Fuck God

Post Reply
awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Fuck God

Post by awakening » Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:27 pm

toombaru wrote:
hybrid wrote:
toombaru wrote:What happens inside you when you see those words?

Is is revulsion?

Is it fear?

Is it anger?

Do you feel sorry for the speaker?

Do you want to defend your personal God?

Do you think he needs.......or even wants...... your protection?

Why do you suppose that you have any reaction at all?


toombaru
God is a word...
that conveys a meaning
and connects to something..

what is it that you really fucked about, toomby?


God is a word.....


that creates an imaginary separation.......where there is none.


Concepts cannot connect........they only divide.




toombaru

Devision
connection
both are concepts too...
What else is there available
when communicating with words?

The problem is of course not in the concepts
but in taking them too seriously
and in the refusal to see
what someone may want to communicate
when using them..

It's like climbing on the signpost
instead of looking to where it points.

This can lead to complications
unless of course
arguing
or signpost climbing
is precisely what One wants to do.


toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Re: Fuck God

Post by toombaru » Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:37 am

awakening wrote:
toombaru wrote:
hybrid wrote:
toombaru wrote:What happens inside you when you see those words?

Is is revulsion?

Is it fear?

Is it anger?

Do you feel sorry for the speaker?

Do you want to defend your personal God?

Do you think he needs.......or even wants...... your protection?

Why do you suppose that you have any reaction at all?


toombaru
God is a word...
that conveys a meaning
and connects to something..

what is it that you really fucked about, toomby?


God is a word.....


that creates an imaginary separation.......where there is none.


Concepts cannot connect........they only divide.




toombaru

Devision
connection
both are concepts too...
What else is there available
when communicating with words?

The problem is of course not in the concepts
but in taking them too seriously
and in the refusal to see
what someone may want to communicate
when using them..

It's like climbing on the signpost
instead of looking to where it points.

This can lead to complications
unless of course
arguing
or signpost climbing
is precisely what One wants to do.



There is a time for pointing..........and a there is a time when it is realized that pointing......any pointing......is merely another devise that adds credibility to the illusory separation.

toombaru
empty-and-full
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: Unknown

Re: Fuck God

Post by empty-and-full » Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:37 am

toombaru wrote:
awakening wrote:
toombaru wrote:
hybrid wrote:
toombaru wrote:What happens inside you when you see those words?

Is is revulsion?

Is it fear?

Is it anger?

Do you feel sorry for the speaker?

Do you want to defend your personal God?

Do you think he needs.......or even wants...... your protection?

Why do you suppose that you have any reaction at all?


toombaru
God is a word...
that conveys a meaning
and connects to something..

what is it that you really fucked about, toomby?


God is a word.....


that creates an imaginary separation.......where there is none.


Concepts cannot connect........they only divide.




toombaru

Devision
connection
both are concepts too...
What else is there available
when communicating with words?

The problem is of course not in the concepts
but in taking them too seriously
and in the refusal to see
what someone may want to communicate
when using them..

It's like climbing on the signpost
instead of looking to where it points.

This can lead to complications
unless of course
arguing
or signpost climbing
is precisely what One wants to do.



There is a time for pointing..........and a there is a time when it is realized that pointing......any pointing......is merely another devise that adds credibility to the illusory separation.

toombaru
There is also a time for not taking one's thoughts so seriously. :roll:
toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Re: Fuck God

Post by toombaru » Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:57 am

empty-and-full wrote:
toombaru wrote:
awakening wrote:
toombaru wrote:
hybrid wrote:
toombaru wrote:What happens inside you when you see those words?

Is is revulsion?

Is it fear?

Is it anger?

Do you feel sorry for the speaker?

Do you want to defend your personal God?
Do you think he needs.......or even wants...... your protection?

Why do you suppose that you have any reaction at all?


toombaru
God is a word...
that conveys a meaning
and connects to something..

what is it that you really fucked about, toomby?


God is a word.....


that creates an imaginary separation.......where there is none.


Concepts cannot connect........they only divide.




toombaru

Devision
connection
both are concepts too...
What else is there available
when communicating with words?

