THE SECRET to NIRVANA Revealed!!!!!!! Who am I? What is the meaning to life?

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by deometer
reply to post by galactix
 


This book covers it quite nicely:

The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next

Review of the book


Also, more problems with Occam's razor.
edit on 1-1-2013 by deometer because: (no reason given)


and so i decided to look at your links...even tho posting a link to a book on amazon.com by no means constitutes an argument: just sayin'

on the first: a quote from amazon's summery :

"losing its way. Ambitious ideas about extra dimensions, exotic particles, multiple universes, and strings have captured the public’s imagination -"

if anything, this book appears to agree with me, namely, that over complicated ideas are suspect and should be re-examined. i assume you've read this thing... care to give us a personal synopsis, cuz i ain't seein' yer point, bro.

on the second: using math and specifically 3rd and 4th order polynomial fitting as an example for the errors in occam's razor use is silly: any polynomial is basically of the same 'complexity'. a more appropriate comparison would be polynomial vs logarithmic 'explanations'. Further, math is logic at its most rigid and is a poor example for the looser discussion around concepts and philosophy.

"The third and perhaps most serious problem occurs when Occam’s Razor is applied to discount data in order to leave a preferred theory intact."
Nobody is discounting data here, jim...in fact, i'm retty sure that we all agree that we only have a partial view on the entire data set.
#, bro, if we had all the data, most of us wouldn't even be arguing...

"Finally I want to consider Occam’s Razor and its use as an argument for atheism. Generally the argument is formulated as follows:

(1) There are two competing hypotheses:

a. A Universe and a God Who Created It

b. A Universe

(2) Hypothesis (b) is simpler than (a)

(3) Therefore based on Occam’s Razor (b) is held to be correct since there is no unequivocal evidence for (a)."

this is a ridiculous and meaningless example. it's like asking if infinity +1 is more complex than infinity: meaningless.

come on , bro: speak to me with your own words.... show me you got some actual thoughts.

copypasta lacks spice




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 
Hey, I really like your stile.
I would agree with you on the most part, the only problem I have with your analysis is that this Creation is no Johnny come lately.
If you take your analysis full circle your statement of your analysis, have about as much clout as the OPs, statements of his.

You make a very good point from your perspective, the problem being, it is quite possible and probable that your analysis is also incorrect.

Then again I make my point in the that this Universe is not Infinite and ends with the end of space time. As we have spoken before though on this matter the Universe is not infinite, Creation is.

For your analysis, to be be viewed as correct your would have to be working out side of these limited confines, and not be reling on what you have been taught as being a human and there for developed these analysis of the OPs statements.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Thiaoouba Prophecy
 
I would just like to say I understand what you are saying but I think there is a little more to this than what has been said.
If we are God what the Hell have we done to the Earth and it Creatures.

You know the Singularity, is coming to a Planet near you soon.

We are Satan! If there is one.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by galactix
 

Is this not ironical, my half completed (for lack of time) post to this thread includes a comment about my post to a parallel thread that started exploring the relationship between mind and reality, and has now become a theological debate/sermon/? The original quest of that thread was supposed to be, to explore the person and theory around a logico-mathematical model that was used to prove that a God exists.

Now, I was about to apply some logic to the debate in this thread and meanwhile this thread that seemed to have a totally theological/philosophical quest, is heading into a logico-mathematical debate. I love it.

There has to be some relevance to that. Perhaps we cannot exclude either.
Better get the time to complete my post.
edit on 2-1-2013 by KenArten because: word change



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
My electrons are loaded. I need more storage. My operating system has run out of RAM and I don't have any room left. How do we upgrade?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Thiaoouba Prophecy
 


I enjoy exploring the mystery of existence so will listen to all views and philosophies, including Hinduism, Zen etc etc. So I have read your OP carefully - please take my comments as a search for understanding, not as criticisms.

Firstly some technicalities

mind and reality
A parallel thread on ATS, started exploring the relationship between mind and reality, but has now become a theological debate/sermon/? - even though the original quest was supposed to explore the person and theory around a logico-mathematical proof that a God exists. I felt I had to make some comment to that.

