I Am That I Am

[Lunitik]

By postulating a "second side" to unity, it is you that are creating a false duality.

So, for you, the opposite of unity is not disunity?

Well, ok.

Whatsoever your concept of God, it is bound to be wrong.

Only directly encountering can be correct.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

The Four of defects of being a human being.​

I learnt from Bhaktivedanta swami:

We humans are in the conditioned state of life here in the material world of samsara & maya, our knowledge is subjected to many deficiencies.

The difference between a conditioned soul and a liberated soul is that the conditioned soul has four kinds of defects. The first defect is that he must commit mistakes.

To err is human. This is one defect of the conditioned soul.

Another defect: to be illusioned. Illusion means to accept something which is not: māyā. Māyā means "what is not." Everyone is accepting the body as the self. If I ask you what you are, you will say, "I am Mr. John; I am a rich man; I am this; I am that." All these are bodily identifications. But you are not this body. This is illusion.


The third defect is the cheating propensity.


Everyone has the propensity to cheat others. Although a person is fool number one, he poses himself as very intelligent. Although it is already pointed out that he is in illusion and makes mistakes, he will theorize: "I think this is this, this is this." But he does not even know his own position. He writes books of philosophy, although he is defective. That is his disease. That is cheating.


Lastly, our senses are imperfect. We are very proud of our eyes. Often, someone will challenge, "Can you show me God?" But do you have the eyes to see God? You will never see if you haven't the eyes.


If immediately the room becomes dark, you cannot even see your hands. So what power do you have to see? We cannot, therefore, expect knowledge (veda) with these imperfect senses. With all these deficiencies, in conditioned life we cannot give perfect knowledge to anyone. Nor are we ourselves perfect.


Therefore one must accept the instructions from authentic and authorised experts inregards to all learned knowledge.


BTW, contrarily, it is the result of “Bad Luck” [aka, bad karma] to find one’s self in the presence of bogus leadership and mentors.

http://vedabase.net/iso/introduction/en

 

[radarmark]

So, for you, the opposite of unity is not disunity?

Well, ok.

Whatsoever your concept of God, it is bound to be wrong.

Only directly encountering can be correct.

The opposite of unity (one-ness, non-duality) is non-existence

You are stuck in a tautology in your own mind... when I write "G!d" it is a reference to beyondness, the love and unity you keep saying you believe in. It is just a matter of wrords and concepts, expand your mind a little.

 

[Lunitik]

The opposite of unity (one-ness, non-duality) is non-existence

You are stuck in a tautology in your own mind... when I write "G!d" it is a reference to beyondness, the love and unity you keep saying you believe in. It is just a matter of wrords and concepts, expand your mind a little.

I am simply saying God is a concept.

Non-existence is actually experienced in Samadhi, and Paranirvana is the absolute peak of this. Now you are merged utterly with the divine, you simply no longer are.

You say this is the opposite of unity, I say non-existence is the highest point of true unity. If you insist on existing, you remain separate.

Also, stop saying I believe in these things, it is NOT a belief at all - it is my experience.

I would suggest it is you that must expand your mind, you are still relying on the personal mind, full of thoughts and concepts, the mind cannot be any more open than in the crown chakra opening, yet in this there is no thought, no concept, nothing except existence is there.

This I have known, and yet I was not there to know it.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

tautology of your own mind...

Are you quoting a Rod Sterling episode?


In old days of yore it was:

Tautology Under Consent of the King --- T.U.C.K.

Now we are free to all go T.U.C.K. ourselves.

 

[radarmark]

Lunitik, you can use G!d that way. But then everything is a concept. It is merely (the way I and most use it) a "finger pointing at the moon" where the moon is beyond.

Bhaktajan, cangrads, agsin you bring humour to a dry topic. The point is that Linitik is using self-referential loops (I always thought he was a but of a solipsist anyway).

 

[Lunitik]

Lunitik, you can use G!d that way. But then everything is a concept. It is merely (the way I and most use it) a "finger pointing at the moon" where the moon is beyond.

