherwise they couldn't...

...I should wait and let you explain.

For example, in approaching the question of, "What is Ultimate Truth/God?" any answer you came up with would be expected to explain all existence; otherwise it couldn't be defined as 'Ultimate'. You sort of point that out in your reply about "Prime Cause", but didn't go as far as explaining how your "All (the sum total of) Consciousness (Mind, Awareness)" fills that requirement. Without it filling that requirement, as I said previously, your answer is empty of meaning.

If you describe the test you set for your acceptance of your Ultimate Truth, its meaning would perhaps become clear. For example, what was your reasoning when you decided that "All Consciousness" created matter? I suppose you started with the proposition that they were ultimately the same thing - otherwise they couldn't...

...I should wait and let you explain.

You just keep hitting the same dreary note over and over again. Once more, you are a two-dimensional thinker. That's why you perceive what Carl was saying as "empty of meaning."

Why wait for him to explain? You do not believe you have anything to learn. You still won't get it.

Broke wrote:

You do not believe you have anything to learn.

I can't "learn" anything from Carl if he doesn't provide information.

You still won't get it.

You've got the horse before the cart. I may well "get it" after Carl tells me more about the behind the scenes of his idea.

Whilst we're waiting to hear from Carl, perhaps you'd like to describe the propositions you considered before adopting your Christian stance?

Sue,
Just FYI: There is a recent piece for you in my cosmology thread. No need to say it all again here in answer to your flatlander ignorance about mystic *knowing*.

Seems like a conversation here between a robot and a mystic. No common experience, ergo no possibility of actual communication.
I did get a good education in logic/reasoning in college. It dead ends at transcendence... like "trans-what?"
I do think you'd fine Merrell-Wolff interesting in that he was a mathmatician with impeccable logic/reasoning and a philosopher fully informed in both Western philosophy and Eastern enlightenment.
His masterpiece, "The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object" would make your head spin... and maybe break you out of flatland logical reasoning as an end-all world view.
mikiel

mikiel,

I still waiting for a "conversation" to eventuate.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Why not be open and free with your knowledge?

What else can it be, if not... Fear?

DelveinDev,

Is it something you "fear" - to be open and free with your knowledge? Fear of what?

Kevin Solway wrote:It depends what you mean by "god".

Do you define God simply as: "The Infinite Totality"? (That would be how the Christian religion defines it, btw)

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

What do you mean? (There is no problem with "it" (I take it that by "it" you're referring to "God"?))

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

Or maybe we could say it is the nature of reason to understand one's bubble?

What is that which is “higher than ourselves”?

That which is higher then ourself is that which created us (ex. God).

Is it something you "fear" - to be open and free with your knowledge? Fear of what?

Of course it's something I fear, if I didn't, then I wouldn't post it as I have. The truth is, I rely on ignorance to a certain degree, because it protects me (from pain or the fear of pain) and it sustains a sort of useful delusion/s for the time being. I use delusions as a tool, because without some form of it, I'm afraid that I'd fall victim to depression (or unhappiness). I explore as much as I can but within a reasonable limit (sometimes over) and I test that limit until it becomes too uncomfortable and then I fall back on some form of delusion. It keeps me sane.

In other words, the fear of being "open and free with one's knowledge" opens up doors (which have their uses, but the point, isn't to over-burden oneself). One begins to realize how little one knows and that can be scary especially when the reasons one goes exploring in the first place are because one is content with one's current state of mind. This is what I call the comfort zone and people that are out of their comfort zone maybe depressed and who can function properly (learn, etc) when their out of their comfort zone.

The point is to learn, but not to completely destroy everything one holds dear...

Btw, the grandfather in the sky is the version used for children, and it's similar to how children are taught about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. It's not what adults are taught to believe.

