+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: What is G_d or the higher consciousness...?

  1. #11
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    A potential argument for the necessity for a degree or difference in relation to G_d

    If we were to start with a "nothing" for example, as our original form of G_d, in this definition we already have the problem of addressing what a "nothing" is without simultaneously producing a "something" to verify it against. Our first definition of G_d then, in order to define a stable position, might best be described as a 'nothing unmanifest.' The potential of a state prior to its emergence; one that is potent, yet at rest.

    But as soon as we describe the act of G_d creating anything from a spontaneous disposition however, even as we understand the thing which is produced to be entirely of the essence of G_d, and that this thing is also an extension of G_d, consequently, since the thing is secondary and not G_d itself, it can not be the totality of G_d at the same time. Even for G_d to become introspective would require something external as well. There is no introspection without an 'extrospection".

    Therefore we could still say that everything in G_d's creation is of G_d, and that everything in that creation partakes in G_d's essence, but we can't easily state that these individual things taken alone are the totality of G_d in and of themselves. Even if we are to suggest that G_d is found within them at multiple levels, or that the thing illustrates the properties of G_d as a mirror image. These things must be accepted to exist in a different degree in respect to their creator, since they are not the creator in absolution.

    There is further example to be found in the limitation of what is capable and not capable from the perspective of any position within all that is G_d and within G_d's creation. If G_d is undifferentiated, and what I am thinking right now is the product of what G_d had directed first-hand, shouldn't this mind also be capable of sharing in what G_d is and be directly capable of, for example, an act of creating a universe in its complete elaboration, with me as the director of all its intricate and involved events within my imagination? Should I be able to, unaided, born as equivalent to G_d, be able to produce a Big Bang in front of me? Right now, at this moment, I can't do that.

    Although we might consider our will to be the product of G_d's will, and even as our actions lead back successively to causes leading back to G_d, what we WILL independently is not necessarily the will of G_d. Thus there has to be an essential separation of some sort to account for this.

    We might then respond, "because it is not what G_d willed to begin with", or "he willed me to think it, but not to produce it". But if I will it and G_d does not will it, there must be a difference, and if there is a difference, they can not be one in the same in their totality. Therefore, we must again conclude that a separation on some level exists between what we are, what we experience, and what G_d is, or what G_d experiences. The two are not identical although of the same substance. When two things are not identical, of course they can be similar, but they are still not the same. A child is born physically with all that is given in essence from its mother, but it is no longer the mother when it is born. I don't see anyway around it.

    From our perspective then, as physical beings native to the dimension of time and space, there are thus essential and varying degrees between us and G_d. Otherwise, we would be automatically capable of existing somewhere outside of time and space, occupying those realms and creating within them, through the human state we are naturally born into.

    That is, unless we were somehow able to change this perspective.

  2. #12
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    H,
    Maybe I missed something in you post, but I don't see that you've shown that levels must exist.
    What I was hoping to do was as I said - to put down what must be true if we assume G_d exists. IE that there can be nothing outside of G-d that is not G_d:
    1) G_d must be infinite - that is the only way I can see to get around the 'who created G_d' paradox. It doesn't stop the question, but it means there can be no answer. There is nothing outside of G_d.
    2) There can be nothing outside of G_d that is not created by G_d.
    3) Anything created by G_d must be of G_d - as there is nothing outside of G_d that is not created by G_d (so this tends toward the Kybalion mental state of existence).

    I think 1 stands as if you say things existed outside of G_d - what created them? G_d? So following simple steps - can you show that levels must exist?

  3. #13
    Vehement's Avatar
    Vehement is offline Twelever Gold Vehement is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    494

    Default

    I think you guys are getting lost in the details. What does it really matter? Anything you come up with is completely selfish and is based on life conditioning up to this point. We are nothing when you look at even a fraction of the visible universe we have explored. The concepts we use to even talk about it are so young, so obsolete to the totality of everything. I say stop wasting energy on trying to figure out the truth and just experience the truth. We are a big quackquackquackquacking rock flying through space and we are all completely oblivious to the fragility of our very existence. We are just another animal on this planet that happened to evolve a conscious brain. And finally...we are lucky if we are here for 70 years. To explore a minuscule portion of our own galaxy we would have to have traveled at the speed of light our entire lives to see maybe a couple of stars and their Solar System.

