Nak Khid

How beneficial has the self-actualization work been, it sounds organized and you spent a whole 3 years on it

Suppose I wrote 12 personality descriptions. different types, nothing too exotic or strange but each different to an a extent Then if we took the U.S. population as an example 329,769,902 then give each if them a card at random with one of the 12 personalities described Randomly some millions of the total group will say "that's not me" Some millions will say " that's kind of me" and some millions will say "that's me exactly" The millions where it's a match or near match if they did not understand these probabilities they might include "Astrology is accurate, I read my chart and that's me to a T " Again we have 329,769,902 . Let's say Astrology has no merit whatsoever. Even if that's the case their birth dates will get assigned astrological personality attributes. Even if that assignment is completely at random a certain percentage, millions, will be a match. Suppose you are rolling dice hoping for 7 you roll and you don't roll a 7. Oh well Now ask 50 people not aware of each other to roll the dice and you will use your mind to make 7 appear. A percentage of then will roll 7 and may think you made it happen with with your mind or used a trick yet neither was employed. Random probabilities sometimes result positively but people misinterpret the cause.

I think most of the world that say they believe in God do not mean it means "everything" However for those that do, why not use the word "everything" or "consciousness" instead of "God" and with it's capital G has heavy religious connotations. Why use the word "God" and then have to explain to people you don't mean a separate being that watches over and judges us when if you used another word "nonduality" , "everything" , "consciousness", "The universe" , "existence" may not be perfect but do not have the religious baggage attached like the word "God" does? Trying to align others with your conceptualization is absolutely unnecessary, enforcing words is trivial, having the similar understanding is enough.

It's not empty just common. It includes kangaroos. kangaroos are God duct tape is God, jellybeans are God, fleas are God, air is God etc. The wold is full of this stuff, not empty. Everything is not empty it's full. "god" is an English word. All words are God. So why pick this particular one to be special?

Leo, what is your opinion of pantheism?

Morality is a decision one makes to try to avoid doing harm to living things and the environment ____________________________________________________________________ "if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil." --Noam Chomsky

"Everything" or "the Universe" include CONSCIOUSNESS

QUOTES FROM SPINOZA'S ETHICS Nothing exists but God God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. [I.14] Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. {I.15] God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. All things which are, are in God. Besides God there can be no substance, that is, nothing in itself external to God. [I.17] God is the force preserving things in existence Although each particular thing be conditioned by another particular thing to exist in a given way, yet the force whereby each particular thing perseveres in existing follows from the eternal necessity of God's nature. [ii.45] Individual things are expressions of the attributes of God Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner. [i.25.] There is no evil The perfection of things is to be reckoned only from their own nature and power; things are not more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human senses, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind. [i. Appendix] Knowledge of God is the highest good The intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself … The love of God towards men, and the intellectual love of the mind towards God, are identical. [v.36] The mind's highest good is the knowledge of God, and the mind's highest virtue is to know God. [iv.28] The human mind has ideas from which it perceives itself and its own body and external bodies as actually existing; therefore it has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God. [ii.47] Our highest happiness is in … the knowledge of god … We may thus clearly understand how far astray from a true estimate of virtue are those who expect to be decorated by God with high rewards for their virtue … ; as if virtue and the service of God were not in itself happiness and perfect freedom. [ii.49] Learning to see God in all things The mind can bring it about, that all bodily modifications or images of things may be referred to the idea of God. [v.14] The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God. [v.24] He who clearly and distinctly understands himself and his emotions loves God, and so much the more in proportion as he more understands himself and his emotions. [v.15] Our mind, in so far as it knows itself and the body under the form of eternity, has to that extent necessarily a knowledge of God, and knows that it is in God, and is conceived through God. [v.30] Acceptance of destiny In so far as we understand the causes of pain, to that extent it ceases to be a passion, that is, it ceases to be pain; therefore, in so far as we understand God to be the cause of pain, we to that extent feel pleasure. [v.18] The wise man … is scarcely at all disturbed in spirit, but, being conscious of himself, and of God, and of things, by a certain eternal necessity, never ceases to be, but always possesses true acquiescence of his spirit. [v.52] The mind has greater power over the emotions and is less subject thereto, in so far as it understands all things as necessary. Proof: The mind understands all things to be necessary and to be determined to existence and operation by an infinite chain of causes, therefore … it thus far brings it about, that it is less subject to the emotions arising therefrom, and feels less emotion towards the things themselves. [v.6] Nature does not work with an end in view Nature does not work with an end in view.For the eternal and infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists… . Therefore, as he does not exist for the sake of an end, so neither does he act for the sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is neither origin nor end. [iv. Preface] God is indifferent to individuals God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain . . . Strictly speaking, God does not love anyone. [V.17] He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return. [V.19]

I ADMIT I AM GOD I am God, Hitler is God, Pee Wee Herman is God, a piece of dog crap on the street is God. It's all God However I more commonly go by the name "EVERYTHING" which is more accurate. YOU ARE EVERYTHING There is no other more accurate word for your true nature although "THE UNIVERSE" is also pretty good I only call myself "GOD" when Christians and Jews are around. It has a little more punch to them (but I have to explain it sometimes, not the dualistic version, not the bearded guy in the clouds, so it can get a little sticky)

1) please quote of there is a quote 2) The statement everything = nothing is similar to duality = nonduality Devil = God oness = duality one = all big = small hate = love 3) Given the fact that I am God and everybody else is do the most well known people who speak on and consider themselves nondualists consider themselves theists or atheists? Do most do the most well known people who speak on and consider themselves nondualists use the word God? This is not a rhetorical question I don't know and am not saying that whatever the majority of them do is the correct thing

If you use the Proto-Germanic word God it has strong connotations of Judeo-Christianity in your country, a connotation of a type of God which is most commonly considered part a Bible based dualistic paradigm as opposed to other words like Brahman or Dharma which have less dualistic connotation or words that have no religious connotation at all such as "The Universe", "Everything" , "Existence", "The All" (perhaps vaguely religious) . Why of all these other words would you use the word "God" instead of one of these others? Is it specifically chosen to inspire a religious-ish reverence or to subvert the Judeo-Christian tradition?

I recommend the name "Voice of Niv" and it would be about singing and personal development and try to tie the singing in with the personal development if it ties in with signing. and a second channel "Magic of Meteorology" or "Divine Meteorology"

1) what is the logic or proof behind the statement Everything = Nothing ? How do you know it makes sense? 2) Does non duality mean everything = nothing? 3) Do most adherents of nonduality consider themselves theists or atheists? 4) Is the term "God" appropriate for someone who is a nondualist? thanks

John Toland first used the word pantheist in 1705, In 1710, in a letter to Leibniz, he provided some content to the word when he referred to "the pantheistic opinion of those who believe in no other eternal being but the universe." Albert Einstein in an interview published in George Sylvester Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great (1930), responded to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist. He explained: Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things. Einstein stated, "My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

do you have proof that the term "no things" is meaningful beyond an abstract idea? Your claim seems to be that everything is god and nothing is god. If you believe this to be true that this could another variant of pantheism or is there another name for it?

the later

why do you say this? (also I added to may last remark)

Do you know why or have you asked them why they think you are disgusting and creepy?

If every thing is included in everything are there things included in everything that are not things?

ok, fixed

what's the deeper realization?

Only the present exists

Phillip, you would need to describe more about what you are uncertain about or the type of things you are uncertain about

Please stay on topic. The topic is pantheism not Gnosticism.