Can words convey anything but a concept?

This is what I go on saying, I can see clearly what I say doesn't do justice to the absolute, but it is plain you respect this word because you go on censoring it. You seem to actually think the word God is God.

Bhaktajan, cangrads, agsin you bring humour to a dry topic. The point is that Linitik is using self-referential loops (I always thought he was a but of a solipsist anyway).

A solipsist is one who believes only his mind is real, I go on saying the mind is the nature of all illusion, how exactly have you managed to think this is applicable to me? The mind does not even originate with a single person, it is more like a wave going around to everyone, and what we identify with we take notice of. The enlightened man can actually watch these thoughts entering and leaving each person...

This is the problem with labels, you want to stick them on everyone and they simply aren't valid.

 

[radarmark]

On both counts, Lunitik.

"words as concepts" yep, all they do is point towrds things (that is all they can do). If you cannot understand that "G!d" as most use it (at least as I use it) is a pointer to that beyond (as in Tathagatha), pack up all your posts because you are wasting your time talking. Because all you can communicate are your concepts.

Not hard, you want to use the word one way, I another. You say absolute, I say
G!d, we are pointing at the same thing (why is so very difficult for you?)

Solipsism is not about mind, you have that quite wrong. It is a metaphysical stance that says "all that exists are my experiences" (look up Russell's, Whiterhead's, James', or Pierce's responses, which pretty much cleared up the matter early in the 20th century). It is a philosophical term. You behave that way all the time.

The label is valid, for we have had this conversation before... "I am right and true and I know it" is consistently your answer to everything. That is pretty much a definition of a solipsist.

 

[Lunitik]

"words as concepts" yep, all they do is point towrds things (that is all they can do). If you cannot understand that "G!d" as most use it (at least as I use it) is a pointer to that beyond (as in Tathagatha), pack up all your posts because you are wasting your time talking. Because all you can communicate are your concepts.

I do not offer concepts, I offer devices to encounter directly.

Not hard, you want to use the word one way, I another. You say absolute, I say
G!d, we are pointing at the same thing (why is so very difficult for you?)

It is the same problem we've always had, for me talking about is simply meaningless, yet you go on helping people cram more nonsense in their head. You have to be aware that while you might have experienced this, many have not, and so while I understand what you mean it might be harmful for others.

I go on trying to squish all notions people are carrying, I go on wiping their mirror so they can be a clear reflection once more for the divine, I feel like you are following me around throwing dust back on these mirrors again. You are not alone in this, don't get me wrong, but it is frustrating.

Solipsism is not about mind, you have that quite wrong. It is a metaphysical stance that says "all that exists are my experiences" (look up Russell's, Whiterhead's, James', or Pierce's responses, which pretty much cleared up the matter early in the 20th century). It is a philosophical term. You behave that way all the time.

This is not my understanding at all, but you will try to pigeon hole because you function from the mind - mind is a great sorting machine. If you try to put me in any group I will simply have to prove your wrong so you can drop this nonsense... ultimately, we are an experience of the absolute, we have no form, just part of the constant interaction of energy.

The label is valid, for we have had this conversation before... "I am right and true and I know it" is consistently your answer to everything. That is pretty much a definition of a solipsist.

I do not venture into side topics, so yes it will seem this way, it is because I ONLY talk about how to come to the absolute, every topic I contribute to is towards this end. I am not interested in engaging side speculations, I simply say "look for yourself". I can only say you must not have been around many mystics, no mystic is interested in discussing about, we are interested in how to experience only. If you cannot show, not even a mystic seeker would give you the time of day.

 

[radarmark]

Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark http://www.interfaith.org/forum/i-am-that-i-am-15202-6.html#post266212
"words as concepts" yep, all they do is point towrds things (that is all they can do). If you cannot understand that "G!d" as most use it (at least as I use it) is a pointer to that beyond (as in Tathagatha), pack up all your posts because you are wasting your time talking. Because all you can communicate are your concepts.

