God Is Actually an Evil, Delusional Cosmic Asshole

[WHO IS]

You know you could say a few more things that suffering is not real and it is your perspective, but I bet nobody (sane) here would want to get captured and get tortured for the rest of their lives. Or get their eyes got bulged, and eardrums too, which means you could no longer interact with the people on this forum for example, which again shows that "some" things are indeed "negative" it will give you suffering/lower your quality of life.

Sorry for such as a graphic example above, it was needed to talk about the reality of things that things can get "not-so-good" and any sane person would not want these kinds of things to happen to him/her.

But "HEY"  , if there is no such thing as duality then You could easily accept anything written here. And there is no point in censorship, and if all categorization is illusionary, then why do anything? Because any action is done from a perspective of a subject and an object, which cannot happen before one makes a differentiation between a subject and an object. 

Edited December 27, 2019 by WHO IS

[purerogue]

11 minutes ago, WHO IS said:

You know you could say a few more things that suffering is not real and it is your perspective, but I bet nobody here would wanted to get captured and get tortured for the rest of their lives. Or get their eyes got bulged, and eardrums too out, which means you could no longer interact with the people on this forum for example, which again shows that "some" things are indeed "negative" it will give you suffering/lower your quality of life.

 

First you need to want  and not want something, then consider something, good or bad, clearly your ego works in such way  and it can make him suffer, but what makes you think that one thing is good , another bad? 

Edited December 27, 2019 by purerogue

[WHO IS]

We can say whatever we want but if lose our eyesight and hearing, we won't be able to have this conversation on this forum. That's a disadvantage, however we call it , "good", "bad", or "neither" etc.

 

[purerogue]

5 minutes ago, WHO IS said:

We can say whatever we want but if lose our eyesight and hearing, we won't be able to have this conversation on this forum. That's a disadvantage, however we call it , "good", "bad", or "neither" etc.

 

It is disadvantage only if we place it against someone who has advantage and we have set goal that both need achieve, but again, what it has to do with good, or bad? 

Edited December 27, 2019 by purerogue

[WHO IS]

19 minutes ago, purerogue said:

It is disadvantage only if we place it against someone who has advantage and we have set goal that both need achieve, but again, what it has to do with good, or bad? 

It is for sure a disadvantage because then we won't be able to communicate. Now with the thinking you present, you could say but this is because we compare to someonewho has an advantage, but You don't need to compare to someone else, because it will be our quality of lives decreasing from our own starting-point, which included the visual and audio sensory input into our minds. 

However, the general problem with such thinking is that if we to think this way, it will eventually boil down to the final question "why do anything?". Which shows the self-defeating narrative of this kind of thinking. Because if duality is an illusion, then there is no subject/person and an object/the world around, then why do anything? But I guess you are still alive because you are able to have this conversation on the forum, then it means you are still not forgetting to eat and drink water. Which shows that you are not really fully believing in your own thinking.  

In other words, you are still doing an action, such as drinking water at least, which shows that you are still differentiating between subject v object, a mouth, and water, to make an action you need to differentiate between a subject and an object. 

I wonder why? Maybe because you still think that maybe this kind of thinking is not the representative of the true picture? 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by WHO IS

[purerogue]

7 minutes ago, WHO IS said:

It is for sure a disadvantage because then we won't be able to communicate. Now with the thinking you present, you could say but this is because we compare to someonewho has an advantage, but You don't need to compare to someone else, because it will be our quality of lives decreasing from our own starting-point, which included the visual and audio sensory input into our minds. 

However, the general problem with such thinking is that if we to think this way, it will eventually boil down to the final question "why do anything?". Which shows the self-defeating narrative of this kind of thinking. Because if duality is an illusion, then there is no subject/person and an object/the world around, then why do anything? But I guess you are still alive because you are able to have this conversation on the forum, then it means you are still not forgetting to eat and drink water. Which shows that you are not really fully believing in your own thinking.  

In other words, you are still doing an action, such as drinking water at least, which shows that you are still differentiating between subject v object, a mouth, and water, to make an action you need to differentiate between a subject and an object. 

I wonder why? Maybe because you still think that maybe this kind of thinking is not the representative of the true picture? 

 

 

Maybe do some actual work instead of theorizing, your character does not disappear, it still eats and shits, it does what it has to survive. 

[WHO IS]

 

13 minutes ago, purerogue said:

Maybe do some actual work instead of theorizing, your character does not disappear, it still eats and shits, it does what it has to survive. 

I gave you arguments and you are just saying "do actual work", when in fact you don't know if I did or did not. I did and I experienced, but the individual experience is not always the truth, even if at the moment of experience it feels very true. People with schizophrenia have experiences that are very real to them but would you accept their experience as real-truth because he/she experienced in first hand?

What is the point of writing here to each other if one party gives arguments and the other party just says "do work" when they have nothing to answer to the argument because if they had answers they would answer it because others who read this conversation see that the person refrained from answering to the questions when the other party was engaging in a conversation and taking things said seriously and gave genuine response and further elaborative questions? 

When people have experiences and accept everything that they experience in the experience as real-truth, we might have a problem here. Because experiences might be deceiving. Not everything that is experienced equals of it being a true representation of truth. 

One stops learning when one is sure of that one already knows what's true and what's not, what am I doing is staying open-minded and questioning, even direct-experience. 

Edited December 27, 2019 by WHO IS

[purerogue]

8 minutes ago, WHO IS said:

 

I gave you arguments and you are just saying "do actual work", when in fact you don't know if I did or did not. I did and I experienced, but the individual experience is not always the truth, even if at the moment of experience it feels very true. People with schizophrenia have experiences that are very real to them but would you accept their experience as real-truth because he/she experienced in first hand?

What is the point of writing here to each other if one party gives arguments and the other party just says "do work" when they have nothing to answer to the argument because if they had answers they would answer it because others who read this conversation see that the person refrained from answering to the questions when the other party was engaging in a conversation and taking things said seriously and gave genuine response and further elaborative questions? 

When people have experiences and accept everything that they experience in the experience as real-truth, we might have a problem here. Because experiences might be deceiving. Not everything that is experienced equals of it being a true representation of truth. 

One stops learning when one is sure of that one already knows what's true and what's not, what am I doing is staying open-minded and questioning, even direct-experience. 

I have been in your shoes,  so I know what you mean, the thing is that it is kinda pointless for me to try to explain this, even if I will change your mind for the moment, it will be like giving you drug uplift you for a while till you change your mind again. because you do not actually have knowledge of it yourself.

How about this, have you had any non-dual state ?If you have , can you please elaborate why you make such questions of why do anything and how is it possible that you still do stuff.If you have not then get at least there, it is relatively easy thing to do. 

[dyslexicFcuk]

On 12/27/2019 at 4:39 AM, Nahm said:

@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.

Instead of addressing the incompatibility of @zeroISinfinity's anti-intellectualism, you defend that such foolishness is the only means of expressing non-dual insight. Instead of acknowledging my clearly established necessity for RATIONAL insight to justify a more positive outlook on "God" using reason, (which is certainly possible considering that other users managed to do so) you predictably suggest the issue is in fact with myself, the curious truth seeker, for daring to approach non-dual understanding from a left-brained perspective. I am not saying there is no place for unsubstantiated proverbs, but at least acknowledge the ineffectiveness of such gibberish when speaking to someone who has clearly established a preference for rational discourse. 

Imagine if a child was asking you to explain gravity, but instead of answering with "All objects have a gravitation pull, the larger the object the greater the gravity", you sanctimoniously declare "Gravity is a majestic force! It binds us to the earth with it's infinite holy goodness!". In some contexts, I imagine such a statement would be reasonably fine, but if you actually want to effectively communicate, you need to realize which contexts appropriately allow for pithy aphorisms and which contexts do not. In the context I have clearly established, it is beyond silly.

For an "enlightened master" like yourself, I find it odd that you feel the need to negate my approach as a means to tacitly reject criticism with this ego-driven defense mechanism you've employed. "He knows who he actually is, and so he knows you are talking about yourself, but don't know it". You're pompously speaking as if I do not comprehend that all of consciousness is one source. I obviously understand this, the difference between us however is that I have rationally intuited my way to this position whereas you have supposedly had a direct experience of such. It's truly a shame that so many people in your position are not willing (or able) to transcribe their supposed insight in a logically compelling manor that can resonate with intelligent people. If you want to improve the world, as I do, you would recognize the merit to my approach. It seems you're more interested in self-validation.

23 hours ago, purerogue said:

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. 

"Nothing of what I wrote requires more then some intellect to digest". Do you not find that somewhat problematic? Of course no intellect is required to digest dogmatic statements with no substantiation, which is what I take issue with, and reading your message again I cannot say I regret making that assertion. 

Quote

Yeah I guess I am big Absolutist. ?

Oh you silly kiddo. 

@zeroISinfinity Perhaps English is not your first language, but regardless you definitely come off rather unenlightened. Do you think the words you've presented here make even a modicum of sense? Do you think even if they did make sense that you would not be a hypocrite for engaging in such 'low-conscious' judgements? 

ZeroISinfinity: "How you feel with all those judgements. Bet it feels good."
Also ZeroISinfinity: "? Oh you silly kiddo."

I hope to god if I ever experience a form of enlightenment that I don't become such a pretentious, self-contradicting simpleton. 

Quote

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.

@LastThursday Thank you yet again for having the most reasonable take on this matter.

I wish you (and all who are likeminded) the very best.

[Highest]

5 minutes ago, dyslexicFcuk said:

Instead of addressing the incompatibility of @zeroISinfinity's anti-intellectualism, you defend that such foolishness is the only means of expressing non-dual insight. Instead of acknowledging my clearly established necessity for RATIONAL insight to justify a more positive outlook on "God" using reason, (which is certainly possible considering that other users managed to do so) you predictably suggest the issue is in fact with myself, the curious truth seeker, for daring to approach non-dual understanding from a left-brained perspective. I am not saying there is no place for unsubstantiated proverbs, but at least acknowledge the ineffectiveness of such gibberish when speaking to someone who has clearly established a preference for rational discourse. 

Imagine if a child was asking you to explain gravity, but instead of answering with "All objects have a gravitation pull, the larger the object the greater the gravity", you sanctimoniously declare "Gravity is a majestic force! It binds us to the earth with it's infinite holy goodness!". In some contexts, I imagine such a statement would be reasonably fine, but if you actually want to effectively communicate, you need to realize which contexts appropriately allow for pithy aphorisms and which contexts do not. In the context I have clearly established, it is beyond silly.

For an "enlightened master" like yourself, I find it odd that you feel the need to negate my approach as a means to tacitly reject criticism with this ego-driven defense mechanism you've employed. "He knows who he actually is, and so he knows you are talking about yourself, but don't know it". You're pompously speaking as if I do not comprehend that all of consciousness is one source. I obviously understand this, the difference between us however is that I have rationally intuited my way to this position whereas you have supposedly had a direct experience of such. It's truly a shame that so many people in your position are not willing (or able) to transcribe their supposed insight in a logically compelling manor that can resonate with intelligent people. If you want to improve the world, as I do, you would recognize the merit to my approach. It seems you're more interested in self-validation.

"Nothing of what I wrote requires more then some intellect to digest". Do you not find that somewhat problematic? Of course no intellect is required to digest dogmatic statements with no substantiation, which is what I take issue with, and reading your message again I cannot say I regret making that assertion. 

@zeroISinfinity Perhaps English is not your first language, but regardless you definitely come off rather unenlightened. Do you think the words you've presented here make even a modicum of sense? Do you think even if they did make sense that you would not be a hypocrite for engaging in such 'low-conscious' judgements? 

ZeroISinfinity: "How you feel with all those judgements. Bet it feels good."
Also ZeroISinfinity: "? Oh you silly kiddo."

I hope to god if I ever experience a form of enlightenment that I don't become such a pretentious, self-contradicting simpleton. 

@LastThursday Thank you yet again for having the most reasonable take on this matter.

I wish you (and all who are likeminded) the very best.

On 25/12/2019 at 11:08 PM, Inliytened1 said:

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 is to fall in love with itself.  So ultimately, Love.

Don't talk like that to the great zeroISinfinity, he's the most enlightened being on this forum.

It's true.

I recieved a shaktipat from him today...

His energy was Divine. It literally annihilated my devilish ego. Now I'm egoless like him...

It's all love and butterflies from here on...

 

[dyslexicFcuk]

@Highest Excellent troll-bait. 10/10

[Highest]

5 minutes ago, dyslexicFcuk said:

@Highest Excellent troll-bait. 10/10

Oh, thank you my love. Thank you my love ❤️

 

[zeroISinfinity]

Well I am fully Realized. But not as person since there is no one. As something much greater. 

Very thing you are searching for and really wanting you to discover IT. 

Has nothing to do with intellect and mind, has all to do with your very own ❤️. 

 

Nailed it God. Yup. 

[4th-jhana]

He is not the first one to have this theory. Many gnotics groups agreed with this. I think you are getting at what we are all getting at. Just different wording.    Buddha said existance Is suffering.  Along that line

[Nahm]

@dyslexicFcuk Honestly, I didn’t read your response. The title is your idea. Simply let it go. There’s no rationality present on this thread. There’s just no getting around it, because you’re talking about yourself, but don’t know it. Pursing the ignorance is not gonna help. 

[zeroISinfinity]

Yes it's all Love and butterflies.Forever. 

❤️?

[Pramit]

On 27/12/2019 at 0:57 PM, dyslexicFcuk said:

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.

 

Excuse me, but I don't know if you understood my position, or if I understood you reply. I am talking about the phenomenal experience of time. Yes, death is inevitable, but that was not the main point of my post (I don't want to repeat it here again so you can go back to read it if you are confused). What assumptions do you want to validate? Why do I have to cut my arms? 

[TheAvatarState]

@Highest @dyslexicFcuk

"God has taken my bird and my bush! God is an angry kid with a magnifying glass, and I'm the ant! God is a cosmic asshole!"

From your perspective, this sounds very rational. Logical, even, considering the lens you used and the events you cherry picked to support the narrative. So tell me something: are you interested in rationality, or are you interested in Truth? These happen to be two distinct things (and yet connected), so we have to be very clear on what you're after. 

[mike1111]

On 12/25/2019 at 9:33 AM, dyslexicFcuk said:

Our supposed safety net of "death"

I wouldn't waste too much time thinking about what happens after you die. You won't be thinking then. You won't be.

[Forestluv]

@dyslexicFcuk There is nothing wrong with logic and reason, yet keep in mind that logic and reason are components of greater expansion. If we were talking about the mechanics that power a car, staying within logic and reason is no problem. Yet when you venture into nonduality and ask that everyone constrain themselves to logic and reason, it just won’t go over very well. That is like asking French people to have a discussion about French culture, yet they are not allowed to mention Paris, the Eiffel Tower, the French Alps, French food or the French language. And they are not allowed to mention any event before the year 2009. These restrictions are so extreme, that it becomes impossible to have a discussion about French culture. The discussion would be distorted and way off the mark. . . Similarly, trying to limit a discussion of nonduality to logic and reason creates a distortion of nonduality and will be way off the mark.