What's inherent about our tangible realm of existence?
Do I really exist?
- Thread starter oatmeal
- Start date
What's inherent about our tangible realm of existence?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You tell me. It's all your delusion of prelest to be "God".
It's your assertion! There's nothing inherent to our existence. Seems you're arguing concepts you don't understand.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
However you perceive and process my semantics is really as irrelevant as the prelest of your belief system.
What?
Since your first post you've done nothing but lash out. You never answered my question. Are you lashing out against my posts because what they may reveal makes you uncomfortable?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'm not lashing out.
No. You don't reveal anything but your prelest with your posts. I'm not uncomfortable at all.
Why do you consistently attempt to imply I respond in a certain way because there's some profound underlying truth in your expressed prelest? That's odd, and subtly presumptive.
(And that wasn't lashing out, either.)
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
LOL.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Word.............
Word.............
First, it could be argued that eameece is not promoting any 'idea' of 'God' necessarily, but was criticizing an 'idea' or 'image' entertained by many traditional religionists of 'God' being a supernatural Being or Personality seperate from themselves, and suggesting that such a 'concept' of Deity is childish compared to more mature understanding of that reality that conventionally we call 'God' being a more intimate and immanent reality germane to our own 'being'.
Your 'assumption' above also applies to yourself, so the burden of proof would lay on you to prove that you do not worship or defend your own "idea" or "image" of 'God', assuming your 'concept' of 'God' is the only true one. What if all you have is an "idea" of God? Face meet mirror. This puts you in a rather precarious position, which impels your own string of 'apologetics' to lace your dress so to speak.
Furthermore, if you were to drop all 'ideas, images and concepts of 'God',...what would be left? We posit that 'reality itself' would be left, for 'absolute reality' is ever-present, beyond words, space or time. It simply IS. - all else arises as language-concepts within a dualistic information system,....the realm of space-time realitivity, the religious-mind -complex. The ABSOLUTE however, is ever the root, ground and context in which all information-creation is relating,...a play of perception (maya). It just so happens that because we use language to 'relate', we are caught in the dualism of language, and at best can only point to that which exists beyond it. Such is the challenge.
'Real God' (Brahman) is beyond thought, concept or description, - We may call it 'Be-ness' (what Alone is Infinite, what Alone IS). It is before any concept of 'be-ing' or 'non-being', but includes all concepts (within consciousness). ParaBrahman.
This is funny coming from one whose antics here could be the epitome of 'narcissism', although perhaps unbeknownst to himself, which could be the more deceptive form of 'prelest', if you must sport the 'word' to your own amusement.
pj
Word.............
First, it could be argued that eameece is not promoting any 'idea' of 'God' necessarily, but was criticizing an 'idea' or 'image' entertained by many traditional religionists of 'God' being a supernatural Being or Personality seperate from themselves, and suggesting that such a 'concept' of Deity is childish compared to more mature understanding of that reality that conventionally we call 'God' being a more intimate and immanent reality germane to our own 'being'.
Your 'assumption' above also applies to yourself, so the burden of proof would lay on you to prove that you do not worship or defend your own "idea" or "image" of 'God', assuming your 'concept' of 'God' is the only true one. What if all you have is an "idea" of God? Face meet mirror. This puts you in a rather precarious position, which impels your own string of 'apologetics' to lace your dress so to speak.
Furthermore, if you were to drop all 'ideas, images and concepts of 'God',...what would be left? We posit that 'reality itself' would be left, for 'absolute reality' is ever-present, beyond words, space or time. It simply IS. - all else arises as language-concepts within a dualistic information system,....the realm of space-time realitivity, the religious-mind -complex. The ABSOLUTE however, is ever the root, ground and context in which all information-creation is relating,...a play of perception (maya). It just so happens that because we use language to 'relate', we are caught in the dualism of language, and at best can only point to that which exists beyond it. Such is the challenge.
'Real God' (Brahman) is beyond thought, concept or description, - We may call it 'Be-ness' (what Alone is Infinite, what Alone IS). It is before any concept of 'be-ing' or 'non-being', but includes all concepts (within consciousness). ParaBrahman.
This is funny coming from one whose antics here could be the epitome of 'narcissism', although perhaps unbeknownst to himself, which could be the more deceptive form of 'prelest', if you must sport the 'word' to your own amusement.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
piercing the veils.......
piercing the veils.......
We Hindus and Buddhists have a leg up on some of the other western forms of religiosity, but one must look to the deeper esoteric teachings (science) to get a better view, beneath the form, art and ritual, from which the perennial wisdom springs....
We both agree that 'now' we are all experiencing life, in its movement, ever undergoing transformation, the ebb and flow of energy, mind, light, spirit, matter....and all the conflux of elements. Now is all there is, in which that which is ever-present subsists. Such is CREATION,...and the evolution of it (essence, energy, substance, form). This is all there is, as far as we know and perceive,..from moment to moment. The primordial awareness existing at the root or heart of all....if truly infinite and eternal,....pervades all and is immanent within space and time, as well as beyond space or time,....within dimensions and beyond dimension. Such is the divine mystery, the paradox of the dual aspects of Life.
To revisit the question again, of 'Do I exist?' seems somewhat silly, because existence is self-evident, as long as there is consciousness. As long as there is a conscious "I", there is the world and all its relations appearing. Awareness is aware, being the light behind all consciousness.
pj
piercing the veils.......
We Hindus and Buddhists have a leg up on some of the other western forms of religiosity, but one must look to the deeper esoteric teachings (science) to get a better view, beneath the form, art and ritual, from which the perennial wisdom springs....
We both agree that 'now' we are all experiencing life, in its movement, ever undergoing transformation, the ebb and flow of energy, mind, light, spirit, matter....and all the conflux of elements. Now is all there is, in which that which is ever-present subsists. Such is CREATION,...and the evolution of it (essence, energy, substance, form). This is all there is, as far as we know and perceive,..from moment to moment. The primordial awareness existing at the root or heart of all....if truly infinite and eternal,....pervades all and is immanent within space and time, as well as beyond space or time,....within dimensions and beyond dimension. Such is the divine mystery, the paradox of the dual aspects of Life.
To revisit the question again, of 'Do I exist?' seems somewhat silly, because existence is self-evident, as long as there is consciousness. As long as there is a conscious "I", there is the world and all its relations appearing. Awareness is aware, being the light behind all consciousness.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
going beyond......
going beyond......
~*~*~
First, don't forget about 'Self-inquiry' (Ramana Maharshi's method).
To your words above....I don't follow,....I was just reminding us that 'God' is 'God' all-ready, in toto! - God is already always the One omnipresent original, eternal and infinite REALITY. - in every moment of existence and prior to existence. - all that is emerges from the womb-potential of The Infinite, for there is no other source or essence from which any substance or form could derive. One another level, 'God' is all there IS. God originates, pervades, encompasses and transcends all. Consider the omnipresence of SPIRIT.
"I" exist, because of 'God',....since "I" could not exist otherwise. It is only because of my 'existence' or 'consciousness' that I know of any 'God' or 'source' existing. I know and perceive that "I AM". This 'I Am' Presence is 'God'. We could spin on the same merry-go-round all the day long, asking your question, and to what avail? Where does it go? Where does it take you? ...but back to your Self.
'Self' here is understood as 'Brahman/atman' (from a Hindu persepective).
It may be the case that your own religious tradition and knowledge-context is not satisfying your desire for truth, hence venturing outside the 'box' may be to your benefit.
pj
going beyond......
~*~*~
First, don't forget about 'Self-inquiry' (Ramana Maharshi's method).
To your words above....I don't follow,....I was just reminding us that 'God' is 'God' all-ready, in toto! - God is already always the One omnipresent original, eternal and infinite REALITY. - in every moment of existence and prior to existence. - all that is emerges from the womb-potential of The Infinite, for there is no other source or essence from which any substance or form could derive. One another level, 'God' is all there IS. God originates, pervades, encompasses and transcends all. Consider the omnipresence of SPIRIT.
"I" exist, because of 'God',....since "I" could not exist otherwise. It is only because of my 'existence' or 'consciousness' that I know of any 'God' or 'source' existing. I know and perceive that "I AM". This 'I Am' Presence is 'God'. We could spin on the same merry-go-round all the day long, asking your question, and to what avail? Where does it go? Where does it take you? ...but back to your Self.
'Self' here is understood as 'Brahman/atman' (from a Hindu persepective).
It may be the case that your own religious tradition and knowledge-context is not satisfying your desire for truth, hence venturing outside the 'box' may be to your benefit.
pj
I'm reluctant to attest to any "legs up" as this seems a touch divisive, while we already have a poster making broad assumptions regarding our views....I don't want to encourage more of the same. (though I do encourage honest, respectful discourse)
As usual, eloquently said.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Such was said 'tongue in cheek'
- granted, a good pair of legs can get one farther along sometimes :surf:pj
Your first stop for the unexplained is youtube? Perhaps you shouldn't exist.
eameece
New member
There's a view that Buddhism denies the individual self; I'm not sure that's true. It seeks, as I see it, to free ourselves from such fixed concepts, and to wake up to what is. It's first priority is our own awakening rather than theological doctrines. It doesn't necessarily state definitely that there is no God or no soul. And there's a lot of interest in reincarnation, especially in Tibetan Buddhism. Your religion as I understand it is not a closed dogma, but an ongoing dialogue among people with different views.
My own view is that the Spirit expresses as individuals, so they exist, but only as interdependent with the Spirit, eternal and all-encompassing, and always one with the One. There is only one power, but it expresses as the many. That is paradoxical, but Buddhism certainly recognizes the apparently-paradoxical nature of existence, as it may appear to our concepts and language. Interdependence is an inherent aspect of Buddhist "logic."
The Buddha spoke on different levels of understanding according to whom he was addressing. That is, someone new to Buddhism is not going to fully understand the concepts of interdependence, emptiness nor anattā, thus he spoke to them in accordance with their level of understanding.
