I do not exist. Neither do you.

Originally posted by arollingstone
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

I exist. But as long as it is a separate, individualistic "I", then it is a false sense of identity.

This is the sort of rhetoric I'm critical of. How can you assert such a statement with such confidence? Of course the ego, the psychological sense of self is separate and individual. Perhaps on a subatomic physical level we may not be, but you're talking about the ego - which certainly does exist and which certainly is unique.

All of our senses of self are pretty much, in my view, the results of combinations/re-combinations of varying existing views, beliefs, values, paradigms etc. through emergent learning. Our brains (wherein the identity resides) are also disconnected from one another's. Hence, the 'I' is not a false sense of identity - it is a self-evident truth.

It is a false sense of identity. Unity is truth. The ego establishes separation. How can you properly identify yourself when you don't even know what you are. All you know that you are is what has been told to you and what your ego has allowed itself to believe it is, but this is not really what you are. What you are is inexpressible by words. There is no proper definition that we can apply to what we are, therefore the definition generating and associating machine that is the ego has no place in the realm of the truth. Honestly, unity is not the truth, as no concept or label can properly identify what the truth is, but the truth can be observed. It can only be observed when your mind is not generating interpretation and is not filtering through concepts. When the truth is observed this way, it is easy to see that unity is a portion of the truth. The truth of what we are.

Originally posted by jesselacey
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

How can you deny what's right in front of you? People exist, material exists, the universe exists. God however, cannot. We are but seperate to the universe as a whole yes, but how does that deny our existance as well as everything else we see?

How can you misread the meaning of my OP?

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Faith in this context is referring to faith in love.

Maybe I need to point out what Paul means by faith in another verse.

Galatians 3:26-29

26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

This doesn't mean that I don't appreciate what you're saying about Christ's love, but more definition needs to be provided for people to get a better understanding of what you're talking about.

Jesus loves us so we are in him. All of us. All are one in him.

This is fine, but we need to define a difference between the above statements and the statements below.

When we love him then he is in us.

I think the word "love" is used too loosely in most of these forums. I think it is too broad of a definition and means many different things to different people because there are so many levels of love. I think you're better off combining the words love and FAITH when talking about Jesus Christ being in us. Although ALL of us may be in Him, He is NOT in ALL of us if we don't have FAITH that He is. That faith also requires us to want to do God's will for our lives, not our own. I think this is VERY important information that is being left out of a lot of these discussions. I see people everyday doing their own will and actually try to say that it is God's will that they do the things that they do, when they should know better. It requires a RELATIONSHIP with Christ to know the difference and that includes making Jesus the #1 priority in your life. Satan is still capable of deceiving even the Christians without doing this. It's a marriage. It's a daily relationship. It's a CONSTANT work in progress like any TRUE relationship.

Why else would Jesus say, "I am in the father and the father is in me" if it wasn't of bidirectional significance? It is bidirectional.

Jesus says this because he's part of the Holy Trinity. God = God, God = Jesus in human form, God = Holy Spirit in spirit form.

When we have faith in Jesus, we have faith in love as love and selflessness is what he taught. Dying on the cross was the ultimate act of selflessness. He gave him self up for the world. That is the definition of selflessness. That is what this thread is about is selflessness.

You are absolutely right about this statement. By the way, thanks for using the word "faith" in there to help convey this message.

We aren't saved by some magic trick that happened when Jesus died on the cross. We are saved because the ultimate act of selfless behavior was exemplified on the cross. So now we know it is possible. And now we know that we can be just like Jesus and do greater miracles than he did if only we follow his teachings. Ultimately, these teachings are summarized by selflessness.

This is all good. But showing selflessness alone is not a means to be saved. It is a way of living, but good works and loving others alone will not save you without FAITH in Jesus Christ. This is where I get most concerned. Most discussions drop this part of the message and it gets left out.

Now, if I could just get you to drop the "we are God and the universe" message. I'm not sure you really understand what you're implying when you make these statements. This was why I was confused that you used the name of Jesus in the beginning, because it didn't fit together. I think you look at it from a similar, yet different standpoint, yet it's opened the door to all kinds of "New Age" ideas on here that I don't think you meant to imply.