The problem is of course not in the concepts
but in taking them too seriously
and in the refusal to see
what someone may want to communicate
when using them..

It's like climbing on the signpost
instead of looking to where it points.

This can lead to complications
unless of course
arguing
or signpost climbing
is precisely what One wants to do.



There is a time for pointing..........and a there is a time when it is realized that pointing......any pointing......is merely another devise that adds credibility to the illusory separation.

toombaru
There is also a time for not taking one's thoughts so seriously. :roll:





It is conceptual thought that is responsible for the "suffering" of which the Buddha speaks.


The conceptual overlay....... mistaken for reality....is the bastard child of conceptual thought.


Thought.............conceptual thought.........is the only "thing" that should be taken seriously......studied with dispassion........and once seen for what it is.......... looses its opacity.....and the Ever-Opening-Naturalness into which we were born.........smiles through
the dream......and we remember who we are.


toombaru
awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Fuck God

Post by awakening » Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:18 am

toombaru wrote: The conceptual overlay.......which is mistaken for reality....the bastard child of conceptual thought.


Thought.............conceptual thought.........is the only "thing" that should be taken seriously......studied with dispassion........and once seen for what it is......thought looses its opacity.....and the Ever-Opening-Naturalness into which we were born.........smiles through
the dream......and we remember who we are.


toombaru
The conceptual overlay may or may not be taken for 'reality' (another BIG concept we could argue about for ever)...but is not even the conceptual overlay itself included in what we call 'reality'?

Here is the distinct impression that you take the G word to 'realistic' as you ascribe all kinds of power to a simple word. Unconditional Apple Pie in the Sky' is fine too...just as long as we know what it's supposed to represent.

Even Buddha's speaking is based in concepts
and so is the Buddha himself.
So it is fine to kill God on the road when you see him.

But what remains after the kill... only One
and this One is All

As far as i know Buddha's conclusion about suffering did not mention conceptual thought.

Suffering exist but there is no one who suffers
The deed there is, but no doer thereof.


And what ever he did or did not say
there seems to be a good option for suffering
in mixing up the concept with what it represents.

Trying to drink the word water
may cause the suffering of dehydration.

As mentioned before: What ever idea one connects to the sound/concept God (or dog or water if you want) is not what God, dog or water is.

If you read that God word in a certain context is meant to represent
The Omni Present One why rant on about the word and say that it IS separation? Isn't separation not again just another noise/word/pixels-string? It was mentioned too, that if the word means something else to you, then feel free to use another concept....

And you did several times, by calling it 'nameless' or something like 'sparkling awareness' or even in this post 'the remembrance of who we are.' This are still words/concepts. Again nothing but sounds or dots strung together.

Of course you know this, but it seems you prefer to keep on 'bashing' the word 'God. But as long as there is discussion (or lately our conversation may be better described as arguing) there are words and concepts involved. Why not simply 'accommodate' that fact (more words) and work from t-here?

I have accommodated and acknowledged your interpretation of the G word and responded that here the same word has another flavor. Yet you seem unable or unwilling to 'hear' that.

In the end it is fine.. If you want to repeat how that word did so many terrible things, that is IT too... And the response will come...until it no longer does.. That too...

Be well..





Lydian
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:12 pm
Location: UK

Re: Fuck God

Post by Lydian » Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:47 am

toombaru wrote: The conceptual overlay....... mistaken for reality....is the bastard child of conceptual thought.


Thought.............conceptual thought.........is the only "thing" that should be taken seriously......studied with dispassion........and once seen for what it is.......... looses its opacity.....and the Ever-Opening-Naturalness into which we were born.........smiles through
the dream......and we remember who we are.

toombaru
The need to deconstruct the 'conceptual overlay' is as unnecessary a concept as the need to 'be in the now'.

Once it is known that there is nothing but presence - the mental effort of paying attention to the 'now' is seen as superfluous (although a pleasant state to pursue for relaxation purposes.)

Likewise, once it is known that the 'conceptual overlay' is just more appearance in/as THIS - there is no necessity for the deconstruction of every 'thing' and 'event' - everything is 'allowed' to arise as it is....