"Gods", to a Buddhist, are not eternal (Buddhist philosophy argues against such ideas as eternalism) rather they're viewed as entirely self-interested, transient beings...as all such existant being are. As such Gods remain irrelevant to the essence of Buddhism: the four noble truths .. i.e. mankind's suffering and subsequent liberation from such.
:up:
I received a pm from a poster suggesting that I not simply put you off with a flip 'LOL' comment. The truth is that I simply ran out of time and only had the time to respond to the ironic humor that was your post ...as such. Perhaps I should have waited until later.
The (ironic) point being, you've little justification for accusing me of being presumptuous while conjointly asserting prelest on my behalf. That is, I could easily assert the same accustion regarding your supernatural assertions and subsequent spiritual diagnosis. :chuckle:
To the accusation of presumption: I'm simply examining sensuous phenomena (reality as we perceive it) and questioning it's ostensible obviousness. I presume nothing beyond that. Unlike you, on the other hand, who presumes faith in the supernatural...which, by definition, remains objectively dubious.
If you desire to take our limited reality at face-value (thus presume some anterior reality), or rather question my premise(s), feel free. Just don't get bent out of shape when I likewise inquire into your motives for doing so.
So...we're all stuck in the same glue!
More or less...yep!
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
First, it could be argued that eameece is not promoting any 'idea' of 'God' necessarily, but was criticizing an 'idea' or 'image' entertained by many traditional religionists of 'God' being a supernatural Being or Personality seperate from themselves, and suggesting that such a 'concept' of Deity is childish compared to more mature understanding of that reality that conventionally we call 'God' being a more intimate and immanent reality germane to our own 'being'.
Your 'assumption' above also applies to yourself, so the burden of proof would lay on you to prove that you do not worship or defend your own "idea" or "image" of 'God', assuming your 'concept' of 'God' is the only true one. What if all you have is an "idea" of God? Face meet mirror. This puts you in a rather precarious position, which impels your own string of 'apologetics' to lace your dress so to speak.
Furthermore, if you were to drop all 'ideas, images and concepts of 'God',...what would be left? We posit that 'reality itself' would be left, for 'absolute reality' is ever-present, beyond words, space or time. It simply IS. - all else arises as language-concepts within a dualistic information system,....the realm of space-time realitivity, the religious-mind -complex. The ABSOLUTE however, is ever the root, ground and context in which all information-creation is relating,...a play of perception (maya). It just so happens that because we use language to 'relate', we are caught in the dualism of language, and at best can only point to that which exists beyond it. Such is the challenge.
'Real God' (Brahman) is beyond thought, concept or description, - We may call it 'Be-ness' (what Alone is Infinite, what Alone IS). It is before any concept of 'be-ing' or 'non-being', but includes all concepts (within consciousness). ParaBrahman.
This is funny coming from one whose antics here could be the epitome of 'narcissism', although perhaps unbeknownst to himself, which could be the more deceptive form of 'prelest', if you must sport the 'word' to your own amusement.
pj
Yaaaaawwwwwn, slavedark. Well... The old BATlavsky would be proud, I suppose. I don't really know if you're just a conglomerate "auditor" of all the ancient Mesopotamian cults, and in utter overwhelming prelest; or if you're UNlightened enough to be part of the heinous and malicious intentional agenda of the truly psychopathic hierarchy of all that you portend.
I would have orginally said the former, but am leaning toward the latter at this point. It doesn't really matter pragmatically, but I always wonder where that line is between delusional manipulation and demented maliciousness for individuals; and you're at the cusp of it being either way... advanced initiate or UNlightened indoctrinator.
Neither YHWH nor I are "threatened" by anything. Your nebulous and elusive "Jell-O-izing" of multi-conceptual rhetoric is a mind-numbing vortex of nothingness purporting to be somethingness. It's the inverse of truth at every point. It's the parallel and counterfeit and script-flip of everything that is "free" and "light", slavedark.
Whatever your intentions, you're the most immersed in all this drivel of anyone I've personally encountered. You're one of the ultimate pawns if you're not one of the low-level game masters. (That's NOT a compliment.)
You don't reclaim, retain, maintain, or attain Divinity in any manner whatsoever; nor does any human. There is no "cosmic consciousness", and you aren't and won't be part of that nothingness.
Whenever it occurs, you WILL bow a knee and name the name of Jesus. You could set aside all this mumbo jumbo and hear the Rhema of God for faith to come.
In its framed context, there is not one ounce of truth in anything you think, feel, say, or experience. But your seemingly "un-nailable Jell-O" semantics do have influence on the novices who are gullible and empty of the hypostasis of God.
I don't suffer from that plight, but you're necessary to sort the wheat and tares, I suppose. When the second death comes to you, you'll be without excuse. I'm sad for that, which is the reason for my plainness of speech. You're likely already in irreversible reprobation, but I don't know the depths of God's mercy in this regard.
If all this weren't so abysmally egregious, you guys would be hilarious. But low-gradient psychopathy is no laughing matter, especially when taken to such lengths of dogmatization.
A pleasant demeanor is merely a facade, and is not inherently representative of true love in the least. You play your hand well. And that's not a compliment, either.