I know there are many different factions of practicing the "New Age" movement, but it's a very slippery slope when no one can be sure which faction you're practicing. I can only suggest that you keep reading your Bible and learning about Jesus. It saddens me to see so many people believe in Jesus, but only want to hear parts of his message and not all of it. Then when they go to preach Jesus' message, part of it gets lost and it's so vague that no one rally ends up making heads or tails out of it. The way people today are throwing the "love" word around reminds me of the 60's generation that promoted "peace and love", and I wouldn't say that all of them were living Godly lives although they meant well. So, sorry if it appears as though I lash out at "love"! Don't mean to!

Blessings to you!

en.wikipedia.org...
www.universalleonardo.org...
"Pointillism ( /ˈpwɛntɨlɪzəm/) is a technique of painting in which small, distinct dots of pure color are applied in patterns to form an image. Georges Seurat developed the technique in 1886, branching from Impressionism. The term Pointillism was first coined by art critics in the late 1880s to ridicule the works of these artists, and is now used without its earlier mocking connotation.[1] Neo-impressionism and Divisionism are also terms used to describe this technique of painting."
www.universalleonardo.org...
www.universalleonardo.org...
"...to express the impending movement and power of the horse.

In Leoanrdo's words

…draughtsmanship is of such excellence that it not only investigates the works of nature but also infinitely more than those made by nature…On this account we should conclude that it is not only a science but a goddess."
upload.wikimedia.org...
upload.wikimedia.org...
it seems we actually never move from the black hole ..until,, all is moved from the
en.wikipedia.org...

n the quantum world, diamonds can communicate with each other
December 2, 2011 By Joel N. Shurkin
www.physorg.com...

The vibrational states of two spatially separated, millimeter-sized diamonds are entangled at room temperature by scattering a pair of strong pump pulses (green). The generated motional entanglement is verified by observing nonclassical correlations in the inelastically scattered light. Credit: Dr. Lee and colleagues, Image Copyright Science|AAAS

reply to post by smithjustinb



If you, me, everyone doesn't exist then you wont mind if I take your wife and or legal age daughters out for a romantic trip around the world. This will last about a month and I assure you there will be plenty of sex involved.

Originally posted by Deetermined

This is all good. But showing selflessness alone is not a means to be saved. It is a way of living, but good works and loving others alone will not save you without FAITH in Jesus Christ. This is where I get most concerned. Most discussions drop this part of the message and it gets left out.

The good works and loving others IS faith in Jesus Christ. You don't have to have ever even heard of Jesus to have faith in Jesus.

Now, if I could just get you to drop the "we are God and the universe" message. I'm not sure you really understand what you're implying when you make these statements. This was why I was confused that you used the name of Jesus in the beginning, because it didn't fit together. I think you look at it from a similar, yet different standpoint, yet it's opened the door to all kinds of "New Age" ideas on here that I don't think you meant to imply.

I'm not a Christian, nor am I a New Ager. I am this. There is no factual concept, 'me' or 'you', there is only this. This is all that is true. None of us really know what this is. But we can know that this is what we are. It fits perfectly together. It is I who am not sure you understand what i am implying when I say all is one. Even though I have demonstrated it as being something that is mentioned in the Bible.

I know there are many different factions of practicing the "New Age" movement, but it's a very slippery slope when no one can be sure which faction you're practicing. I can only suggest that you keep reading your Bible and learning about Jesus. It saddens me to see so many people believe in Jesus, but only want to hear parts of his message and not all of it. Then when they go to preach Jesus' message, part of it gets lost and it's so vague that no one rally ends up making heads or tails out of it. The way people today are throwing the "love" word around reminds me of the 60's generation that promoted "peace and love", and I wouldn't say that all of them were living Godly lives although they meant well. So, sorry if it appears as though I lash out at "love"! Don't mean to!

