I will answer any question about God or the eternal Self

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Regarding the eternal self.......Is this part of life just a kind of larvae stage to grow the spiritual self/us?

I have a theory that this "mortal life" might just be a kind of growing stage before the eternal.




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SubPop79
reply to post by filosophia
 


Whatever, I'll take a bite.

Question 1: Why do you assume there is an Eternal Self?

Question 2: Why do you assume there is a God?



1. Frankly, because I've seen it in meditation, it is an all-encompassing light and I have investigated this matter and have concluded that it is not simply imagination or delusions.

2. I have found that it is the best way of explaining totality



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by filosophia
 


Regarding the eternal self.......Is this part of life just a kind of larvae stage to grow the spiritual self/us?

I have a theory that this "mortal life" might just be a kind of growing stage before the eternal.


the spiritual self is not grown, it is the controlling entity that attaches to the body.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by filosophia
 


What can't God remember?
Why can't God remember?
Why does God have a memory?


God doesn't need to remember, since he sees all things from an Eternal perspective, meaning he does not need to recollect things since he sees all things as if it were an Eternal Present.

Second question is same as the first.
God doesn't have a memory if he doesn't need one.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


By this controlling entity you mean me/my soul right? are you suggesting that the soul is already eternal? even before birth or death?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoustacheTwirler
reply to post by filosophia
 


Can you tell me why His son loves me so much?

It's just that...well, I just came out of a tricky relationship and, while I'm really flattered and everything, I'm just not ready for another big commitment. I hope he understands.

If he just wants to hook up for casual sex or whatever, then maybe we can talk.


He loves you because he is a man of God, either that or the church does not want it any other way. Not sure if he is in the classifieds, you're better off finding someone not currently in heaven.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by filosophia
 


By this controlling entity you mean me/my soul right? are you suggesting that the soul is already eternal? even before birth or death?


You are the conscious soul of your body, the supreme God is the soul of all things, looking down at all things but not affecting their nature. If you realize that essence of your consciousness, to the point where you are conscious of consciousness itself, that is the true self.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ok before I ask a question about your pervious answer, what do you think god is?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ok before I ask a question about your pervious answer, what do you think god is?



God is immortal, eternal, perfect, permanent, pure, one, infinite, immaterial, unlimited, transcendent, Good.

God is not mortal, perpetual, imperfect, impermanent, impure, compound, finite, material, limited, physical, or evil.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by SubPop79
reply to post by filosophia
 


Whatever, I'll take a bite.

Question 1: Why do you assume there is an Eternal Self?

Question 2: Why do you assume there is a God?



1. Frankly, because I've seen it in meditation, it is an all-encompassing light and I have investigated this matter and have concluded that it is not simply imagination or delusions.

2. I have found that it is the best way of explaining totality



1. Why do you assume that meditation is a way of seeing the eternal self and not just a natural way to hallucinate? When I say hallucinate I do not mean seeing things that are not there, but more of the brain being a Huxleyian "reducer valve" and allowing the brain to see more of reality than it normally handles. I do not doubt that meditation can bring about changes in mental states similar or exactly like those attained with a large dose of '___' or '___', in which a person can feel one with the universe and other mystical such feelings. You may experience what could be called God. But if this is what is happening, to me God is irrelevant, a force of the universe that guides and controls, permeates and is beyond the physical world we see, but is not something that would exact vengeance on it's sinners, and ultimately does not need to be called God.

That isn't saying that God is not something to be pursued, or tapped into...

How do you feel about that?

2. Sure, it is one way of explaining it. But why can't God be something scientific? A particle, a field of energy, or a dimension on which the universe operates? I could say the world is flat, after all, it does appear that way without a telescope. But we know now that it is spherical. God may be a good term for a summation of reality, but it is all too easy to say "it's God" or "God did it."

[edit on 14-6-2010 by SubPop79]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by filosophia
 


What can't God remember?
Why can't God remember?
Why does God have a memory?


God doesn't need to remember, since he sees all things from an Eternal perspective, meaning he does not need to recollect things since he sees all things as if it were an Eternal Present.

Second question is same as the first.
God doesn't have a memory if he doesn't need one.


But people have memories.

Are you saying that God can only be, from a perspective of the present and not of the past or any collection of thoughts other than what is before you?

If God does not need a memory, and everything is God, why do people, a part of God, have memories?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by filosophia
 


What can't God remember?
Why can't God remember?
Why does God have a memory?