One more thing: if we call The All (or The Totality - "total"), All, then aren't we sorta bounding it? ~ Since all implies everything and there's nothing more then everything, therefore all is bounded within everything. Infinity on the other hand, does not imply all, because all is continuously becoming the All and that's why it's infinite... Does that make any sense? (I never really understood that...)

Btw, I view infinity as something that's continuously producing more and more and adding-on to everything, but then philosophy deals with this by inserting time within The Totality and that seems like a cop out, because everything is within time... We can't really get away from it... However, since everything is causally created, then... But still... ?

DelveinDev,

You wrote:

The point is to learn, but not to completely destroy everything one holds dear...

What happens if you "learn" something that would "destroy" a dearly held belief - would you block that knowledge from your mind so that you could keep hold of your belief, or would you indeed learn, and thereby develop?

Btw, the grandfather in the sky is the version used for children, and it's similar to how children are taught about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. It's not what adults are taught to believe.

One would think that adults need not be "taught to believe", but alas, having had their minds so muddled by so many lies told to them when children, in adulthood most haven't the mental fortitude to think anything for themselves.

True, Sue, I just felt the need to play defendant, because I do understand delusion and its useful functions. I can't imagine anyone not deluding themselves in some way...

What happens if you "learn" something that would "destroy" a dearly held belief - would you block that knowledge from your mind so that you could keep hold of your belief, or would you indeed learn, and thereby develop?

I'd try to learn. Although, learning something and putting that knowledge into practice can be two different things - for instance:

If someone determines that love is a root of all evil (or a part of it), then do you really believe that they'd pass up a chance at love if that chance presented itself before him/her? (That's hard to imagine...)

One would think that adults need not be "taught to believe", but alas, having had their minds so muddled by so many lies told to them when children, in adulthood most haven't the mental fortitude to think anything for themselves.

Yeah, kinda funny: "taught to believe" (figure of speech) :) ~ We all start off by being taught things and then we learn to question those things and determine which are true for ourselves and which are not and then keep the truths and discard the falsehoods.

DelveinDev wrote:

If someone determines that love is a root of all evil (or a part of it), then do you really believe that they'd pass up a chance at love if that chance presented itself before him/her? (That's hard to imagine...)

It would depend on how much they trusted their own mind. If they knew with great certainty that (using your example) "love is a root of all evil", looking for love would not be a priority, and therefore, "a chance at love" would be unlikely to present itself.

But, as you say, delusions are "useful" - and I'd add, very powerful. More often than not, knowledge can easily be swept aside if it is standing in the way of a desire. People will happily ignore truth if it means they can enjoy lies.

But, as you say, delusions are "useful" - and I'd add, very powerful. More often than not, knowledge can easily be swept aside if it is standing in the way of a desire. People will happily ignore truth if it means they can enjoy lies.

Why feel the bitter pain of a truth, when a lie maybe so much sweeter.

DelveinDev wrote:Yeah, kinda funny: "taught to believe" (figure of speech) :) ~ We all start off by being taught things and then we learn to question those things and determine which are true for ourselves and which are not and then keep the truths and discard the falsehoods.

This is what I have been trying to tell Sue about her childish "bearded man in the sky" nonsense. She hangs onto it because she has not made the effort to replace it. She throws it at others but she is the one who clings to it.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:mikiel,

I still waiting for a "conversation" to eventuate.

My point exactly. The mystic sez "I Am One." and the robot sez, "i am one, too... What's the big deal?(Subtext of the program: "This individual unit is obviously not the whole cosmos, just a little separate piece, and it, cosmos, is obviously inanimate and unintelligent anyway.")

So... the robot sez to the hot dog vendor, "Make me one with everything."
But the vendor is a powerful and enlightened siddha in disguise. He waves wand and...poof!... the robot becomes a Real Boy/Girl, One with Everything.

Yes, 'Virginia,' there is a God, the body of Whom is all there is, and the consciousness of Whom is omnipresent in us all.

