God Is Actually an Evil, Delusional Cosmic Asshole

[Inliytened1]

4 hours ago, zeroISinfinity said:

 

There is no world. 

 

One should take care not to confuse this with not existing or non-existance.  That could lead to a lack of embrace.  Rather it exists as imaginary.  Just like it also exists as formlessness - nothing.  (It's ultimately One of course)

Of course the topic of acceptance is for another talk, but I am pointing out that one can realize it for what it is and then embrace it for what it is.  One can choose not to embrace it if one chooses, but that shouldn't come from lack of understanding of Truth.  

[Sizeable Oof]

I tend to share this view at least along side other perspectives. I realize that my emotions as I describe this to myself or others are the key to understanding things. And I'm working on it...

[Buba]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

God separates itself in order to re-realize itself. 

Why?

[Highest]

The same God who created the hotel room I will be in tommorow. The same God who created my girlfriend and I so we could be togheter in this room, fully ?

I don't see evil. Just....

Absolute Goodness, Absolute Intelligence. Absolute AbsoluteHood.

[Moreira]

The others already answered you that you are looking into God from the ego perspective, that why you judge it like bad.

Apart of that I find interesting your theory "The brain and other physical objects are actually being generated within the infinite consciousness"

But how would you explain separation? How a big mind can create mini compartments in itself? And the limitations: why individual minds cannot access to all knowledge and intelligence if its only a big single mind?

[CataTm]

@dyslexicFcuk  Because Reality = Infinite Consciousness, the good and the bad MUST happen. All possible permutations must be dreamed by the Consciousness at the same "time". Infinite is not infinite anymore if bad is removed. So yes, all the horrific deeds and the ecstatic things must be experienced. Only in this way Counciesness knows itself

Edited December 25, 2019 by CataTm

[Inliytened1]

3 hours ago, Buba said:

Why?

Love.  Infinity is so singular and fundamental that it doesn't even have a way to know itself without creating separation - because it is fundamentally prior to knowing.   Thus, to know itself and realize itself is to fall in love with itself.  So ultimately, Love.

[Shin]

4 hours ago, Buba said:

Why?

Watch a mind fuck movie.

Then you'll know  

[MAYA EL]

All of these concepts are just that CON-cepts

[SoonHei]

21 hours ago, Shin said:

None of us asked to be born

God is what is born as the one who after being born claims "i didn't ask to be born"

 

It's rather he was born to say that

 

God cast himself in a movie he wrote, directed, produced. God cast himself in all the roles. Like any game. There's a winning side and losing side. If God is playing both sides, he is the winning side and also the losing side, since he's both.

 

 

[LastThursday]

Apportioning blame for suffering to God is analogous to the characters in a film blaming the screen for their misfortunes. There is a difference between the content and the medium which conveys it.

The medium in our cases is consciousness (a.k.a. God). Consciousness is resolutely neutral, in fact it is outside all suffering and it is meta to its content. In my opinion to be enlightened is to be at one with the meta-nature of consciousness and hence above all suffering, but also above all ecstasy.  

In this context to say that being enlightened is this or that experience is to miss the point or more accurately to be still caught up in the content of consciousness. The meta-nature of consciousness is without description or attributes, but it is directly knowable. The analogy with film characters is that the characters can get to understand their screen. Consciousness can know itself - that is its nature. But it is also powerful enough to indulge itself and to get caught up in its own content.

How does the content then differ from the medium?  This is like the difference between the knot and the string that makes it. Because consciousness is reflective or recursive (it knows itself) it can tie a knot in itself – like a string that is able to tie itself into a knot.  

Why is suffering in the content and not the medium? The first clue is the transitory nature of suffering. Suffering has a characteristic ebb and flow and so suffering is by nature impermanent. Any experience which is transitory must be unreal or imaginary because it happens on the knife-edge of the present moment. No sooner has it happened than it becomes “lost” to us again. In other words the entire content of consciousness is transitory and ephemeral – it is all “appearances” never again to be repeated in exactly the same way – yesterday’s suffering is not today’s suffering. Suffering is an appearance like a knot in consciousness.

