To give god meaning.

[brokenhead]

Poetry this is not

No shit!

[Alex Jacob]

Whoa there Carl! Let me remind you that you personally ridiculed your own 'favorite enemies' to no end...but heavy-handedly...and all I do is flit around humoristically, and what? this peeves you?

Oh the injustice!

Mikiel writes:

"Though I suspect that you are seriously psychotic (true statement), I am asking you to give a reasonable critique of the quotes from the many enlightened ones from the link above."

Never, never ask a psychotic to give reasonable critique of the quotes of the Enlightened Ones...

If you set me on that path, Heaven only knows what'll become of me...

[maestro]

Now this, Sue, is beyond logic. It is part of an esoteric body of knowledge of which probably most philosophers are unaware. It says that All Consciousness precedes All matter. It says first there was the Universal Mind and it begat all else. Nothing poetic there either. Very cut and dried. Specific.

I would interpret the universal consciousness as simply the fact that everything in the universe is conscious because consciousness simply implies perception/reacting to surroundings, which everything does. It does not mean that there was the universal mind which begat everything else, for then there would be duality between mind and matter and this would not fit the non-dualistic philosophy which teaches about universal consciousness.

[sue hindmarsh]

Carl,

You write describing Mikiel's "gnosis" as "the deepest knowledge (ultimate truth, one could say) includes a personal experience of the vastness and power that is God", and go on to conclude that that "Sounds like something David Quinn would say, using other words, doesn't it". To which I'd have to reply that I have never heard David say anything of that sort ever. And for good reason he would not, for nothing is clear as to what is being spoken of by you, or by Mik.

It does appear that the god you refer to is something separate from you yourself - having "vastness and power" different from what you yourself possess. This god sounds tediously like the Christian grandfather-in-the-sky job.

Your last paragraph Carl, is nothing but poetry. "All Consciousness precedes All matter" - really - what has this got to do with anything?

[brokenhead]

I would interpret the universal consciousness as simply the fact that everything in the universe is conscious because consciousness simply implies perception/reacting to surroundings, which everything does.

Nonononononono! maestro, stop thinking that way! Time and time again you do yourself an injustice by returning to this "simple implication." If you want to call a set of dominoes "conscious," go right ahead, who's to stop you? But do not forego coming to understand the unspeakable majesty of intelligence to be found "out there."

[brokenhead]

This god sounds tediously like the Christian grandfather-in-the-sky job.

Yes. It is tedious in your head. So why do you keep regurgitating it up? Who wants to inhale the stench from your bile? You are like an angry little girl at day care, alone in a corner, breaking crayons in half.

[Carl G]

Carl,

You write describing Mikiel's "gnosis" as "the deepest knowledge (ultimate truth, one could say) includes a personal experience of the vastness and power that is God", and go on to conclude that that "Sounds like something David Quinn would say, using other words, doesn't it". To which I'd have to reply that I have never heard David say anything of that sort ever. And for good reason he would not, for nothing is clear as to what is being spoken of by you, or by Mik.

Again, not clear to you. Sorry you don't relate. And, David has spoken of this, you just haven't been around for it. He told us he lives up in space. He also has said he "spends his days immersing himself in the Infinite," which he calls a "marvelous reality." And that's perfectly clear, now, isn't it, Sue, and not poetic at all.

It does appear that the god you refer to is something separate from you yourself - having "vastness and power" different from what you yourself possess. This god sounds tediously like the Christian grandfather-in-the-sky job.

Appears to you, maybe. But to me, I have to laugh at what your brittle brand of logic wrought from my words. It's kind of sad, really.

Your last paragraph Carl, is nothing but poetry. "All Consciousness precedes All matter" - really - what has this got to do with anything?

It is another view on Ultimate Truth, Sue. Kind of like causality with a twist. It's a way to create meaning. You don't relate? Fine. I don't find A = A all that relevant, but, hey, maybe you do. And gosh, Sue, "poetry" sure is a word you like to sling around whenever the verbiage is anything more than the stripped down cerebration you think is proper, isn't it. Okay, we get it, you don't have an artistic or mystical bone in your body. And there's no reason for anybody else to have one, either.

