It is obvious that we are all gods.

Bold statement.... I believe it. Arguing about the nonsensical is nonsensical. Believers believe because it helps them find meaning. We all search for meaning. We all create our own meaning. We envelope every facet of that meaning into life. We only experience our minds. Our minds create our world subjectively. We are the creators, we are our afterlife. However alive or dead that aspiration might be in the unknown reality.

To force opinions venomously, like I have before, cannot break what is immaterial and sacred. Only when, the sacred belief is no longer sacred can openness resume. In this hope is my faith... that the prison called "religious faith" be outweighed by tempered reason and what matters most. What we all can call real.

good luck with that.

reply to post by Frankenchrist


Good luck with what? Luck has nothing to do with anything I stated above as I am not aspiring to further an objective goal.

Perspectives on this matter are solely dictated by a persons religion,im not religious,but in my perspective you are full of grade A NONSENSE!

reply to post by IamBoon


I do not believe we are gods, plural. I know we are god, single.
When we as individuals think we are gods, we have mini dictators everywhere. This is world that we see today, everyone thinking they know best.
There is only one god. There is only one anything.
Does a leaf on a tree say that the leaves are gods or does it see that the tree that spawns it is more of a god. Even the tree is not the god, the earth it is growing in is not the god. God is the whole lot, the whole works.
It is possible to know the one true god by looking to the source of you, the source behind the thoughts.
The source of you is god.
Each river may believe it is a separate god, even the ocean may believe it is god. They are both water and are inseparable. When we take a bucket of the water and separate it from the source over time the water will become stagnant and smelly.

true story

reply to post by VicDiaz89


Typical, religious views are not needed for this view when viewed from a non-defensive standpoint. The very act of becoming defensive is a response to an attack/ real or not. I am not attacking , merely stating. And what nonsense am I stating? That the religious is not religious? you tell me . That when someone experiences something it is not belief that conjures the rationale subjectively? nor the reality of the situation? you tell me.

The plight at the end is just my viewpoint, which is admitted in the precluding paragraph. So why must you take offense when there is not one iota of negativity expressed? It is this kind of rationale that perpetuates the ignorant to remain just so. However, I have been hard-pressed to find any idea expressed in the OP conflicting or untrue in any sense. No matter what viewpoint I played devil's advocate with.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Is this god metaphorical like mine? Or are you hinting at something existentially?

P.S> Using a statement such as "There is only one anything." in an argument/debate is not a wise idea. Especially because the very word "anything" means more than one thing. I can see what you are saying, metaphysically, but that is asking for the hounds of debate to be unleashed.

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Is this god metaphorical like mine? Or are you hinting at something existentially?

If you use god metaphoricaly, then god only exists as a metaphor.

therefore you are not a god, but a word. a character.


Im superman.

reply to post by Frankenchrist


If I use god as a metaphor then what is a meta-- phor? Seems god can only be used as a metaphor you know? However, when used in the context I presented it in the metaphor is about as non-metaphoric and sensible as it can get. If there is a problem with what I stated please let me know.

I want my beliefs to be bullet-proof and if they are not then I relinquish them, which is key to understanding.

reply to post by IamBoon


The seer is the one thing. The seer sees imagines that represent the whole world. The seer and the world of many 'things' come as one package. This one package is god.
The enviroment envelopes you, if you think you can remove yourself from the enviroment you will suffer.
The nucleus of a cell is not the controller it has sensers on the outside and moves with the enviroment.
The enviroment is the controller. However the enviroment and organism work as one.
The enviroment can not appear separate to the observer/feeler/senser.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Actually, all reasonable logic would suggest that the removal of "self" from the world and sensory affliction would cause suffering to disappear.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by IamBoon

 

The seer is the one thing. The seer sees imagines that represent the whole world. The seer and the world of many 'things' come as one package. This one package is god.
The enviroment envelopes you, if you think you can remove yourself from the enviroment you will suffer.
The nucleus of a cell is not the controller it has sensers on the outside and moves with the enviroment.
The enviroment is the controller. However the enviroment and organism work as one.
The enviroment can not appear separate to the observer/feeler/senser.