The meta-nature of consciousness is on the other hand not impermanent, because it has no attributes to change. Because it has no attributes it is indifferent to suffering and not the cause of it. The screen of the film does not care about the suffering of the characters playing out on it. God does not directly cause suffering or cause bliss.

[Nahm]

On 12/25/2019 at 0:01 PM, zeroISinfinity said:

Truest  perspective. 

There is no world. 

This is a dream. Conciousness itself. No evil no suffering possible. 

If you could refrain from making things so perfectly crystalline clear, the rest of us could have something to type about. Thank you sir. 

♥️

 

[Pramit]

On 25/12/2019 at 3:03 PM, dyslexicFcuk said:

• So far, Leo Gura is the only person who I've heard describing death as an "infinite safety net", although others have likened death to ultimate freedom, seemingly addressing the same experienced phenomenon with different words. I fully believe it could be true that once you have transcended egoic awareness (or have died) you are free of all suffering. There is not much to doubt there, but what I detest is the notion that such a "safety net" makes all of reality good without opposite. Contrary to intuitive reasoning, Leo commonly says their can only exist goodness without opposite, such that if a thing is not good it cannot exist. The supposed rationality behind this idea is the fact that death will remind us that we are actually invincible, once we have awoken form the dream of life, making all experience a net positive to take back home, no matter what the outcome was. So if my life was 100 years of agonizing torture and that was literally all I ever knew, it would supposedly be a good thing merely because at the end of the day it was all an illusion that eventually transcends to nirvana? What if it were 1,000 years of torture? Or 1,000,000 years? Just because death is an inevitability does not mean that all experience is tantamount to a net positive. If 99.9% of your existence is suffering, and 0.1% is unspeakable bliss, this to me seems like a horrible trade-off. A typical life is around 80 years with tolerable suffering, but the same principle applies. Reality cannot just be considered "all positive" no matter how insignificant the negative experiences were.

 

Is there really a difference between 10 days and 100 years? In terms of accumulated memories, yes, you will have more memories and may be memories of different kinds as you get older. You can say that the number of years you spend color your perspective, influence your present. But in terms of experience, you can only sample a given amount of time, say 2 seconds, to give the illusion of a continuity. Is there a difference between today and yesterday? tomorrow feels like today if you are at tomorrow. The past and present does exist, but not as we imagine it to exist. Thus, as long as death is inevitable, even if it is trillions and trillions of years late, your experiences have an inevitable end that will happen in an instant. You can collapse your time into a single dimension using any dimensionality reduction methods.  

[purerogue]

Lets look at what Shin said

First you have to answer if there is such thing as good ,bad and suffering, to which I would say it would be wrong to say that such things do not exist, there are people who think that something is good ,or bad, there are people who suffer, so ultimately they are real. 

But now lets look at it differently, is there anything that is actually good,bad or brings  suffering, you will find that it will vary allot because of how your personality, how your mind interprets it at any given time. what someone consider bad and makes him suffer, could as well bring joy and be considered good for someone else , or you can see it as bad one moment, but as something good, or irrelevant another day. 

 

 

[dyslexicFcuk]

A few responses here have been excellent, however the major problem this community and religious dogmatists in general suffer from can be summed up by the following exchange:

In response to an egoically-driven slew of unsubstantiated dogma seen below, a moderator decides to jump in merely to encourage the vacuous self-fellatio with the equally undiscerning response shown further below.

On 12/25/2019 at 9:01 AM, zeroISinfinity said:

Truest  perspective. 

There is no world. 

This is a dream. Conciousness itself. No evil no suffering possible. 

↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

13 hours ago, Nahm said:

If you could refrain from making things so perfectly crystalline clear, the rest of us could have something to type about. Thank you sir. 