  4. #14
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vehement View Post
    I think you guys are getting lost in the details. What does it really matter? Anything you come up with is completely selfish and is based on life conditioning up to this point. We are nothing when you look at even a fraction of the visible universe we have explored. The concepts we use to even talk about it are so young, so obsolete to the totality of everything. I say stop wasting energy on trying to figure out the truth and just experience the truth. We are a big quackquackquackquacking rock flying through space and we are all completely oblivious to the fragility of our very existence. We are just another animal on this planet that happened to evolve a conscious brain. And finally...we are lucky if we are here for 70 years. To explore a minuscule portion of our own galaxy we would have to have traveled at the speed of light our entire lives to see maybe a couple of stars and their Solar System.
    Vehement,
    This all started because it seems that certain people believe that the LRB is linked to a 'higher consciousness' - ie to belief and conjecture.
    My issue with that is that this higher consciousness hasn't been defined - so no one can tell if what they're trying to get closer to is good/evil, big/small, hot/cold...whatever. I can't see that you can state that a higher consciousness exists without defining it (or else what are you talking about), let alone link the LRB to it.
    So this thread was like 'my interesting sites' thread - my way of trying what this higher consciousness (if it exists) would have to be in my mind. Not taking other peoples definitions, just my own thoughts on what it must be.
    So far, I haven't seen that a higher consciousness needs to exist, let alone be able to define it in anything less than broad strokes. I thought that by defining it, I may then see how the LRB could be linked, but so far, I am still at a loss.

  5. #15
    Vehement's Avatar
    Vehement is offline Twelever Gold Vehement is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    494

    Default

    My opinion on the "higher consciousness" is pretty simple. It is the state we are in when our life conditioning is not influencing our mood or thought. Now, how hard would it be to get to that state...in reality? Really hard! Why is this state important? Because then you can make a decision, have an experience, feel pure emotion, etc. without the preconceived idea of what it SUPPOSED to be like depending on your life experience and life conditioning. Nothing magical about. Nothing supernatural about it. Just getting to a state where you are just a human...your not joe, susan, a plumber, an accountant, rich, poor. That is the "higher conciousness". Don't fool yourself that there is some woo woo supernet in the sky. THAT is the Internet which IS an extension of your consciousness.

  6. #16
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vehement View Post
    My opinion on the "higher consciousness" is pretty simple. It is the state we are in when our life conditioning is not influencing our mood or thought. Now, how hard would it be to get to that state...in reality? Really hard! Why is this state important? Because then you can make a decision, have an experience, feel pure emotion, etc. without the preconceived idea of what it SUPPOSED to be like depending on your life experience and life conditioning. Nothing magical about. Nothing supernatural about it. Just getting to a state where you are just a human...your not joe, susan, a plumber, an accountant, rich, poor. That is the "higher conciousness". Don't fool yourself that there is some woo woo supernet in the sky. THAT is the Internet which IS an extension of your consciousness.
    That's the problem though Vehement - and also how/why this thread came into being - your post is just your opinion - your belief and hence just conjecture. Much like the 'woo woo supernet in the sky' is someone else's belief. Each person has their own.

  7. #17
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    H,
    ... I don't see that you've shown that levels must exist.
    Because-
    G_d is all and all is G_d. There is nothing outside G_d and all is of G_d's mind.
    However, YOU are not G_d.

  8. #18
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    Because-
    G_d is all and all is G_d. There is nothing outside G_d and all is of G_d's mind.
    However, YOU are not G_d.
    H,
    I'm totally aware that I'm not G_d - but I don't see that whether I'm G_d or not has anything to do with you showing that multiple levels must exist.

    PS I'll be posting on the '..Thoughts and Findings related to the Maranatha "Key" Pt. II ....' thread later, as I've downloaded a tool to measure angles on images, so I should be able to see if your three pieces of 'sacred geometry' are 45 degrees.

  9. #19
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    But G_d is all. You and I are not "all" (are we?).
    If we were "all", such as G_d, then we would be the same as G_d. But we are not.
    If we know that we are not the same as G_d, then it means we don't share the same identity or being as G_d.
    Thus, while we might exist inclusive of the "all" which is G_d, and while we also know that we are not G_d, then all things which are inclusive of G_d can't be considered equal to G_d.
    Since all things which are inclusive of G_d can't be considered to be equal to G_d, then there must be some degree of separation between that which is G_d and those things which are a part of G_d but which aren't fully G_d.

  10. #20
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    But G_d is all. You and I are not "all" (are we?).
    If we were "all", such as G_d, then we would be the same as G_d. But we are not.
    If we know that we are not the same as G_d, then it means we don't share the same identity or being as G_d.
    Thus, while we might exist inclusive of the "all" which is G_d, and while we also know that we are not G_d, then all things which are inclusive of G_d can't be considered equal to G_d.
    Since all things which are inclusive of G_d can't be considered to be equal to G_d, then there must be some degree of separation between that which is G_d and those things which are a part of G_d but which aren't fully G_d.
    But G_d then isn't a level is it? It can't be a level in the way you implied before - ie something that is attainable - as 'we' can never become G_d.
    So I still don't see any need for levels.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts