Spinoza’s Ethics (pantheism)

[Michael Paul]

Also, for anyone following this thread, Spinoza claims that humans and all finite beings are “modes” or expressions of God. So there is no contradiction here with what Leo teaches.

[Forestluv]

10 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

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?

The words are "pointers". Similar to how a map is a pointer of the territory. It's really easy to conflate map and territory.

For example, we could conceptualize things like "Everything", "Now", "God" etc. all day. We can create all sorts of constructs. Yet that aint it. 

When a being has direct experience with Everything/Now/God it is an experience beyond anything you can imagine. Ime, when actual God-consciousness was revealed, followed by contraction back to human consciousness - it was beyond explanation. In human form it was absolutely terrifying and overwhelming. My mind and body was terrified by the omniscience/potential/power that was revealed. Tears, shaking, insanity. I couldn't perceive reality as a human. I couldn't function for about a week and confined myself solitary. That was five months ago and I am still integrating that experience.  Other mind-bodies may have a different response - yet it will be life shattering. 

The words and concepts are kids play. The actual direct experience is on another level. More like another million levels. Imagine going from the consciousness of an ant to a human - then going back to an ant. An ant mind trying to conceptualize human consciousness will be extremely limited. It wouldn't even capture 1 trillionth of human consciousness. Similarly, a human mind trying to conceptualize God-consciousness will not be able to capture even 1 trillionth of God-consciousness. 

[Nak Khid]

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

The way language works is that we establish a consensus about what difference words point to. Now you're trying to question this consensus and change it around willy-nilly. You can do that, but as soon as you do the entire language structure falls apart and becomes useless. So be careful about being too clever for your own good. Language is a pragmatic tool we use in this work. It can never reach the Absolute but it can point to it.

Here you are using a relatively much more secular word "The Absolute".   I have seen you use similar words said in other statements that you have made using the word "god" and then for a moment switching to "The Universe" and "The Truth", relativity secular words

You are speaking here of consensus.   The consensus in America of what "God" means is that it is superior being that watches over us, judges us and cares for us, most perceiving it to be a part of a biblical dualistic paradigm. The consensus is that it refers to a being described in the Bible.   The word "devils" , by consensus also has a connotation  of the Christian or Islamic tradition
(but if it is in the same speech as the word "god" probably not connoting Islam since they would be using the word "Allah" )

So if you use the word "god" in America or Europe and some other places, the consensus is that you are referring to "god" as described in the bible.
But if  you then have to explain to each stranger you meet when you said "god"  you mean something else or you tell them "your are god" you would be going against the consensus and expressing you " willy-nilly"  variation of the word

So why do you ever use the word "God" instead  instead using the word "nonduality" 
or "everything" or
"consciousness" or 
"actualized" or
"the universe" or
"the Absolute" or
"The Truth"  or
"The All" or
"It"
?

You do switch to some of these other words at times but you are still using the word "god" much more
Instead of using these much more secular words why would someone not referring to a Biblically described God use  the word "god" and have to explain to each new person, going against the consensus connotation  that you in fact don't mean the biblical version?

One reason might be that  the word "God" (capital G noted) evokes a sense of authority and these other words don't or are less personal feeling

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Angelite]

@Serotoninluv and who to say that what you've realized is "God consciousness"  ?  That's "your" "meaning"..

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, Angelite said:

@Serotoninluv and who to say that what you've realized is "God consciousness"  ?  That's "your" "meaning"..

Yes. "God consciousness" is a contextualization. An "experience" is a contextualization. "My" is a contextualization.

All these conceptualizations come "after" ISness (this is also a contextualization).

On a forum, we humans communicate through contextualizations and language. It wo't be expressed through dog barks. . . . As a bird, it would be communicated differently. . . If I was sitting with a tree it would be communicated differently. . . Yet all those differences are also the same. . . Relativity. . . 

The "knowing" is like prior to traditional knowing. Rather than a me/human knowing, it's more like omniscience knows itself. 

[remember]

it still feels discriminating. and if i had to second sigmund freud for the term penis envy i would bet that the history of all grand religions is based on one single lie, it`s obviously another envy. you could say the whole of civilisation is based on birth envy or in another term creators envy. it`s still mother earth and humans can`t survive in outer space.

a true pantheist reconnects to her/his female part (unfortunately there are much less examples of such)

denial is just another monotheism - then go search for intelligence in outer space. pantheism is no monotheism but it is. it`s very difficult for males to be true pantheists and there are even more genders than we thought.

Edited November 7, 2019 by remember

[Angelite]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yes. "God consciousness" is a contextualization. An "experience" is a contextualization. "My" is a contextualization.

All these conceptualizations come "after" ISness (this is also a contextualization).

On a forum, we humans communicate through contextualizations and language. It wo't be expressed through dog barks. . . . As a bird, it would be communicated differently. . . If I was sitting with a tree it would be communicated differently. . . Yet all those differences are also the same. . . Relativity. . . 