♥️

Exactly in what world is the preceding remark a "perfectly crystalline clear" explanation of non-duality? Obviously, (since we are not hapless idiots here, correct?) the goal should be to frame your supposed insight in a context such that somebody who does not already buy into your worldview can be receptive to it. Nobody is EVER going to lend credence to these limp, unsubstantiated 'proverbs', rather what is needed is a direct, logically compelling explanation of your supposed knowledge. Simply stating the already established consensus of non-dual rhetoric without substantiating it is beyond meaningless. 

So many of these responses seem to think they are making such high-level contributions when really they are just rehashing the same supposed 'insights' that have already been expressed repeatedly on Actualized's YouTube content. It should be obvious that I have been exposed to the same 'teachings' that you have (especially given the extent to which I have substantiated my positions). 

This user wrote an entire paragraph in which he or she believes they are making a sound explanation for why suffering is meaningless, when in reality they are simply working backwards from the pre-established conclusion to haphazardly justify the dogmatic position that suffering is not real.

12 hours ago, Pramit said:

Is there really a difference between 10 days and 100 years? In terms of accumulated memories, yes, you will have more memories and may be memories of different kinds as you get older. You can say that the number of years you spend color your perspective, influence your present. But in terms of experience, you can only sample a given amount of time, say 2 seconds, to give the illusion of a continuity. Is there a difference between today and yesterday? tomorrow feels like today if you are at tomorrow. The past and present does exist, but not as we imagine it to exist. Thus, as long as death is inevitable, even if it is trillions and trillions of years late, your experiences have an inevitable end that will happen in an instant. You can collapse your time into a single dimension using any dimensionality reduction methods.  

My clearly stated position was that I do not believe 10 seconds of suffering and 1,000 years of suffering can be declared equally insignificant on the basis of death being inevitable. The response shown above is tantamount to saying "Actually they are equally insignificant, because death is inevitable." ..Yes of course I can intuit the potential reason that such a claim could have merit is due to the inevitability of death... I've already posited that much... The problem is you have yet to substantiate why these assumptions are valid to begin with. I imagine you'd refuse cutting off your own hand to prove this idea of course. Now if it happens that your next response intends to unveil credible images of your detached, blood-gushing limbs then you'll have to pardon my assumptions.

Here is yet another user working backwards from a dogmatic conclusion to give it justification. 

11 hours ago, purerogue said:

First you have to answer if there is such thing as good ,bad and suffering, to which I would say it would be wrong to say that such things do not exist, there are people who think that something is good ,or bad, there are people who suffer, so ultimately they are real. 

But now lets look at it differently, is there anything that is actually good,bad or brings  suffering, you will find that it will vary allot because of how your personality, how your mind interprets it at any given time. what someone consider bad and makes him suffer, could as well bring joy and be considered good for someone else , or you can see it as bad one moment, but as something good, or irrelevant another day. 

Even if it's true that one person's scenario of hell may be another person's heaven this does not change the epistemic dilemma I am trying to address. I could have instead described the hell scenario such that it is not based in subjectivity, rather the subject is unconditionally miserable for the stated amount of time, so as to preclude the possibility of perceiving hell as enjoyable. It should be obvious this is what I meant, but it seems that people who buy into non-duality are primarily interested in playing epistemic word games in order to give off a flimsy facade of credibility. Intelligent people see right through it. If you actually want the rest of the society to wake up to this compelling worldview you will never succeed unless your positions are expressed with very skillful use of rhetoric. 

Leo talks frequently about life-purpose. I'm beginning to feel as though mine happens to be expressing these ideas in a logically compelling manor such that we will not be dismissed as religious idiots. And trust me, we absolutely will be if we don't cut out the bullshit. 

Last, but not least, the winner of the pompous brainlet award goes to:

14 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Are you some sort of Anarchist-Communist (judging by your profile picture)? To fully understand god, you should start dropping these ideology. It seems you're coming out of a very Scientific-Marxist perspective when talking about religion.