I do not offer concepts, I offer devices to encounter directly.
A snake eating its own tail. If you use a word it only indicates a concept. Just like your device is a concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark http://www.interfaith.org/forum/i-am-that-i-am-15202-6.html#post266212
Not hard, you want to use the word one way, I another. You say absolute, I say
G!d, we are pointing at the same thing (why is so very difficult for you?)

It is the same problem we've always had, for me talking about is simply meaningless, yet you go on helping people cram more nonsense in their head. You have to be aware that while you might have experienced this, many have not, and so while I understand what you mean it might be harmful for others.

I go on trying to squish all notions people are carrying, I go on wiping their mirror so they can be a clear reflection once more for the divine, I feel like you are following me around throwing dust back on these mirrors again. You are not alone in this, don't get me wrong, but it is frustrating.
See, you never address the issue you little snake-oil salesman. The difference is that I do not believe I have all the answers, you do. Dude, think about it, if the rishi’s found their way, Mahavira his, Gautama his, Laotzi his, Jesus his, there by definition more than one way. I say “all the rest is commentary, go and learn” you say “this is the way”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark http://www.interfaith.org/forum/i-am-that-i-am-15202-6.html#post266212
Solipsism is not about mind, you have that quite wrong. It is a metaphysical stance that says "all that exists are my experiences" (look up Russell's, Whiterhead's, James', or Pierce's responses, which pretty much cleared up the matter early in the 20th century). It is a philosophical term. You behave that way all the time.

This is not my understanding at all, but you will try to pigeon hole because you function from the mind - mind is a great sorting machine. If you try to put me in any group I will simply have to prove your wrong so you can drop this nonsense... ultimately, we are an experience of the absolute, we have no form, just part of the constant interaction of energy.
I just call them as I see them (integrity is a big Quaker thing, but you do not believe in testaments or witnesses or morality, so why do you care). is just a word, one you need to learn the non-google definition of. If the shoe fits……
Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark http://www.interfaith.org/forum/i-am-that-i-am-15202-6.html#post266212
The label is valid, for we have had this conversation before... "I am right and true and I know it" is consistently your answer to everything. That is pretty much a definition of a solipsist.

I do not venture into side topics, so yes it will seem this way, it is because I ONLY talk about how to come to the absolute, every topic I contribute to is towards this end. I am not interested in engaging side speculations, I simply say "look for yourself". I can only say you must not have been around many mystics, no mystic is interested in discussing about, we are interested in how
At the bottom, whatever your absolute is must be strange… I learned with three of the best (now long gone) and they never used words to hurt or demine or be-little the way you do. The Art of Peace and Soto (as I learned them) were passive and leading, not confrontational, focused on beyond not how.

So once more, we agree to disagree.

 

[Ben Masada]

I am not sure how I can be more accurate?

I have been absolutely uncautious in this statement, I have been as direct as possible. My experience is that of oneness, I do not not see anything which is other to me.

As you care for your arms or legs if they become injured, so I care for other expressions of the absolute in manifest reality.

I believe that my question was about loving another as one loves himself. I asked for your opinion or understanding of such a concept. Is it possible? If it is, explain how, please. If it is not, what's your option?
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

This notion of God being absolutely One, this is my reality as well. It is strange you cannot understand my statements in this thread if you believe in the oneness of God, you must divide him somewhere...

If I had to say what evil is, I would say it is the refusal of man to surrender to oneness, his constant need to prove the validity of his separateness. Yet, as God is the personification of the experience of oneness, so the devil is the personification of distinction.

Both remain as ideas though, you have to encounter their truth for yourself.

The problem here is that we are shouting at each other from opposited sides of a wide river. Myself from a Jewish point of view and you, perhaps, if I don't make a mistake, from the Buddhism point of view.

The Oneness of God cannot be divided, neither with another god nor with the devil, which, perhaps for you must be an evil kind of god.

With regards to evil, it does not exist, as far as I am concerned. It is done whenever we ill-use our attribute of free will. Similewise, evil is like darkness, wich likewise does not exist for being simply the opposite of light. Wherever light reaches, darkness is as if it were not there.