In your case, with your thread, you will face the opposite, the difficulty with a nearly all-pervading dogma in various packages that has a stronger hold on humans than promises of Nirvana. Most of this dogma was never rationalised by the imbibing individual, and was simply accepted without question (for many reasons) in the process of “growing up”.

To change this is difficult, as abstract thinking is not easy for most of us rational beings and somehow, there must be a degree of rationality in everything for us to take note and accept something new.

But should we use the logic debated here, the information offered in this thread has a few problems.

You speak of no reality


Reality is only that which is eternal.

All universes are the Illusion. They are unreal because they are not true.


but also claim

In reality no ONE was ever born or has ever died

and also speak of

Final reality


OK, so perhaps this is just a matter of semantics but also has a logical dilemma, as in which reality do you imply this non-existence exists? Perhaps there is a transient reality before final reality?


Totality of Consciousness i.e. God, will die

God is part of the illusion?
So what are we, and how can we believe that Nirvana is not in actual fact, the Final Illusion?

You use this example

An electron contains approximately100 gigabytes of memory. The top two physicists on our Planet have quantified this yet they do not know it's life span.

but
Link please, cannot find any info on this other than a link to this thread and one that is to what is a copy of this thread

The electron indeed has the potential to “store” information in a number of different states, but this much, and/or at the same time, 100 gigB's worth? I know no reference or theory to suggest so many states or abilities of the electron. This needs some proof or it devalues all the other information offered in the thread. Perhaps there is a better example and/but indeed, what is its relevance to the thread? Are we trying to put a value to the infinite? You seem to flip between trying to rationalise and trying to just suggest acceptance.

On another related point of logic. You follow the electron example by saying:

The average human body contains 4 billion x 1 trillion electrons. But YOU ARE NOT male or female. You are not the body or the mind or the...

What has male and female to do with these electron statistics?

A few other uncertainties ref your comments, quoted below

We take ourselves to be individuals with egos because of collective conscious thoughts of individuality due to the illusion of time space creating separate objects. The first sin of mankind was in fact this first thought and must be negated.

So we are all one, but actually not real sentient beings?


God may exist but only if there is an "I" to percieve him.

What then is the meaning to (sentient) life? (apart from 42)
and further
Why do we as God create sentient life only to eradicate it?
The purpose of life might be to increase universal knowledge but in this philosophy, knowledge is also false.
Who created Nirvana?

and please explain
Nirvana Nirguna
Meaning. Why does IT exist, and why is it the supreme goal of sentient life?

Enough for now (time ran out), but just one parting thought.

1 in 10 million people will understand what is written here

that comes to an optimistic 800 in the world (and how many in ATS?). I guess that means I do not understand, even if I think I do. Why should I keep trying, even though I want to?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain

My electrons are loaded. I need more storage. My operating system has run out of RAM and I don't have any room left. How do we upgrade?



Do you dare to enter meditation to become God and Find out?


just for a smile in this serious thread



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by KenArten
reply to post by galactix
 

Is this not ironical, my half completed (for lack of time) post to this thread includes a comment about my post to a parallel thread that started exploring the relationship between mind and reality, and has now become a theological debate/sermon/? The original quest of that thread was supposed to be, to explore the person and theory around a logico-mathematical model that was used to prove that a God exists.

Now, I was about to apply some logic to the debate in this thread and meanwhile this thread that seemed to have a totally theological/philosophical quest, is heading into a logico-mathematical debate. I love it.

There has to be some relevance to that. Perhaps we cannot exclude either.
Better get the time to complete my post.
edit on 2-1-2013 by KenArten because: word change


logic cannot be used to find God, nor prove God's existence, unfortunately.
and as long as you confine yourself to linear thought you will always come up empty handed.

this is true not because logic is incorrect, but because logic only leads to valid conclusions when all the variables are known and properly described.

is love logical?
how about intuition?

math is a language that approximates (and even then, in only a limited number of applications) life. Life itself includes the imaginary(magnetic plane) and the transcendental: pi is a perfect example of math's limitation, being both transcendental and non repeating.

i can paint logic and fact in a certain light that illuminates God in a more 'realistic' frame, but in the end, its my actual experiences (some of which were 'impossible' by today's science standards) that teach me my faith and love: that prove to me that my God does indeed live.

do not misunderstand: this does not mean that logic is useless.
if a 'thing' can be logically disproved, it is prolly incorrect.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Where is God, Soul, Heaven, Afterlife in all of these conceptualized theories bacon wrapped in intellectualism?