God doesn't need to remember, since he sees all things from an Eternal perspective, meaning he does not need to recollect things since he sees all things as if it were an Eternal Present.

Second question is same as the first.
God doesn't have a memory if he doesn't need one.


But people have memories.

Are you saying that God can only be, from a perspective of the present and not of the past or any collection of thoughts other than what is before you?

If God does not need a memory, and everything is God, why do people, a part of God, have memories?


God is technically not everything but the true nature of all things. 'God is everything' is a mystical saying that only makes sense from the perspective of God, when you know that God is the ultimate reality and thus the only thing in existence. With that said, physical things are images of God, and memory is tied to the soul's desire. An enlightened soul lets go of memories of the past and lives in the "here and now" the eternal present of God, no memories needed. Memory proves that something exists throughout past to future, otherwise there would be no way a body that is constantly changing could remember the past. However this memory is dependent upon an experience, and since God is the ultimate reality, God is the ultimate experience, and thus that memory is better called knowledge. In other words, you don't remember God, you realize God, since it is the true nature of everything beyond the shadow of material form.

Eternity is the simultaneous possession of past, present, and future at one moment. So it has nothing to do with God in the past or present but an Eternal present.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by filosophia]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I Am Void Observer
I Am Infinite Potential
I Am LOVE
Living One Vibrating Energy, Unconditional i might add.

enough said... What you say is true, god doesn't contradicts it self.


Does this mean that i'm enlightened?
)



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SubPop79

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by SubPop79
reply to post by filosophia
 


Whatever, I'll take a bite.

Question 1: Why do you assume there is an Eternal Self?

Question 2: Why do you assume there is a God?



1. Frankly, because I've seen it in meditation, it is an all-encompassing light and I have investigated this matter and have concluded that it is not simply imagination or delusions.

2. I have found that it is the best way of explaining totality



1. Why do you assume that meditation is a way of seeing the eternal self and not just a natural way to hallucinate? When I say hallucinate I do not mean seeing things that are not there, but more of the brain being a Huxleyian "reducer valve" and allowing the brain to see more of reality than it normally handles. I do not doubt that meditation can bring about changes in mental states similar or exactly like those attained with a large dose of '___' or '___', in which a person can feel one with the universe and other mystical such feelings. You may experience what could be called God. But if this is what is happening, to me God is irrelevant, a force of the universe that guides and controls, permeates and is beyond the physical world we see, but is not something that would exact vengeance on it's sinners, and ultimately does not need to be called God.

That isn't saying that God is not something to be pursued, or tapped into...

How do you feel about that?

2. Sure, it is one way of explaining it. But why can't God be something scientific? A particle, a field of energy, or a dimension on which the universe operates? I could say the world is flat, after all, it does appear that way without a telescope. But we know now that it is spherical. God may be a good term for a summation of reality, but it is all too easy to say "it's God" or "God did it."

[edit on 14-6-2010 by SubPop79]


I will answer your second question first. If God is a unlimited, it would have to be an unlimited particle. Material science can neither affirm nor deny something that is immaterial. This is why philosophy or metaphysics is the only science capable of handling something so abstract. But for the philosophy to make sense, it has to be more reasonable than "God did it" so in that sense I agree with you.

I have done hallucinogenic mushrooms and while meditation is somewhat similar it is actually quite different. Tapping into the light within first off lets you know that there is something greater than your own sense perceptions within you, in that you actually "see" the light within you, you feel it expanding within you, and it is a way of centering your mind and calming your emotions. Compare this to drugs in which there is heightened anxiety. The similarity is that they are both "out of this world" experiences, and for drugs to be a reality is proof that the mind can undergo realities independent of the senses, but meditation does this without external aid. I have done meditation with and without drugs, just to make sure it wasn't just a drug experience. I know, I know, I was risking my life, but all for the sake of science (sarcasm). So in short, there are two reasons to meditate: one is to verify that a higher spirit exists within, and to also bask in this light and enjoy its healing properties.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by animated
I Am Void Observer
I Am Infinite Potential
I Am LOVE
Living One Vibrating Energy, Unconditional i might add.

enough said... What you say is true, god doesn't contradicts it self.