Although the approach to love and peace through drugs in the 60's generation was not a good one, the love and peace that they felt was genuine. The reason they fought for it so strongly is because they saw the subtle, yet profound impact it could have. They were definitely in touch with God, but they cheated their way to that communion. They will also tell you that all is one and they are correct. The only thing bad was their method of approaching this realization.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

If you, me, everyone doesn't exist then you wont mind if I take your wife and or legal age daughters out for a romantic trip around the world. This will last about a month and I assure you there will be plenty of sex involved.

Whatever you ignorant fool. You completely missed the point. Re-read the original post, and the read some of the comments in the following 30 pages. Then come back and post something intelligent that shows me you at least understand what I was saying.

reply to post by smithjustinb


I thought you might like these Ken Wilber vids.
youtu.be...
youtu.be...

Namaste.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

f you look around your room you will say that you see separate 'things', a monitor, a keyboard, walls etc. But really what is seen is an image, one image. As humans we separate the one image that is seen into two 'me' and image. Really there is an image and that is all. We have believed ouselves into existance. We believe we exist separate to the whole.
This believed in entity has 'named' itself separate to the image. The entity is never separate from the image because it is happening as one. The image is God. The imagined separate identity is man. Man has been 'man' ufactuered, he is a fabrication. Man is 'made' from the image of God.
The thought that says 'me' or 'i' is a no more than a thought that grows and separates the image into more and more and more 'things'. 'Things' and 'thoughts' are the same, thinking is imagining that there are things. The world seems to be full of lots of different separate 'things'. The 'things' could be called the content of your experience. There are many 'things' in your experience but only one experience, one image. The one image that is your experience right now is one 'thing' but it is not really a 'thing'.
The 'thing' that is not a 'thing' is this present moment and you combined. You might 'think' you are a 'thing' but really you are occuring, you are happening.
The happening is always occuring presently.
There are no 'things' as such. The human has ability to build a 3d world of 'things' out of this nowness, this nothingness (no thingness).
There is 'this'. Out of the appearance we construct a solid 'real' world (residual image). There is no solid world, even scientists will tell you that they have not found any mass (matter) yet.
The only real thing is now, presence. Can presence be called a thing?

Sorry mods to quote such a big block, but it is all relevant to my response. Unfortunately this poster is excessively wordy.

You seem to think you're saying profound things - you're not. Obviously you can classify everything physically as a singular entity, same with all experiences they can be collectivised. So what? That has no bearing on existence, on this level we choose to distinguish objects and experiences out of convenience. How else would we function? You couldn't ask for food, you couldn't discuss anything if you saw everything as one big God.

Reality = Everything in Existence. Yes this is a thing, the opposite is non-existence.

You need to get off your high horse and actually research ideas instead of dipping a toe into them and then preaching them.

And I maintain that there IS an I, there are individual egos - they may fit into this machine you envisage as cogs and wheels, but on a lower level they are separate. An engine is one singular entity, but it is constructed of individual components that all serve their own respective purposes.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

The good works and loving others IS faith in Jesus Christ. You don't have to have ever even heard of Jesus to have faith in Jesus.

For someone who quotes scripture, you have totally lost me. Where in the Bible does it say that good works and loving others IS FAITH in Jesus Christ.

"Because salvation by works appeals to man’s sinful nature, it forms the basis of almost every religion except for biblical Christianity. Proverbs 14:1 tells us that: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” Salvation by works seems right to men, which is why it is the predominantly held viewpoint. That is exactly why biblical Christianity is so different from all other religions—it is the only religion that teaches salvation is a gift of God and not of works. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9)."

www.gotquestions.org...

Well, now I understand why you don't consider yourself a Christian, but why would you use Jesus as an example and read the Bible if you don't believe in EVERYTHING he taught?

reply to post by smithjustinb

It is a false sense of identity.

No it is not. The individual is the only certainty we have, we know we exist as individuals ourselves. A false sense of identity is entertaining the delusional idea that we don't exist.

Unity is truth.

Is is a truth, perhaps, but a singular word is never 'THE' truth. But it's only a matter of perspective - do you prefer to look at the whole car or to analyse the individual components? You can't have a car without the individual parts, the whole car is just a blanket term.

The ego establishes separation. How can you properly identify yourself when you don't even know what you are.

I have a pretty good idea what I am, who I am, etc. as much as it affects me.

All you know that you are is what has been told to you and what your ego has allowed itself to believe it is, but this is not really what you are.

No, you can't get away with saying that. You have no idea what I, or anyone else, knows. I don't just swallow up what people tell me - I can't say the same of you. Where do you get off telling people who they are and who they are not?

What you are is inexpressible by words.

I am a biological machine. Done. Everything is expressible through language. If you think you have a soul, fine, that can be expressed to.

There is no proper definition that we can apply to what we are, therefore the definition generating and associating machine that is the ego has no place in the realm of the truth.

We are living, conscious beings. Done.

Honestly, unity is not the truth, as no concept or label can properly identify what the truth is, but the truth can be observed. It can only be observed when your mind is not generating interpretation and is not filtering through concepts. When the truth is observed this way, it is easy to see that unity is a portion of the truth. The truth of what we are.

You seem to misunderstand the word truth. The truth is objective and undeniable. You have no idea of the truth, you merely have a subjective interpretation of what you perceive to be the truth. The only truth is that we don't know and are not currently capable of knowing the singular truth.

It takes a degree of conscious thought for a human being to comprehend a truth - you implying that silence is truth doesn't hack it pal.

Originally posted by arollingstone
You seem to think you're saying profound things - you're not. Obviously you can classify everything physically as a singular entity, same with all experiences they can be collectivised. So what? That has no bearing on existence, on this level we choose to distinguish objects and experiences out of convenience. How else would we function? You couldn't ask for food, you couldn't discuss anything if you saw everything as one big God.

It has no bearing on existence? How do you think all other animals on this planet except for humans perceive themselves? That's right they don't. They don't perceive themselves as separate from their environment. The capacity for humanity to develop an ego is called sentience. Dolphins, whales, chimps, and a couple birds. That's all that believes they are separate. The rest do not believe in separation.

How would we function without labels? How do any animals function without labels? When it's time to eat, food is provided or is hunted for. Who has to ask for food?

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by smithjustinb

The good works and loving others IS faith in Jesus Christ. You don't have to have ever even heard of Jesus to have faith in Jesus.

For someone who quotes scripture, you have totally lost me. Where in the Bible does it say that good works and loving others IS FAITH in Jesus Christ.

"Because salvation by works appeals to man’s sinful nature, it forms the basis of almost every religion except for biblical Christianity. Proverbs 14:1 tells us that: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” Salvation by works seems right to men, which is why it is the predominantly held viewpoint. That is exactly why biblical Christianity is so different from all other religions—it is the only religion that teaches salvation is a gift of God and not of works. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9)."

The passages you quoted do not validate your argument. What these passages mean is that salvation is not something we have to acquire at all, it is something that is already given to us and that regardless of who you are, it is already had because god distributes grace. All that follows, in the form of works, is how man appreciates, or loves what he has been given. If the salvation, that is God's grace, is not appreciated and we don't do what we are supposed to do, then we will have rejected the grace on our own accord. We can only be separate from God as much as we separate ourselves from God and ultimately as much as we believe we are separate from him. Rejection is hate. Acceptance is love. Salvation is a gift. It is not something that we worked for and it is not something that we have to work for to acquire. It is something that at the birth of the universe was given to us. What we do with that gift is up to us. We can accept it or reject it. Accepting the gift is accepting Jesus Christ because Jesus IS love which is acceptance. So ultimately, all we have to do is plainly, accept.

You have to read and understand instead of hear what has been told to you and read to validate what you have been told. Find your own interpretation.

www.gotquestions.org...

Well, now I understand why you don't consider yourself a Christian, but why would you use Jesus as an example and read the Bible if you don't believe in EVERYTHING he taught?

I do believe everything he taught. It is you who doesn't understand what he taught. You believe what you believe that he taught, but that isn't really what he taught. Jesus taught unity. Jesus taught unity by selflessness which leads to peace. Jesus taught love. Jesus wanted you to know that if you love, then you are saved. By accepting him you accept all because all are the body of him that is one. Acceptance is love.

Originally posted by arollingstone
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

It is a false sense of identity.

No it is not. The individual is the only certainty we have, we know we exist as individuals ourselves. A false sense of identity is entertaining the delusional idea that we don't exist.

I never said we don't exist, all I said is that we don't exist as separate except as far as we think we are.

Unity is truth.

Is is a truth, perhaps, but a singular word is never 'THE' truth. But it's only a matter of perspective - do you prefer to look at the whole car or to analyse the individual components? You can't have a car without the individual parts, the whole car is just a blanket term.

You're right. That's why it takes the absence of words to see the truth. It takes the absence of labels to see the truth. When the truth is seen this way, you see that there is unity.

The ego establishes separation. How can you properly identify yourself when you don't even know what you are.

I have a pretty good idea what I am, who I am, etc. as much as it affects me.

You think you do, but I assure you, these are just false conceptions that don't fully identify what you are, what we are. I can show you why in this link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is a thought provoking read if you have the time.

All you know that you are is what has been told to you and what your ego has allowed itself to believe it is, but this is not really what you are.

No, you can't get away with saying that. You have no idea what I, or anyone else, knows. I don't just swallow up what people tell me - I can't say the same of you. Where do you get off telling people who they are and who they are not?

I never told anyone who they were, all I said is that no one knows what they are. How would I tell anyone what they are when I know that that answer is unknowable.

What you are is inexpressible by words.

I am a biological machine. Done. Everything is expressible through language. If you think you have a soul, fine, that can be expressed to.

There is no proper definition that we can apply to what we are, therefore the definition generating and associating machine that is the ego has no place in the realm of the truth.

We are living, conscious beings. Done.

These are just weak definitions that miss the mark in properly identifying what it means to exist.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

The passages you quoted do not validate your argument. What these passages mean is that salvation is not something we have to acquire at all, it is something that is already given to us and that regardless of who you are, it is already had because god distributes grace.

Correction. It's only given to us THROUGH FAITH. What part of that scripture did you not recognize?

Ephesians 2:8 - "For it is by grace you have been saved, THROUGH FAITH —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—"

All that follows, in the form of works, is how man appreciates, or loves what he has been given.

True. An acknowledgement by FAITH that God/Jesus was the one who gave us this grace.

If the salvation, that is God's grace, is not appreciated and we don't do what we are supposed to do, then we will have rejected the grace on our own accord. We can only be separate from God as much as we separate ourselves from God and ultimately as much as we believe we are separate from him. Rejection is hate. Acceptance is love.

By George, I think you've got it!! (Maybe?)

We have our own free will to decide whether or not to separate ourselves from God, and yes, sadly, some will reject Him. Not all will accept love.

Salvation is a gift. It is not something that we worked for and it is not something that we have to work for to acquire.

Isn't that what my previous post said?

Let me paraphrase works and faith in a different way...

Faith without works is dead. Works without faith is also dead.

It is something that at the birth of the universe was given to us. What we do with that gift is up to us. We can accept it or reject it.

Correction: It was something given to us by means of Jesus Christ dying on the cross. Otherwise, we'd be following the old Jewish laws and offering sacrifices on an alter to show our faith. So, this may be something that's been offered to us since the time of our births, BUT NOT THE BIRTH OF THE UNIVERSE. (This is where the thinking takes a wrong turn.) This is why it's important to understand the significance of Jesus dying on the cross.

Accepting the gift is accepting Jesus Christ because Jesus IS love which is acceptance. So ultimately, all we have to do is plainly, accept.

Yes, plainly ACCEPT!! I think you're catching on again!

You have to read and understand instead of hear what has been told to you and read to validate what you have been told. Find your own interpretation.

