All is energy / God is energy

[Age]

Are the only two possible words 'energy' or 'God' to describe what we're talking about? Some people say 'Universe', but that already has certain associations with it too.

To label THIS self-evident IS-NESS that is already here without concept, logically speaking, is to conceptually overlay, or superimpose upon what already is here in all it's inseparable total absoluteness, that is unknowable even to itself.

BUT, 'It' is ALREADY KNOWN to thy 'Self'.

'you', "dontaskme", just have NOT YET LEARNED this Fact.

And since that which is apparently appearing as an illusory conceptual overlay upon what is inseparable, this overlay is also an inseparable aspect of the same mysterious undiminished absoluteness that cannot be known.

But this Absoluteness is NOT a 'mystery' ANYMORE as 'It' is ALREADY KNOWN, by 'us', but, OBVIOUSLY, NOT YET by 'you'.

So all in all, here we have only the nameless absolute mystery naming itself, meaning, this apparent knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of existence. Not to confuse existence itself with being an illusion, it is not, it is obviously the case. Rather, it's the knowing of it by association of concept that's illusory, as the separation isn't actually there in reality, except in this illusory conception.

LOL It is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to talk about there being ONLY One 'Thing', ALONE, BUT which is "separated" into MANY DIFFERING PARTS, by 'concept' ALONE. And, this can be, AGAIN, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY PROVED True, but just POINTING OUT, and TO, the VERY MANY DIFFERENT 'parts', which have been NAMED and LABELLED by 'you', human beings.

In other words, there is no thing, not a thing, nothing naming itself.

EXCEPT, THERE IS God here-now naming Its Self, and describing Itself through the ART of 'separation', which is the ONLY WAY 'you', human beings, were able to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON this One and ONLY Universe that 'you' have found "yourselves" evolving WITHIN.

THIS is the apparent Nameless Named. The Unknown Known.

My two penny worth Lacewing.

[attofishpi]

.

[attofishpi]

WHY?

What INTERPRETATION or NOTION do they have with the term 'God'?


Could RIDICULING and/or BLAMING "another group of people", based solely on their membership to a particular group, be seen as 'stupidity', and/or 'bigotry', itself?


WHY?

What INTERPRETATION or NOTION of "christianity" do you have that makes 'you' 'shudder'?

WHY WHY WHY..do you ask ridiculous questions ALL the time, can't you infer anything?

To SEE if the one making the CLAIM REALLY KNOWS what they are talking about or is REALLY ABLE to back up and support THEIR BELIEF or CLAIM.

Could you NOT infer this? Did you REALLY have to ask this, 'ridiculous', question?

WHY do you NOT answer my questions, posed to you for CLARITY? Are you NOT ABLE to back up and support YOUR BELIEFS or CLAIMS? Or, do you NOT REALLY KNOW what you are talking about, or is there some OTHER reason?

AND, YES I can INFER or ASSUME what "another" is SAYING/MEANING/IMPLYING, but I do NOT like to do so. That is; because I then could be Wrong. BUT, when I gain CLARITY FIRST, then I can NEVER be Wrong.

The reason I don't answer is because I don't care what you think..I don't care what your next BORING question is going to be on such trivial crap.

WHY are you so BORING? Have YOU always BEEN BORING?

[reasonvemotion]

Lacewing wrote;

If I say 'God' on this forum, it's to make a point about that idea. I, personally, do not call anything 'God'. I'm not even sure I like saying 'divine or universal energy'...but I'm not sure what terminology to use. What would you call the genderless energy (unconvoluted by man) that pulses through every particle including your tea?

Hans Wilhiem is a mystic New Ager (the man in your little video) and appears to be in a lot of confusion and fits into a spiritual perspective what he, they or you have constructed.

They do not believe in evil. Therefore, they do not accept man's problem as separation by sin from God.

Here is a little video watch from 03.05 and see how much evil there is in this world.
https://www.google.com/search?q=iceman+ ... -4nzmdYQTA

Instead, they believe that each of us has forgotten his or her own divinity. Therefore, the New Age solution is to seek "higher consciousness" through meditation and more. Each of these diverse practices has the same purpose: to awaken the god in man.

Attofishpi wrote:
Well, if it is just energy and has no discernible intelligence probably best not to call it God.

