So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12369
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 am
You stated it was spontaneous thus it has to be accepted but I don't think a five years old has sufficient competence of critical thinking to handle such a question efficiently and thus it could go either way. Fortunately there is nothing seriously negative in your direction.
But it's not up to you to judge or speak up about something that is not your direct experience. No one can know what goes on in the mind of another person, especially the mind of a child. I really don't believe that we can ever know the mind of another, and so to think we do is a grave error, because we are each and all a ''never to be repeated'' unique expression of infinity. Anyone who begs to differ is in my opinion coming from a closed shallow constricted limited mindset.

I was a naturally inquisitive and deep thinking child. Children are not what adults think or believe they are, they are in essence just mini adults. They can remind grown-ups a thing or two about things that they themselves have forgotten about, they can remind adults how to be blissfully peaceful and always in the moment. Really, most adults today are just children inside, I am one of them, the child within me has never left me, and never will.

That doesn't make me a weak person who cannot defend myself. I obviously had to learn some pretty tough skills on how to interact with the big ego people, but I never faltered or fainted. I was incredibly strong emotionally. Never did I shy away from growing my sense of belonging to the bigger picture rather than just accepting the lie that I was just this one isolated separate little ''me'' and the world out there was separate from 'me'


For some reason,something when awry as we moved out of the child stage of our lives..as we became more competitive and ego driven we kind of left the garden so to speak, but this didn't feel right for me, I didn't feel comfortable with this ego life, I wanted to return to the garden that was my natural home, from where I came from which was the child within me. I learnt to be my own mother and father, lover and best friend to myself. Yes, I learnt that only I was going to love me and stay with me, yes, I was definitely the one.

At home with the beloved.
Your experiences above has many positives to it but there are also many perspectives one can view them.

For a child, other than what is given in the DNA/RNA, a child is almost a "blank state" "tabula rasa" to be filled in and a natural construction and attachment to a developing self-consciousness. It is during such a phase of life where a child can easily have a sense of detachment. Maybe [note maybe] you were more conscious of these process of that is going on to ask the question 'Who Am I".

Personally I have had various weird experiences re the 'self' when I was very young [not 5 but ?7-9] but was not driven to ask 'who am I.' Such experiences are significant and they are not easily erased from one's childhood memories. I believe these memories are what drove me into the spiritual [was never religious] path. However after extensive readings and research I have found answers [researched findings] that explain those specific experiences of re the 'self' within psychology and neurosciences. I was a bit disappointed in the beginning [ego] but further explorations convinced me they are all psychological activities.

DNA wise there is a fundamental generic state for ALL human beings. When one understand say the digestive system of a human being, we can predict the core principles [not forms] are the same for all humans even babies.
We have learned almost everything there is to know about the digestive system but relatively very 'little' about the brain.
I believe whatever mystery of altered state of consciousness humans has proclaimed from their brain/mind can be explained via the processes in the brain in time when we know more of the workings of the brain as I had discovered the truth of what I thought was weird and strange.

My point is, we have to be very open there are verifiable evidences to what [no matter how strange and mysterious] we believe rather than hastily conclude based on own limited knowledge and the limited knowledge from the database of the collective [Science for e.g.].

Thus what I have been countering is those who claimed [concluded] there is a God need to suspend their 100% certainty God exists absolutely as an Absolute, Oneness, etc.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12369
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 amIn advaita-vedanta there is the belief there is still the individual atman [soul] that transmigrate after the physical death of the person to another entity.
I have never heard of such. And besides, this kind of belief can be interpreted in as many ways as the imagination can stretch. But to me, all it means is there's just this one energy that cannot be created nor destroyed, aka its infinite without any KNOWN beginning nor ending, its the groundless unchanging substrate aka source of all manifestation..and this boundless constant unchanging unmoved mover, by constrast is constantly changing in the illusory sense from one form to another, which feels about right to me. Obviously other people are going to make up their own minds about how they vision their reality.

Advaita, the bible, the koran, or just about any other esoteric knowledge you can think of is of no acceptation, in that they're all just like any other story written by the mind that is human imagination. It's all dream story at the end of the day, because no one has ever seen a mind.
There are a lot of difference between Advaita [relatively more refined] and the Abrahamic Bible & Quran [crude] in terms of spirituality.