Also, due to the apparent prime role of the senses, the conceptual overlay is much less dominant than imagined - of course when thought about - it is found to be there.

.
michael
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:13 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by michael » Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:44 am

toombaru wrote:Fuck God
is not fucking one of the most wonder full experiences... in this wonder full dance called 'Life'...

as there is only God...

all fucking... is Fucking God... :shock: 8) :D

in which Lover and Beloved are ever One...

this 'Unity' is not an 'experience'...

the 'experience of Unity' can only be enjoyed through the 'appearance of separation'...

through the apparent embodiment of Lover and Beloved… as male and female...

though these two principles of Life are eternally entwined...

in

Love

their apparent separation into individual men and women... and their apparent coming together again in sexual union... gives expression to this ‘Unity of Being’… through the bliss of orgasm...

making Love in the full knowledge of this Unity... is the definition of 'sacred sex'...

God making Love to God...

or… as God is Love...

Fucking God is simply…

Love penetrating...

Love

from whose womb this whole universe is born…

the image of…

Love
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
michael
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:13 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Fuck God

Post by michael » Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:47 am

Lydian wrote:
toombaru wrote: The conceptual overlay....... mistaken for reality....is the bastard child of conceptual thought.


Thought.............conceptual thought.........is the only "thing" that should be taken seriously......studied with dispassion........and once seen for what it is.......... looses its opacity.....and the Ever-Opening-Naturalness into which we were born.........smiles through
the dream......and we remember who we are.

toombaru
The need to deconstruct the 'conceptual overlay' is as unnecessary a concept as the need to 'be in the now'.

Once it is known that there is nothing but presence - the mental effort of paying attention to the 'now' is seen as superfluous (although a pleasant state to pursue for relaxation purposes.)

Likewise, once it is known that the 'conceptual overlay' is just more appearance in/as THIS - there is no necessity for the deconstruction of every 'thing' and 'event' - everything is 'allowed' to arise as it is....


Also, due to the apparent prime role of the senses, the conceptual overlay is much less dominant than imagined - of course when thought about - it is found to be there.

.
of course...

though... without the 'conceptual overlay'... there is no 'thing' to sense at all... just pure sensation...

Love
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
michael
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:13 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by michael » Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:54 am

if you see any 'thing' at all... without 'thought'...

what you see is the 'image' of a 'concept'...

any 'thought' that 'names' the 'thing' is simply another image...

of the same 'concept'...

the concept gives meaning to both the 'thing' and to the 'words' naming the thing...

don't ask 'me'... what a 'concept'... 'is'...

no idea 'what' it is... for it cannot be defined... it can only be only known :D

Love
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Re: Fuck God

Post by toombaru » Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:39 pm

awakening wrote:
toombaru wrote: The conceptual overlay.......which is mistaken for reality....the bastard child of conceptual thought.


Thought.............conceptual thought.........is the only "thing" that should be taken seriously......studied with dispassion........and once seen for what it is......thought looses its opacity.....and the Ever-Opening-Naturalness into which we were born.........smiles through
the dream......and we remember who we are.


toombaru
The conceptual overlay may or may not be taken for 'reality' (another BIG concept we could argue about for ever)...but is not even the conceptual overlay itself included in what we call 'reality'?

Here is the distinct impression that you take the G word to 'realistic' as you ascribe all kinds of power to a simple word. Unconditional Apple Pie in the Sky' is fine too...just as long as we know what it's supposed to represent.

Even Buddha's speaking is based in concepts
and so is the Buddha himself.
So it is fine to kill God on the road when you see him.

But what remains after the kill... only One
and this One is All

As far as i know Buddha's conclusion about suffering did not mention conceptual thought.

Suffering exist but there is no one who suffers
The deed there is, but no doer thereof.


And what ever he did or did not say
there seems to be a good option for suffering
in mixing up the concept with what it represents.

Trying to drink the word water
may cause the suffering of dehydration.

As mentioned before: What ever idea one connects to the sound/concept God (or dog or water if you want) is not what God, dog or water is.

