GOD is a concept.

[Dontaskme]

Can't say I really disagree with you, DAM, but your approach has too much fluff for my taste.

Each to their own taste, for it's only ever all one taste dreaming difference tastes where there are none.

To deny the reality of the MANY is as illusory as to deny ONENESS.

Huh? Where was any denial made?

I said, one is dreaming is it many, that only appears to be, for anything to be, one has to be in order to be. This cannot be denied - this cannot not be - you cannot not have something so to speak.

[Dontaskme]

If life is a circle, and it needs to be if it is beginningless and endless, an absolute cause or an absolute effect cannot be identified for every point in the circle would represent the cause and effect. Life is causeless and effect-less, which means that an end as an effect cannot be found either.

That is consistent with what I've said many times: Creatorship is not an attribute of God (the ONE), but rather the aggregate of his acting nature..

Yes, I agree with you.

A forest does not exist, only the trees exists. When looking at a forest, you don't see the forest, you only see trees. It's the same with space, space only exists in relation to an object seen, we only see the object not the space, we don't look at the space, we look directly at the object, but without the space there can be no object to see. Space is there, but has never been seen, space is known only in relation to the object.

So the question is...if the object is seen in relationship to the space in which it appears, and the space cannot be seen, who is actually seeing the object?

[Dontaskme]

Note that a physicalist approach arrives at the same conclusion as you, Buddhists etc - that on some level everything is logically part of a larger entity.

Conclusions cannot be drawn by any man made knowledge Greta. Man cannot know anything about himself or reality with any certainty. But yes, the physicalist's are on the same search for home, as are the mystics, except the physicalist usually takes the long road to arrive home, whereas the mystics are already home.
The large and the small, the micro and the macrocosm...both co-exist within the same one dimension of here now.

[Belinda]

DontAskMe asked:

So the question is...if the object is seen in relationship to the space in which it appears, and the space cannot be seen, who is actually seeing the object?

The self.

Me finds me by deciding what is me and what is not-me.

You find you by deciding what is you and what is not-you.

He finds he by deciding what is he and what is not-he.

There's a spectrum of identification with an other. One person is happy and functions well identifying with another person, an ideology, a profession, a diagnosis, a loss, or whatever. Another person is unhappy identifying with whatever.

Sure, God is a concept. Concept C suits one individual but might not make another individual happy or good.

The OP failed to define what we are to suppose that 'God' means.

[Dontaskme]

DontAskMe asked:

So the question is...if the object is seen in relationship to the space in which it appears, and the space cannot be seen, who is actually seeing the object?

The self.

Me finds me by deciding what is me and what is not-me.

You find you by deciding what is you and what is not-you.

He finds he by deciding what is he and what is not-he.

Thanks Belinda... ... The self does not exist the way thought thinks it does..let me try and explain.

The who looking at an object is the space itself. The space in which the object is appearing. The object can't look at itself, because it's only a projection of the space it's appearing in, so an object/projection can never know or see itself...things are only known as they are reflected by that which is not a thing.
So in a sense the seer and knower is here and not here at the same time.

The space gives the object it's apparent existence, but the object is actually no thing other than the space in which it's appearing - appearing to be outside of itself as an object seen. No thing is doing this...because space is not a thing - it's that which projects all things known in the instant they appear one with the knowing. That seer and knower is not a thing to be known by what it knows. It's already this immediate knowing...one with itself.

The seer/ knower is unknowable even to itself as it's only knowable source is in it's own self reflected image/ object that cannot know anything. This is the divine paradox.

To reiterate...

An object is an illusion of space only. An object is known not by the object itself, but by the space which is reflecting it ..as the space is inseparable from the object it knows, it's all one thing, which is no thing objectifying itself as other.

That's why there is no self that can be found in an object, the self is only ever one reflecting itself as an object of it's own desire, as a mirage. The object seen is inseparable from the one seeing it, this is how oneness is known, but never seen, as the seer can only see itself in it's own imaginary reflection...and never by looking directly at itself, since there is no thing there.


The image of self is known as it is imaged by that which has no image, so in effect no image has ever been seen, only known.

This might not make sense to the mind of man right now, but on further investigation it cannot be denied. Therefore the self is an illusion, it is there and not there at the same time.

The OP failed to define what we are to suppose that 'God' means.

That's because a concept doesn't exist. A concept doesn't have any meaning until one is given to it. The one giving meaning to a concept is without meaning, so meaning and meaninglessness are both concepts of opposites and must exist in the same simultaneous moment of the timeless now...all things known are concepts, known by that which is not a concept, all concepts exist together in the same one knower and not knower.. can't have one without the other. The inconceivable conception.

There cannot be a not knower, there is only knowing - one with the knowing. And you are that, there is no other, because there is no other than that knowing.