God is an Impossibility

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:07 am
No, I am up to date, I was just checking to see if you were...by asking you the question of who or what is the knower?

And finally, you have said what I've been saying all along albeit in a different way to you. Which is there is no knower because there is no other than the knower, and that knower is you.

However, the identified you cannot know absolutely everything, because it's only a portion of the absolute knowing via the particular experience being experienced...the identified character is just one of an infinite of experiences the absolute knower is experiencing.

The identified knower is the known...the known is known by the unknown absolute knower.

There is here the absolute relative to itself only.

And just as it cannot know itself except in this conception, the conception of itself, as and through the image of itself...this is how God becomes known.

God is just another word for what is here right now ever present...this absolute undeniable immediate shining presence...that cannot be named, except in this conception.

If you don't like the word God..then you can just substitute it for what ever you believe is this self shining reality..it'll make no difference to reality, for reality is this here and now nowhere without doubt or error with or without you..

It doesn't leave or enter here, there is only here. NOW HERE

It's never not here.
The Absolute is another term for God and there are many other terms.

Note your 'this' self-shining reality.
Regardless of the names used, the point is you would end up with sticking to something, i.e. 'this' 'that' 'it' or whatever is reified.

You do not realize it but on this matter you are entrapped by a primal instinct to reify.
Can you give up reification and do not end with with reification on this issue?

The point is there is nothing to gain with the primal compulsion to reify except it is purely psychological to deal with an existential crisis for the individual which in a way is VERY selfish.
The problem is this individual selfishness indirectly support group theism which has contributed to terrible theistic related evils and violence, e.g. genocides, mass rapes, murders, killings, oppression, and all sorts of evil acts and this is so glaring with theistic Islam.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7077
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:45 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm

You do not realize it but on this matter you are entrapped by a primal instinct to reify.
Can you give up reification and do not end with with reification on this issue?
Yes, I can.

That which is able to reify..must also be able to un-reify.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
The point is there is nothing to gain with the primal compulsion to reify except it is purely psychological to deal with an existential crisis for the individual which in a way is VERY selfish.
The problem is this individual selfishness indirectly support group theism which has contributed to terrible theistic related evils and violence, e.g. genocides, mass rapes, murders, killings, oppression, and all sorts of evil acts and this is so glaring with theistic Islam.
I absolutely agree with your point.

But do you agree with my point, in that if there is here the appearance of one being able to reify...then that one must also be able to un-reify what it is reifying?

.

When that which is known is unknown by that which thinks is knowing the knowing....an understanding dawns...and all that's left is what's left, which is this ulitmate unknown (self shining) (enlightened) unoccupied empty beingness full of itself...and this is what the enlightened call God.

The thing is VA....one cannot negate, reduce this down to absolute zero, without creating one that can do that...because nothing is everything. And everything is nothing.

It's a catch 22 ..and is why the Hindu's call it... neti neti ..net i net i

Image

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:03 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:45 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm

You do not realize it but on this matter you are entrapped by a primal instinct to reify.
Can you give up reification and do not end with with reification on this issue?
Yes, I can.

That which is able to reify..must also be able to un-reify.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
The point is there is nothing to gain with the primal compulsion to reify except it is purely psychological to deal with an existential crisis for the individual which in a way is VERY selfish.
The problem is this individual selfishness indirectly support group theism which has contributed to terrible theistic related evils and violence, e.g. genocides, mass rapes, murders, killings, oppression, and all sorts of evil acts and this is so glaring with theistic Islam.
I absolutely agree with your point.

But do you agree with my point, in that if there is here the appearance of one being able to reify...then that one must also be able to un-reify what it is reifying?
Just do not engage in reification.
It is not unreify per se but rather one has to change one's neural connection to avoid trigger reification.
It is like having a certain phobia [say spiders] and doing the necessary to change the relevant neural connections so that one do not have the phobia of spiders at all.

When that which is known is unknown by that which thinks is knowing the knowing....an understanding dawns...and all that's left is what's left, which is this ultimate unknown (self shining) (enlightened) unoccupied empty beingness full of itself...and this is what the enlightened call God.

The thing is VA....one cannot negate, reduce this down to absolute zero, without creating one that can do that...because nothing is everything. And everything is nothing.
Note the above bolded reeks of reifications.
The challenge for you is how to avoid the reifications.
It's a catch 22 ..and is why the Hindu's call it... neti neti ..net i net i
Catch 22 is dualism.
As I had mentioned I was into Advaita Vedanta [Jnana] for a long time and obviously I am aware of the concept of neti neti i.e. 'not this, not this' 'not this, not that'.
But somehow there is the very strong tendency of the idea of Brahman to draw the followers toward reification as I have pointed out in your posts.

A quick search reference:
Wiki wrote:In Hinduism, and in particular Jnana Yoga and Advaita Vedanta, neti neti (नेति नेति) is a Sanskrit expression which means "not this, not this", or "neither this, nor that" (neti is sandhi from na iti "not so").

It is found in the Upanishads and the Avadhuta Gita and constitutes an analytical meditation helping a person to understand the nature of Brahman by first understanding what is not Brahman.

It corresponds to the western via negativa, a mystical approach that forms a part of the tradition of apophatic theology.
One of the key elements of Jnana Yoga practice is often a "neti neti search."

The purpose of the exercise is to negate rationalizations and other distractions from the non-conceptual meditative awareness of reality.
The above still imply reification of Brahman as something which is not from the conventional conceptualization.

Point is, Advaita Vedanta avoids/negates conceptualization but missed to negate idealization [note my repetition of philosophical ideas in contrast to concepts].
You just do not have the philosophical mesh to filter out what philosophical-ideas are.
Idealization is a very refine philosophical aspect of reasoning.
This is where the Buddha detected the difference and introduced his non-reificating Buddhism.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7077
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
Just do not engage in reification.
It is not unreify per se but rather one has to change one's neural connection to avoid trigger reification.
I don't agree with that, because that's implying there is a you that can avoid you.


Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:03 am
It is like having a certain phobia [say spiders] and doing the necessary to change the relevant neural connections so that one do not have the phobia of spiders at all.
This is synonymous to the rope and snake idea. Knowing the snake is just the rope.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
Catch 22 is dualism.
As I had mentioned I was into Advaita Vedanta [Jnana] for a long time and obviously I am aware of the concept of neti neti i.e. 'not this, not this' 'not this, not that'.
But somehow there is the very strong tendency of the idea of Brahman to draw the followers toward reification as I have pointed out in your posts.
Brahman is just another word for source.
Source cannot be removed or negated, as that would be source negating itself. Source can never be unsourced.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
The purpose of the exercise is to negate rationalizations and other distractions from the non-conceptual meditative awareness of reality.

The above still imply reification of Brahman as something which is not from the conventional conceptualization.
I don't agree. You're assuming there is a something that can approach the stateless state of nondual awareness. It doesn't work like that. You cannot approach what you are. You are already being what you are. There is no room to approach it...or move away from it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
Point is, Advaita Vedanta avoids/negates conceptualization but missed to negate idealization [note my repetition of philosophical ideas in contrast to concepts].
I've no idea what you mean by avoids/negates ''idealization'' ?

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
You just do not have the philosophical mesh to filter out what philosophical-ideas are.
Idealization is a very refine philosophical aspect of reasoning.
This is where the Buddha detected the difference and introduced his non-reificating Buddhism.
I have no idea what you mean by this statement, sorry.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:36 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
Just do not engage in reification.
It is not unreify per se but rather one has to change one's neural connection to avoid trigger reification.
I don't agree with that, because that's implying there is a you that can avoid you.
How can you disagree with something you do not understand yet?
Your postings indicate you are reifying.

For example,
-say initially you are afraid of spiders.
-then after some review you claimed you are no longer afraid of spiders.
-when a spider is presented you may not jump and shrieked like the past, but your body language show that you are still afraid of spiders, i.e. not fully cured of Arachnophobia [fears of spider].

In this case, your postings indicate you are still reifying something out of nothing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:03 am
It is like having a certain phobia [say spiders] and doing the necessary to change the relevant neural connections so that one do not have the phobia of spiders at all.
This is synonymous to the rope and snake idea. Knowing the snake is just the rope.
It is quite different.
In the case of a rope and snake, we can use a torchlight to shine on the rope or get the person to go near and pick up the rope to confirm it is not a snake.

Generally, [with exceptions] to cure a phobia will take months of education and reconditions to rewire the neurons necessary to cure the phobia.
Understanding the cause of a phobia is actually less important than focusing on how to treat the avoidance behavior that has developed over time.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20355162
However note to reverse the propensity to reify in the case of theism is much more complex and can take a very long time.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
Catch 22 is dualism.
As I had mentioned I was into Advaita Vedanta [Jnana] for a long time and obviously I am aware of the concept of neti neti i.e. 'not this, not this' 'not this, not that'.
But somehow there is the very strong tendency of the idea of Brahman to draw the followers toward reification as I have pointed out in your posts.
Brahman is just another word for source.
Source cannot be removed or negated, as that would be source negating itself. Source can never be unsourced.
That is the point, you are stuck to the idea of something, in this case, the source.

It is to be something rather than nothing.
It can be very eerie and scary to stand on nothing.
That is why you are compelled to reify something theistic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
The purpose of the exercise is to negate rationalizations and other distractions from the non-conceptual meditative awareness of reality.

The above still imply reification of Brahman as something which is not from the conventional conceptualization.
I don't agree. You're assuming there is a something that can approach the stateless state of nondual awareness. It doesn't work like that. You cannot approach what you are. You are already being what you are. There is no room to approach it...or move away from it.
This is the issue.
In the ultimate analysis, you are always referring to something, i.e. clinging to something.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
Point is, Advaita Vedanta avoids/negates conceptualization but missed to negate idealization [note my repetition of philosophical ideas in contrast to concepts].
I've no idea what you mean by avoids/negates ''idealization'' ?
Idealization is some refined process in the mind that compels a person to reify.

Note Kant [mine];
Kant in CPR wrote:They [idealization of reifications] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397 -NKS
Note, even the wisest will be tempted by the reified illusion.

The idealization spring from some refine processes of reasoning in the brain;
Kant wrote:These conclusions [reifications] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
B397 - NKS
Instead of simply brushing it off, you should make an attempt to understand [not necessary agree with] what it is all about.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
You just do not have the philosophical mesh to filter out what philosophical-ideas are.
Idealization is a very refine philosophical aspect of reasoning.
This is where the Buddha detected the difference and introduced his non-reificating Buddhism.
I have no idea what you mean by this statement, sorry.
If you want to understand [not necessary to agree with], you will have to read up Kant and Buddhism-proper.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7077
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:00 pm

Brahman is just another word for source.
Source cannot be removed or negated, as that would be source negating itself. Source can never be unsourced.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:36 am
That is the point, you are stuck to the idea of something, in this case, the source.

It is to be something rather than nothing.
It can be very eerie and scary to stand on nothing.
That is why you are compelled to reify something theistic.
The you that is compelled to reify something theistic stands on nothing.

The you stuck to the idea of something, in this case, the source...is the idea.

What is an idea? .. I have no idea.

.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5038
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm

Impossibility is impossible through the possible.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:48 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:00 pm
Brahman is just another word for source.
Source cannot be removed or negated, as that would be source negating itself. Source can never be unsourced.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:36 am
That is the point, you are stuck to the idea of something, in this case, the source.

It is to be something rather than nothing.
It can be very eerie and scary to stand on nothing.
That is why you are compelled to reify something theistic.
The you that is compelled to reify something theistic stands on nothing.

The you stuck to the idea of something, in this case, the source...is the idea.

What is an idea? .. I have no idea.
This philosophical idea source or whatever[ that you think is real is an illusion.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Impossibility is impossible through the possible.
You are the possible.
So why are you clamoring for the impossible.

Why the possible cling to an impossibility is due to a psychological drive, note the clue from Hume.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7077
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:48 am
This philosophical idea source or whatever[ that you think is real is an illusion.
Yeah, it's a real illusion.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7077
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Impossibility is impossible through the possible.
You are the possible.
So why are you clamoring for the impossible.

Why the possible cling to an impossibility is due to a psychological drive, note the clue from Hume.
You are preempting other peoples ideas as if they were your own.

Did you not understand Eodnhoj7's point?

There was no way there was any ''clamoring for the impossible'' OR any ''cling to an impossibility is due to a psychological drive'' ...in Eodnhoj7's point.

Why are you putting words in other peoples mouths?



_______
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Impossibility is impossible through the possible.
This was a perfect example/point showing why Impossibility is impossible through the possible.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:07 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:48 am
This philosophical idea source or whatever[ that you think is real is an illusion.
Yeah, it's a real illusion.
So you went home scared and accepting the rope is a real snake?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:08 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:37 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Impossibility is impossible through the possible.
You are the possible.
So why are you clamoring for the impossible.

Why the possible cling to an impossibility is due to a psychological drive, note the clue from Hume.
You are preempting other peoples ideas as if they were your own.

Did you not understand Eodnhoj7's point?

There was no way there was any ''clamoring for the impossible'' OR any ''cling to an impossibility is due to a psychological drive'' ...in Eodnhoj7's point.

Why are you putting words in other peoples mouths?



_______
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Impossibility is impossible through the possible.
This was a perfect example/point showing why Impossibility is impossible through the possible.
Note this is a discussion.
If you think I misinterpreted [could be your bad communication or my bad comprehension] your point, just clarify.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7077
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:07 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:48 am
This philosophical idea source or whatever[ that you think is real is an illusion.
Yeah, it's a real illusion.
So you went home scared and accepting the rope is a real snake?
Both the snake and the rope have to be part of the illusion to know the difference.

Didn't run home scared, walked home calmly and relieved to have known the difference.

.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7077
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:12 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:08 am
Note this is a discussion.
If you think I misinterpreted [could be your bad communication or my bad comprehension] your point, just clarify.
I've already clarified. If you are looking for more clarification on the perfectness of the pointing.. Eodnhoj7 will provide it.

.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests