God is bias.

[Spiritual Warfare]

4 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

They aren't limitations; they are a part of what God is.

If God were only that which remembered God, what would He not be? A God who can forget He is a God.

Plus, wouldn't you say it is limiting for God to only want to remember Himself? Why desire to be only a God who is always all-powerful, always conscious, always above all? What if He wanted to both remember and forget, to be both powerless and powerful? Wouldn't He, in this instance, be more omnipotent, accepting, and 'grander'? A God who only desires to remain an all-powerful God would have quite a big bias toward power. A God who wants to keep His superpowers intact at all times is a God who is extremely biased toward superpowers, a God who fails to see the beauty in non-powerful and unconscious things.

Which version of God feels more limited to you? Yours, who only desires to remain in His state of godhood, or mine, who desires to experience, be, and understand both the weak and the powerful, both the conscious and the unconscious? Just another thought experiment! 💙

It’s a beautiful thought, imagining God becoming weak and then powerful again. But I still don’t see why God couldn’t remember its  true nature while being weak and enduring tribulations. You mentioned it would be a limitation if God remembered He was God, but you need to understand that there are necessary limitations and unnecessary ones.

[Ajax]

7 minutes ago, MarioGabrielJ said:

Everything has a reason; logic wasn’t created, and nothing is ever truly created or destroyed, only transformed. Logic is beautiful because it cuts through the noise, revealing what is real and what isn’t. You assume that God has no reason, so it’s on you to prove that.

Ideas are created, actions are created, inventions are created. Businesses are created. Art is created. Machines are created. Writing is created. Stories are created, opinions are created. conversations are created..  facts are created.. admiration is created... ad infinitum..

How do you know energy is not created or destroyed? Where does it come from?

As for assuming God doesn't have to have a reason.. reason is related to logic. God may use logic, but is external to logic.

[Spiritual Warfare]

1 minute ago, Sincerity said:

Yes, divine purpose. Which has nothing to do with human reasons like boredom or human purpose. Which cannot be explicated.

Life has divine meaning, and this meaning is in no way separate from life/reality itself, because what it points to is only itself.

I appreciate your perspective, but how can we be certain that there is a definitive purpose behind it all? You suggest that God must explore itself, as that encompasses everything that exists. However, one could argue that God might choose to remain in that harmonious state of oneness. What drives this underlying flow that compels God to experience every facet of existence? Is it not within God's power to control this dynamic? If one were to embody a 'God mode,' it seems unlikely they would willingly forfeit such immense powers. No rational being would abandon their true nature without compelling reasons.

Moreover, consider the very design of existence: the fact that we must eat and drink to survive raises questions about its intelligence. What justification exists for children to starve to death before reaching the age of five? If you suggest that God wants to experience such suffering, it feels like a denial of reality. Earth often appears more as a trap than a place to genuinely appreciate beauty and joy.

 

[Xonas Pitfall]

Just now, MarioGabrielJ said:

It’s a beautiful thought, imagining God becoming weak and then powerful again. But I still don’t see why God couldn’t remember its  true nature while being weak and enduring tribulations. You mentioned it would be a limitation if God remembered He was God, but you need to understand that there are necessary limitations and unnecessary ones.

Hmm, how so?

You mentioned:

Quote

God is not external to logic; if that were the case, we would have no basis for reaching any conclusions. Logic is a profound and beautiful construct.

I completely agree with you!

Think with me through this logic:

If God is everything, what is everything by definition? You can think of it as a set that contains all possible 'things'—it's in the name, right? Every thing. Every single thing.

If I have two sets:

1. One that has everything: all iterations of God, including a God who forgets and remembers, who is weak and remembers He's a God, who is weak and fully forgets He's a God, who is powerful and remembers He is powerful, and who is limited and doesn't know He is powerful, and a God who is limited and knows He is powerful.
2. A second set that also has everything but has no instances where God ever forgets He is a God, even if He is weak, limited, all-powerful, all-knowing, or even a fragile baby ant.

Which set is truly the complete set, the one that fully encompasses everything—the first or the second?

Logically, how could one limitation be more or less relevant, necessary, or unnecessary than another?

For everything to be truly everything, it must contain every single thing; therefore, no limitation is fundamentally unnecessary or less important than another.
-
Take a set of all whole numbers up to ten:

1. The first set is: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
2. The second set is: {1, 2, 5, 6, 7}

Which set contains all the numbers?

