Faith and Belief

RJM Corbet said:
I completely identify with the idea that our existence is about 'becoming something' by degrees; the 'something' is all that survives and goes on -- and what we're all doing is trying to 'figure ourselves out'?

Books and scriptures might help, but it's going to be up to ourselves to 'figure it out' in our own timeline.
Click to expand...


Here is how it works minds are both inside of me and outside of me so the wording they use is hard to understand unless you are listening to it all the time and notice the variances of thoughts.

The method of communication is frontal thought genesis it has to do with transmitters and receivers in the mind that processes thoughts into words. I can hear words then the words are then changed into thought so it is universal, languages are not necessary it just translates words into thoughts.

God, is one mind we are all inside of his mind. Draw a circle, the circle is gods mind but he can become anything inside of that circle there is nothing outside of it. How is this different then our minds we are inside of many other minds before we become ourselves here. Like I was saying, I am inside of gods mind, inside of this universe one of many, inside of this galaxy, inside of this world and inside of this person typing this. Now I can become myself five more times inside of myself to become myself again also until I have to become something here again, rebirth. So I am a little circle inside of many many larger circles there are many things outside of my mind.

Now looking at the circle with god in it only he has no yourself only a mind. This is what I was trying to explain in my previous post. when nothing entered into Gods mind to figure something out they went from no time to no time again inside of gods mind, this is somewhat shown in the kabbalah diagram of the tree of life. Once nothing figured something out and started to become everything again they came to the point they could not become anything more but wanted to become something many more times. God went outside of himself and become himself again or what they call myself he became myself again. Once he became myself again he found a timeline that had time in it to allow nothing to become everything inside of it this would happen seven times inside of the 1st, 2nd and third dimensions. The timeline that forms each time is a mind or a yourself this is the veil. I am still pondering how galaxies are formed to figure out how time might not be the same in each. If a galaxy has a universe inside of it as I suspect then each galaxy is different depending on the amount of it that entered into nothing to form the next universe. the larger the galaxy we see the less mass that might have pushed down into nothing when the star that formed or galaxy went supernova. This would also explain the big bang theory and the missing mass of our own galaxy. The seven timelines might cover all the different outcomes of this occurrence. This is only a theory and nothing i can quite find time to figure out yet, the more time you have inside of your mind the more things you can figure out.



powessy
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
RJM Corbet said:
In a way the fact that you 'are' may be a help to 'lost souls' in the process of figuring out becoming 'something'-- like a lighthouse or something. Without you having to do anything. You might not ever even know they exist.
Click to expand...


It is easy for you to understand this. close your eyes and imagine a string with a weight on the end of it and start twirling it around. start it going one direction and then stop it and then try to turn it in the other direction then bring it to a stop. say to your self now you turn it and see if it turns or not.

Powessy
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
CobblersApprentice said:
Hi again powessey, as I've sought to explain I'm a "non-believer" - in as much, as I see it, "belief" corrupts Faith. Belief brings "baggage" into each moment, which often means each moment is simply a collection of anticipations and epitaphs - therefore not allowed to "be" itself. The "moment" is therefore not truly life-giving or transformative.

If I understand you correctly, your "voices" are seeking to reveal how "it" all came about? I would simply say that it is better to "know thyself", to understand ourselves now, to understand how desire and grasping corrupts our lives.

I have always found much Buddhist thought truly life affirming, in as much as it implies that if we see and know THIS world truly we will be free of "suffering". In effect it is not like much religion, which as I see it, betrays this world for some imagined "other".

But what do I know? We can only speak as we find. You are obviously the forgiving type, which counts for much, if not everything.

(My comments about the shape of the world was simply a poor joke, yes, I did understand the point you were making. Thank you)
Click to expand...


I am a simple person, I work hard and give all that I can when I can. I have no wants or needs I am happy knowing nothing, I could live in a box and be happy because I would make it home. I do not care if there is a god or not it is not something I question or really think about, but my voices seem to want me to figure these things out so I try to understand it for them.

Two arguments arose in the beginning of time. God believed we should become something many times to become something all the time, we must reincarnate many times becoming ourselves and figuring ourselves out to become ourselves all the time, to become immortal. The second argument came from his brother which was, a person should be able to become themselves right now to become themselves all the time, to become immortal. This was most likely the argument of Satan and God which were actually brothers. I do not think even one Buddhist has ever seen the after world so he truly will not suffer. I agree with you on religion I am not sold on streets of gold and silver.

Powessy
 
If I may share a piece of mind!..in my world!..