Already have. I read the Bible and scour the internet for every interpretation I can find to weigh all of the evidence, but clearly, the Bible is my main point of reference. And why is that? Because it's the only book that teaches us the significance of Jesus. He's the only one that God sent to the earth to die for us. No other "prophet" did that. So, I listen to what Jesus taught closely. And Jesus did not say He was ONE with the Universe. He said he was ONE with God. I think I already mentioned the meaning of the Holy Trinity to you.

I do believe everything he taught. It is you who doesn't understand what he taught. You believe what you believe that he taught, but that isn't really what he taught. Jesus taught unity. Jesus taught unity by selflessness which leads to peace. Jesus taught love. Jesus wanted you to know that if you love, then you are saved. By accepting him you accept all because all are the body of him that is one. Acceptance is love.

Read this last statement back to yourself. Then show me where the Bible says that it only takes love or that by accepting him that you accept all as being saved too. I really want you to show me this one. We should be accepting of all, but that does not mean that all will accept Christ. This is the difference I'm trying to show here.

reply to post by smithjustinb

It has no bearing on existence? How do you think all other animals on this planet except for humans perceive themselves? That's right they don't. They don't perceive themselves as separate from their environment. The capacity for humanity to develop an ego is called sentience. Dolphins, whales, chimps, and a couple birds. That's all that believes they are separate. The rest do not believe in separation.

How would we function without labels? How do any animals function without labels? When it's time to eat, food is provided or is hunted for. Who has to ask for food?

Ok, wow. You really have swam way out of your depth now. What on earth are you talking about? Of course animals perceive themselves. And of course they see themselves as separate from their environments and other species. Otherwise they would be eating each other and humping trees. What kind of science books have you been reading?

All animals are sentient beings.. It does not mean that they believe in separation.. it means they are aware of their own existence and their relationship to their environment, that they are capable of feeling, etc. Are you for real? Dolphins, whales, chimps and a couple birds believe they are separate but all the other animals don't? Wow. What planet are you living on?

You're second paragraph is hence, non-void.

And once again, to state such nonsense as a fact is really not very productive unless you're writing a children's book.

reply to post by smithjustinb

You're right. That's why it takes the absence of words to see the truth. It takes the absence of labels to see the truth. When the truth is seen this way, you see that there is unity.

No. It take's logic, experience and other factors to see the truth. Unity is a label. Minus 3 points.

You think you do, but I assure you, these are just false conceptions that don't fully identify what you are, what we are. I can show you why in this link:

No. Once again, you know nothing about me. I'm extremely self-aware. My false conceptions? You're the one fooling yourself about some animals having egos and the rest not. I don't need to read a thread about it, I've read books and I'm still not convinced thanks. Did you want me to read that OP? Because I did and it isn't thought provoking at all. Minus 10 points.

All you know that you are is what has been told to you and what your ego has allowed itself to believe it is, but this is not really what you are.

Sigh. How do you know what I know? You don't and you lose credit for trying to tell me that you know more about me than I do. I know what I know and I know what I don't know, which I have made clear in all of my posts here. Minus 5 points.

I never told anyone who they were, all I said is that no one knows what they are. How would I tell anyone what they are when I know that that answer is unknowable.

You just did that in the same response - look at the previous quoted segment. Minus 8 points.

There is no proper definition that we can apply to what we are, therefore the definition generating and associating machine that is the ego has no place in the realm of the truth.

Sounds like something someone who has no idea about what's going on would say. My definition suits me just fine. I called the human body a machine, not the ego. Minus 7 points.

These are just weak definitions that miss the mark in properly identifying what it means to exist.p

No. We are living, conscious beings. To exist is to exist, end of. However we are conscious of existence, this is another undeniable truth. Minus 10 points.


Minus 43 points, you lose.

I dunno about the reality of the situation, but I sure wish the OP and this thread didn't exist, because I'm getting a headache(and a little nauseous) trying to follow all the new age mumbo jumbo. Personally, if I had the mindset the OP had, I would arrive at this theory and not waste my time telling anyone about it, because obviously if I know, the universe knows it, and then I'm just preaching to the choir