[Carl G]

Whoa there Carl! Let me remind you that you personally ridiculed your own 'favorite enemies' to no end...but heavy-handedly...and all I do is flit around humoristically, and what? this peeves you?

Oh the injustice!

I call 'em like I see 'em, Alex. If you think I called it wrong why don't you tell me what you actually said, if anything, in that post. You seem to babble a lot. Why? You really like to hear yourself talk?

[Carl G]

Now this, Sue, is beyond logic. It is part of an esoteric body of knowledge of which probably most philosophers are unaware. It says that All Consciousness precedes All matter. It says first there was the Universal Mind and it begat all else. Nothing poetic there either. Very cut and dried. Specific.

I would interpret the universal consciousness as simply the fact that everything in the universe is conscious because consciousness simply implies perception/reacting to surroundings, which everything does. It does not mean that there was the universal mind which begat everything else, for then there would be duality between mind and matter and this would not fit the non-dualistic philosophy which teaches about universal consciousness.

Maestro continues his descent into the two-dimensionality of straight logic.

[Iolaus]

Mikiel,

Yes. What has been called the "Perennial Philosophy" has been "around" forever... throughout the living Kosmos. But I think the word "philosophy" diminishes the scope of the true wisdom of enlightenment. It is unity in universal consciousness, not just wise thinking in the human mind... "philosophy."

Just for the record, I am definitely NOT enlightened. Awake, somewhat awake, dreaming lucid dreams, but not enlightened.

Hi Sue,

I didn't find the quotes from Mikiel or Brokenhead to be inconsistent or irrational, nor even vague. I'm not sure why you did.

Please tell me Iolaus that your "internal compass", which you say you use to "discern the truth", has a tad more connection to reason and logic than those cud-eaters.

I see that you have some hope for me. I just don't seem to see where there can be anything that exists, or anything that is, which is illogical. There are some things I don't understand, such as the nature of existence itself. I can't follow it with logic, but I can hope to understand it in a million years or so. Or maybe less, even. Perhaps then it will have a logical explanation.

My inner compass, unfortunately, is rather nebulous, its my soul (which may or may not exist - the jury is still out on that) energetically connected, quickened by, that mysterious something I call the Holy Spirit but it could be called by other names. The source, the force, the ether.

Broke is some sort of Christian, but traditional he is not.

[Alex Jacob]

Alex achieved His enlightenment at the age of 9 when he opened a Tootsie Roll Pop and out popped the universal vision of the Goddess Durga who decapitated Him and fed Him to her tiger. At that time, He knew that this was His 7th incarnation as an Enlightened Master, but then a very strange thing happened! He threw enlightenment away! He tossed it down on the ground, took his partially eaten body back from Durga's tiger, set His head square upon His shoulders, and redoubled His commitment to lead all the aching souls to Zion! The GF is stop number one at the begining of His World Mission. Selah! (Coming soon: Sri Alex Jacob, the website!)

[Alex Jacob]

Came across this quotation of Ramakrishna today:

"You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefor say that there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O Man, because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God".

[Iolaus]

Alex's little icon implies that the other hand is tied behind his back, while he easily runs in circles round us with the other.

At first I was shocked, shocked I tell you, at the offended tones and insults slung about here for such minor infractions, but then I realized that you are all conspiring together for my entertainment. And I do appreciate it.

[sue hindmarsh]

Iolaus,

Mikiel and Brokenhead’s writings about “God” are examples of how people use concepts to make them feel special. Concepts such as love, compassion, truth, enlightenment and god are readily used by people to give them substance. The key to doing this is to keep concepts continuously nebulous. The vaguer the better! In that way there is no chance of the concept causing one any trouble, for it can be altered at a moments notice into anything the owner desires. This is not at all a purely modern approach to living, but the present era appears to have embraced it all too willingly - with the consequence that ‘thinking’ now is considered the same as ‘feeling’.