[Dontaskme]

BUT, 'It' is ALREADY KNOWN to thy 'Self'.

But this Absoluteness is NOT a 'mystery' ANYMORE as 'It' is ALREADY KNOWN

THERE IS God here-now naming Its Self

That which is KNOWN (Something) - - - Knows (Nothing) = THIS Not-Knowing Known.
No other thing needs to be added to this IMMEDIATE KNOWN.
There is no 'KNOWN BY' some other thing that is not already this absolute KNOWING

Knowing is Nondual, which cannot be made into a duality, except in this illusory conception.



_______________________


“We have a common sky.” — Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (c. 345-402)

We had a common sky
before the Christians came.

We thought there might be gods
but did not know their names.

The common stars above us?
They winked, and would not tell.

Yet now our fellow mortals claim
our questions merit hell!

The cause of our damnation?
They claim they’ve seen the LIGHT ...

but still the stars wink down at us,
as wiser beings might.

[Age]

WHY WHY WHY..do you ask ridiculous questions ALL the time, can't you infer anything?

To SEE if the one making the CLAIM REALLY KNOWS what they are talking about or is REALLY ABLE to back up and support THEIR BELIEF or CLAIM.

Could you NOT infer this? Did you REALLY have to ask this, 'ridiculous', question?

WHY do you NOT answer my questions, posed to you for CLARITY? Are you NOT ABLE to back up and support YOUR BELIEFS or CLAIMS? Or, do you NOT REALLY KNOW what you are talking about, or is there some OTHER reason?

AND, YES I can INFER or ASSUME what "another" is SAYING/MEANING/IMPLYING, but I do NOT like to do so. That is; because I then could be Wrong. BUT, when I gain CLARITY FIRST, then I can NEVER be Wrong.

The reason I don't answer is because I don't care what you think..I don't care what your next BORING question is going to be on such trivial crap.

WHY are you so BORING?

Because some find me BORING.

Have YOU always BEEN BORING?

Could ANY thing ALWAYS been BORING?

[Age]

BUT, 'It' is ALREADY KNOWN to thy 'Self'.

But this Absoluteness is NOT a 'mystery' ANYMORE as 'It' is ALREADY KNOWN

THERE IS God here-now naming Its Self

That which is KNOWN (Something) - - - Knows (Nothing) = THIS Not-Knowing Known.

But this is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

'you', human beings, which are KNOWN (so something) know things = Some KNOWN things know things.

No other thing needs to be added to this IMMEDIATE KNOWN.
There is no 'KNOWN BY' some other thing that is not already this absolute KNOWING

Knowing is Nondual, which cannot be made into a duality, except in this illusory conception.

KNOWING is Irrefutable = Nondual.

THINKING can be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect = duality.

ACTUAL KNOWING, for sure, can NEVER be False, Wrong, NOR Incorrect.

'you', human beings, THINK some things, and KNOW other things.

_______________________


“We have a common sky.” — Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (c. 345-402)

We had a common sky
before the Christians came.

We thought there might be gods
but did not know their names.

The common stars above us?
They winked, and would not tell.

Yet now our fellow mortals claim
our questions merit hell!

The cause of our damnation?
They claim they’ve seen the LIGHT ...

but still the stars wink down at us,
as wiser beings might.

[Dontaskme]

'you', human beings, which are KNOWN (so something) know things = Some KNOWN things know things.

No Age, 'things' do not know. 'Things' are known as concepts only. No concept has even been seen, because it's a ''thought''
Concepts are only known never SEEN. The Seer cannot See the Seeing, only what is seen as a concept known already in Seeing that cannot be Seen....only KNOWN.

Concepts known cannot know anything. That's like saying a 'Tree' or a 'Brick Wall' can know.

You can keep on correcting me Age. But I will only correct you back.

[attofishpi]

Have YOU always BEEN BORING?

Could ANY thing ALWAYS been BORING?

*yawns*

[Sculptor]

I'm pretty sure that there is such a thing as energy.
SO that would mean I am not an atheist?
Else what would I add to the water for my hot water bottle tonight.

What I do not understand is why you would want to confuse things by calling the heat in my tea, god. when there is a perfectly good word for it already.

If I say 'God' on this forum, it's to make a point about that idea.

What Idea, exactly?