Does this mean that i'm enlightened?
)


Only you can answer that for yourself. Even if you were enlightened, you should not depend on me having to tell you that. You are enlightened if you believe you are. I don't see how it could be any other way. A certificate is just a piece of paper, animals spend their lives in the woods, and a beggar lives his life with nothing at all. Surely there must be something more to enlightenment than just that. It is a state of mind, a perspective, something only you can give to yourself. Peace.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
I will answer your second question first. If God is a unlimited, it would have to be an unlimited particle. Material science can neither affirm nor deny something that is immaterial. This is why philosophy or metaphysics is the only science capable of handling something so abstract. But for the philosophy to make sense, it has to be more reasonable than "God did it" so in that sense I agree with you.

I have done hallucinogenic mushrooms and while meditation is somewhat similar it is actually quite different. Tapping into the light within first off lets you know that there is something greater than your own sense perceptions within you, in that you actually "see" the light within you, you feel it expanding within you, and it is a way of centering your mind and calming your emotions. Compare this to drugs in which there is heightened anxiety. The similarity is that they are both "out of this world" experiences, and for drugs to be a reality is proof that the mind can undergo realities independent of the senses, but meditation does this without external aid. I have done meditation with and without drugs, just to make sure it wasn't just a drug experience. I know, I know, I was risking my life, but all for the sake of science (sarcasm). So in short, there are two reasons to meditate: one is to verify that a higher spirit exists within, and to also bask in this light and enjoy its healing properties.


Ok first I will admit you are not as crazy as I first thought.

BUT...

You say God is the "true nature" of things, and is immaterial, yet if God is the true nature of the material, I would conclude that God is not immaterial, but pure material.

And no, you were not risking your life. Psychedelics are a great intellectual tool that we we tapped into too soon, before we were ready, and they are not life threatening.

I take it you do not believe in a Biblical God...

Do you believe in an afterlife?

[edit on 14-6-2010 by SubPop79]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SubPop79


Ok first I will admit you are not as crazy as I first thought.

BUT...

You say God is the "true nature" of things, and is immaterial, yet if God is the true nature of the material, I would conclude that God is not immaterial, but pure material.

And no, you were not risking your life. Psychedelics are a great intellectual tool that we we tapped into too soon, before we were ready, and they are not life threatening.

I take it you do not believe in a Biblical God...

Do you believe in an afterlife?

[edit on 14-6-2010 by SubPop79]


You are right in that God is pure matter, but this is somewhat of a contradiction since matter is composed of particles. God would be the pure matter that is the building blocks of all other matter. It is not far off to say God is Time Itself, since Time Itself is like the Immaterial, by which all material things are part of it, just like all things "IN" time are part of Time Itself, meaning Time Itself is not the things in time, but rather the true essence of all things.

I know, I said I was being sarcastic, risking my life to take drugs ha ha.

No, I don't really believe in a biblical god per se, although the general beliefs I accept, like God's immortality, immateriality, etc. However, Christianity is convinced that God intervenes when a prophet is necessary or to further his plan which doesn't make much sense. A truly perfect being would not make a mistake and create a flawed creature he would then have to later "save" by becoming Jesus. This is a rehash of Hindu philosophy where an avatar comes back to earth to teach people the truth (not necessarily forgive them of their sins).

The afterlife is dependent on one's knowledge of God. All things are in perpetual motion and change, so everything evolves and bodies are food for other bodies, so all that is left is the mind. If the mind is attached to physical things, that is all it knows. If it can envision higher things, that is where its interest and possibly its afterlife lies. All we can really know is that God is not subject to his own laws of reincarnation, so the only way to truly awaken to eternal life is to realize that state of eternity in this lifetime. After that it is beyond my comprehension to speak about, I can not remember any past lives so that is beyond my knowledge. I'll let you know in a future lifetime if that changes



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I'll put some questions on the queue. You can take your time answering them.


1. Is there a psychology for the eternal self such that one's transitory personality can identify with it? If not, can this "eternal self" be considered a "self" at all or is it simply a means to a philosophical end?

2. I recognize both Buddha and Christ as being enlightened historical figures. By this I mean both knew/experienced the secret mystery of existence and understood everything there is to understand about earthly life. Yet they had different concepts of God. One, the Buddha, saw God as a universal harmony or the ocean from which everything flows. The other, Christ, named God his father and led what I see to be a slightly more pragmatic life.

In conclusion, how would you reconcile these two views not as religion but the way these two historical figures understood it.

Thanks.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by AProphet1233]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ok before I ask a question about your pervious answer, what do you think god is?



God is immortal, eternal, perfect, permanent, pure, one, infinite, immaterial, unlimited, transcendent, Good.