Is there even room for that?


The afterlife is true, and can be proven via rigid and responsible logical inference using the concept of the emergent system (think traffic and thunderstorms when you think of the term emergent system) along with the established physics of neuroscience. Of course, you have to understand the truth about information as a true and actual physical property (as opposed to only thinking of information as the data record that humans use to communicate information and store information representation for other uses). You also have to realize that DNA survival dictates exist as informational protocols (this is what scientists call "junk DNA" since they can't get it to dance within the confines of their laboratories - yet) and that the material brain developed to translate those DNA survival dictates into immediate and dynamic "action item" commands and prompts that would allow for a material system (like a cat, for instance) to manage ongoing survival within a world that contains food and water and enemies and hot and cold and all sorts of challenges to the survival of that system. Oh, and you have to understand that information - once brought into existence via causation and/or ramification is physically permanent - meaning that once something "goes on record" as having occurred (a fact emerges as a default ramification that the occurrence occurred) it can never - ever - be true that it did not occur. This is the nature of information, and that includes dynamic "action item" information. There are a handful of other primary reality tenets that round out the explanation of "afterlife" for the product of a sentient mind/brain confluence, but these are the basics that physically allow it (actually, require it) to be true and actual.

There is no such thing as a soul, and anyone can be a god to someone else if they can convince them that they are such a god. This isn't even difficult to accomplish. The same with "heaven". Once you've moved beyond the requirements of the mind/brain partnership (when your brain has finally died and your mind is then on its own) you'll be completely capable of perceiving reality in any manner that fits your deeply held belief system. If you believe in heaven and hell, then your afterlife will feature one or the other, with plenty of post-material human beings available to amplify the perception as you make your way through whatever eternity (no half-life for information, remember?) awaits you. Good for you if you've convinced yourself that heaven awaits, but not good if someone's convinced you that hell awaits. And its just that simple.

The physics of all of this is based on the science of "emergent systems", which can be briefly described as the study of any system that cannot be fully described or examined by way of the examination or description of the component parts that combine to create that system. A really good example is traffic. You can't define or examine traffic by only examining the working components of a car. Or the cells, synapses and biology or a human driver. You can get closer by examining the established system of roads and streets and traffic laws that exist within a specific region, but even then, there will be profound anomalies present in all cases (fights, recklessness, breakdowns, accidents) that will upend your description of traffic if any one of these major contributing systems is focused on. Traffic "emerges" as a result of these completely disparate systems coming together, and does not resemble any one of them as the unique system that it is.

The Homo Sapiens brain combines with the societal and physical systems that contain that brain as the survival system that it is, as well as the event trajectory system that is the full span of material existence of that brain and all those contributing systems just mentioned to create the emergent system that we call the human being. Each human being is a unique and inimitable emergent system, possessing both informational and dynamic (event centric) properties due to the way that the brain system functions in direct response to all the other systems that combine with it to create the emergent human being. This is an epitome survival response system, and it isn't primordial at all. In fact, it's an ultimate achievement within any physical reality confine that it appears within.

Yes, its not poetry or a beautifully crafted affirmation of how wonderful and loved you are, but it's the truth - even if it does require many thousands of more words to prove exactly how true it is.

edit on 1/2/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
My electrons are loaded. I need more storage. My operating system has run out of RAM and I don't have any room left. How do we upgrade?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



"How do we upgrade"

care for your body and make it strong and healthy.
allow your feelings to guide your path, rather than your ideas (can you tell the difereance? many cannot)
your fears are usually a good place to start when it comes to growing sprirtually

pray/meditate regularly (everyday = best)

fast/cleanse yearly

be patient.

took me ten years, but oh *man*: its been worth it!



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by KenArten

Originally posted by spinalremain

My electrons are loaded. I need more storage. My operating system has run out of RAM and I don't have any room left. How do we upgrade?



Do you dare to enter meditation to become God and Find out?


just for a smile in this serious thread


it is funny, but also indicative of a grave error.