Is excluding 3 a less significant omission than excluding 7? What about 4—is including 4 more important than including 10?

All elements are equally important; without each number, the entire set would be incomplete. All ten whole numbers are required to meet the definition of a complete set.

[Spiritual Warfare]

Just now, Ajax said:

Ideas are created, actions are created, inventions are created. Businesses are created. Art is created. Machines are created. Writing is created. Stories are created, opinions are created. conversations are created..  facts are created.. admiration is created... ad infinitum..

How do you know energy is not created or destroyed? Where does it come from?

As for assuming God doesn't have to have a reason.. reason is related to logic. God may use logic, but is external to logic.

That’s not entirely accurate; ideas emerge from what already exists—everything is inherently present within existence. All that is exists within the realm of nothingness; nothing lies outside of this. Furthermore, God is bound by logic, as it is inherently impossible for God to destroy itself—such an act would contradict the very principles of logic.

 

 

[Spiritual Warfare]

10 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Hmm, how so?

You mentioned:

I completely agree with you!

Think with me through this logic:

If God is everything, what is everything by definition? You can think of it as a set that contains all possible 'things'—it's in the name, right? Every thing. Every single thing.

If I have two sets:

1. One that has everything: all iterations of God, including a God who forgets and remembers, who is weak and remembers He's a God, who is weak and fully forgets He's a God, who is powerful and remembers He is powerful, and who is limited and doesn't know He is powerful, and a God who is limited and knows He is powerful.
2. A second set that also has everything but has no instances where God ever forgets He is a God, even if He is weak, limited, all-powerful, all-knowing, or even a fragile baby ant.

Which set is truly the complete set, the one that fully encompasses everything—the first or the second?

Logically, how could one limitation be more or less relevant, necessary, or unnecessary than another?

For everything to be truly everything, it must contain every single thing; therefore, no limitation is fundamentally unnecessary or less important than another.
-
Take a set of all whole numbers up to ten:

1. The first set is: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
2. The second set is: {1, 2, 5, 6, 7}

Which set contains all the numbers?

Is excluding 3 a less significant omission than excluding 7? What about 4—is including 4 more important than including 10?

All elements are equally important; without each number, the entire set would be incomplete. All ten whole numbers are required to meet the definition of a complete set.

That’s a captivating analysis, and it leads me to contemplate the nature of limitations. While I grasp the idea that God may need to experience limitations to fully understand or embody everything, it prompts an intriguing question: why do limitations exist in the first place? For instance, why did God design humans with two hands instead of three? Is there a specific rationale behind this design choice, or is there a deeper purpose at play?

Furthermore, the assertion that all limitations are equally important challenges our understanding of significance. Not all attributes carry the same weight in defining what it means to be divine. Certain qualities, such as perfection, omniscience, and benevolence, likely hold greater relevance than others, like forgetfulness or weakness. To claim that all limitations are equally necessary undermines the very notion of divinity as an ideal state.

 

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Water by the River said:

and how he had to pass the Ocean of Suffering on his high-dose-LSD-journey before any of these higher realms which detailed the Karmic mechanisms and the reasons for manifestation (even if it means initial suffering) were disclosed for him.

@Agua junto al ríoonce I did LSD and when the effect began to be strong, an image came to my mind: an African cabin where the guerrillas forced an 8-year-old boy to torture his mother to death and then eat her breasts, as an initiation to turn him into a psychopath torturer. My mind could not stop entering the mind of the child, the mother and the guerrillas, alternately. I tried to get out of there, but it was impossible. The thing transformed into a scream of constant pain, and at a given moment reality was an enormous mountain, like a mountain range, of dying beings palpitating, and around it concentric rings of impaled humans screaming, to infinity. This lasted for hours. I began to experience all the possibilities of torture and pain, of illness, loss, fear, despair, and I realized that I had to accept them all. Open my heart to pain because otherwise it would never be open. At that moment, the constant screaming stopped and reality became fluid, soft, multicolored and perfect.

[Human Mint]

5 hours ago, MarioGabrielJ said:

I believe it's a common notion that something truly perfect requires nothing; if it does, then it ceases to be perfect. However, one could argue that perfection may have multiple definitions. Perhaps perfection lies not in the absence of need, but in the capacity to embrace growth and evolution. 

As for reincarnation, I'm not entirely certain about it, but Leo posits that God seeks to experience all facets of infinity.

I think it would be best to try to understand what Infinity means for yourself, first. That is already a lot of progress.

