Do I really exist?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

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.

On the contrary... you presume virtually everything. And I'm not bent out of shape at all. I'm conformed to the image of Christ, which you know nothing of in your utter prelest.

(At least you're not a maliciously subtle provocateur, for the most part. You don't seem to attempt to syncretize the true Christian faith and all other belief systems. But I could be mistaken about that.)

 

[freelight]

addressing the question.....

addressing the question.....

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.

Lets try this again. You told another that all they had was their 'idea' of 'God'. I asked you how do you know that your 'belief' or 'knowledge' (conceptual or otherwise) is not just your own 'idea', 'image' or 'concept' of 'God', which puts your 'belief' alongside other 'ideas' about 'God' basically in the same playing-field. What makes your 'version' or 'image' of 'God' more true or correct, beyond your own 'opinion', 'claim', 'religious bias' or 'personal preference'? -that was my main point of address, since you called it out on another.

As far as the OP is concerned for oatmeal, and the general exploration of our own 'existence', the teachings of Ramana Maharshi on 'self-inquiry' and other great Advaita Vedanta teachers such as Nisargadatta Maharaj are good for starters, from a different philosophical approach. - nothing is known to exist or not exist outside of one's own consciousness.



pj

 

[freelight]

beyond pot shots......

beyond pot shots......

(At least you're not a maliciously subtle provocateur, for the most part. You don't seem to attempt to syncretize the true Christian faith and all other belief systems. But I could be mistaken about that.)

Besides my comment about 'lacing your own dress',...I see nothing 'malicious' in my last post addressing your claim that others only have their own 'idea' about 'God'. it was a tongue in cheek comment, hardly 'malicious'. Perhaps it was confronting you with your own 'imagery-entertainment' of 'God', and putting your 'position' in the same 'playing-field' and suggesting that your own 'claims' could be a most subtle form of 'prelest' that put you on the defensive.

Turning the tables on your 'theology' appears to be a sensitive issue, which might suggest its position of insecurity, which sees any 'questioning' or 'challenging' of that position as from an 'enemy'. Calling it 'malicious' is over-reacting and misses the mark here. The question concerning 'ideas', 'images', 'concepts' of 'God' remains,....many exist, each sport various forms of such. Some might be more tenable than others, besides there being an 'aspect' of 'Deity' that is wholly beyond all conceptual reference, being indescribable, infinite and unknowable to finite comprehension.

As touched on earlier,....'existence' itself is common to all sentient beings, included in the omnipresence of 'God', whose existence could not be otherwise independent from such an omnipresent reality, out of which all substance, mind, energy, spirit and matter arise. This ontological inquiry surpasses any concept of religious syncretism, and puts us all on equal ground so to speak.



pj

 

[eameece]

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.)

Gee, I was hoping for the title! I guess I have to settle for second fiddle to the bright wisdom of freelight!

(or maybe quip beats me out even for that?)

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Gee, I was hoping for the title! I guess I have to settle for second fiddle to the bright wisdom of freelight!

(or maybe quip beats me out even for that?)

You can all share the same padded cell. That should make you feel all betters.:juggle:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Lets try this again.

No. Your dialectic is tripe. Every last miserable, deranged, passively-malicious word.

You told another that all they had was their 'idea' of 'God'. I asked you how do you know that your 'belief' or 'knowledge' (conceptual or otherwise) is not just your own 'idea', 'image' or 'concept' of 'God', which puts your 'belief' alongside other 'ideas' about 'God' basically in the same playing-field. What makes your 'version' or 'image' of 'God' more true or correct, beyond your own 'opinion', 'claim', 'religious bias' or 'personal preference'? -that was my main point of address, since you called it out on another.

As far as the OP is concerned for oatmeal, and the general exploration of our own 'existence', the teachings of Ramana Maharshi on 'self-inquiry' and other great Advaita Vedanta teachers such as Nisargadatta Maharaj are good for starters, from a different philosophical approach. - nothing is known to exist or not exist outside of one's own consciousness.



pj

As always and ever more, you have no clue of the distinction between soul and spirit; and you constantly pursue the former, never apprehending the latter, regardless of your presumed "enlightenment".

You can't know the truth. But you can't know that, either. Enjoy your mystical maze while it lasts. What a waste.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Besides my comment about 'lacing your own dress',...I see nothing 'malicious' in my last post addressing your claim that others only have their own 'idea' about 'God'. it was a tongue in cheek comment, hardly 'malicious'. Perhaps it was confronting you with your own 'imagery-entertainment' of 'God', and putting your 'position' in the same 'playing-field' and suggesting that your own 'claims' could be a most subtle form of 'prelest' that put you on the defensive.

Turning the tables on your 'theology' appears to be a sensitive issue, which might suggest its position of insecurity, which sees any 'questioning' or 'challenging' of that position as from an 'enemy'. Calling it 'malicious' is over-reacting and misses the mark here. The question concerning 'ideas', 'images', 'concepts' of 'God' remains,....many exist, each sport various forms of such. Some might be more tenable than others, besides there being an 'aspect' of 'Deity' that is wholly beyond all conceptual reference, being indescribable, infinite and unknowable to finite comprehension.

As touched on earlier,....'existence' itself is common to all sentient beings, included in the omnipresence of 'God', whose existence could not be otherwise independent from such an omnipresent reality, out of which all substance, mind, energy, spirit and matter arise. This ontological inquiry surpasses any concept of religious syncretism, and puts us all on equal ground so to speak.



pj

You're on equal ground with nobody. You're in the bottomless pit and don't/can't realize it.

There isn't one shred of the Christian faith that you can hope to include or represent.

It's your insecurity that is apparent. Your entire worth is wrapped up in the co-dependency of all this mystical enablement.

You'll never know that. You'll never know anything. Your mind has been flushed down the toilet of your own delusions.

You have no god. You are no god. You have and are nothing. Apparently, that's why you cling to it and attempt to impugn any who would dare burst your bubble of syncretic silliness.

Theion. Aionios. What a waste.

 

[freelight]

word...............

word...............

You're on equal ground with nobody.

Truth is universal.

There isn't one shred of the Christian faith that you can hope to include or represent.

Truth is found in most all religious faiths and traditions, underneath the garb of language, symbols, archetypes, etc. The esoteric wisdom is there for those who would diligent to search it out. 'Christianity' has no monopoly on 'God' or 'Truth'. - that 'reality' is 'infinite'.

It's your insecurity that is apparent.

Not at all. The only 'insecurity', 'attacking', 'judgmentalism', and 'vitriol' stems from your own ego and continual gesturing on the forum here. As shared before, the truth and wisdom that is universal is self-evident, inherent in the divine knowledge or 'spark' within every 'soul'. You don't have a 'monopoly' on it. The conscious principle in 'man' cannot be independent of or separate from the universal consciousness which we call 'God'.


pj

 

[freelight]

playing high and mighty is rather 'egoic'

playing high and mighty is rather 'egoic'

You'll never know that.

You'll never know anything.

Apparently you believe you're 'omniscient' telling another what they do or do not know. Thats the height of arrogance.

You have and are nothing.

There you continue with judgments, unwarranted and uncalled for, but projected as you feel the need to be condescending. I'm quite fine being as I AM, for that is my true 'being' It is only 'no-thing' in the sense that it is pure awareness, not a 'thing' per se, but a 'consciousness' that is for its own sake, having 'meaning' only because a 'mind' gives it any meaning in the objective world of forms and knowledge (in-form-ation).

Apparently, that's why you cling to it and attempt to impugn any who would dare burst your bubble of syncretic silliness.

No clinging to any-thing is necessary.

No impugning is necessary either, but challenging a view or proposition is permissible if it is contrary to reason.

As to the thread-title question, already addressed here,....all one can say is they know there is existence, because it is, and I Am consciousness of that, and furthermore...by that consciousness, I know I Am. - anything more I add to that, is conceptual.


pj

 

[eameece]

You can all share the same padded cell. That should make you feel all betters.:juggle:

Oh well; you can imprison the body (which I doubt you can), but you can't imprison the soul (or spirit).

 

[JosephR]

Oh well; you can imprison the body (which I doubt you can), but you can't imprison the soul (or spirit).

Indeed that which is givin by God cannot be caged. I am sure you are a student of this teaching as I see the tree and chackrahs in your pic

 

[eameece]

Indeed that which is givin by God cannot be caged. I am sure you are a student of this teaching as I see the tree and chackrahs in your pic

Indeed so.

 

[freelight]

To be or not to be.......

To be or not to be.......

~*~*~

Just popping in again to see if oatmeal recognizes his 'existence' still

Its a very subtle thing, this recognition...but its intrinsic to being itself.