The "knowing" is like prior to traditional knowing. Rather than a me/human knowing, it's more like omniscience knows itself. 

What I meant is , what you described as "God consciousness" might be someone else's "limit" . 

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Angelite said:

What I meant is , what you described as "God consciousness" might be someone else's "limit" . 

I'm not clear on how you are using the term "limit" - could you elaborate?

[Angelite]

20 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'm not clear on how you are using the term "limit" - could you elaborate?

That there is something higher than your "God consciousness" .

How would you really know that your definition of "God consciousness" is really the same as other's definition of it? How would you know that you're actually speaking of the same thing when it is a one person experience. Or you just assume that it is the same. How would you really know? 

Your limit is different than someone else's limit. What you described as "God consciousness" is only "God consciousness" from your pov. 

You're actually describing your highest potential. Which could be someone else's limit. 

It's the same thing as when Leo assumed that his awakening is greater than that of Buddha & Jesus ,and of late saint and sages. By pure assumption. 

..

What someone else would consider a limit, would be your definition of "God consciousness" . That's what I meant.

But first, how would you really know that you're speaking of the same thing? 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Angelite

[Forestluv]

These are great questions regarding relativity, contextualization and knowing. I think you are pushing an edge of conceptualization and knowing. For me, breakthroughs occurred with psychedelics - in particular 5-meo. Tbh, 5-meo is a much much better teacher than I am. 5-meo can teach someone more in 30min. than I could in 30 years. . . 

Any description I give is within a human realm of contextualization - I cannot transmit more than that. Sometimes when two people are together non-conceptual realms can be transmitted and shared.

Any thing I write is a contracted contextualization at the person/human level. Perhaps some may resonate with that, perhaps not. The reason I put so much effort to transmit is due to the sheer magnitude of it's magnificence. I know as a limited human I will fail, yet I will keep trying. There is nothing that has higher meaning to me than communicating facets of awakening.

Regarding your observations:

27 minutes ago, Angelite said:

That there is something higher than your "God consciousness" .

How would you really know that your definition of "God consciousness" is really the same as other's definition of it?

 There is no definitions. . . Definitions are human constructs. There is something more "expansive" than all definitions. . . At the human level, the desire is not to define. . . As well, "lower" and "higher" are also human constructs. There is an awakening of singularity in which this construct dissolves.

Imagine being blind in a blind world and then one day sight is revealed. It's not really about being "higher" or "lower". It's not about trying to define what sight is. It's not about "I can see and he can't". It's more about awakening to sight. There is sight. It's not mine or yours or anybody's. Nobody owns sight. Rather than saying "my definition is higher than his definition" it would simply be better to say "there is sight". Similarly, it's not my definition of "god consciousness" - it's more about the ISness of "god consciousness". There is no one to take ownership of it.

Any construct of "god consciousness" is a limitation. In a human form, the mind and body has limits within infinity. As a human, the "me" is a speck of infinity. Absolute infinity can reveal itself and as a human I embody an infinitesimal amount of that infinity. Human growth is unlimited. In this context, my contextualized experience and contextualized knowing is 0.00000000000000 (add one trillion zeros) 00000000000 (add another trillion zeros) 0000001%. This rounds off to zero. This is the personal/human level. At a transcendent level, the mind and body IS infinity. Yet this cannot be captured at the personal/human level. 

49 minutes ago, Angelite said:

How would you know that you're actually speaking of the same thing when it is a one person experience. Or you just assume that it is the same. How would you really know? 

This is a hard question to answer because of the terms "knowing" and "same". Again, these are contextualizations at the human level. There is knowing that can reveal itself. Yet it's not *me* knowing and it's not a *thing* that is known that can be compared to other things. It's more like knowing knows itself without a knower. 

In terms of inter-personal communication and connecting, there can be an intuitive nature of knowing. When two humans hold similar contextualized experiences that are ineffable, there can be a shared knowing. Both people may say "I can't explain it in words". They each may stumble around searching for words and say "it's sorta like this, but not really". The other person may pick up on it and say "yea, and kinda like this, but not really". The other may laugh or do something silly and the other laughs and also does something silly. There is a connected sense. It can be super rare and beautiful. . . At a transcendent level, the two people are actually the same person communicating with itself - yet the "two people" may not be aware of this.

At a transcendent level, two people are actually the same transcendent entity. The two people are One YOU. So the question becomes "How do YOU know you are speaking of YOUR experience?". The transcendence knows itself. There is no person contextualizing it. . . . At the personal/human level it is a very different dynamic and a different essence of "knowing", because there is contracted contextualization. In this form, I wouldn't know. 

27 minutes ago, Angelite said:

Your limit is different than someone else's limit. What you described as "God consciousness" is only "God consciousness" from your pov. 

From a contextualized "me". . . of course. From a contextualized description of "God consciousness" of course. Once the "from your pov" is added in - of course it is a pov. A pov is a "somewhere". You are essentially asking "If you are somewhere, how can you be nowhere?". If you are somewhere, then you are somewhere. Every word, statement, image, concept uttered is a "somewhere". Yet all somewheres are nowhere/everywhere.