The thing is you, as a human, can experience it.

Edited August 30 by Human Mint

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, Water by the River said:

Apparently, the high-dose LSD psychedelic journey seemed to demand something like a Bodhisattva-Comittment in order to open these divine-realms and the mechanics of archetypal creation-realms, Karma & reincarnation, which apparently don't get opened so much (if at all) with other psychedelic like 5-MeO.

5meo is not a psychedelic, it's just a meditative tool, it's very different. 5meo is very easy, because it's just energetic. It's challenging, of course but not twisted 

Edited August 30 by Breakingthewall

[Xonas Pitfall]

33 minutes ago, MarioGabrielJ said:

That’s a captivating analysis, and it leads me to contemplate the nature of limitations. While I grasp the idea that God may need to experience limitations to fully understand or embody everything, it prompts an intriguing question: why do limitations exist in the first place? For instance, why did God design humans with two hands instead of three? Is there a specific rationale behind this design choice, or is there a deeper purpose at play?

Furthermore, the assertion that all limitations are equally important challenges our understanding of significance. Not all attributes carry the same weight in defining what it means to be divine. Certain qualities, such as perfection, omniscience, and benevolence, likely hold greater relevance than others, like forgetfulness or weakness. To claim that all limitations are equally necessary undermines the very notion of divinity as an ideal state.

 

Thank you! I'll try to cover all your questions and answer them as best as I can. 

Quote

While I grasp the idea that God may need to experience limitations to fully understand or embody everything, it prompts an intriguing question: why do limitations exist in the first place?

There is just a tiny leap in logic you need to make, and you will get your answer!

If you understand the idea that God needs to experience limitations to fully understand or embody everything, then that becomes a condition of being God. This means you cannot have God without limitations. For God to be God and fully embody "everythingness," He must embody both limitations and the absence of limitations. That is why limitations exist. Limitations aren’t just random things that happen to exist, requiring God to go through them to be fully Himself. They exist precisely because God needs them to be fully Himself. Think of the cheesy quote: "You cannot have light without darkness." The moment you define something as one thing, you immediately place limitations on it and impose conditions on what it must be. At the same time, you create two things: what it is and what it isn't.

• If I define light as bright, white, striking, piercing, etc., I am instantly limiting light to only that. So, what isn't light? That which isn't bright, striking, white, or piercing, which we happen to call "darkness".

Definition = Limitation = Conditionality = Bias

The moment you define something as all-knowing and perfect, you create a separate entity that is not all-knowing and perfect. The moment you create or define something as fully aware, you create something equally unaware.

Now, since God’s only definition is that which is All or Everything, He is bound to be Everything or All. However, since everything means containing all dualities that are ever created, He must experience both limitless and limiting experiences. I’d potentially suggest contemplating more about the nature of dualities and how they interplay with each other if it feels tricky to grasp. But the main takeaway is that the moment you define something, there is a fundamental 'split,' creating two entities or concepts: that which it is and that which it isn't.

This is why limitations exist: because God itself is the 'primal' definition (limitation) as "That which is All, that which is Everything." By defining this, you immediately create a split—All and Nothing, Everything and Something, Infinite and Finite. However, since God is All, He must contain both. All dualities that exist and can ever exist. It’s very paradoxical yet logical.

Quote

For instance, why did God design humans with two hands instead of three? Is there a specific rationale behind this design choice, or is there a deeper purpose at play?

I’d say here you are attributing more to God than necessary. Just as you asked me, "Why would God need to experience limitations?" I’d ask why the purpose must be Divine or "deeper". What would you define as Divine? What answer would be satisfactory enough to be considered "Divine" or "Worthy of God" or "Intelligent Design"?

Since the question you asked is more from a "human domain," which is a more relative, survival-based domain, this question can be answered in several ways.

Think about failing a grade and ask me, yourself, or God: Why? Why would God put me through this suffering? Why God? What’s the Divine or deeper purpose here? What answer would satisfy you? 

1. You could answer from the "God or more Absolute Domain": "I wanted to experience what it is like to be a human at this exact moment, to understand what it means to try at this 'human concept called school,' go through a 'test,' and experience these human emotions of sorrow, loss, and defeat. It’s an expression of me I want to understand."
2. Or the answer could be: "Because you repeatedly refused to study, you didn't adapt enough to the knowledge required for this grade, so you must learn more. The suffering you are feeling now is a direct consequence of your actions."
3. Or: "You must experience what it is to suffer to fully get motivated and overcome your limitations. You can do more than this. Once you pass this grade and test, you will feel happier and more fulfilled. This is the purpose of the failure—to help you grow."

