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: 12385
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: Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:41 pm
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.
Nope, I have never claimed 'the images/objects/things/concepts/ideas/beliefs.. upon the screen of your [my] awareness" to be reality as Absolutely real.
I have always claimed there is no such thing-in-itself.

Whilst there is nothing Absolute real, there are things that are relatively real, i.e. real enough to be critical for our survival.
What is relatively real comes in degrees of reality where the reality presented by Science are of the highest degree of relative reality.

You claimed there is an absolute reality-in-itself, i.e. ONENESS, Absolute and the likes that is the ultimate realness. I argued your claim of such is an illusion.
You have not countered to my claim it is an illusion.
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-itself
I've never even claimed anything of the sort, so no, there is NO If
As for a transcendental ''me'' existing as a soul that survives death, is just another mentally created believed fantasy in your illusory story.
I have noted subsequently after your explanation you do not believe in a soul that survives after death.
That which appears to transcend 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.
I have argued and agree the 'movies' on the screen of cognition is very real and very critical for survival i.e. relatively real conditionally, but it is not absolutely real.
What is a only "movie" at the end of the day is the only reality we have, albeit relative and not absolute.
I hope you understand the difference between relative and absolutely absolute.

While you denounced the only relative reality we have, you cling on to an absolute reality, i.e. ONENESS, Absolute [aka God], pure awareness and the likes. Such an absolute reality is an illusion and an impossibility.

Yes, the movie is only relative reality but what is critical is I can prove and justify that such a relative reality exists. If I claim the apple on the table, gravity, water, and whatever empirical objects exist, I can easily do that. If I claim humans as individual persons exist, I can prove such a relative reality conditioned upon the framework & system as defined.

On the other hand, you cannot prove the absolute reality that you claimed to exists as real. You have not been able to show any proofs.
In any case, it is moot as since your absolute reality is an impossibility there is no question of having to prove your absolute reality exists or not.
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: Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:45 am
On the other hand, you cannot prove the absolute reality that you claimed to exists as real. You have not been able to show any proofs.
In any case, it is moot as since your absolute reality is an impossibility there is no question of having to prove your absolute reality exists or not.
You still don't get it do you?

There is no ''you'' to claim absolute reality, oneness.

Absolute reality is this actual direct manifestation right here now writing these words, reading and responding to same words.

There is no claimer doing this, except in the imaginary world of belief and concept. Actuality is not concepts or imagined belief.

You need to know how to draw a distinction between what is real vs what is conceptual and imaginary.

Absolute reality is not imagined. IT IS THIS RIGHT NOW manifesting itself one without a second. There is no claimer except in this imagined concept.

No proof necessary ...proof would require something else to be outside of this immediate actual direct manifestation. Here, there is no thing outside of here. There is only here right now.

.


Questions, beliefs, concepts, ideas, thoughts about absolute realities being impossibilities is all in the dream of separation...where no such questions have any vadility or substance to them whatsoever, except as imaginary concepts.

.

VA..all you are doing in your replies to me, is saying what I already know. Your not saying anything what I don't already know or have not heard about before. You just keep repeating the same old mantra over and over again. That I already know.

.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:45 am
On the other hand, you cannot prove the absolute reality that you claimed to exists as real. You have not been able to show any proofs.
In any case, it is moot as since your absolute reality is an impossibility there is no question of having to prove your absolute reality exists or not.
You still don't get it do you?

There is no ''you'' to claim absolute reality, oneness.

Absolute reality is this actual direct manifestation right here now writing these words, reading and responding to same words.

There is no claimer doing this, except in the imaginary world of belief and concept. Actuality is not concepts or imagined belief.

You need to know how to draw a distinction between what is real vs what is conceptual and imaginary.

Absolute reality is not imagined. IT IS THIS RIGHT NOW manifesting itself one without a second. There is no claimer except in this imagined concept.

No proof necessary ...proof would require something else to be outside of this immediate actual direct manifestation. Here, there is no thing outside of here. There is only here right now.

Questions, beliefs, concepts, ideas, thoughts about absolute realities being impossibilities is all in the dream of separation...where no such questions have any vadility or substance to them whatsoever, except as imaginary concepts.

VA..all you are doing in your replies to me, is saying what I already know. Your not saying anything what I don't already know or have not heard about before. You just keep repeating the same old mantra over and over again. That I already know.
You think you know but the reality is you are caught up in a delusion.
Note the schizo thinks s/he know gnomes are really 'real' because s/he 'talked' to them in the garden.