Here are some of Mikiel’s feelings about god:

~ It is unity in universal consciousness
~ mystic trancendence into unity consciousness
~ our land trust is the manifestation of the Truth
~ the long world history of awakening in all cultures
~ surrender of your illusory "self" importance
~ consciousness as it transcends thinking.

Poetry is the best way to describe the above, for it is completely open to any interpretation.

Broke’s are equally shadowy, for even though he is specific about his “God’s” nature being jelly-like, he leaves the choice of mould entirely up to each individual. In this way he is doing the same as Mik - he is hedging his bets – the vaguer the concept of ‘god’, the easier it is to use it to find enjoyment.

~ I always take my concept of an intelligent cosmos to the next step, which is the realization that truth is known which I do not yet possess. Therefore, I not only can learn, I must.
~ I for one think that God (in caps, yes) plays a different role in everyone's life. From within, you view God as you choose. You are free to admit God into your life or not and if you do, the extent is up to you as well. The same is true for everybody else. So from without, you either see God functioning or not, depending on where you are looking, how hard you are looking, and in what way you are looking. To declare that God does not exist is patently false, because it presumes to speak for every other person, which is not possible.

At bottom, Mik’s and Broke’s ideas boil down to this:

Finding one’s individual happiness is what’s important – bugger Truth!!

If it feels good, it must be true!!

Thinking is for losers!! Or, as Mikiel would say:

It is unity in universal consciousness, not just wise thinking in the human mind... "philosophy."
-
Iolaus wrote:

My inner compass, unfortunately, is rather nebulous, its my soul (which may or may not exist - the jury is still out on that) energetically connected, quickened by, that mysterious something I call the Holy Spirit but it could be called by other names. The source, the force, the ether.

Every now again you have to cross a busy road, or go to the supermarket and buy food on your budget – yes? Well in doing so you are actually using the very same mental skills that would help you work out the nature of the universe. Discriminating between things, and discerning consequences are all that is needed to bust out of that “nebulous” mindset that you (and others) are caught up in.

You've already shown that you can discriminate, because you wrote:

I see that you have some hope for me. I just don't seem to see where there can be anything that exists, or anything that is, which is illogical.

Here you state that the nature of the universe is entirely “logical”. The next step is to understand what you are basing that thought on, and then ask if it is true in all possible worlds, times, and for all people and things.

Some folk reading this may feel that you had already done all that thinking, otherwise you wouldn’t have written it. But that can't be, as it doesn't fit in with your proclaimed “nebulous-ness”? You can’t have it both ways: you either know the nature of the universe, or you do not. It is either entirely logical, or it is something other?

[Iolaus]

Sue,

Mikiel and Brokenhead’s writings about “God” are examples of how people use concepts to make them feel special.

Is there anyone here who does not think themselves special and who is not portraying themselves as such?

The key to doing this is to keep concepts continuously nebulous. The vaguer the better! In that way there is no chance of the concept causing one any trouble, for it can be altered at a moments notice into anything the owner desires.

You are too suspicious. Actually, it is difficult to be consistent and specific, and easy to be confused. And why would concepts and conclusions be so dangerous?

Here are some of Mikiel’s feelings about god:

~ It is unity in universal consciousness
~ mystic trancendence into unity consciousness
~ our land trust is the manifestation of the Truth
~ the long world history of awakening in all cultures
~ surrender of your illusory "self" importance
~ consciousness as it transcends thinking.

Poetry is the best way to describe the above, for it is completely open to any interpretation.

Generally, his writing is clear enough to me, but those above are sentence fragments and difficult to place outside their context. As to poetry, it can express things very well, and I prefer the kind I can understand. If it doesn't communicate clearly, it's poor poetry. What do you think, is self importance a good thing?

In this way he is doing the same as Mik - he is hedging his bets – the vaguer the concept of ‘god’, the easier it is to use it to find enjoyment.

I would only use the phrase to hedge one's bets in the case of fear. I haven't talked with Broke extensively enough, but I suspect he does not fear God. But to complain about not having an exact understanding of God seems, well, a bit over the top! It is what the Native Americans referred to as The Great Mystery.
What's wrong with enjoying God?

~ I always take my concept of an intelligent cosmos to the next step, which is the realization that truth is known which I do not yet possess. Therefore, I not only can learn, I must.

Surely you do intuit our situation here, that we are in a state of ignorance, that there are vast possibilities for discovery?

Broke said,~ 1.I for one think that God (in caps, yes) plays a different role in everyone's life. 2.From within, you view God as you choose. 3.You are free to admit God into your life or not and if you do, the extent is up to you as well. The same is true for everybody else. 4.So from without, you either see God functioning or not, depending on where you are looking, how hard you are looking, and in what way you are looking. 5.To declare that God does not exist is patently false, because it presumes to speak for every other person, which is not possible.

Every sentence here rings true. 1. Of course God plays a different role in each person's life. We each have an individual, subjective experience and I am sure that you are familiar with the Indian tale of the 6 blind men and the elephant. Our goal is to experience many aspects of the elephant, and not restrict ourselves to just its tail or trunk, but we are the blind men, some more blind than others. It does not mean that God changes, it means that we each experience a slightly different view.

2. We certainly do choose how to view and experience God, how much of God to let ourselves experience without being singed.

3. God is an acquired taste, and few can take more than a sip. Many people, I am convinced, use religion to keep God at bay. By putting God into a confined and narrow box, they keep him from slipping out and incinerating their bones.

4. How and how much we see of God is a matter of perception, and of consciousness.

5. In declaring the nonexistence of God you are presumptuous, because you might be wrong, lacking the perceptive ability.

At bottom, Mik’s and Broke’s ideas boil down to this:

Finding one’s individual happiness is what’s important – bugger Truth!!
If it feels good, it must be true!!

It sounds like you're saying that the truth might be an unhappy affair, with fantasy preferable. I have come to a different conclusion, that the truth must be the best of all possible solutions, possibly better than we have yet thought of, because how could our minds come up with something desirable that is nonexistent and less than what reality offers? How could the human heart so consistently desire something which is utterly nonexistent within the universe? That which does not exist, cannot be conceived of. How is it that throughout the earth humans feel futility and dejection unless they have an immortal soul, unless they have a long learning process to look forward to? Why, if there never was nor ever can be a thing so silly as a consciousness that is independent of the fleeting body, do we feel such bleakness at the thought of being forever cut off, an eternity of nonbeing?

It is unity in universal consciousness, not just wise thinking in the human mind... "philosophy."

Again, out of context, but there is such a thing as a direct knowing of truth without the step-by-step processes, and the reason it works is that the universal being IS the truth, and by having a permeation of the subtle energies of the universal being within ones own spiritual-mental faculty, one simply sees the truth. It is entirely through this process that I came to understand such things as unity, which before my mind absolutely balked at.

Iolaus wrote:

My inner compass, unfortunately, is rather nebulous, its my soul (which may or may not exist - the jury is still out on that) energetically connected, quickened by, that mysterious something I call the Holy Spirit but it could be called by other names. The source, the force, the ether.

Sue wrote:
Every now again you have to cross a busy road, or go to the supermarket and buy food on your budget – yes? Well in doing so you are actually using the very same mental skills that would help you work out the nature of the universe. Discriminating between things, and discerning consequences are all that is needed to bust out of that “nebulous” mindset that you (and others) are caught up in.

Well, of course I was teasing when I said it was nebulous because I knew it would be nebulous to you. To me, it is both nebulous and utterly concrete. I am somewhat surprised that you say you understand the nature of the universe. Do you mean cause and effect and such? It is a mere crude outline. There is nothing wrong with the mental skills you mention, they have kept us surviving thus far, but there is more to life than physical survival, and the human brain is full of vast capabilities that are dummed down by the default mode. (Survival mode) That is why all humans universally crave altered states of consciousness - it is our birthright and only our modern, very sick and controlling civilizations have made a prudery of it.

When I say that the compass is nebulous, I am referring to the way that reality is so big, and we are groping as in the dark, as blind men touching an elephant, with faculties that barely sputter to life. There is much left to discover about this universe and the spiritual workings thereof, which we cannot see with just our bodily eyes. Nebulous because if we think of it as a 6th sense and myself as someone born crippled who through effort has acquired a little use of my legs, but not so reliably. The spiritual faculty in the earth human, for whatever reason I do not know, is all but atrophied, and some have it more atrophied than others. There are vast realms of perception and we are just beginning to explore it.

At the same time it is concrete because its activation is the most important and profound thing that has happened to me in this life, and the most real.

Here you state that the nature of the universe is entirely “logical”. The next step is to understand what you are basing that thought on, and then ask if it is true in all possible worlds, times, and for all people and things.

My tentative answer is yes. Other minds often come up with good points I hadn't thought of. I am quite sure, that from the bottom of reality to the top, everything is explicable, nothing is magical, all things work in a certain way, so how can anything be illogical? But it could appear to be illogical.

Some folk reading this may feel that you had already done all that thinking, otherwise you wouldn’t have written it. But that can't be, as it doesn't fit in with your proclaimed “nebulous-ness”? You can’t have it both ways: you either know the nature of the universe, or you do not. It is either entirely logical, or it is something other?

The nature of the universe! The more I think about it, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that existence simply cannot be. It is utterly impossible. If someone tried to convince me of it, I would never believe it.

Knowing that the universe must be logical, does not mean I fully understand its nature. Especially when, as someone said on the unity of being thread, the Absolute is without qualities or attributes.

I think you are confusing a thought system, with actual experience. I may know that all is one, but to what extent do I actually experience that? Perhaps we will soon know how esp works, how one mind communicates via thought to another, but will that mean I, personally, will always and reliably be able to do it? It is in that sense that I call my compass nebulous. Precious though it is!

[sue hindmarsh]

Carl wrote:

Okay, we get it, you don't have an artistic or mystical bone in your body. And there's no reason for anybody else to have one, either.

Poetry has its place, as does all things “artistic”. The “mystical” has its uses also. So it isn’t a question of their existence, but to what use they are put. You, at present, appear to be employing them to not just support your idea of 'god', but to create it.

You wrote:

All Consciousness precedes All matter. It says first there was the Universal Mind and it begat all else.

This you described as:

Nothing poetic there either. Very cut and dried. Specific.

“Cut and dried”?

“Specific”?

You can’t be serious. It is all too wishy-washy, too loose, and too flimsy. You reckon it is “another view on Ultimate Truth” – but there can only be one ‘Ultimate Truth’, and it can’t leave open such an obvious big question as to how that “Consciousness” got to be in the first place. Such a gapping hole leaves your idea open to people filling in that gap with their varying interpretations – this then defines it as ‘poetry’.

And Carl, my “relating” to your ideas, such as; “Kind of like causality with a twist…a way to create meaning” isn’t the issue – it can’t be, because it has no meaning. You’ve just thrown that idea up in the air and expect me to make sense of it. It’s your job to make your ideas as rational as you can. Once a rational argument has been formed, then others can proceed to examine it. You never know, I may well be able to relate to your thinking if you lay it out in a rational fashion.

[Sapius]

Sapius,
I just use the word as shorthand for "the intelligent Kosmos Whose body is the cosmos"... including all of us, consciousness ItSelf and everything.
mikiel

With all due respects; by all means, I don’t really object, but that already looks like quite a baggage, notwithstanding the encyclopedia that would necessarily follow.

Baggage is only a problem for the one carrying it.

I agree if you mean there is nothing to carry to begin with, but don’t tell me I am not.

[Sapius]

Brokenhead;

K: It depends what you mean by "god".