THe one package is "self". and there are many "self(s)". If there is a definitive "seer" then it can appear separate... it is called dualism. The very act of subjectivity demands it and objectivity is unknown through it. Objects working towards there own ends.... what is the sensor of the immaterial mind? What "environment" precludes it or demands it?

This is getting a bit metaphysical which . while stimulating intellectually, has never through the course of philosophy merited much worth to what occurs in the material world. Which is what the OP indicates.Are you arguing that everything we experience is not "mind"?

If you are stating everything is related then that is obvious.

What are you relating as "god" and what are the attributes thereof? I am curious. The objective (inanimate) universe? Or are you suggesting the universe is conscious? In what way? On what grounds?

reply to post by IamBoon


The one package is Self. Sorry i called it god, i know a lot of people don't like that word but to me it means the same as self.
The definite 'seer' can appear separate which indicates duality. The words 'appear separate' indicate that this is just an appearance of separation. If we go further into that and ask is there ever a time that a 'seer' appears without some 'thing' to experience. So can the 'seer' ever in reality appear separate.
Separation is a lie that has not been questioned.

The objective does not matter. There is no matter to matter.
There is the experience.
There is 'this'.
Nothing more and nothing less.
It is complete.

This completeness is god, the self, the atman, the whole lot.
Here it is.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by IamBoon

 

The one package is Self. Sorry i called it god, i know a lot of people don't like that word but to me it means the same as self.
The definite 'seer' can appear separate which indicates duality. The words 'appear separate' indicate that this is just an appearance of separation. If we go further into that and ask is there ever a time that a 'seer' appears without some 'thing' to experience. So can the 'seer' ever in reality appear separate.
Separation is a lie that has not been questioned.

The objective does not matter. There is no matter to matter.
There is the experience.
There is 'this'.
Nothing more and nothing less.
It is complete.

This completeness is god, the self, the atman, the whole lot.
Here it is.

edit on 2-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

The objective does matter... it is only unknown. That is the real mystery in my opinion. I believe the"self" is god in a very loose sense of the word. Separation is very much real in my opinion thus far. To say that something is "one" yet it has "parts" is kinda illogical. A part-less particle? A part-less mechanism? It seems you are inferring the construct of "self" eliminates the objective construct of outlying matter... The fact that we both have "self" indicates that our realities are in fact "separate" as there is no indicator of any connection to the outlying sources from which it stems yet we interact. And also it is very obvious that there are constituent parts that make no sense without underlying and unknown forces. The fact that they are unknown almost certainly indicates separation of some sort.

What is your response to this?

reply to post by IamBoon


When we take mechanisms apart do we then have a working model in our hand or do we a a machine that no longer works?
Imagine that the entire universe is a perfectly working watch.
The watch is the whole 'thing'.
Then a cog imagines that it can do what it wills inspite of the watch.
Just because the cog believes this assumption does not make it true.

All the cogs believe they are gods, and each one suffers because it resists the will of the watch.
The wise cog sees the watch and knows it is the watch.
The wise cog can sit back and know that the watch takes care of it, it has to do nothing now, all is taken care of.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Ok so you are stating we are all in the universe and a part of it. Not separate from it. Or else we would not exist. I agree.

I do not see how this relates to our perceptions of the universe being determined by undetermined factors that can never be validated which is the basis of my OP. I am trying to put that in perspective.

Regardless if we live on one rock called the Earth, by us, does not mean we are "one" with it.By contrast there can be no "one" as one cannot perceive itself without being constituent of the one. Again, the dilemma of a part-less particle.

reply to post by IamBoon


Remove the self and all suffering will go. We want the suffering to go, so find the sufferer. The self is not the sufferer. The self experiences the sufferer. The self hears 'i am suffering' but who says this and who hears this?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by IamBoon

 

Remove the self and all suffering will go. We want the suffering to go, so find the sufferer. The self is not the sufferer. The self experiences the sufferer. The self hears 'i am suffering' but who says this and who hears this?

Yeah, ok.I get it. That real issue is the finite nature of self. The longing for it to continue and the hopeless science behind the rationale of that hypothesis.