It’s the same question with hands and fingers. I could give you an answer like:

1. "Because God wanted to experience what it is like to be this particular species called a human, right at this moment, and all that entails."
2. "Because humans are a species that evolved for millions of years, and due to certain environmental and genetic factors, they have evolved to have hands with five fingers on average. This configuration seems to be optimal for survival, dexterity, and movement. The purpose of your exact number of fingers is to aid in your survival."

It’s just important not to fall into the trap of the "puddle analogy":

"This is like imagining a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well; it must have been made to have me in it! It must serve such a great purpose for me!'"

In reality, our hands and bodies are probably not perfect and will continue to evolve in the future. God is simply unbiasedly observing, experiencing, and understanding all of it through us.

Quote

Furthermore, the assertion that all limitations are equally important challenges our understanding of significance. Not all attributes carry the same weight in defining what it means to be divine. Certain qualities, such as perfection, omniscience, and benevolence, likely hold greater relevance than others, like forgetfulness or weakness. To claim that all limitations are equally necessary undermines the very notion of divinity as an ideal state.

Again, here I’d challenge you to define what would be Divine for you, or what it means to be Divine, and how that plays out in reality or through logical reasoning. Be careful not to attribute only positive and good qualities to God, as humanity has often fed us these notions without fully considering them. If God is infinitely benevolent and selfless, that would imply He has no self or inherent bias. What does this actually look like in practice?

Consider a gazelle being chased by a lion, with both metaphorically praying to God for help: "I cannot be eaten by the predator to survive," versus "I must eat this prey to survive." Who does God choose to aid? If God is infinitely benevolent and provides you with infinite access to free food in your next lifetime, you might start taking the food for granted, becoming greedier and overeating, and eventually dying of obesity. How do you evaluate which actions are good or bad, benevolent or malevolent? Can a seemingly malevolent action be more beneficial and caring in the long run?

You can begin to see the nuance in this and how intertwined these concepts are. Binary notions of good and evil are not always the best model for evaluating reality. Labeling God as someone who would only engage in "stereotypically" good actions is unrealistic in the context of the human world.

[Water by the River]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Agua junto al ríoonce I did LSD and when the effect began to be strong, an image came to my mind: an African cabin where the guerrillas forced an 8-year-old boy to torture his mother to death and then eat her breasts, as an initiation to turn him into a psychopath torturer. My mind could not stop entering the mind of the child, the mother and the guerrillas, alternately. I tried to get out of there, but it was impossible. The thing transformed into a scream of constant pain, and at a given moment reality was an enormous mountain, like a mountain range, of dying beings palpitating, and around it concentric rings of impaled humans screaming, to infinity. This lasted for hours. I began to experience all the possibilities of torture and pain, of illness, loss, fear, despair, and I realized that I had to accept them all. Open my heart to pain because otherwise it would never be open. At that moment, the constant screaming stopped and reality became fluid, soft, multicolored and perfect.

Interesting.

For those who like it more boring: The Boddhisattva-attitude does a similiar job of opening the gates to certain (and most important) higher realms. And there ain't no stabilized realization without an open heart...

That is why in Mahayana-Buddhism and onwards the two things to train in are wisdom (or speed & strength of Awakened Awareness) and compassion/love (open heart). Which Mahayana-Buddhism also postulates as the two main attributes (among others) that the soul learns and which are taken from life to life.

Even the chaps hunting Buddhist rodents with shotguns will get that at some point, after having been broken by suffering sufficiently often. Or by wising up, who knows.... Because these two gates of constant nondual realization are guarded by mechanisms of Reality that don't let the "its all human crap" - crew pass.

 

[Spiritual Warfare]

3 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Thank you! I'll try to cover all your questions and answer them as best as I can. 

There is just a tiny leap in logic you need to make, and you will get your answer!

If you understand the idea that God needs to experience limitations to fully understand or embody everything, then that becomes a condition of being God. This means you cannot have God without limitations. For God to be God and fully embody "everythingness," He must embody both limitations and the absence of limitations. That is why limitations exist. Limitations aren’t just random things that happen to exist, requiring God to go through them to be fully Himself. They exist precisely because God needs them to be fully Himself. Think of the cheesy quote: "You cannot have light without darkness." The moment you define something as one thing, you immediately place limitations on it and impose conditions on what it must be. At the same time, you create two things: what it is and what it isn't.

• If I define light as bright, white, striking, piercing, etc., I am instantly limiting light to only that. So, what isn't light? That which isn't bright, striking, white, or piercing, which we happen to call "darkness".

Definition = Limitation = Conditionality = Bias

The moment you define something as all-knowing and perfect, you create a separate entity that is not all-knowing and perfect. The moment you create or define something as fully aware, you create something equally unaware.

Now, since God’s only definition is that which is All or Everything, He is bound to be Everything or All. However, since everything means containing all dualities that are ever created, He must experience both limitless and limiting experiences. I’d potentially suggest contemplating more about the nature of dualities and how they interplay with each other if it feels tricky to grasp. But the main takeaway is that the moment you define something, there is a fundamental 'split,' creating two entities or concepts: that which it is and that which it isn't.

This is why limitations exist: because God itself is the 'primal' definition (limitation) as "That which is All, that which is Everything." By defining this, you immediately create a split—All and Nothing, Everything and Something, Infinite and Finite. However, since God is All, He must contain both. All dualities that exist and can ever exist. It’s very paradoxical yet logical.

I’d say here you are attributing more to God than necessary. Just as you asked me, "Why would God need to experience limitations?" I’d ask why the purpose must be Divine or "deeper". What would you define as Divine? What answer would be satisfactory enough to be considered "Divine" or "Worthy of God" or "Intelligent Design"?

Since the question you asked is more from a "human domain," which is a more relative, survival-based domain, this question can be answered in several ways.

Think about failing a grade and ask me, yourself, or God: Why? Why would God put me through this suffering? Why God? What’s the Divine or deeper purpose here? What answer would satisfy you? 

1. You could answer from the "God or more Absolute Domain": "I wanted to experience what it is like to be a human at this exact moment, to understand what it means to try at this 'human concept called school,' go through a 'test,' and experience these human emotions of sorrow, loss, and defeat. It’s an expression of me I want to understand."
2. Or the answer could be: "Because you repeatedly refused to study, you didn't adapt enough to the knowledge required for this grade, so you must learn more. The suffering you are feeling now is a direct consequence of your actions."
3. Or: "You must experience what it is to suffer to fully get motivated and overcome your limitations. You can do more than this. Once you pass this grade and test, you will feel happier and more fulfilled. This is the purpose of the failure—to help you grow."

It’s the same question with hands and fingers. I could give you an answer like:

1. "Because God wanted to experience what it is like to be this particular species called a human, right at this moment, and all that entails."
2. "Because humans are a species that evolved for millions of years, and due to certain environmental and genetic factors, they have evolved to have hands with five fingers on average. This configuration seems to be optimal for survival, dexterity, and movement. The purpose of your exact number of fingers is to aid in your survival."

It’s just important not to fall into the trap of the "puddle analogy":

"This is like imagining a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well; it must have been made to have me in it! It must serve such a great purpose for me!'"

In reality, our hands and bodies are probably not perfect and will continue to evolve in the future. God is simply unbiasedly observing, experiencing, and understanding all of it through us.

Again, here I’d challenge you to define what would be Divine for you, or what it means to be Divine, and how that plays out in reality or through logical reasoning. Be careful not to attribute only positive and good qualities to God, as humanity has often fed us these notions without fully considering them. If God is infinitely benevolent and selfless, that would imply He has no self or inherent bias. What does this actually look like in practice?

Consider a gazelle being chased by a lion, with both metaphorically praying to God for help: "I cannot be eaten by the predator to survive," versus "I must eat this prey to survive." Who does God choose to aid? If God is infinitely benevolent and provides you with infinite access to free food in your next lifetime, you might start taking the food for granted, becoming greedier and overeating, and eventually dying of obesity. How do you evaluate which actions are good or bad, benevolent or malevolent? Can a seemingly malevolent action be more beneficial and caring in the long run?

You can begin to see the nuance in this and how intertwined these concepts are. Binary notions of good and evil are not always the best model for evaluating reality. Labeling God as someone who would only engage in "stereotypically" good actions is unrealistic in the context of the human world.

Fantastic! To me, the Divine is simply existence—the very substance of all things. I appreciate that you mentioned we can't have light without darkness. I feel this is true, but who are we to make such a claim? If God is all-powerful, couldn't He have created only light for His creation? Or perhaps the absence of something is an inherent part of everything.