S: Of course, agreed; but the problem begins when "it" starts doing something.

BH: "It" meaning "god," Sapius?

Of course.

Then the "problem" must be Creation.

What problem?

[brokenhead]

Brokenhead;

K: It depends what you mean by "god".

S: Of course, agreed; but the problem begins when "it" starts doing something.

BH: "It" meaning "god," Sapius?

Of course.

Then the "problem" must be Creation.

What problem?

How should I know? You were the one that said "the problem begins when 'it' starts doing something."

[Sapius]

Brokenhead;

K: It depends what you mean by "god".

S: Of course, agreed; but the problem begins when "it" starts doing something.

BH: "It" meaning "god," Sapius?

Of course.

Then the "problem" must be Creation.

What problem?

How should I know? You were the one that said "the problem begins when 'it' starts doing something."

Yes, I did, and that was addressed to Kevin, according to his definiton of God. I think it will serve you well if you payed attention, and remember where each individual comes from. BTW, what made you think, or ask I suppose - 'then the "problem" must be creation'?

[brokenhead]

Yes, I did, and that was addressed to Kevin, according to his definiton of God. I think it will serve you well if you payed attention, and remember where each individual comes from. BTW, what made you think, or ask I suppose - 'then the "problem" must be creation'?

Fair enough. I'll butt out of this one.

[Carl G]

Carl wrote:

All Consciousness precedes All matter. It says first there was the Universal Mind and it begat all else.

This you described as:

Nothing poetic there either. Very cut and dried. Specific.

“Cut and dried”?

“Specific”?

You can’t be serious. It is all too wishy-washy, too loose, and too flimsy.

Sue, you may not agree with what I said, but what I said was very cut and dried and specific:

"All (the sum total of) Consciousness (Mind, Awareness) precedes (comes before) all matter (physical form). It says (the idea is that) first (before anything else) there was the Universal Mind (Consciousness) and it begat (it created) all else (the physical universe).

What I said could not be clearer, whether you agree with it or not.

You reckon it is “another view on Ultimate Truth” – but there can only be one ‘Ultimate Truth’, and it can’t leave open such an obvious big question as to how that “Consciousness” got to be in the first place. Such a gapping hole leaves your idea open to people filling in that gap with their varying interpretations – this then defines it as ‘poetry’.

Excuse me. I thought we pretty much all agree at GF that there can be no Prime Cause for the All. Logically.

And Carl, my “relating” to your ideas, such as; “Kind of like causality with a twist…a way to create meaning” isn’t the issue – it can’t be, because it has no meaning.

No meaning to you, but there is meaning to me. And according to Kevin it is natural for us to be caused to assign our own meaning to ideas and things.

You’ve just thrown that idea up in the air and expect me to make sense of it.

Actually, I don't. From exchanges like this one I see that you are a quite different person from me, and I'm not sure we can relate on any sort of deep level.

It’s your job to make your ideas as rational as you can.

It's not my job, but that's still pretty good advice. I do value rationality but my manifestations of it are different from you. I will never be a strict logician. I work indirectly.

Once a rational argument has been formed, then others can proceed to examine it. You never know, I may well be able to relate to your thinking if you lay it out in a rational fashion.

Time is short and I do not believe the internet lends itself to true communication. Hence I usually attempt to post with the severest efficiency possible and do not go into great detail most of the time.

[sue hindmarsh]

dejavu wrote:

When I hear that god is love, truth, nature, or everything, I marvel at how our attempts to reconcile all meaning can be an unconscious recoling from what is higher than ourselves, from what draws and advances us--our very own idea.

Dejavu,

Is it that you recommend a halting of all “attempts to reconcile all meaning”, and to surrender to that which is “higher than ourselves”?

What is that which is “higher than ourselves”?

[Steven]

Good greif, look what being conscious can do to your mind.

[sue hindmarsh]

dejavu wrote:

Sue: What is that which is “higher than ourselves”?

The idea of ourselves

What "idea" is that?