If you read that God word in a certain context is meant to represent
The Omni Present One why rant on about the word and say that it IS separation? Isn't separation not again just another noise/word/pixels-string? It was mentioned too, that if the word means something else to you, then feel free to use another concept....

And you did several times, by calling it 'nameless' or something like 'sparkling awareness' or even in this post 'the remembrance of who we are.' This are still words/concepts. Again nothing but sounds or dots strung together.

Of course you know this, but it seems you prefer to keep on 'bashing' the word 'God. But as long as there is discussion (or lately our conversation may be better described as arguing) there are words and concepts involved. Why not simply 'accommodate' that fact (more words) and work from t-here?

I have accommodated and acknowledged your interpretation of the G word and responded that here the same word has another flavor. Yet you seem unable or unwilling to 'hear' that.

In the end it is fine.. If you want to repeat how that word did so many terrible things, that is IT too... And the response will come...until it no longer does.. That too...

Be well..






The believer holds that our reason can, in some sense, transcend the narrow limits of experience.

He holds that we can attain truths not capable of verification, and not needing varification, by actual experiment of observation.

He holds further that the knowledge of those truths is essential to the highest interests of mankind, and enables us in some sort to solve the dark riddle of the universe.

A complete solution, as everyone admits is beyond our power.

But some answer may be given to the doubts which harass and perplex us when we try to frame any adequate conception of the vast order of which we form an insignificant portion.

We cannot say why this or that arrangement is the way it is; we can say though obscurely, that some answer exists, and would be satisfactory, if we could only find it.

Overpowered, as every honest and serious thinker is at times overpowered, by the sight of pain, folly, and hopelessness, by the jarring discords which run through the vast harmony of the universe, we are yet enabled to hear at times a whisper that all is well, to trust to it as coming from the most authentic source, and that only the temporary bars of sense prevents us from recognizing with certainty that the harmony beneath the discords is a reality and not a dream.

This knowledge is embodied in the central dogma of theology.

God is the name of the harmony; and knowable.

Who would not be happy in accepting this belief, if he could accept it honestly?

Who would not be glad if he could say with confidence: "the evil is transitory, the good eternal: our doubts are due to limitations designed to be abolished, and the world is really an embodiment of love and wisdom, however dark it may appear to our faculties"?

And yet, if the so called knowledge is illusory, are we not bound by the most sacred obligations to recognize the facts?

Our dark path is dark enough on any hypothesis.

We cannot afford to turn aside after every ignis fatuus without asking whether it leads to sounder footing or to hopeless quagmires.

Dreams may be pleasanter for the moment than realities; but happiness must be won by adapting our lives to realities.

And who, that has felt the burden of existence, and suffered under the well meant efforts at consolation, will deny that such consolations are the bitterest mockeries?

Pain is not an evil; death is not a separation;sickness is but a blessing in disguise.

Have the gloomiest speculations of avowed pessimests ever tortured sufferers like those kind platitudes?

Is there a more cutting piece of satire in the language than the reference in our funeral to the "sure and certain hope of a blessed resurrection"?

To dispel genuine hopes might be painful, however salutary.

To suppress these spasmotic efforts to fly in the face of the facts would be some comfort, even in the distress which they are meant to alleviate.

Besides the important question whether the believers can prove his dogmas, ther is, therefore, the further question whether dogmas, if granted, have any meaning.

Do they answer our doubts, or mock us with the appearance of an answer?

The believers rejoice in their knowledge.

Have they anything to tell us?







Leslie Stephen
Lydian
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:12 pm
Location: UK

Re: Fuck God

Post by Lydian » Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:37 pm

toombaru wrote:
awakening wrote:
toombaru wrote: The conceptual overlay.......which is mistaken for reality....the bastard child of conceptual thought.


Thought.............conceptual thought.........is the only "thing" that should be taken seriously......studied with dispassion........and once seen for what it is......thought looses its opacity.....and the Ever-Opening-Naturalness into which we were born.........smiles through
the dream......and we remember who we are.


toombaru
The conceptual overlay may or may not be taken for 'reality' (another BIG concept we could argue about for ever)...but is not even the conceptual overlay itself included in what we call 'reality'?

Here is the distinct impression that you take the G word to 'realistic' as you ascribe all kinds of power to a simple word. Unconditional Apple Pie in the Sky' is fine too...just as long as we know what it's supposed to represent.

Even Buddha's speaking is based in concepts
and so is the Buddha himself.
So it is fine to kill God on the road when you see him.

But what remains after the kill... only One
and this One is All

As far as i know Buddha's conclusion about suffering did not mention conceptual thought.

Suffering exist but there is no one who suffers
The deed there is, but no doer thereof.


And what ever he did or did not say
there seems to be a good option for suffering
in mixing up the concept with what it represents.

Trying to drink the word water
may cause the suffering of dehydration.

As mentioned before: What ever idea one connects to the sound/concept God (or dog or water if you want) is not what God, dog or water is.

If you read that God word in a certain context is meant to represent
The Omni Present One why rant on about the word and say that it IS separation? Isn't separation not again just another noise/word/pixels-string? It was mentioned too, that if the word means something else to you, then feel free to use another concept....

And you did several times, by calling it 'nameless' or something like 'sparkling awareness' or even in this post 'the remembrance of who we are.' This are still words/concepts. Again nothing but sounds or dots strung together.

Of course you know this, but it seems you prefer to keep on 'bashing' the word 'God. But as long as there is discussion (or lately our conversation may be better described as arguing) there are words and concepts involved. Why not simply 'accommodate' that fact (more words) and work from t-here?

I have accommodated and acknowledged your interpretation of the G word and responded that here the same word has another flavor. Yet you seem unable or unwilling to 'hear' that.

In the end it is fine.. If you want to repeat how that word did so many terrible things, that is IT too... And the response will come...until it no longer does.. That too...

Be well..






The believer holds that our reason can, in some sense, transcend the narrow limits of experience.

He holds that we can attain truths not capable of verification, and not needing varification, by actual experiment of observation.

He holds further that the knowledge of those truths is essential to the highest interests of mankind, and enables us in some sort to solve the dark riddle of the universe.

A complete solution, as everyone admits is beyond our power.

But some answer may be given to the doubts which harass and perplex us when we try to frame any adequate conception of the vast order of which we form an insignificant portion.

We cannot say why this or that arrangement is the way it is; we can say though obscurely, that some answer exists, and would be satisfactory, if we could only find it.

Overpowered, as every honest and serious thinker is at times overpowered, by the sight of pain, folly, and hopelessness, by the jarring discords which run through the vast harmony of the universe, we are yet enabled to hear at times a whisper that all is well, to trust to it as coming from the most authentic source, and that only the temporary bars of sense prevents us from recognizing with certainty that the harmony beneath the discords is a reality and not a dream.

This knowledge is embodied in the central dogma of theology.

God is the name of the harmony; and knowable.

Who would not be happy in accepting this belief, if he could accept it honestly?

Who would not be glad if he could say with confidence: "the evil is transitory, the good eternal: our doubts are due to limitations designed to be abolished, and the world is really an embodiment of love and wisdom, however dark it may appear to our faculties"?

And yet, if the so called knowledge is illusory, are we not bound by the most sacred obligations to recognize the facts?

Our dark path is dark enough on any hypothesis.

We cannot afford to turn aside after every ignis fatuus without asking whether it leads to sounder footing or to hopeless quagmires.

Dreams may be pleasanter for the moment than realities; but happiness must be won by adapting our lives to realities.

And who, that has felt the burden of existence, and suffered under the well meant efforts at consolation, will deny that such consolations are the bitterest mockeries?

Pain is not an evil; death is not a separation;sickness is but a blessing in disguise.

Have the gloomiest speculations of avowed pessimests ever tortured sufferers like those kind platitudes?

Is there a more cutting piece of satire in the language than the reference in our funeral to the "sure and certain hope of a blessed resurrection"?

To dispel genuine hopes might be painful, however salutary.

To suppress these spasmotic efforts to fly in the face of the facts would be some comfort, even in the distress which they are meant to alleviate.

Besides the important question whether the believers can prove his dogmas, ther is, therefore, the further question whether dogmas, if granted, have any meaning.

