GOD is a concept.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Is nature the only thing that is the cause of itself?

Since nature is all there is, then all there is, is the cause of itself.

[Greta]

DAM, let's just say we've already been through my disagreements and after taking a few swipes at each other we part ways.

I'm curious, though. If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to have these views? Much of it seems based on new age thinking such as Alan Watts (old new age , Russell Brand, John Hagelin and various 'What the Bleep Would We Know" type contributors. Were you part of a spiritualist group of some kind? What were your influences?

... and in that I saw that other people were having the exact same thoughts about their reality as me, and this had been going on for centuries - and that this knowledge like all knowledge was recorded in the form of books, and by looking back at the recorded Nondual knowledge - I was able to make sense of what I thought myself to be. Nondual literature was the only knowledge that made any real sense to me. Everything else was about ego, and I knew instinctively that ego was the greatest lie that ever spun out of the web of life.

The key to living with effortless bliss and joy, your natural birthright, is to die before you die and live forever in peace and harmony of unconditional love...and to know that pain and suffering still arise, but what you are at the centre is the I that is never effected by the storm...it's such a beautiful truth.

Thanks for your openness and generosity in answering the question, DAM. I asked because I was keen on Buddhism in my 20s and 30s and find that a lot of your comments are as I read back then. I am also influenced by Buddhist philosophy - I really do think they were on to something - and don't doubt what you say on the forum generally, aside from some pedantic science issues. It's just that I never found that kind of internal focus very helpful for me personally as it's so general and abstract - a long way from the everyday issues that badger us in this life. Some people, like you, swear by this kind of philosophy. I tried it and it didn't sit well with me, not sustainably. Horses for courses.

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.

[Hobbes' Choice]

DAM, let's just say we've already been through my disagreements and after taking a few swipes at each other we part ways.

I'm curious, though. If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to have these views? Much of it seems based on new age thinking such as Alan Watts (old new age , Russell Brand, John Hagelin and various 'What the Bleep Would We Know" type contributors. Were you part of a spiritualist group of some kind? What were your influences?

... and in that I saw that other people were having the exact same thoughts about their reality as me, and this had been going on for centuries - and that this knowledge like all knowledge was recorded in the form of books, and by looking back at the recorded Nondual knowledge - I was able to make sense of what I thought myself to be. Nondual literature was the only knowledge that made any real sense to me. Everything else was about ego, and I knew instinctively that ego was the greatest lie that ever spun out of the web of life.

The key to living with effortless bliss and joy, your natural birthright, is to die before you die and live forever in peace and harmony of unconditional love...and to know that pain and suffering still arise, but what you are at the centre is the I that is never effected by the storm...it's such a beautiful truth.

Thanks for your openness and generosity in answering the question, DAM. I asked because I was keen on Buddhism in my 20s and 30s and find that a lot of your comments are as I read back then. I am also influenced by Buddhist philosophy - I really do think they were on to something - and don't doubt what you say on the forum generally, aside from some pedantic science issues. It's just that I never found that kind of internal focus very helpful for me personally as it's so general and abstract - a long way from the everyday issues that badger us in this life. Some people, like you, swear by this kind of philosophy. I tried it and it didn't sit well with me, not sustainably. Horses for courses.

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.

Buddhism is great but has its limits. Good philosophies descend to cheap religion when they begin to make absurd mystical claims.

[Reflex]

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

[Belinda]

Is nature the only thing that is the cause of itself?

Since nature is all there is, then all there is, is the cause of itself.

[Dontaskme]

Is nature the only thing that is the cause of itself?

Since nature is all there is, then all there is, is the cause of itself.

Don't forget to include, the circle analogy, what begins ends, what ends begins, nothingness sustains.

The causeless cause. An eternal transformation process. Life is an intelligent singular process of transformation without even thinking about it.

[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.

[Dontaskme]

Buddhism is great but has its limits. Good philosophies descend to cheap religion when they begin to make absurd mystical claims.

If there is something here that can possibly make such a claim. Then that same something can just as possibly disclaim any such claim.

Fortunately there is nothing here that can do either. Although it does appears as if there is, albeit illusory.

[Dontaskme]

I tried it and it didn't sit well with me, not sustainably.

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.

Note that no one aka other can ever approach this realisation, it is always and ever it self awareing it self. Awareness aware of itself, an optical illusion of light reflecting itself outward back at itself through the prism of the mind. It cannot approach itself, it is already being itself by this one unitary movement within itself.

It's not sustainable for an assumed entity no more that the shadow of the sun has any light of it's own. This stands alone self shining, nothing sustains that which is self shining.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Is nature the only thing that is the cause of itself?

Since nature is all there is, then all there is, is the cause of itself.

Don't forget to include, the circle analogy, what begins ends, what ends begins, nothingness sustains.

The causeless cause. An eternal transformation process. Life is an intelligent singular process of transformation without even thinking about it.

Oh dear I forgot.
Life is generally not intelligent.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Buddhism is great but has its limits. Good philosophies descend to cheap religion when they begin to make absurd mystical claims.

If there is something here that can possibly make such a claim. Then that same something can just as possibly disclaim any such claim.

Fortunately there is nothing here that can do either. Although it does appears as if there is, albeit illusory.

Keep taking the tabs baby.

[Dontaskme]

Keep taking the tabs baby.

You have never got anything interesting nor intelligent to say to my posts. All you've got is to use cheap quips to make your self feel better. Keep your opinions for someone that cares.


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.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Keep taking the tabs baby.

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.

Like I said whatever you do do not stop the medication.

[Reflex]

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.

It seems to me distinctions are more concrete than that. That is, for all practical reasons, the ONE is more hypothetical than an actuality. To deny the reality of the MANY is as illusory as to deny ONENESS. Unity and diversity are not mutually exclusive, but your approach, at least to those living in the so-called "real world," is just too far out on the fringe.

To the MANY, ONENESS is an "other," to the ONE, the MANY is comprised of space-time image-shadows of the REAL in various configurations. Why? How else to escape the experiential limitations of unqualified infinity?

[Reflex]

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..