"Do you dare to enter meditation to become God and Find out?"

humans cannot become God.

God is God

humans can channel the data flow for a time, but it cannot be contained nor even properly remembered. only the truth of the actual experience remains: the illogical proof in the pudding.

in my opinion our first error in imagining God is that we assume Him/Her to be some unimaginably distant and transGalactic entity, responsible for the entire observable universe.
My experience and logic/information tells me that God is much closer to home than that.

just like we assume our orbital path goes earth>sun>galactic center we assume divinity goes human>ultimate God. We assume that humans are the ultimate expression of intelegence just short of God.

i submit that humans are NOT the pinnacle material conscious awareness.

still blindly arrogant, we are



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by OOOOOO
reply to post by NorEaster
 
Hey, I really like your stile.
I would agree with you on the most part, the only problem I have with your analysis is that this Creation is no Johnny come lately.
If you take your analysis full circle your statement of your analysis, have about as much clout as the OPs, statements of his.


It wasn't my full analysis.


You make a very good point from your perspective, the problem being, it is quite possible and probable that your analysis is also incorrect.


And yet, you have no idea - actually - what my full analysis is. I made a very brief statement concerning what the OP is, relative to life in general. That's not an analysis. An analysis would completely detail the full nature of that statement, and what causes me to believe that statement to be true. This was not provided within that post. That being the case, it may be possible - and even probable - that your analysis of my post is incorrect.


Then again I make my point in the that this Universe is not Infinite and ends with the end of space time. As we have spoken before though on this matter the Universe is not infinite, Creation is.


Nothing is infinite. Endless, perhaps, but all that physically exists requires emergence. That emergence violates the definition of "infinite" as a descriptive term. Creation is a term that describes an action. It is a noun, but only a noun that refers to a concept that relates solely to a verb. There is no "creation" beyond the human mind's need to conceptualize the emergence of that which exists, and to provide a label for use when referring to that conceptualization.


For your analysis, to be be viewed as correct your would have to be working out side of these limited confines, and not be relying on what you have been taught as being a human and there for developed these analysis of the OPs statements.


I wasn't taught these things, and my understanding of the tenets of reality - as far as I've been able to determine after 4 years (now) of dedicated research - doesn't exist anywhere as attributed to anyone (at least on this planet). No published papers or even ongoing premise development exists, so I have no one to point to for validation. That said, I can fully present this extremely airtight and exhaustingly comprehensive premise at the drop of a hat, and if one has several hours to devote to it, completely satisfy all questions concerning the nature of reality, physical existence, initial genesis, existential imperatives and - well, I think you get the drift.

Hell, I've seen the initial realization concerning the true nature of material existence cause people to go from laughter to uncontrollable sobbing and actual fear of having discovered something they shouldn't know. As if some boogeyman is going to come and kill them off for "knowing too much". It can be really traumatic for some people.

I just hang out here and enjoy the conversation. I won't sell here or promote here. This will be all I'll say about what I am and what I know.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Thiaoouba Prophecy
 




awareness imagines consciousness to be


By using the term "imagines" what you are actually doing is tring to form a mental picture or an image of the terms "awareness" and "consciousness"

Since awareness and consciousness can not be conceived or imagined, your statement is meaningless and thus not true. You have not found the secret to nervana. Sorry

Considering this, and that the rest of your thread stems from the statement quoted , I feel that there is no need to futher quote you until you can expand or enlighten us as to your meaning of the terms awareness, imagines, and consciousness.
edit on 1-1-2013 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-1-2013 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)

Awareness imagines consciousness.
Or to put it another way: Awareness makes the image (imaging) that is seen.
The image that is made of light that is appearing presently (this is inclusive of the 5 senses), is what they call
'consciousness'. This image is made by awareness and seen by awareness.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

The afterlife is true, and can be proven via rigid and responsible logical inference using the concept of the emergent system

snip

Oh, and you have to understand that information - once brought into existence via causation and/or ramification is physically permanent - meaning that once something "goes on record" as having occurred (a fact emerges as a default ramification that the occurrence occurred) it can never - ever - be true that it did not occur.

snip

There is no such thing as a soul, and anyone can be a god to someone else if they can convince them that they are such a god.

snip

Good for you if you've convinced yourself that heaven awaits, but not good if someone's convinced you that hell awaits. And its just that simple.