The Abrahamic doctrine believe the self is the permanent soul [an illusion] that survives physical death which will go the heaven with eternal life if one is a believer or to hell if one is a non-believer, which is within the control of a God [an illusion].

Advaita on the other belief the self [atman] is like the drop of water destined [if one work at it positively] to merge with the one ocean [Brahman].
Advaita believe the idea of a person and soul is an illusion but then it still fall back on the bigger illusion, i.e. the idea of Brahman, God, Absolute, Oneness or the likes.

Also, the belief that belief is real, is just a myth, its a mentally created fictional story. The belief in any thing has to dispelled, you do not have to believe in reality, reality ''JUST IS'' with and without the belief.

And in that sense one moves away from belief to the clarity that is right here now always right in front of our face, closer that our very own skin.
Obviously if we are to hold onto the belief we are ''separate beings'' then without that belief there is no movie of ''I''
So in essense we are basically creating our own dream world of what we believe to be HERE, in this dream world full of believed fictional characters within the dream of separation...in that if there is No belief, there is no movie of ''I''
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 amNevertheless you believe in the Absolute, Oneness, Pure Awareness, and the likes.
I have argued this is an illusion. I invite you to prove me wrong on this point.
But like I've explained above, the belief is in the dream of separation. In reality there is no requirement for belief, for you are without doubt or error, you don't have to believe you are. Throw away the belief which is fictional, and see beyond the belief to the sea of clarity.

Obviously and I repeat, you ARE no thing and everything, but in order to be a ''separate someone'' that dynamic requires a belief. One FIRST needs to BE before one can be (another) aka a (belief). The 'other' is your 'identity' as believed, the fictional story of separation. A dream within the infinite dreamer, which is always and ever YOU this immediate self evident ''first person appearance'' where all ''other'' appearances are couched always and forever within that ''first person subjective appearance'' it can't be any other way.

That there appears to be ''others'' outside of you, is an assumptive belief,which is not real. For there is no ''objective world'' existing outside of your ''first person appearance.'' its all IN YOU.

Now, you either ''get this'' or you don't. If you don't, then there is no way in hell anyone is ever going to convince you OTHERWISE from your own belief as to what you believe reality IS...''getting it'' is to see that there is nothing to get, and to see that you are THIS without having to believe you are.

YOU cannot be an experience, neither can YOU experience the absence of YOU. The ''experience'' is within the dream of separation, the fictional story of I
All couched within what is always here and real aka ONENESS. It's this right here / nowhere.
NO ONE is being IT, ..IT, is being no one and everyone.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 amI believe the aggressive one sided slogans of non-duality and 'No You, No Me' is counter productive overall in life as such a view portrays the ego and personal identity as negative as if it is evil.
No it's not really, because it's all but a mind story arising and falling in you, just as any thought arises and falls within you, just as any sensation arises and falls within you. Notice that you never arise and fall, you don't change, only thoughts you have about you change.

This is so difficult to explain to someone who doesn't get it, so its pointless to even try. But here is another rub, 'you' don't ever 'get this' anyway. THIS realisation 'gets you', only when life evloves that in 'you' and not one second before.
You cannot judge and conclude I do not have and understand such 'realization'. I cannot get into your empirical mind/brain and vice versa.
The only way out of this dilemma is to discuss the points based on critical thinking and rational philosophically based arguments.

Note I was once in advaita for a long time, so I do understand what non-duality is all about.

I doubled up by listening to Youtube videos of the various non-dualists, e.g. Tony Parson, Robert Wolfe, Lisa Cairns, Nathalie Gray and many others. These people are quick to remind their interviewers there is no you, person, I, etc. when such are naturally raised in any conversations. Such dogmatic views of no-Me, no-You, no-I is too extreme, hindering and negative in the overall scheme of humanity and preservation of the human species.

If this is no Me, no You, no I is the ultimate purpose of the individual[s] and humanity, we should direct Science to research to numb such consciousness of no Me, no You, no I in young children before they get into grip with them.

That humans [all normal] the highest evolved living things with self-awarenesss of "I-ness" is critical for some purpose. Other higher animals are also endowed with the potential for self-awareness but no "I-ness." As such this 'I-ness' must be something highly adaptive and serve some very critical purposes toward survival in a very complex and threatening world.

As I had stated there is non-dualism in Buddhism but such a state of non-dualism is always expressed in a balanced manner rather than going to the extreme of suppressing the no-Me, no-You, no-I totally.

I have explained in other posts on how you were conflating [not thinking critically] the elements and your point is grounded on supralimal feelings for the illusory Absolute.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:24 amI believe whatever mystery of altered state of consciousness humans has proclaimed from their brain/mind can be explained via the processes in the brain in time when we know more of the workings of the brain as I had discovered the truth of what I thought was weird and strange.
There is no proof that consciousness is human. Where is ''human consciousness'' happening in your brain? ..please explain?

You don't really have any proof that ''you'' are happening inside your brain ...do you? ..your just making it all up aren't you?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:24 amThus what I have been countering is those who claimed [concluded] there is a God need to suspend their 100% certainty God exists absolutely as an Absolute, Oneness, etc.
Then you'll also have to suspend the ''I'' claimer who is claiming to make the following claim ....

''Thus what I have been countering is those who claimed [concluded] there is a God need to suspend their 100% certainty God exists absolutely as an Absolute, Oneness, etc.''

Can you suspend the ''I'' claimer in the bolded sentence? ..does that ''I'' claimer exist with 100% certainty?

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:14 amNevertheless you believe in the Absolute, Oneness, Pure Awareness, and the likes.
No I don't, that's your belief that I believe that. You have no proof of me existing, you have proof of you.

I don't have to believe in myself, I know myself directly, by direct experience.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:14 amI have argued this is an illusion. I invite you to prove me wrong on this point.
You still haven't dis-proved how the illusion can and will exist in the first place...with or without your argument of what this illusion is or is not?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:14 amI believe the aggressive one sided slogans of non-duality and 'No You, No Me' is counter productive overall in life as such a view portrays the ego and personal identity as negative as if it is evil.
No it's not, that's just your own perception and interpretation of what is being spoken about. The nondual speakers are not denying there is 'no you', they include that 'the you' is a dream character within the dream of separation. It's not that there is no 'you' period!! ..its that there is no 'separate you'

And while we on this subject of there being no God...how come there is no God, but its okay for there to be a YOU?

Who made you? ..did you make you? ..how did you make yourself..please explain?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:14 amYou cannot judge and conclude I do not have and understand such 'realization'. I cannot get into your empirical mind/brain and vice versa.
As long as you continue to believe that this 'me' is happening inside an ''empirical brain'' you will never understand yourself.


Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:14 amThe only way out of this dilemma is to discuss the points based on critical thinking and rational philosophically based arguments.
The only way we can do that is when we are absolutely sure 100% certain ''who'' and ''where'' the thinker is happening?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:14 amNote I was once in advaita for a long time, so I do understand what non-duality is all about.
Do you, please share with us all what its all about?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:14 amI doubled up by listening to Youtube videos of the various non-dualists, e.g. Tony Parson, Robert Wolfe, Lisa Cairns, Nathalie Gray and many others. These people are quick to remind their interviewers there is no you, person, I, etc. when such are naturally raised in any conversations. Such dogmatic views of no-Me, no-You, no-I is too extreme, hindering and negative in the overall scheme of humanity and preservation of the human species.
Too extreme eh, ...hmm, you don't like the idea there is no-me, no-you, no-I ...but the idea that God is an Impossibility is not too extreme at all is it, you are absolutely certain about that aren't you...wow, I wonder how you don't like the idea of God, yet when there is no ''me'' you get all upset and say ooh, thats so evil and negative.

So tell me, where did this ''me'' come from exactly? ...where is it located exactly?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:14 amIf this is no Me, no You, no I is the ultimate purpose of the individual[s] and humanity, we should direct Science to research to numb such consciousness of no Me, no You, no I in young children before they get into grip with them.
No need for that, like I said, I already knew as a child my true nature...obviously if people don't want to know, or are ignorant of who they are then no force on earth is ever going to change that... and that too is part of what nondual nature is.


Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:14 amAs I had stated there is non-dualism in Buddhism but such a state of non-dualism is always expressed in a balanced manner rather than going to the extreme of suppressing the no-Me, no-You, no-I totally.

I have explained in other posts on how you were conflating [not thinking critically] the elements and your point is grounded on supralimal feelings for the illusory Absolute.
There is no conflating going on here at all, consciousness will wake up to itself when it is good and ready and not one second before. This is not an intellectual exercise of the mind/brain to critically think this through, it doesn't work like that. That is the conflating right there, to think one has to think about this. You are trying to objectify this realisation and that is the illusion.

You VA are a rationalist and rationalists balk at direct experience because it can't be "objectified".

Basically the tendency of rationalists to group religion and spirituality together.

Religion came along (pre-rational), then Science became predominant (rational) and now we are entering an ascension into non dual spirituality without religious dogma (post rational).

The rationalists group religion together with post rational spirituality not understanding that non dual spirituality is NOT based on belief but on direct experience.

.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12369
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:12 pm
You VA are a rationalist and rationalists balk at direct experience because it can't be "objectified".

Basically the tendency of rationalists to group religion and spirituality together.

Religion came along (pre-rational), then Science became predominant (rational) and now we are entering an ascension into non dual spirituality without religious dogma (post rational).

The rationalists group religion together with post rational spirituality not understanding that non dual spirituality is NOT based on belief but on direct experience.
I am not a pure rationalist, but I am for the rational and the empirical working in complementary.
I do understand the need for direct experience which is very critical.

Science is based on direct experiences of scientists and their consensus and it is opened to be anyone who want to test the theory and have direct experience the scientific theory itself.

Your theistic belief is no difference in principle [except in form and degree] from the schizo who claimed gnomes exist because s/he have had direct experience of talking to 'real' gnomes in the garden.
In this case your claim cannot be tested nor proven at all by any one who disagree with your claim.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Walker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:Science is based on direct experiences of scientists and their consensus and it is opened to be anyone who want to test the theory and have direct experience the scientific theory itself.
Do you think that Einstein’s method of following a logical chain of implications based on a premise, without experiences or experimentation, is also science? If so, then clear thinking without direct experience is science.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12369
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Walker wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Science is based on direct experiences of scientists and their consensus and it is opened to be anyone who want to test the theory and have direct experience the scientific theory itself.
Do you think that Einstein’s method of following a logical chain of implications based on a premise, without experiences or experimentation, is also science? If so, then clear thinking without direct experience is science.
There are various aspects of Science.

Many scientific theories begin as Speculative theories and do not get recognized as fully scientific until they are tested and directly experienced by the testers and has a consensus among the scientists.

In addition, a speculative scientific theory must be abstracted from existing scientific theories and must be fully empirically based and empirically possible.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Walker »

Was not the truth of Einstein’s mind realizations/discoveries, recognized before experimentation via clear, scientific thinking?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:08 am
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:12 pm
You VA are a rationalist and rationalists balk at direct experience because it can't be "objectified".

Basically the tendency of rationalists to group religion and spirituality together.

Religion came along (pre-rational), then Science became predominant (rational) and now we are entering an ascension into non dual spirituality without religious dogma (post rational).

The rationalists group religion together with post rational spirituality not understanding that non dual spirituality is NOT based on belief but on direct experience.
I am not a pure rationalist, but I am for the rational and the empirical working in complementary.
I do understand the need for direct experience which is very critical.

Science is based on direct experiences of scientists and their consensus and it is opened to be anyone who want to test the theory and have direct experience the scientific theory itself.

So, you never answered any of the questions I asked you..is that because you have no clue how to answer them?

I like to ask the hard questions. :D

I'm not talking about having direct experiences of the scientific theory itself.

I'm talking about who or what is experiencing the experience of having a direct experience ? ... can you answer that?

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:08 am
Your theistic belief is no difference in principle [except in form and degree] from the schizo who claimed gnomes exist because s/he have had direct experience of talking to 'real' gnomes in the garden.
In this case your claim cannot be tested nor proven at all by any one who disagree with your claim.
I've already explained to you the answer to this comment here >''...... In this case your claim cannot be tested nor proven at all by any one who disagree with your claim...''

............but you must have missed that very important and well articulated explanation as to why no other person can prove your own direct experience because no other person is you, only you are you, only you can be your own direct experience....I don't give a toss if other people don't agree with me or not, because for obvious reasons they are not me, the proof is always in the pudding. I am my own proof thank you very much.

I'm not talking about direct experience of being my body, which is like the gnome that has no awareness of itself. I'm talking about the direct experience of non-physical awareness consciousness itself that I AM

You really are the most condescending person I have ever spoken to in my life AV..no offense...you really need to learn how to listen carefully and read between and beyond the words of what other people are saying.




But I don't believe in a God. To believe in something, implies it is external to you. Nothing is external to consciousness that is not already internalised within consciousness alone ..the projected outworkings of consciousness have no reality separate from that which has projected them aka consciousness...in/out are just polar opposites of conceptual knowledge...within the dream of separation(local)...The dreamer is omnipresent(non-local)

It's all ONE aka God.

.

So yeah, of course believing in something external to you is like believing the dreamt character in your dream last night is the one having the direct experience..kind of like our imaginary wooden friend Pinocchio believing he is a real boy.

I stopped believing in imaginary characters a long time ago, all I know is I AM...and that's about all folks.

Tune in for your next installment of mental masturabtion....you'll hear in the echo. :D :mrgreen: :wink: :lol:



.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12369
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:08 am
Your theistic belief is no difference in principle [except in form and degree] from the schizo who claimed gnomes exist because s/he have had direct experience of talking to 'real' gnomes in the garden.
In this case your claim cannot be tested nor proven at all by any one who disagree with your claim.
I've already explained to you the answer to this comment here >''...... In this case your claim cannot be tested nor proven at all by any one who disagree with your claim...''

............but you must have missed that very important and well articulated explanation as to why no other person can prove your own direct experience because no other person is you, only you are you, only you can be your own direct experience....I don't give a toss if other people don't agree with me or not, because for obvious reasons they are not me, the proof is always in the pudding. I am my own proof thank you very much.

I'm not talking about direct experience of being my body, which is like the gnome that has no awareness of itself. I'm talking about the direct experience of non-physical awareness consciousness itself that I AM

You really are the most condescending person I have ever spoken to in my life AV..no offense...you really need to learn how to listen carefully and read between and beyond the words of what other people are saying.




But I don't believe in a God. To believe in something, implies it is external to you. Nothing is external to consciousness that is not already internalised within consciousness alone ..the projected outworkings of consciousness have no reality separate from that which has projected them aka consciousness...in/out are just polar opposites of conceptual knowledge...within the dream of separation(local)...The dreamer is omnipresent(non-local)

It's all ONE aka God.

So yeah, of course believing in something external to you is like believing the dreamt character in your dream last night is the one having the direct experience..kind of like our imaginary wooden friend Pinocchio believing he is a real boy.

I stopped believing in imaginary characters a long time ago, all I know is I AM...and that's about all folks.

Tune in for your next installment of mental masturabtion....you'll hear in the echo. :D :mrgreen: :wink: :lol:
You [the person who is reading the monitor] is believing in a God that is illusory which is just like the schizo who believe gnomes are real because s/he had talked to them in the garden.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:09 am
You [the person who is reading the monitor] is believing in a God that is illusory which is just like the schizo who believe gnomes are real because s/he had talked to them in the garden.
There is a sense of being ...but I do not know what that is. I do not know what I am - only that I am. No one to claim this immediate awareness presence.

The claim that you know who and what is reading this moniter is believing in a ''something'' that is illusory which is just like the schizo who believe gnomes are real because s/he had talked to them in the garden.

.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12369
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:09 am
You [the person who is reading the monitor] is believing in a God that is illusory which is just like the schizo who believe gnomes are real because s/he had talked to them in the garden.
There is a sense of being ...but I do not know what that is. I do not know what I am - only that I am. No one to claim this immediate awareness presence.

The claim that you know who and what is reading this monitor is believing in a ''something'' that is illusory which is just like the schizo who believe gnomes are real because s/he had talked to them in the garden.
I know [empirically] who [the empirical you] is behind that monitor.
Stay there an give me your GPS location, I can get the local PI to confirm your empirical existence viewed and confirmed by from skype and by other means of empirical justifications that there exist is a real empirical you [person] using the nick 'DontAskMe'.

However if you claim there is a transcendental-me as a soul that can survive after physical death can go to some heaven or wherever, then I will dispute there no such thing as a transcendental I, me, you or any objects, i.e. as thing-in-itself.

Your problem is you are arguing then equivocating and conflating the different sense of the empirical-I with the transcendental-I as the same thing.
The empirical-I is real and justifiable within the common-sense, scientific, legal, social, intellectual, etc. perspective.
The transcendental-I [the I-AM that survives physical death] that many claim is not a real thing.

Thus to exercise intellectual integrity. you [empirical] must understand whether another empirical person is speaking of the 'you' in the empirical sense or 'you' in the transcendental sense.
If in the empirical sense, then we have to accept there is an empirical you or I.
But if someone speak as if or claims there is a transcendental I, then we can counter there is no such real "I" in the transcendental sense.

It is because you refuse or is ignorant of the difference between the empirical-I and the transcendental-I that you churn out all sorts of stupid statements like, there is no-me, no-you, blah, blah, blah.

Actually you do believe in the transcendental-I but in the negative sense such as this transcendental-I dissolves itself into a ONENESS [Absolute aka God, wave-Ocean] is a greater and worst illusion than the illusion of a permanent transcendental-I.

All this mess is due to an inherent psychological turbulence that caused an existential crisis in your mind/brain and subliminal driving you to have those dogmatic and bigoted beliefs of no-me, etc.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12369
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:43 am There is a sense of being ...but I do not know what that is. I do not know what I am - only that I am. No one to claim this immediate awareness presence.

The claim that you know who and what is reading this monitor is believing in a ''something'' that is illusory which is just like the schizo who believe gnomes are real because s/he had talked to them in the garden.
The point is humans operate on many levels and perspectives of reality to facilitate survival at various levels.

First in one wider sense, everything that exists is an illusion.
Another point is we are hallucinating all the time - Ramachandran, neuroscientist.

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo&t=330s

The above is a fact but one cannot use that fact and apply it in every aspect of out lives to survive. If that has to be an imperative, then all humans should kill themselves since everything in the wider sense is unreal, hallucination, and an illusion.

It is also a fact, every object is ultimately atom, proton-electrons, quarks, and 'nothing'.
When you eat an apple, you don't see an apple in the above reality but merely as a fruit that has nutritional qualities.

When I see gnomes in a garden they are merely physical objects to decorate a garden.
A schizo see the gnomes as real living entities that can talk and they can talk to.

When I infer you [empirical] reading the monitor and typing in response, I am not seeing you as a physical object like a gnome made of cement. So my thinking cannot be like the schizo.

You are thinking like a schizo [to some degree] in thinking there is a transitional transcendental-I that is part and parcel of a trandental ONENESS [aka God] which is an illusion and unreal.
Both you and the schizo are claiming unreal things [illusions] as real.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:32 amI know [empirically] who [the empirical you] is behind that monitor.
Stay there an give me your GPS location, I can get the local PI to confirm your empirical existence viewed and confirmed by from skype and by other means of empirical justifications that there exist is a real empirical you [person] using the nick 'DontAskMe'.
Your mind is mistaking the images/objects/things/concepts/ideas/beliefs.. upon the screen of your awareness to be reality. They are NOThing but illusory appearances that have no reality in and of themselves, they are the living movie, the looked upon living movie of ''my'' story that comes and goes like a thief in the night..all appearing upon the blank screen of non-personal awareness...and seen and known by that only.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:32 amHowever if you claim there is a transcendental-me as a soul that can survive after physical death can go to some heaven or wherever, then I will dispute there no such thing as a transcendental I, me, you or any objects, i.e. as thing-in-itsel
I've never even claimed anything of the sort, so no, there is NO If
As for a trancendental ''me'' existing as a soul that survives death, is just another mentally created believed fantasy in your illusory story.

That which appears to trancend is in the dream of separation, a fictional character. There is nothing happening here, nothing to see in this one.

There is simply nothing here to make such a claim..And nothing equally that would survive death? ...You do know that the 'entity' is nothing but a concept, a hallucination which arises when consciousness mistakenly identifies itself with the particular form.

The movie on the tv screen may look real and evoke all kinds of emotion, but you just have to accept the fact that its just a movie at the end of the day.



.
Post Reply