God is not mortal, perpetual, imperfect, impermanent, impure, compound, finite, material, limited, physical, or evil.


I like this understanding as most often than not one in this world of physicality tends to associate a Prime Creator or God with a humanistic and anthropomorphic ideal. Where as the opposite would be the case if the reasoning comes from a basis of love where there is not any dualism. Because I see that in life there is only Love and a call to Love (Living One Virtuous Existence)
Hence this physical reality was created by one egoic idea of separation from All That Is in an instant of mind. A holographic universe of mind.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AProphet1233
I'll put some questions on the queue. You can take your time answering them.


1. Is there a psychology for the eternal self such that one's transitory personality can identify with it? If not, can this "eternal self" be considered a "self" at all or is it simply a means to a philosophical end?

2. I recognize both Buddha and Christ as being enlightened historical figures. By this I mean both knew/experienced the secret mystery of existence and understood everything there is to understand about earthly life. Yet they had different concepts of God. One, the Buddha, saw God as a universal harmony or the ocean from which everything flows. The other, Christ, named God his father and led what I see to be a slightly more pragmatic life.

In conclusion, how would you reconcile these two views not as religion but the way these two historical figures understood it.

Thanks.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by AProphet1233]


Hello, good questions.

1. The psychology of the Eternal Self is hard to describe, since it would be equating God with human characteristics. God does not need to get angry because he is perfect, he could not become jealous because there is nothing to be jealous about. God is omniscient but also indifferent to what happens on life, because he is the essence of all things, but not any one of them. The upanishads say "The Self sees without seeing, because nothing is separate from it. Knows without knowing, because nothing is separate from it." God sees all things in an Eternal present, so the universe to God is his image, and this image is a reflection of Goodness, so it does not make him happy since he could not be more perfect, but rather it allows other beings a chance to be as blissful as God. God is perfect with or without us humans, but we humans can contemplate God and raise ourselves to an exultant state of being. The psychology of an enlightened person would simply be the virtues: patience, tolerance, honesty, etc. These are said to be close to God and therefore holier than the vices which imprison people in the body.

God's plan is essentially to create a universe in which unlimited number of beings can become generated and obtain enlightenment and understand God. Without a creation, we could not comprehend the infinity of God. Our minds require a solid form as a base of understanding. This is because we think in the physical realm, but our mind can be directed at the abstract which allows our inner energy to become awakened through spiritual knowledge.

2. I believe that the Buddha was a truth seeker that saw the positives of Brahmanism but also the absurdity. The Buddha is quoted as saying "A person can become a Brahman through knowledge, not lineage." The Buddha stressed that all beings could become Buddhas. He did not preach about a creator of the universe but rather an escape from samsara, which is the cycle of rebecoming. It is important to remember that the Buddha saw this cycle as suffering, so for the Buddha there is really no reason to praise a creator, since it is a creation of suffering. In Brahmanism, Ishvara is the creator, but Brahman is the Absolute Reality, The Self beyond all things. I.E. Nirvana. Thus, there was no reason for the Buddha to preach about a creator.

Christ on the other hand, displaying suspiciously Eastern philosophical behavior quite different from the Old Testament prophets, is usually perceived as a Buddhist in this sense. However, being perhaps a native to what was then Judaism, he kept the notion of God as a father. Remember that while the Buddha did not preach about a God he was looked upon as a Supreme Lord. The Buddhist sutras always refer to the Buddha as the Supreme One, implying that he is God. Perhaps Jesus was then attached to this ideal as so many Buddhists would later do after the historical Buddha. Then, after time, the church removed any notion of meditation or spiritual knowledge, mostly through the persecution of the gnostics, and God became the creator once again. What was left was a religion that exemplified their prophet as a sufferer, rather than Buddhism which exemplifies their leader as one who has conquered suffering. No offense to Christianity, but what's the point of following a leader that has not quite overcome suffering? Even the Roman guards were smart enough to ask Jesus "if you are the messiah why doesn't your God save you?" Seems like an obvious problem. Compare this to the Buddha, who was poisoned but had foreseen his own death, choosing to end his death before his time. He was still 80 years old. And the poisoned item he consumed was meat, something Buddhists usually do not eat. Perhaps this is symbolic of his philosophy, to not do harm to any being. It is perhaps a little myth if not actual fact, but either way it is interesting.







[edit on 14-6-2010 by filosophia]





top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join