The physics of all of this is based on the science of "emergent systems", which can be briefly described as the study of any system that cannot be fully described or examined by way of the examination or description of the component parts that combine to create that system.

snip

The Homo Sapiens brain combines with the societal and physical systems that contain that brain as the survival system

snip



i agree that once formulated, information never disipates. this is a little like, "cannot unsee". However, to 'prove' an afterlife, you have to demonstrate a media that this information exists within. this u have not done.

no such thing as a soul? i'd have to hear your definition of "soul" before i ague this point, but i'm pretty sure i strongly disagree with you. and i am not Christian.

to equate mind and brain and speak solely of DNA as the primary ingredient (and then only in survival turns) is deeply incorrect, in my opinion.
- tho i do agree that junk DNA has much more in it than we currently believe or understand. It is within these strands that 'past lives' are found. This i believe cuz some science has demonstrated that memory is encoded in DNA and further different science has shown that we can and do update the information in our sperm/eggs as we age.
this also explains reincarnation in more practical terms.

The brain is only a part of the mind and DNA both data storage and electromagnetic transeaver, but to say DNA = mind is like saying RAM = computer.

modern science has shown us that the human body hosts more foreign DNA (this would be the microbial life that lives on/in you) than it does its own: by an order of magnitude!

the conceptualization of mind must include this in its variable set before we can come to any meaningful conclusions. One must further be able to describe mind function in beings like octopuses and bee hives/ant hills before we settle on mind function within humans and their ilk...



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Thiaoouba Prophecy
 




awareness imagines consciousness to be


By using the term "imagines" what you are actually doing is tring to form a mental picture or an image of the terms "awareness" and "consciousness"

Since awareness and consciousness can not be conceived or imagined, your statement is meaningless and thus not true. You have not found the secret to nervana. Sorry

Considering this, and that the rest of your thread stems from the statement quoted , I feel that there is no need to futher quote you until you can expand or enlighten us as to your meaning of the terms awareness, imagines, and consciousness.
edit on 1-1-2013 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-1-2013 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)

Awareness imagines consciousness.
Or to put it another way: Awareness makes the image (imaging) that is seen.
The image that is made of light that is appearing presently (this is inclusive of the 5 senses), is what they call
'consciousness'. This image is made by awareness and seen by awareness.


How can Awareness make or create anything? Does it have a will? Can it will something or create something into existence?

To be conscious of something , is to be aware.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



There is no such thing as a soul, and anyone can be a god to someone else if they can convince them that they are such a god.

You've lost me there. You say it as if it is factual, when really it can be said it's an opinion that's confined to subjective bias.

In example, I remember pre-existing as a Soul, and discussing with other souls being "Born" on "earth", 2 things I had no idea about in that instant. This has HUGE ramifications to your philosophy, why? Because there are others who remember pre-existing as souls as well, or (non-local units of consciousness)
Pre-Birth Memories
Gerogia man remembers heavenly origins

So now you have additional data to account for.


The same with "heaven". Once you've moved beyond the requirements of the mind/brain partnership (when your brain has finally died and your mind is then on its own) you'll be completely capable of perceiving reality in any manner that fits your deeply held belief system. If you believe in heaven and hell, then your afterlife will feature one or the other, with plenty of post-material human beings available to amplify the perception as you make your way through whatever eternity (no half-life for information, remember?) awaits you. Good for you if you've convinced yourself that heaven awaits, but not good if someone's convinced you that hell awaits. And its just that simple.

I got you. Your saying the ideas and theories effect what One will see in the afterlife. Which to a certain extant I agree with because Buddhism, gnosticism, and various philosophies discuss how to conquer and overcome the illusions in the afterlife.

Another piece of data you have to account for is that these same branches of thought and philosophies mentioned above, have blueprints that speak of an Enlightenment that can be had when all thought, data, and illusions of subjectivism are dropped, is when the Absolute state shines bright, One that is only revealed when there is nothing brought to it that can be super imposed over it (thought, data, opinion, subjectivity)



Traffic "emerges" as a result of these completely disparate systems coming together, and does not resemble any one of them as the unique system that it is.