I, personally, do not call anything 'God'. I'm not even sure I like saying 'divine or universal energy'...but I'm not sure what terminology to use. What would you call the genderless energy (unconvoluted by man) that pulses through every particle including your tea?

I would call that non existent, because you are assuming it has some sort of volition, I think. Otherwise you would not be silly enough to call energy god.

[Lacewing]

Atto asked Age:

WHY WHY WHY..do you ask ridiculous questions ALL the time, can't you infer anything?

He apparently lacks the courage to offer much of his own thinking. Instead, he attempts to question everyone else based on his misunderstandings and projections so it becomes a garbled mess to wade through.

For some reason, he got a bug up his butt because I said that I don't believe there is one ultimate truth. Yes, in a constantly moving/flowing Universe, I don't believe that... so what?

[Lacewing]

Are the only two possible words 'energy' or 'God' to describe what we're talking about? Some people say 'Universe', but that already has certain associations with it too.

To label THIS self-evident IS-NESS that is already here without concept, logically speaking, is to conceptually overlay, or superimpose upon what already is here in all it's inseparable total absoluteness, that is unknowable even to itself.

Yep. Can't name that! So, I guess all there is to talk about (in that regard) are the gods we human beings create and name to fill the space we imagine.

[Walker]

Atto asked Age:

WHY WHY WHY..do you ask ridiculous questions ALL the time, can't you infer anything?

He apparently lacks the courage to offer much of his own thinking. Instead, he attempts to question everyone else based on his misunderstandings and projections so it becomes a garbled mess to wade through.

For some reason, he got a bug up his butt because I said that I don't believe there is one ultimate truth. Yes, in a constantly moving/flowing Universe, I don't believe that... so what?

Age says some astute things. He gets frustrated.

Absolute truth and relative truth is a good contemplation start.

- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj said that all any person can know for sure is, I Am. All else is inference.
- I’ve contemplated this in many situations involving many elements, with attention upon the primal elements that we all experience, and realize it is truth, and it does not change. That makes it absolute.
- At least for now, setting aside what affects the probability of accurate inference as it relates to that absolute …
- To give you feedback on what I’ve heard you state, conditions change, elements comprising conditions change. Elements include the body as it is now, not as it was or will be. These are all relative and because they interact in ways that can be generally predictable, and at times specifically predictable, then these are relative truths.
- However, I Am Is True, All Else Is Inference. This is absolute truth. (This is why I put it in caps.) Even when I Am is not, this is absolute truth, for you are awareness perceiving the universe, you are the absolute perceiving itself in the universe gazing back at you.
- So lookee here. This is just a contemplation I just had inspired by this thread*, and of course it is true because I am worthy of knowing it, for empirical reasons … so see ‘ya later. There’s work to be done in a man’s world.

* So thank you for that, Lacewing, and your feedback is welcome.

[Lacewing]

Hans Wilhiem is a mystic New Ager (the man in your little video) and appears to be in a lot of confusion and fits into a spiritual perspective what he, they or you have constructed.

They do not believe in evil. Therefore, they do not accept man's problem as separation by sin from God.

Instead, they believe that each of us has forgotten his or her own divinity. Therefore, the New Age solution is to seek "higher consciousness" ...Each of these diverse practices has the same purpose: to awaken the god in man.

Ah. I don't know what his specific trip is, I just like the way the video described all as energy. Although I, too, think that greater consciousness is useful, I don't think that we're supposed to strive to get back to a god. All of this language is very tricky because there are so many screwed up associations with it.

From my perspective... we need to notice what we create and resist, as that creates more of it, whatever it is. We're already part of the whole flow... and what we're doing here is not the final word of who we are. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience for whatever reasons/exploration we might need or want to play out.

[Lacewing]

If I say 'God' on this forum, it's to make a point about that idea.

What Idea, exactly?

Well, it depends on the context of course. Either I'm referring to the idea of God that people imagine/believe (which I don't), or I'm referring to the idea that there's something greater that we belong to or are part of (for which I don't like using the word God, but it's easily accepted even if I describe it differently, since there are many accepted interpretations of it).

What would you call the genderless energy (unconvoluted by man) that pulses through every particle

I would call that non existent, because you are assuming it has some sort of volition, I think.

Why wouldn't it? Do you think that life has to be directed by a man being?