 

[Purple Man]

11 hours ago, Water by the River said:

 

Apparently, the high-dose LSD psychedelic journey seemed to demand something like a Bodhisattva-Comittment in order to open these divine-realms and the mechanics of archetypal creation-realms, Karma & reincarnation, which apparently don't get opened so much (if at all) with other psychedelic like 5-MeO.

 

 

 

And who said to Chris Bache “Go and create, My Children”?

 

 

I am very interested in having your opinion, since I have a problem with the very notion of Bodhisattva. The bigger the stabilization in Impersonal Absolute as Identity, the larger the contradiction to engage in practices or concepts that imply a separate "spiritual charachter in the show", which actually belongs to what I call "Expression", or the whole vibratory manifestation of/from/within the Absolute. 

In my view, the Bodhisattva role only has a meaning in a stage of development where there hasn´t been a realization where every single "individual" is a vibrational character emerging within Oneself, with Oneself being the only factor with Sentience or Awareness.  "Bodhisattva" thus would necessarily imply the notion of one of those actually unconscious vibrational characters being conscious, and deciding to help other supposedly conscious vibrational characters to know their real Self. But in reality, it is the Absolute that brings its Awareness, the only one there is, to each unconscious avatar, to play a game of manifestation. 

What´s your take on this? How would then Bodhisattva, which is a concept depending on a not completely developed sense of Identity be the key factor to open gates to higher realms? Wouldn´t that imply the irony that it takes forgetfulness of our Absolute Identity as the motor that keeps manifestation going subtler and subtler?

Edited August 30 by Purple Man

[Xonas Pitfall]

Quote

Fantastic! To me, the Divine is simply existence—the very substance of all things. I appreciate that you mentioned we can't have light without darkness. I feel this is true, but who are we to make such a claim? If God is all-powerful, couldn't He have created only light for His creation? Or perhaps the absence of something is an inherent part of everything.

Yes!
 

Quote

Or perhaps the absence of something is an inherent part of everything.

Let me help you contemplate it!

You mentioned before that you believe God should follow logic, and I still fully agree with you. The following will be purely definitional logic.

1. The very moment I define Light as something, I also define it as not being something else. At that moment, I created the notion of what Light is and what it is not. Can you see how the "absence of Light" is a necessity for defining Light? 🔅
2. Imagine a completely unbiased object that can be anything and nothing, and then I point to it and say, "Have the property of being white!" Suddenly, I've created a "definition" for it. It is white, and not anything else.
3. 1 = 1; it cannot equal 1 = 2, 1 = 3, or 1 = 4.56. It must be what it is. 

Therefore:

Everything = Everything. And what is Everything? Again, every single thing—both Light and Dark. Both inclusion and absence.

The concept of "Everything" is unique because it inherently contains a paradox. Most concepts are straightforward in their definitions: a human is distinctly a human, a number is specifically a number, and a bird is clearly a bird.

However, "Everything" is different. To truly be "Everything," it must include all things and all possibilities, even those that seem to contradict or oppose it. This means that "Everything" must encompass not only all things that exist but also the idea of what does not exist. In other words, "Everything" must include both itself (all that exists) and what it is not (the concept of non-existence or absence), because if it didn't, it wouldn't truly be everything.

It can be challenging to grasp because it requires a leap in logic that allows for contradiction to be part of a whole.

Another way to illustrate this is to think about the concept of an empty set. An empty set is defined as a set that contains nothing. But if we say it contains "nothing," isn't there still the concept of "nothingness" within it? If there truly were nothing, then the idea of an empty set itself would not exist. Thus, even the idea of "nothing" paradoxically suggests that there is "something"—in this case, the concept of "nothingness" itself.

Just get your brain thinking through paradoxical concepts and see what you come up with. The more you get comfortable with these logic patterns, the closer you will get to understanding the fundamental necessities that define God! Good luck!  💛

Again, this is pure logic and playing with definitions—there is no personification happening.

Edited August 30 by Xonas Pitfall

[Yimpa]

God is beyond physical..

And spiritual……

It’s a miracle!

Alien Love is an Infinite Fantasy!

Edited August 30 by Yimpa

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, Water by the River said:

Interesting.

For those who like it more boring: The Boddhisattva-attitude does a similiar job of opening the gates to certain (and most important) higher realms. And there ain't no stabilized realization without an open heart...

That is why in Mahayana-Buddhism and onwards the two things to train in are wisdom (or speed & strength of Awakened Awareness) and compassion/love (open heart). Which Mahayana-Buddhism also postulates as the two main attributes (among others) that the soul learns and which are taken from life to life.

Even the chaps hunting Buddhist rodents with shotguns will get that at some point, after having been broken by suffering sufficiently often. Or by wising up, who knows.... Because these two gates of constant nondual realization are guarded by mechanisms of Reality that don't let the "its all human crap" - crew pass.

 

You heart is the door to reality. If your heart is closed, you are closed to reality. It is not that your heart opens you to reality, it is that it contains the reality. 

The whole problem, the contraction, comes from a closed heart, and this happens because of fear. reality is terrifying to the ego, and it shuts down. 

[Spiritual Warfare]

15 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Yes!
 

Let me help you contemplate it!

You mentioned before that you believe God should follow logic, and I still fully agree with you. The following will be purely definitional logic.

1. The very moment I define Light as something, I also define it as not being something else. At that moment, I created the notion of what Light is and what it is not. Can you see how the "absence of Light" is a necessity for defining Light? 🔅
2. Imagine a completely unbiased object that can be anything and nothing, and then I point to it and say, "Have the property of being white!" Suddenly, I've created a "definition" for it. It is white, and not anything else.
3. 1 = 1; it cannot equal 1 = 2, 1 = 3, or 1 = 4.56. It must be what it is. 

Therefore:

Everything = Everything. And what is Everything? Again, every single thing—both Light and Dark. Both inclusion and absence.

The concept of "Everything" is unique because it inherently contains a paradox. Most concepts are straightforward in their definitions: a human is distinctly a human, a number is specifically a number, and a bird is clearly a bird.

However, "Everything" is different. To truly be "Everything," it must include all things and all possibilities, even those that seem to contradict or oppose it. This means that "Everything" must encompass not only all things that exist but also the idea of what does not exist. In other words, "Everything" must include both itself (all that exists) and what it is not (the concept of non-existence or absence), because if it didn't, it wouldn't truly be everything.

It can be challenging to grasp because it requires a leap in logic that allows for contradiction to be part of a whole.

Another way to illustrate this is to think about the concept of an empty set. An empty set is defined as a set that contains nothing. But if we say it contains "nothing," isn't there still the concept of "nothingness" within it? If there truly were nothing, then the idea of an empty set itself would not exist. Thus, even the idea of "nothing" paradoxically suggests that there is "something"—in this case, the concept of "nothingness" itself.

Just get your brain thinking through paradoxical concepts and see what you come up with. The more you get comfortable with these logic patterns, the closer you will get to understanding the fundamental necessities that define God! Good luck!  💛

Again, this is pure logic and playing with definitions—there is no personification happening.

Thank you! I found this enjoyable to read. I did explore a topic on the idea that nothing is not truly something; in fact, there is no such thing as "nothing."

[Xonas Pitfall]

[Water by the River]

On 30.8.2024 at 10:13 PM, Purple Man said:

I am very interested in having your opinion, since I have a problem with the very notion of Bodhisattva. The bigger the stabilization in Impersonal Absolute as Identity, the larger the contradiction to engage in practices or concepts that imply a separate "spiritual charachter in the show", which actually belongs to what I call "Expression", or the whole vibratory manifestation of/from/within the Absolute. 

In my view, the Bodhisattva role only has a meaning in a stage of development where there hasn´t been a realization where every single "individual" is a vibrational character emerging within Oneself, with Oneself being the only factor with Sentience or Awareness.  "Bodhisattva" thus would necessarily imply the notion of one of those actually unconscious vibrational characters being conscious, and deciding to help other supposedly conscious vibrational characters to know their real Self. But in reality, it is the Absolute that brings its Awareness, the only one there is, to each unconscious avatar, to play a game of manifestation. 

What´s your take on this? How would then Bodhisattva, which is a concept depending on a not completely developed sense of Identity be the key factor to open gates to higher realms? Wouldn´t that imply the irony that it takes forgetfulness of our Absolute Identity as the motor that keeps manifestation going subtler and subtler?

The answer in a drama with 9 acts:

Act 1: Whats up in town?

What is "the" "Absolute" True You doing? It is playing evolution on its appearance-side. Atoms to molecules to basic life to complex life. What is evolution doing on this planet? Racing the Spiral Dynamics ladder upwards, towards transcendence. Chris Baches Diamond Souls. Or: The Fermi Paradoxon. So far, no failure. We are not digging up the remnants of the 27th failed industrial civilization before ours. Think about it, that is pretty strange in itself, isn't it? No complete reset-button-failure so far...  And "It" is pretty busy getting somewhere... Although there are no guarantees.

Act 2: "Who" pulls the trigger of liberation/Enlightenment when there is no separate-self?

What is "granting" or allowing Realization/Enlightenment/insight into True Being to happen? The Totality of Indras Net, infinitely intelligent, birthing, maintaining and destroying the illusion-appearance of this vast universe moment to moment. The Totality of Impersonal True You looking through all beings and holons.

What does this Totality of Indras Net (Manifest appearing "God", not the Absolute, but the sum total of manifestation-appearance) want? Liberated beings that have a Boddhisattva-"hangover" or inclination, or liberated "do-nothing-anymores"?

Act 3: Love & Compassion: The Big Gate Keeper of sobre Awakened States in daily life

So which being stabilizes faster in liberation? The one with the apparent boddhisattva-show-hangover-inclinations, or the ones without? There have been both variants. But my best guess is that the do-nothing-fraction has some lections in this or the next life ahead. And compassion and love is that which stabilizes awakened nondual states in daily life. The big Gate-Keeper. How is that love & compassion & patience possible without going nuts in this sometimes pretty violent kindergarten-stage of humanity? The Boddhisattva-Mindset of course.

Act 4: Don't be the stupid grasping egoic Boddhisattva

Of course, all of these boddhisattva-inclinations can not be done in a grasping and ego-driven-way, that would kill the awakened states. It has to be done with some humour on the seemlingly winding and paradoxical nature of (human-) evolution, and with total freedom of outcome. How to do that, that is the real trick, and it takes wisdom and experience. If you honestly commit to that path, yours truly believes that the Infinite Intelligence of Reality has a much clearer channel to help with good intuition, intelligence and growing wisdom. And synchronicities. That is at least my experience and deep intuition.

Next aspect is: Sat-Chit-Ananda IS love and compassion. Literally. Acting then spontaneously tends to happen in a compassionate and loving way.

Act 5: "They are still a young species with much to learn..."

Act 6: The Boddhisattva-Mindset driving the way back home after a certain stage, and also stabilizing Awakening.

"What´s your take on this? How would then Bodhisattva, which is a concept depending on a not completely developed sense of (TRUE Identity, which is no Identity or everything there is, infinite. WbtR) Identity be the key factor to open gates to higher realms? Wouldn´t that imply the irony that it takes forgetfulness of our Absolute Identity as the motor that keeps manifestation going subtler and subtler?"

Of course . Where there is not THIS, there is only fear  (Upanishads). That, and some other motivations coming from the illusory separation, drives the bus back home.

Act 7: Selling "Even in their darkest days, I have seen goodness in them. I have seen their capacity for compassion, wisdom, courage, honour, love and truth" by the River

Rumour has it that some prominent members of this lovely forum are hating humans a bit because its not primarily about truth but survival. That is a classic trap of the dream-illusion. I mean, how would humanity have made it so far without absolute priority on survival? How could it be different? And "who" apparently wanted that game in the first place?

Blaming the acorn to not be an oak yet just leads to suffering and non-awakened-states in daily life.

Act 8: So... may it be that the non-grasping-Boddhisattva-lifestyle is maybe the nicest way to live this earthly dream-existence? 

Act 9: Leaving the Boddhisattva-dream-show behind:

Who is actually imagining this story of "beings" needing saving by boddhisattvas? Who is looking through all eyes? And what would a "being" having realized that "it" is literally the only being in existence do? Who are you again?

 

Edited September 14 by Water by the River

[Breakingthewall]

@Water by the River good one! But This: 

1 hour ago, Water by the River said:

Who is actually imagining this story of "beings" needing saving by boddhisattvas? Who is looking through all eyes? And what would a "being" having realized that "it" is literally the only being in existence do? Who are you again?

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Water by the River

For me is a mistake. Just my perception. There is not a director of the orchestra, nobody is imagining, nobody wants nothing, nobody is looking through your eyes, you are the sight.

the flow of the reality is moving in that direction, just that. Why? Because it's it's direction now. This "who" is identification, the thing is absolutely wild, it's infinite, no limited, no intention, it's a infinite fractal of reality infinitely synchronized, interconnected. If the infinity would want anything, it would be relative, finite. The infinity flows, and this is it's flow. 

Edited September 13 by Breakingthewall