How do you define 'God'?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I am holding a pair of sunglasses in my hand. I am the seer, the sunglasses are the seen. I am not the sunglasses. They may be comprised of the same elements, but a car and a skyscraper have the same relationship. I cannot drive a skyscraper, and my car doesn't have an office.

I don't see your point.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

Have you ever had a coin land on its edge? If a coin doesn't land on one of its too sides, what next? Is it suspended in some type of alternate universe?

Land? Of its own accord? No. It had to be placed there. Which is actually a demonstration of how balance requires the cooperation of both sides.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Then what is it standing on? Balance? Then how about a dice? How does a dice fit into your dualistic analogy?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I am holding a pair of sunglasses in my hand. I am the seer, the sunglasses are the seen. I am not the sunglasses. They may be comprised of the same elements, but a car and a skyscraper have the same relationship. I cannot drive a skyscraper, and my car doesn't have an office.

I don't see your point.

The seer is seeing the sunglasses and the hand holding them. The seer is also seeing all that surrounds the hand and sunglasses. The seer is the capacity for all that is contained in the whole present scene - including the thoughts and all sensations (sight, hearing, taste and smell).
All that is seen is in you. No sight that is seen presently can appear without the seeing of it.

The present scene is like the picture on the tv screen - without the screen no picture can appear.
The seer and seen are one.
There is no seer or scene really - it just looks that way - there is just seeing.
The truth is hidden in plain sight.

An intelligent collective array of energy which permeates the Universe.

It 'seems' as if there are many, many things.
Then it is seen that all that exists really is this moment.
This moment 'seems' to be made of the person inside and what is outside the person. It 'seems' to be made of an observer and the observed.
At some point that line goes as well.
Then it is seen that there is just this and this always appears different.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

Then what is it standing on? Balance? Then how about a dice? How does a dice fit into your dualistic analogy?

What part of 'cube' doesn't register with you? Cube. It is perfectly symmetrical, which means two equal sides. If you think duality is a crock, then explain how duality is invalid.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

No sight that is seen presently can appear without the seeing of it.

You seem to be implying that my observation creates what is being observed. But if I get knocked out, that doesn't make what is being observed go away. You make no sense, per the norm. And I'm done with this conversation. It's an utter waste of my time.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

But if I get knocked out, that doesn't make what is being observed go away.

If you get knocked out what exactly are you observing?

And I'm done with this conversation. It's an utter waste of my time.

You run away when I explain to you and when I don't you bully me for not explaining.
What are you observing when you have been knocked out?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

What part of 'cube' doesn't register with you? Cube. It is perfectly symmetrical, which means two equal sides. If you think duality is a crock, then explain how duality is invalid.

You're talking about one dice. I beg you to find anything that is perfectly symmetrical in the universe and you may have a point.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

No sight that is seen presently can appear without the seeing of it.

You seem to be implying that my observation creates what is being observed.

I did not imply this - I think it is an interpretation.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

The seer and the seen - is really one.

I find that when trying to argue a point, it is better to offer sound arguments than to convince by simply telling people what to think. Many people here are anti-authority, and sometimes being an authority rubs people the wrong way.

I keep trying to tell him that. It doesn't help that he can never really explain how he arrived at his conclusions.

I cannot explain how I come to these conclusions but I can get you to look directly for yourself but each time I do you put your fingers in your ears and look the other way.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I cannot explain how I come to these conclusions but I can get you to look directly for yourself but each time I do you put your fingers in your ears and look the other way.

So you're going to pin your incompetence on my inability to achieve the impossible? Your inability to explain your conclusions only proves your incompetence.

Like this:

I did not imply this - I think it is an interpretation.

All I have is interpretation because you MAKE NO SENSE.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If you get knocked out what exactly are you observing?
Does the question not make sense?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

No sight that is seen presently can appear without the seeing of it.

But if I get knocked out, that doesn't make what is being observed go away.

What do you see when you have been knocked out?

reply to post by Risingfall


God is reality.

God is not limited to a person's understanding of reality.

Without God, the existence of everything has no way to come into being, since before there is something, there was nothing.

Or

There is no beginning and everything always was, in some form, somewhere. Forever is a long enough time for God to have evolved by now.

Either way current humanity cannot comprehend reality, in its entirety.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by Risingfall

 

God is reality.

God is not limited to a person's understanding of reality.

Without God, the existence of everything has no way to come into being, since before there is something, there was nothing.

What is real? Is it what can be seen, heard, tasted and touched? When can seeing and hearing happen? Only presently. Is this moment more real than any thing? Can any thing be without this space for it to be in?
What is real?

There is no beginning and everything always was, in some form, somewhere. Forever is a long enough time for God to have evolved by now.

There is no beginning or end to now. How long is now?
Now is constantly changing but now is eternal.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Now, as a concept, is certainly unique. I suppose exploration of 'now' could yield a fuller quality to time.

I heard Alan Watt (not Watts) observe that when you wake up in the morning, you are always you.

Even though you might be different than you were.

Reality, to a human being, is any and everything that is known by him to exist.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Now, as a concept, is certainly unique. I suppose exploration of 'now' could yield a fuller quality to time.

I heard Alan Watt (not Watts) observe that when you wake up in the morning, you are always you.

Even though you might be different than you were.

Now is not a concept, it is not a thing. Now is not an abstraction or an idea - I admit it is a word 'now' but no one can say what now is because it is constantly appearing different.

You are never not now.

reply to post by Risingfall


I have heard before that 'God is love.' I think that we can be happy and feel more safe that God has love, but I think reality is much bigger than limiting God to such. Yin yang and duality, again they are just aspects of our world. I agree that God has many names and that words have many meanings. If I was to narrow down a sentence to answer what God is I would say the creator of the universe. What we are seeing in physical reality is not really physical but a spiritual vibration of energy. Science has said this but the ego still tends to live in a physical world when that has already been proven wrong.