In the before..there was no beginning,
Be..(not)..For(BeFore)=The Beginning.
Nothing existed..and that nothing was/is Absolute. A thing cannot be absolute..because it is NOT worthy to be Absolute..IMO.

what I ‘Will’ believe is that this means a thing cannot be absolute..because a thing can not live(being) itself on the out(side), it doesn’t have a definition to be a proper name but for only be called by a ‘Thing(Y)’...a thing can also lie..but Absolute cannot Lie...and for this reason..no thing..(nothing)..was before(the Absolute). And the ‘Something’ would be us humans that come out of the no thing(Absolute).
Because we too, are not Absolute
For we think that we know every(thing)..but truthfully behind the naked eye..i see things stealing some of human spirits..examples..proofs and evidence are all experiments to give human mind confirmation..but the truth is those experiments are all included as a ‘Thing’(not alive)...and it is ones confirmation that their spirit(mind) is held back unless prove them wrong through ‘things’. In a way one can be owned by a thing which is sad imo..because now ones life becomes as well depended of the same as a thing itself(it can lie), will not know whom they are and where it came from.


No, any, some, every and all. These words have all some(thing) in common..the word ‘Thing’ connects to all them words.
But there is one word that is true to itself and not be a part of a thing, the word ‘No’ separates itself from the rest..for the rest is for our seek(spiritual) to find ourselves back to no thing(Absolute).

This be only of opinions..pls consider
my apologies for any confusion if occurred.
 
Last edited:
powessy said:
the more time you have inside of your mind the more things you can figure out.
Click to expand...
I enjoy your thoughts put into words...I don't understand buy enjoy the confusion. I've said before how there were obvious things I rejected and asked without answer as a kid in religion. With you I don't understand anything enough to even compose a question.
 
powessy said:
Two arguments arose in the beginning of time. God believed we should become something many times to become something all the time, we must reincarnate many times becoming ourselves and figuring ourselves out to become ourselves all the time, to become immortal. The second argument came from his brother which was, a person should be able to become themselves right now to become themselves all the time, to become immortal. This was most likely the argument of Satan and God which were actually brothers.
Click to expand...

All I can make of this, getting down to basics, is the "progressive improvement" , versus the "immediate salvation" idea (this followed by what Christians call "sanctification")

All I can say is that I'm not a big fan of the "progressive improvement" idea. From one Buddhist perspective, Dogen, the zen guy, subscribed to the Mahayana Buddhist view that "enlightenment" is a "given", not to be "attained" in any way, shape or form. Dogen's koan, the big question of HIS life, was that if such were so, why practice at all. Why in fact do ANYTHING? (Dogen's answer? I'm still struggling to understand)

(Just to say that your reference to Buddhism at the end of your post, of not suffering, I find beyond my understanding)
 
How would you - a Buddhist - answer this question.

A Buddhist has faith in and/or believes what exactly ???

Maybe it has been answered here already and I missed it, if so forgive me?
 
Arif Ghamiq said:
How would you - a Buddhist - answer this question.

A Buddhist has faith in and/or believes what exactly ???

Maybe it has been answered here already and I missed it, if so forgive me?
Click to expand...

Speaking very broadly, and trying to answer for the entire Buddhist Tradition, what is believed in is that the Buddha experienced for himself "the end of suffering (dukkha)" . Then it is believed that if one cultivates the Path, one will oneself experience this. The phrase, "I teach this and this alone, suffering and the ending of suffering" as spoken by the Buddha, is found throughout the Pali Canon of Scripture of the Theravada (Southern School)

(To add, suffering - Dukkha - is to be understood. In the Buddhist Tradition suffering is NOT the opposite of pleasure, but the underlying reality of human existence. Just as in Christianity "we sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin" and to commit a moral act does not solve the problem as such. Just so, for Buddhism, to live is to suffer, and to experience moments of pleasure does not negate this)

But Buddhism is not one monolithic teaching that has remained unchanged for 2500 years. The Dharma has expressed itself in various ways in each and every country it has reached. My own path, after beginning in Theravada, is that of Pure Land, a Japanese expression.

We "believe" in Amida, the Buddha of Infinite Light, and in his Vow made to save all who call upon his name.

There is a wide spectrum of understanding of this. From Amida, "up there" or "out to the west" who comes at our death to take us to the Pure Land, to Amida as a personification of Reality-as-is, and the Pure Land is here, now, when seen and known with "new" eyes. Ideally, it is egalitarian, and what is truly relevant is the degree of trust in the devotees heart and thus the expression of it in the world that results, "beyond our calculation".

My own living of the Pure Land way, I have found, does not call on me to reject any expression of the Dharma throughout history, nor any other Faith. Nevertheless, the way IS essentially non-theist/non-dual.

Thank you.
 
If I may share a piece of mind!..in my world!..

In the before..there was no beginning,
Be..(not)..For(BeFore)=The Beginning.
Nothing existed..and that nothing was/is Absolute. A thing cannot be absolute..because it is NOT worthy to be Absolute..IMO.

what I ‘Will’ believe is that this means a thing(nothing) cannot be absolute..because a thing can not live(being) itself on the out(side), it doesn’t have a definition to be a proper name but for only be called by a ‘Thing(Y)’...a thing can also lie..but Absolute cannot Lie...and for this reason..no thing..(nothing)..was before(the Absolute). And the ‘Something’ would be us humans that come out of the no thing(Absolute).
Because we too, are not Absolute
For we think that we know every(thing)..but truthfully behind the naked eye..i see things stealing some of human spirits..examples..proofs and evidence are all experiments to give human mind confirmation..but the truth is those experiments are all included as a ‘Thing’(not alive)...and it is ones confirmation that their spirit(mind) is held back unless prove them wrong through ‘things’. In a way one can be owned by a thing which is sad imo..because now ones life becomes as well depended of the same as a thing itself(it can lie), will not know whom they are and where it came from.


No, any, some, every and all. These words have all some(thing) in common..the word ‘Thing’ connects to all them words.
But there is one word that is true to itself and not be a part of a thing, the word ‘No’ separates itself from the rest..for the rest is for our seek(spiritual) to find ourselves back to no thing(Absolute).

This be only of opinions..pls consider
my apologies for any confusion if occurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Interesting!..I posted a reply 24hrs before my last post ’hello’..
But it is put on hold for some reason..and says..”awaiting moderate approval”...has anyone had this problem?
 
No_One said:
Interesting!..I posted a reply 24hrs before my last post ’hello’..
But it is put on hold for some reason..and says..”awaiting moderate approval”...has anyone had this problem?
Click to expand...

Hi, take a look at the thread "Why (To whom it may concern)" in the "Feedback" sub-section in the "General" division of these forums. It will answer your question.
 
I guess it was due to having it be a long post..I’ll try and break it down, maybe it’ll work through that way..hopefully!
 
If I may share a piece of mind!..in my world!..

In the before..there was no beginning,
Be..(not)..For(BeFore)=The Beginning.
Nothing existed..and that nothing was/is Absolute. A thing cannot be absolute..because it is NOT worthy to be Absolute..IMO.
 
No_One said:
If I may share a piece of mind!..in my world!..

In the before..there was no beginning,
Be..(not)..For(BeFore)=The Beginning.
Nothing existed..and that nothing was/is Absolute. A thing cannot be absolute..because it is NOT worthy to be Absolute..IMO.
Click to expand...

On the longer version of this post - what's in this exerpt - caught my attention.

Is Surah 112 of The Quran Allah is called by one of His Names - As-Samaad - commonly translated "The Eternal-Absolute". One translation says "Needless".
This is the only time this name is used in Quran. This Short Surah (4 verses) is about the Incomparable One-ness of Allah.

Gershom Scholem talked about how some Jewish Qabbah-ist deified Ayn Soph (Nothingness) in his book Kabbalah.

Just what came to my head when reading - I don't know ?
 
No_One said:
If I may share a piece of mind!..in my world!..

In the before..there was no beginning,
Be..(not)..For(BeFore)=The Beginning.
Nothing existed..and that nothing was/is Absolute. A thing cannot be absolute..because it is NOT worthy to be Absolute..IMO.
Click to expand...
Ahhh..it worked! That was part of my post it did not go through..so I broke it down..i’ll Send other parts that are missing from it...

No there is no need..as I just saw now..it’s all there
 
CobblersApprentice said:
All I can make of this, getting down to basics, is the "progressive improvement" , versus the "immediate salvation" idea (this followed by what Christians call "sanctification")

All I can say is that I'm not a big fan of the "progressive improvement" idea. From one Buddhist perspective, Dogen, the zen guy, subscribed to the Mahayana Buddhist view that "enlightenment" is a "given", not to be "attained" in any way, shape or form. Dogen's koan, the big question of HIS life, was that if such were so, why practice at all. Why in fact do ANYTHING? (Dogen's answer? I'm still struggling to understand)

(Just to say that your reference to Buddhism at the end of your post, of not suffering, I find beyond my understanding)
Click to expand...

You wrote this line " I have always found much Buddhist thought truly life affirming, in as much as it implies that if we see and know THIS world truly we will be free of "suffering". In effect it is not like much religion, which as I see it, betrays this world for some imagined "other".
I perhaps read this wrong I was assuming you meant that a Buddhist would not suffer in the after life because of their deeds in their walking life. What I was trying to say is that not just Buddhist but everyone will have a hard time becoming anything after their lifetime because their mind never becomes them. We all have a mind, but our mind is not us we are only part of it. A mind is ob-round in shape and has five minds inside of it that collect time it has it's own mind I call ME. Once the ME becomes ME then we merge together to form a yourself the circle or ball with me inside of it. The mind has now accepted you and you are now paired for the rest of existence, you are now you inside of yourself.

I am sorry for the confusion, I in no way meant to single out anyone group or person.

Powessy
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top