I have already argued the 'no-you' claimed is based on an illusion and delusion and 'stupid' in a way.
This is why the true-advaitins are claiming the 'no-you' camps are pseudo-advaitins and that is madness.
Some pseudo-advaitins like Jeff Foster has admitted the 'no-you' that he used to insist upon was a fake [made-belief] and he gave that up as declared in a testimony.
Note there are tons of articles condemning the pseudo-advaitins who think like you and cling to a "no-you" illusion.

You [empirical] on the other hand, is still insists on the 'no-you' claim based on some encounters.
What you encountered are also "experienced" by various spiritual practitioners but such encounters are also 'experienced' by drug users, those with brain damage, mental illness and various other people.

The wiser spiritual masters do not cling to such experiences but many non-spiritual persons like you [& the pseudo-advaitins] insisted what you experienced is the real deal. That is an illusion and to believe such an illusion represent the real thing dogmatically and bigotedly is stupid and delusional in one sense.

Your delusion is this,
You are convinced by some encounters the 'me' does not exist, therefore you logically conclude the Absolute exists.
But you are using bad logic in hastily jumping to conclusion without understanding what is going inside your brain.

Note some people with brain damage, mental illness, drug takers, etc. also have such experiences of 'no-me' and claim the Absolute exists.
However psychiatrists could explain why the have such experiences of "no-me" and when they are given the right medicines, they are cured and do not cling to such experiences.

Based on the above, there is a possibility [not certainty] you could also have some kind of mental and other psychological problems that led you to a 'no-me' encounter just like those I mentioned. One never knows unless it is verified.
Note
Depersonalization & Derealization and No-Me.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25224
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 »

You are parroting again VA

Note, that the 'you'.. you keep referring to is 'known', via knowledge.

Knowing is not known by a ''someone'' .. YOU are the knowing that cannot be known, one with the knowing. One is not even with, because to be with implies two. This is one not two, so its always with itself, is itself, and knows itself, for there is no other self than ones actual immediate direct self.

The self IS...but what, why, who, or where the self is ...is concept, imagination and belief.

From belief to clarity.

It's basically that simple.

.

What is not-known will eventually become known.

But what is unknowable can never be known.

.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:56 am You are parroting again VA
Parroting your views which are nonsensical?
What I did is repeating [I don't like it] in response to the points your repeated and you cannot deny doing repetitions as well.
Note, that the 'you'.. you keep referring to is 'known', via knowledge.
Now you are getting to something.
So from now on, do not insist there is no-you as you [knowledge].
Knowing is not known by a ''someone'' .. YOU are the knowing that cannot be known, one with the knowing. One is not even with, because to be with implies two. This is one not two, so its always with itself, is itself, and knows itself, for there is no other self than ones actual immediate direct self.

The self IS...but what, why, who, or where the self is ...is concept, imagination and belief.

From belief to clarity.

It's basically that simple.
Knowing is always known by a you [knowledge].
There is no knowing without a you-[knowledge].
YOU are the knowing that cannot be known
There is no such thing as the above.
Prove it?
Prove 'YOU' exists?
What is not-known will eventually become known.
The above is too hazy.
As I had claimed,
Knowing is always known by a you [knowledge] or empirical-you.
This can easily be proven.
But what is unknowable can never be known.
No issue here.

You are creating a philosophical mess here because your psychological state in driving you into confusion. When ask for proofs you give all sort of delusional statements.

I suggest you find some Life Problem Solving Techniques to resolve your mess, e.g like the below or something similar;

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
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 »

Dam:

YOU are the knowing that cannot be known
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:49 amThere is no such thing as the above.
Prove it?
Prove 'YOU' exists?
There is no one to prove you exist, for that would require you to not exist to know you can exist.

YOU have never not existed.

.
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: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:49 am I suggest you find some Life Problem Solving Techniques to resolve your mess
There are no problems in reality/ life. Problems are of the mind, and if there is no problem for the mind, then it will surely invent one.

What appears as mess to your mind, is clarity to this mind here.

Please stop projecting your shit as if it was mine, smell and own your own shit.

.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:16 am
Dam:

YOU are the knowing that cannot be known
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:49 amThere is no such thing as the above.
Prove it?
Prove 'YOU' exists?
There is no one to prove you exist, for that would require you to not exist to know you can exist.

YOU have never not existed.
You are rhetorical and shifty.
You [empirical] are conflating the 'you' [empirical] with the 'YOU' [transcendental].

We have already agreed through many posts, a 'You' [transcendental] that can survives physical death do not exists.

But there is an empirical 'you' who can prove a necessary empirical 'you' exists for each living human person.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:49 am I suggest you find some Life Problem Solving Techniques to resolve your mess
There are no problems in reality/ life. Problems are of the mind, and if there is no problem for the mind, then it will surely invent one.

What appears as mess to your mind, is clarity to this mind here.

Please stop projecting your shit as if it was mine, smell and own your own shit.
You [empirical] are in denial. I shall use 'you-e' to denote the empirical-you.
Your thinking there is 'no problems in reality/life' itself is a real problem within you-e.
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: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:49 amThere is no such thing as the above.
Prove it?
Prove 'YOU' exists?
DAM:

There is no one to prove you exist, for that would require you to not exist to know you can exist.

YOU have never not existed.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:23 am You are rhetorical and shifty.
You [empirical] are conflating the 'you' [empirical] with the 'YOU' [transcendental].
How is that being shifty?

I'm assuming you imagined me to have a you that could be proved, you said prove YOU exists?

So then I replied the obvious..by saying...the you would have to not exist to know it does exist...what's so shifty about that?

That to me was an obvious thing to say when asked to prove something?


Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:23 am We have already agreed through many posts, a 'You' [transcendental] that can survives physical death do not exists.
That's because there is no such thing as a ''known death''
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:23 am But there is an empirical 'you' who can prove a necessary empirical 'you' exists for each living human person.
Prove there is an empirical 'you'?

.
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: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:26 am Your thinking there is 'no problems in reality/life' itself is a real problem within you-e.

The 'you' that thinks there is a real problem in reality does not exist.

.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:12 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:49 amThere is no such thing as the above.
Prove it?
Prove 'YOU' exists?
DAM:

There is no one to prove you exist, for that would require you to not exist to know you can exist.

YOU have never not existed.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:23 am You are rhetorical and shifty.
You [empirical] are conflating the 'you' [empirical] with the 'YOU' [transcendental].
How is that being shifty?

I'm assuming you imagined me to have a you that could be proved, you said prove YOU exists?

So then I replied the obvious..by saying...the you would have to not exist to know it does exist...what's so shifty about that?

That to me was an obvious thing to say when asked to prove something?
I stated you are shifty because you [empirical] are conflating the 'you' [empirical] with the 'YOU' [transcendental].

You are equivocating, i.e.
You [empirical] are conflating the 'you' [empirical] with the 'YOU' [transcendental].
Wiki wrote:In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.
I wonder do you ever understand you have committed a very serious error of critical thinking.
You are conflating "oranges as apples."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:23 am We have already agreed through many posts, a 'You' [transcendental] that can survives physical death do not exists.
That's because there is no such thing as a ''known death''
I would not argue in that manner.
There are many who believe there is a self that survives physical death verifiable by Science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:23 am But there is an empirical 'you' who can prove a necessary empirical 'you' exists for each living human person.
Prove there is an empirical 'you'?
[/quote]
I am very surprised you ask me for such a proof?
No wonder your thoughts are so messed up.

Note the critical element is 'empirical.'
Wiki wrote:Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
If you [empirical] were to stand and speak in front of a crowd of 10,000 normal adults individual, they will confirm there is a living 'you' [empirical] in front of them.
In fact, all normal human beings will arrive at the same conclusion, there is an empirical 'you'.

Get it?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:26 am Your thinking there is 'no problems in reality/life' itself is a real problem within you-e.
The 'you' that thinks there is a real problem in reality does not exist.
Your response is getting sillier.

If you [empirical] has a young son and your son stated 'you-e are my mother' do you shut him up and tell your son, there is no-you and no-me and no-mother?

If your son complained he has a problem with bullying in school [in reality], you would tell him,

"The 'you' that thinks there is a real problem in reality does not exist."

Are you unmarried and stay alone?
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: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:34 am
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:26 am Your thinking there is 'no problems in reality/life' itself is a real problem within you-e.
The 'you' that thinks there is a real problem in reality does not exist.
Your response is getting sillier.

If you [empirical] has a young son and your son stated 'you-e are my mother' do you shut him up and tell your son, there is no-you and no-me and no-mother?

If your son complained he has a problem with bullying in school [in reality], you would tell him,

"The 'you' that thinks there is a real problem in reality does not exist."

Are you unmarried and stay alone?

But all you are doing is identifying with the story of I....I'm not talking about the fictional story of I

I'm talking about the infinite I in which the fictional I is but an appearance of.

.
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: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:27 am No wonder your thoughts are so messed up.
No one has ever seen a ''thought''

These are fictional entities believed to be real by an assumed thinker as the thought arises. As the thought arises so does the thinker, but these are phantom agencies.

Actual Direct Reality ..is mute.

.
Post Reply