Apparently a mere profile logo is enough to cast my perspective on non-duality into the uncomplimentary category of Marxist precept. Did I forget to delete my unhinged diatribe against the bourgeoisie before posting my thoughts on non-duality? Nope? No ferocious tirade prompting to seize the means of production? Surely I must have said something about a proletariat revolution... No? Then what the fuck are you talking about? It should be obvious that I am very familiar with non-dual teachings, and thus I have obviously been exposed to the notion that political ideology is not compatible with enlightenment. The same teachings profess that personal ideologies can be transcended once you are conscious of the absolute. I have already said I am pursuing such enlightenment and have admitted to being in the earlier stages, so expecting somebody to drop their ideologies without having had the relevant experiences of non-duality necessary to facilitate such growth is equally stupid as demanding that you relinquish your preference for not being tortured and murdered. Perhaps it is you who needs to refine their approach. 

I will end this by expressing my thanks to the users who have contributed to my intellectual pursuit in a productive way. 

The ideas posted from @LastThursday, @Shin, @molosku &@VeganAwake may slightly suffer from fallacies described above, however these contributors have provided insight that can be easily interpreted by those of us seriously pursuing a deeper understanding, and I definitely appreciate that. However it is my goal to encourage rational discourse in this field such that one does not even need to be familiar with non-duality in order to give merit to the positions being espoused, because the rhetoric being used would ideally be so compelling and skillfully conceived that even the hapless masses can understand it. It is a MUST that everyone in this community works towards this end.

Edited December 27, 2019 by dyslexicFcuk

[Gnosis]

Who knows, maybe I am an unholy piece of shit.

Time to find out, right? 

[Nahm]

@dyslexicFcuk Experience is much more subjective than you’ve realized. Your suffering isn’t because of ‘how it is’, but how you see. What @zeroISinfinity said is so true & accurate, that it cuts through the entire post, and I believe it sounds absurd to you. That’s the “problem” with Truth, it is too Good to believe. You’ve got to find out for ‘yourself’. Apply your crafty skepticism, to your own skepticism. Or don’t. He knows who he actually is, and so he knows you are talking about yourself, but don’t know it.

[zeroISinfinity]

Yeah I guess I am big Absolutist. ?

Oh you silly kiddo. 

[LastThursday]

@dyslexicFcuk I appreciate your vigour.

This forum is a bit like real life. You have a whole range of folks at many different levels and with different backgrounds and so on.  It has its own flavour and way of speaking as any community does.  You'll find it difficult to shift the centre gravity if that's your aim. The forum does have a collective ego!

I also think you've slightly misunderstood the forum. I for one am not interested in converting the masses to mysticism and spirituality. More I'm just here for self discovery and advancement, I reckon a lot of others are the same.

Anyway, do what anyone in real life does, either ignore the bullshit (I do) or call it out (as you've done) or better just acknowledge to yourself you don't understand it and move on. Humility goes a long a way as does rational discourse.

Peace be upon you.

[purerogue]

6 hours ago, dyslexicFcuk said:

Even if it's true that one person's scenario of hell may be another person's heaven this does not change the epistemic dilemma I am trying to address. I could have instead described the hell scenario such that it is not based in subjectivity, rather the subject is unconditionally miserable for the stated amount of time, so as to preclude the possibility of perceiving hell as enjoyable. It should be obvious this is what I meant, but it seems that people who buy into non-duality are primarily interested in playing epistemic word games in order to give off a flimsy facade of credibility. Intelligent people see right through it. If you actually want the rest of the society to wake up to this compelling worldview you will never succeed unless your positions are expressed with very skillful use of rhetoric. 

Leo talks frequently about life-purpose. I'm beginning to feel as though mine happens to be expressing these ideas in a logically compelling manor such that we will not be dismissed as religious idiots. And trust me, we absolutely will be if we don't cut out the bullshit. 

I think you did not even try to understand what I wrote, but just lashed because of comments some people wrote here.

Nothing of what I wrote requires more then some intellect to digest information, you do not need some groundbreaking insights for it. 

To be fair I did it overly simplific way,not going to deep into explanations,but you seemed like quite smart guy to get there yourself. 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by purerogue