Ok so your saying that the conceptual ideas, thoughts, theories, descriptions of emergent systems, are not the same as the actual system. Correct?



Each human being is a unique and inimitable emergent system, possessing both informational and dynamic (event centric) properties due to the way that the brain system functions in direct response to all the other systems that combine with it to create the emergent human being. This is an epitome survival response system, and it isn't primordial at all. In fact, it's an ultimate achievement within any physical reality confine that it appears within.

IS there room in your theory for this?

I've seen each individual to be a non-local unit of consciousness (soul), which is operating a Physical vehicle (Body & Mind), and because the majority 99.9% are not aware of their true existence as a pre-existent & eventual post-existent Soul, they instead in ignorance & forgetfulness (Perhaps on purpose), take themselves to only be a body and mind and only this physical realm, ideas, rules, and thoughts, all of which inherently do exist, however that part of reality is just a tiny snap shot of all there is.

Those non-local units of consciousness are for the most part inherently trapped inside of these physical vehicles until the vehicle passes away or until the individual, through wisdom and meditation, can loosen this consciousness freeing itself from the body, gaining the ability to see the other realms.

These individual units can me ascribed as drops of water that have as their source, an infinite Ocean of water (Absolute Beingness/Consciousness)
edit on 2-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theophorus

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Thiaoouba Prophecy
 




awareness imagines consciousness to be


By using the term "imagines" what you are actually doing is tring to form a mental picture or an image of the terms "awareness" and "consciousness"

Since awareness and consciousness can not be conceived or imagined, your statement is meaningless and thus not true. You have not found the secret to nervana. Sorry

Considering this, and that the rest of your thread stems from the statement quoted , I feel that there is no need to futher quote you until you can expand or enlighten us as to your meaning of the terms awareness, imagines, and consciousness.
edit on 1-1-2013 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-1-2013 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)

Awareness imagines consciousness.
Or to put it another way: Awareness makes the image (imaging) that is seen.
The image that is made of light that is appearing presently (this is inclusive of the 5 senses), is what they call
'consciousness'. This image is made by awareness and seen by awareness.


How can Awareness make or create anything? Does it have a will? Can it will something or create something into existence?

To be conscious of something , is to be aware.


Yes awareness creates all that appears. It has freewill to do. It creates all that appears to exist.

When there is a 'something' to be aware of- this is consciousness.
When there is no 'something' appearing - awareness still is.

Awareness is prior to any appearance and after any appearance.
edit on 2-1-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




Yes awareness creates all that appears. It has freewill to do. It creates all that appears to exist. When there is a 'something' to be aware of- this is consciousness. When there is no 'something' appearing - awareness still is. Awareness is prior to any appearance and after any appearance.

In my direct experience, correlated by various non-dual, buddhist, and greek philosophies, it goes a lil like this:

Awareness is prior to Mind/Ego/Thought, and the Absolute Supreme State is prior to Awareness (In which Awareness merges into)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by galactix
 



humans cannot become God.

God is God

Not sure that I can agree with such a definitive statement as it will depend on too many factors about which we humans have no real information, only faith and belief. If indeed we had all this information, then we would be gods. As far as I can see, we neither have the information to say that God exists, nor to say that he does not exist.


humans can channel the data flow for a time, but it cannot be contained nor even properly remembered. only the truth of the actual experience remains: the illogical proof in the pudding.

Just as (in my opinion) such an equally definitive statement cannot be proved.


in my opinion our first error in imagining God is that we assume Him/Her to be some unimaginably distant and transGalactic entity, responsible for the entire observable universe.
My experience and logic/information tells me that God is much closer to home than that.

and maybe to each believer in God, God is what he or she needs Him or Her to be, and maybe we do indeed create our own God and therefore in effect are our own Gods. We are told in the bible that man was created in the image of the Gods, but maybe the Gods are created in the image in the imaginations of man.

But in contrast, if God is as many great minds suggest, embodied in the laws of physics that govern the universe (as far as we can tell), then God is responsible for the entire universe, but is just not the Person that we make Him or Her out to be.

I have never found the faith, nor the logic that can conclusively prove to or convince me that a personified omnipotent God rules over all, or even part of all creation.