And God is not the personification of anything. God is a real Spiritual Being with Whom man can relate in a spiritual manner. (John 4:24)
Ben

 

[radarmark]

Hear, hear! More than not merely "cannot be divided", perhaps. "Cannot be discussed as is... but as is not". For Quakers the Inner Light is the insight from the D!vine and Shadow (the realm of evil) is where that Light does not shine (the parallel to kellipot of the Lion, hiding the Light).

 

[Ben Masada]

Hear, hear! More than not merely "cannot be divided", perhaps. "Cannot be discussed as is... but as is not". For Quakers the Inner Light is the insight from the D!vine and Shadow (the realm of evil) is where that Light does not shine (the parallel to kellipot of the Lion, hiding the Light).

As far as I can understand, evil does not exist. It is like shadow or darkness. Just the opposite of light. Light or good must be turned off so that shadow or darkness aka evil be there.
Ben

 

[Lunitik]

As far as I can understand, evil does not exist. It is like shadow or darkness. Just the opposite of light. Light or good must be turned off so that shadow or darkness aka evil be there.
Ben

They are merely two ends of the same energy, when it is active the energy might be light or love, when it is static it might be darkness or apathy. I uphold that how you use it is important, things like hate or fear will cause you to be entrusted with less energy for instance, a consequence of our free will being misused as you point out. The question is, what is the nature of the energy itself?

You are correct though, I do not uphold any attribute for God, for me God is the Source of all attributes, yet attributeless itself. I do not uphold any particular belief system, but certainly Buddhism is one I have learned much from. I have also enjoyed many in your own line - particular Baal Shem - but have no bias for any exoteric school...

To be perfectly true, I also do not agree with even the esoteric disjointedness, but at least this I can understand: it is easier to use exoteric beliefs to bring the student closer to the inner world, already there is a certain trust that can be molded if they are at least a little open.

 

[Ben Masada]

They are merely two ends of the same energy, when it is active the energy might be light or love, when it is static it might be darkness or apathy. I uphold that how you use it is important, things like hate or fear will cause you to be entrusted with less energy for instance, a consequence of our free will being misused as you point out. The question is, what is the nature of the energy itself?

You are correct though, I do not uphold any attribute for God, for me God is the Source of all attributes, yet attributeless itself. I do not uphold any particular belief system, but certainly Buddhism is one I have learned much from. I have also enjoyed many in your own line - particular Baal Shem - but have no bias for any exoteric school...

To be perfectly true, I also do not agree with even the esoteric disjointedness, but at least this I can understand: it is easier to use exoteric beliefs to bring the student closer to the inner world, already there is a certain trust that can be molded if they are at least a little open.

I agree with your simile of good and evil as parts of two ends of an energy pole, although man is born good. Evil sets in with several environmental backgrounds, according to one's culture as one is brought up. (Eccl. 7:29)
Ben

 

[Etu Malku]

Both good & evil are subjective, one man's good is another man's evil, they are presupposed by cultural morality.

 

[seattlegal]

Both good & evil are subjective, one man's good is another man's evil, they are presupposed by cultural morality.

I would phrase it as the capacity for conscience is universal.

Some people treasure their conscience because it can serve as a moral compass and make them feel bad when they do wrong, while others simply want to avoid feeling bad at all, and seek to squelch their conscience and empathy, and with it their innate moral compass.

 

[Ben Masada]

Both good & evil are subjective, one man's good is another man's evil, they are presupposed by cultural morality.

I agree with you also here. Taking for instance homosexuality which in the Hellenistic cuture was a way of life, therefore good, in the Jewish culture it was an evil bordering on a death sentence for punishment.
Ben

 

[radarmark]

Okay SG, see if I have this right: the inclination to do evil is universal, the possibility of sin is universal, and the capacity for conscious is universal. If so, assuming acting in accoradance with conscious (which I interpret with doing what G!d asks of us or following the dao) is of value, the the capability to do good is universal. Work?