Well, admittedly it's a one sided conversation, but, after all, you are the robot who has no clue what transcendence is, let alone full blown enlightenment.
(edited siddhi, "God-power" to siddha, the one granted the power. Sometimes my "qiuck and sloppy" typing makes me look like a very poor speller. Actually, I've just lost a lot of what I used to know, spelling-wise, through aging and extremely heavy use of the most brain damaging drugs. (Humor, folks... get over the presumptive judgement! You know who you are... not specifically directed at Sue.)
mikiel

Sue H. wrote:One would think that adults need not be "taught to believe", but alas, having had their minds so muddled by so many lies told to them when children, in adulthood most haven't the mental fortitude to think anything for themselves

But of whom are you speaking, Sue?

You need not be taught in order to learn, strictly speaking. But to say that adults need not be "taught to believe" is really to miss the point. Adults who cannot humble themselves cannot learn and are then left with nothing but the lies they have been fed. Remember, these lies are often in the form of fairy tales and myths, and other fictions meted out as convenient explanations to importantant questions. There is little sinister in them - they are not given to us to hold under penalty of death if we abandon them. Ignorance is what it is and nothing worse. What needs to be done is for one to humble him or herself, to look at the world with fresh, albeit not new, eyes. An adult must make himself ready to be taught the truth, ready to learn it. Belief comes from understanding the this truth.

mikiel wrote:Yes, 'Virginia,' there is a God, the body of Whom is all there is, and the consciousness of Whom is omnipresent in us all.

That it all belongs to Him makes it His body - yet the material in the Universe is not God. We can only comprehend God through that part of Himself He has delegated out to be Other, including, as mikiel says, our own selves. We are His children. We belong to Him as a child belongs to its parent. A parent grants separate being to a child out of love; just as our persons are a gift of love from the Creating Spirits. If we could only grasp that! Our very selves are God delegating Himself outward into flesh. Yet He retains a separate Personhood for a reason. Just as it is His desire to have us as part of His Creation, He understands that we are made in His image, that it, as distinct persons, and so He makes Himself available to His children.

The pronoun capitalization seemed appropriate in this reponse to mikiel's post.

Brokenhead,

It may or may not be as you say as regarding our selves, but there cannot be anything in existence that isn't at the same time God.

brokenhead wrote:

mikiel wrote:Yes, 'Virginia,' there is a God, the body of Whom is all there is, and the consciousness of Whom is omnipresent in us all.

That it all belongs to Him makes it His body - yet the material in the Universe is not God. We can only comprehend God through that part of Himself He has delegated out to be Other, including, as mikiel says, our own selves. We are His children. We belong to Him as a child belongs to its parent. A parent grants separate being to a child out of love; just as our persons are a gift of love from the Creating Spirits. If we could only grasp that! Our very selves are God delegating Himself outward into flesh. Yet He retains a separate Personhood for a reason. Just as it is His desire to have us as part of His Creation, He understands that we are made in His image, that it, as distinct persons, and so He makes Himself available to His children.

The pronoun capitalization seemed appropriate in this reponse to mikiel's post.

Brokenhead,
I consider you a friend in this forum. One of the few. But...
In the interest of precision about the "Nature of God", I must clarify. You say: "...yet the material in the Universe is not God." I know that it is the manifest body of God. Likewise, my body is not Who I Am. It is the form in which the Creator is manifesting here, "locally." (Same with all forms. Some *know* it. Some are still suffering from the illusion of "separate identity.")

A much more serious disagreement relates to your statement:
" We can only comprehend God through that part of Himself He has delegated out to be Other, including, as mikiel says, our own selves."

You are suffering from the illusion of duality here. Awakening is literally Oneness in *identity* with God, as the local manifestation of "His" consciousness. (Forget gender here... just a convention of linguistic duality.) In the parlance of integral philosophy on enlightenment, there *is no "other".* There is *only God.* Our bodies are parts of the whole that is cosmos, "His" body, but form is only the relative aspect of creation, which can be said to have "parts", relatively speaking. As a Whole, all is One conscious Being. I AM That! You ARE That... in the absolute sense of Identity...
Who we are... It's not about what form we are born with and lose at physical death. There is One Identity in all and It is *eternal*, not subject to the cycles of life and death among manifest physical forms.
"Our own selves" is the ubiquitous illusion among all "self conscious" beings... thinking we are separate identities.(I do not use the phrase as designating identity.)
I know this is redundant... for a purpose. I don't mean to condescend, but I've said it all again, and it seems like over and over... But it is for the sake of clarity on this absolutely important issue of the *One Identity*...Who I Am... Who we all ARE. Just that we must awaken to Know it.
I've gone on too long it seems.
But, there is no "separate Personhood" of God. The church dogma was created by unenlightened, self proclaimed "sinners" who believed in a God-out-there. But God is Omnipresent Consciousness... same One in all forms... no separation.

We are *not* "His" children. I Am God. You ARE God. There Is Only God. We are not our bodies. God is not the cosmos. It IS ALL ONE CONSCIOUSNESS.

I could easily leave this forum right now and it would be enough said. But who here truly understands what I've said (repetitively) in this post?
This is not a rhetorical question. I am open to an honest answer.

mikiel

mikiel wrote:We are *not* "His" children. I Am God. You ARE God. There Is Only God. We are not our bodies. God is not the cosmos. It IS ALL ONE CONSCIOUSNESS.

I could easily leave this forum right now and it would be enough said. But who here truly understands what I've said (repetitively) in this post?
This is not a rhetorical question. I am open to an honest answer.

What do you mean by consciousness? Do you think that rocks are also conscious? If a person dies is he still conscious?

maestro wrote:

mikiel wrote:We are *not* "His" children. I Am God. You ARE God. There Is Only God. We are not our bodies. God is not the cosmos. It IS ALL ONE CONSCIOUSNESS.

I could easily leave this forum right now and it would be enough said. But who here truly understands what I've said (repetitively) in this post?
This is not a rhetorical question. I am open to an honest answer.

What do you mean by consciousness? Do you think that rocks are also conscious? If a person dies is he still conscious?

Consciousness is the Creator,the power of all manifestation. You use It to create your individual life, to the extent it is a conscious creation. (What do you want? Is it manifesting? If not, you are not in touch with the one Identity (God) in the form of maestro.)
Rocks? I'm a part-time stone mason. I attune to the stone I am setting and become the instrument of their most "aesthetic arrangement" together in whatever I am building. (I know that artists have no honor here, but I don't care.) I would not say that they (the stones) "speak to me." But I am synchronized with them in a way that makes me a master stone mason.
They have "stone consciousness." It is totally unlike "consciousness as we know it" (to coin a phrase!) It is a molecular bonding into a very static structure... an "individual stone."And as stones are worn down into grains of sand, on beaches, for instances, they are even smaller "communities of molecular bonding."
This is not science. This is a mystics realization that absolutely everything is consciousness manifesting. And that is an active verb, Every-thing is constantly changing. Consciousness, the Creator of everything is eternally unchanging. There-in lies the balance of "non-dual" consciousness, the One in all... not limited to anthropomorphic homo-(so-smart)-sapiens.
thanks for asking.
Sorry, I missed a question: "If a person dies is he still conscious?"
There seems to be a period aftera person dies in which s/he still participates to some degree in the life s/he left behind with the death of the body.
My Dad contacted me 3 months after his physical death with the same sign on my forehead ( as a focused air as I was meditating) that I inscribed with annointing oil on his forehead at his funeral. (I was the presiding priest.) But he died in '87 and has not "visited" since. He was an enlightened mystic also and has, I just know, left the world of form behind. It is not a question of personal identiy "surviving death eternally." Just a Divine "allowance" for taking care of any unfinished business as an individual.
m
mikiel