Fear-creating dogma has ruled the minds of modern humans and persuaded them to believe that which was told to them. Isolated societies across the world produced countless versions of a god or gods, and even though within each society, there was/is a common belief and associated dogma, the variety of gods that are identified must make it difficult for anyone to say conclusively which is real and which not. And also, since the specific god for any group serves the purpose that is required for that group, who can claim that any is a false god.


We assume that humans are the ultimate expression of intelegence just short of God.
i submit that humans are NOT the pinnacle material conscious awareness.

still blindly arrogant, we are

agreed but just have to add that if we humans assume that all this, Creation (whatever all that encompasses), is just for us Earthbound humans (all the beings that we are aware of), then this is indeed the pinnacle of arrogance. What a show has been created for our amusement.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 



There is no such thing as a soul, and anyone can be a god to someone else if they can convince them that they are such a god.

You've lost me there. You say it as if it is factual, when really it can be said it's an opinion that's confined to subjective bias.

In example, I remember pre-existing as a Soul, and discussing with other souls being "Born" on "earth", 2 things I had no idea about in that instant. This has HUGE ramifications to your philosophy, why? Because there are others who remember pre-existing as souls as well, or (non-local units of consciousness)

So now you have additional data to account for.


Memories are subjective, and are vulnerable to external influence and manipulation. There are many reason why external manipulation might be employed within a percentage of what I think of as "the memory clouds" of still-corporeal human beings, with the primary reason being the "care and feeding" of the very myth that you have embraced as a direct result of the manipulation of your own memory cloud. Trillions per year in wealth and the power it gives those promoting the myths based on the concept of prior-living souls is obvious, but more important than money are the millions of people per week who pass from this realm to the eternal realm with a full intention of serving the first version of God or Jesus or Mohamed or whatever that shows up to lead them off. Yeah, that sound really mundane and unmagical, but its people who are waiting for you as you pass from here to there. And they act and think like humans.

The fact that a person's memory can become profoundly manipulated under conditions when that person is in a subjective state of mind (like hypnosis - which is very similar to a meditative state, and similarly "open") is very well documented, and this is why hypnosis-recovered memories are not allowed as evidence in a court of law. I believe that you truly remember being a discarnate soul prior to this specific incarnation, but the rest of physical reality (of which you belong, as the corporeal human that you are) insists, by its very rigid structure, that this could not have been the case - whether you remember it or not. Again, this is not a statement that I can't back up with an extremely lengthy presentation that details the precise factors that come together to force this truth to ultimately become self-evident. However, it is an extremely lengthy presentation, and the market doesn't yet exist for it as an available syllabus.I'll let you know if that ever changes.



Your saying the ideas and theories effect what One will see in the afterlife. Which to a certain extant I agree with because Buddhism, gnosticism, and various philosophies discuss how to conquer and overcome the illusions in the afterlife.

Another piece of data you have to account for is that these same branches of thought and philosophies mentioned above, have blueprints that speak of an Enlightenment that can be had when all thought, data, and illusions of subjectivism are dropped, is when the Absolute state shines bright, One that is only revealed when there is nothing brought to it that can be super imposed over it (thought, data, opinion, subjectivity)


Human perception is 100% subjective, and that's all it can ever be. This is why reality anchors - available only within the material realm (which is 100% objective) - are so critical to recognize and to use when one is establishing the "dots" that are required to establish a basic foundation concerning what is real, and - more critically necessary - what cannot ever be real. Sentience is perception translation. No two perceptive minds "see" the same thing, and we all know that this is true. And if someone writes a book at some point in human history that he possesses the one and only way for a seeker of truth to force his perception to transcend the one and only fundamental tenet of perception itself (its capacity for subjectivity), why is it that anyone should believe him that he's actually transformed the basic nature of human perception? Because he claims that it's true?

Seriously. Oh, and nothing that is physical is capable of transforming itself from existing as Relative to existing as Absolute. And if it cannot become Absolute - which it can't - it can't experience an Absolute state of being in any sense whatsoever. Do some non-spiritual reading about what being states are and how they establish primordial identity, and you'll understand why this is impossible.

I'll take a look at your other questions to see if I haven't already answered them here.





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join