1 hour ago, Angelite said:

You're actually describing your highest potential. Which could be someone else's limit. 

There is absolute infinity. It is not mine, yours or anybody's to own. Once we add in the *your* part, of course it's your.

Imagine you create a story with two different characters that get stranded on a desert island. One of the characters has a high potential and the other person has a low potential. Within this story, you just created two characters and a concept called "potential. Then I ask you "how do you know that there are two characters with different potentials?". You would respond "Because I just created it!!!!" . . . The key to transcendence is that you are not either character, YOU are both characters. YOU created both characters. . . If I asked you "How do YOU know that both characters are talking about the same experience?". . YOU would reply, "Because *I* created both characters and both experiences!!!". . . . However, at the character level - neither character would know for sure. They might stumble around trying to explain the experience. . . This is a comical feature of transcendence. 

1 hour ago, Angelite said:

But first, how would you really know that you're speaking of the same thing? 

The answer is in the transcendence of "you", "know", "same" and "thing". . . In the normal colloquial sense of the terms, there is no knowing. This is a very important issue at the personal level. Here, there are underlying assumptions, ownership, contextualizations, relativity that the person is unaware of. This is a very big issue indeed.

A question of contemplation that may open a crack. . . "How do you know now is now?". The direct experience is more important than an intellectual answer. Is there awareness that "knowing now is now" has a different flavor than regular kind of knowing? . . Is there a knowing of now without a knower to take ownership of that knowing? Does this knowing know itself without a knower?

 

[Angelite]

@Serotoninluv i'm not talking about your description, but the actual thing that you are describing. The way you described it make me think that it is within creations. You are describing creations. Not God. Something "new"

Which will come & pass. Except your own self. But also others relative to their own self. 

You won't disappear of move anywhere further from yourself, but it is the One who won't disappear from everything that will be called God.

But something/everything will disappear from you. So you are not God's consciousness. 

How do I know now is now?

English.

I wouldn't know what now is without language.(regardless of which language) I'll probably just do my thing without knowing that people terms it "now". 

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, Angelite said:

@Serotoninluv i'm not talking about your description, but the actual thing that you are describing.

Descriptions and things are constructs. There is no “thing”. There is Nothing. Any thing is a construct.

35 minutes ago, Angelite said:

@Serotoninluv The way you described it make me think that it is within creations. You are describing creations. Not God. Something "new"

Any “it” is a creation. Any description is a creation.. Of course an it that is described is within creation. That is Ike saying a somewhere is within everywhere. This is evident.

One cannot hear spokenless speech if they hear what is spoken. 
If a mind holds ideas of God and Not God, they hold a construct. This is infinitesimal. 
 

35 minutes ago, Angelite said:

@Serotoninluv 

You won't disappear or move anywhere further from yourself, but it is the One who won't disappear from everything that will be called God.

But something/everything will disappear from you. So you are not God's consciousness. 

This story can be transcended. 
 

35 minutes ago, Angelite said:

 

How do I know now is now?

English.

I wouldn't know what now is without language.(regardless of which language) I'll probably just do my thing without knowing that people terms it "now". 

That’s not what is being pointed to. There is more to be revealed.
 

This is precisely why 5-meo is so powerful. This is the type of stuff that takes years or decades of dedicated practice to transcend, yet 5-meo can blast through it in minutes. 

[Angelite]

*This is actually a continuation of my earlier words*

..I wouldn't know what now is without language.(regardless of which language) I'll probably just do my thing without knowing that people terms it "now"..

 

...

EDIT

That's why definition is important. Your now is not the same as my now. And you dare to project onto God's Now? 

If you don't know every creation's "now", then you don't know God. (Factual)

If you don't know aliens-in-other-planet 's "now", then you don't know God.  (Imagination)

Including the unseen things. (Factual) -

 

Describes to me one unseen thing you've experienced in your trip. 

(Unseen=cannot be seen by the naked eyes in the physical world)

 

[5:116]

Allah says: "O Jesus the son of Mary, did you say unto men , ' Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah' ?"

Jesus said: "Glory to You. Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would indeed have Known it. You Know what is in my heart, though i know not what is in Yours. For You Knowest in full all that is hidden."

 

The Absolute is not meant to be applied in the relative. That's why it can't be spoken. 

Half truth is the root of all delusions. (Not really, half truth is better than no truth, but mixing it with delusions & fantasies turns it into a devilry. When you mixed it with assumptions. 

...

* Basically, if you are not aware of everything (including everything beyond your knowing) , then it is not "God consciousness". 

I think it's still within the material world. You still wouldn't know what you didn't know. For example, afterlife. 

 

[ActualizedDavid]

@Leo Gura

If i was to ask you "do you believe in God?"

What will be your short answer?

[Leo Gura]

@ActualizedDavid Hahaha...

[Nak Khid]

that's like asking who created God