Do they answer our doubts, or mock us with the appearance of an answer?

The believers rejoice in their knowledge.

Have they anything to tell us?

Leslie Stephen
Lovely quote - nothing at all to do with Leo's point however.

In fact it is so beside the point that I suspect some sort of leg-pulling must be going on.....

Naughty Toomby

;)
toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Re: Fuck God

Post by toombaru » Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:20 pm

Lydian wrote:
toombaru wrote:
awakening wrote:
toombaru wrote: The conceptual overlay.......which is mistaken for reality....the bastard child of conceptual thought.


Thought.............conceptual thought.........is the only "thing" that should be taken seriously......studied with dispassion........and once seen for what it is......thought looses its opacity.....and the Ever-Opening-Naturalness into which we were born.........smiles through
the dream......and we remember who we are.


toombaru
The conceptual overlay may or may not be taken for 'reality' (another BIG concept we could argue about for ever)...but is not even the conceptual overlay itself included in what we call 'reality'?

Here is the distinct impression that you take the G word to 'realistic' as you ascribe all kinds of power to a simple word. Unconditional Apple Pie in the Sky' is fine too...just as long as we know what it's supposed to represent.

Even Buddha's speaking is based in concepts
and so is the Buddha himself.
So it is fine to kill God on the road when you see him.

But what remains after the kill... only One
and this One is All

As far as i know Buddha's conclusion about suffering did not mention conceptual thought.

Suffering exist but there is no one who suffers
The deed there is, but no doer thereof.


And what ever he did or did not say
there seems to be a good option for suffering
in mixing up the concept with what it represents.

Trying to drink the word water
may cause the suffering of dehydration.

As mentioned before: What ever idea one connects to the sound/concept God (or dog or water if you want) is not what God, dog or water is.

If you read that God word in a certain context is meant to represent
The Omni Present One why rant on about the word and say that it IS separation? Isn't separation not again just another noise/word/pixels-string? It was mentioned too, that if the word means something else to you, then feel free to use another concept....

And you did several times, by calling it 'nameless' or something like 'sparkling awareness' or even in this post 'the remembrance of who we are.' This are still words/concepts. Again nothing but sounds or dots strung together.

Of course you know this, but it seems you prefer to keep on 'bashing' the word 'God. But as long as there is discussion (or lately our conversation may be better described as arguing) there are words and concepts involved. Why not simply 'accommodate' that fact (more words) and work from t-here?

I have accommodated and acknowledged your interpretation of the G word and responded that here the same word has another flavor. Yet you seem unable or unwilling to 'hear' that.

In the end it is fine.. If you want to repeat how that word did so many terrible things, that is IT too... And the response will come...until it no longer does.. That too...

Be well..






The believer holds that our reason can, in some sense, transcend the narrow limits of experience.

He holds that we can attain truths not capable of verification, and not needing varification, by actual experiment of observation.

He holds further that the knowledge of those truths is essential to the highest interests of mankind, and enables us in some sort to solve the dark riddle of the universe.

A complete solution, as everyone admits is beyond our power.

But some answer may be given to the doubts which harass and perplex us when we try to frame any adequate conception of the vast order of which we form an insignificant portion.

We cannot say why this or that arrangement is the way it is; we can say though obscurely, that some answer exists, and would be satisfactory, if we could only find it.

Overpowered, as every honest and serious thinker is at times overpowered, by the sight of pain, folly, and hopelessness, by the jarring discords which run through the vast harmony of the universe, we are yet enabled to hear at times a whisper that all is well, to trust to it as coming from the most authentic source, and that only the temporary bars of sense prevents us from recognizing with certainty that the harmony beneath the discords is a reality and not a dream.

This knowledge is embodied in the central dogma of theology.

God is the name of the harmony; and knowable.

Who would not be happy in accepting this belief, if he could accept it honestly?

Who would not be glad if he could say with confidence: "the evil is transitory, the good eternal: our doubts are due to limitations designed to be abolished, and the world is really an embodiment of love and wisdom, however dark it may appear to our faculties"?

And yet, if the so called knowledge is illusory, are we not bound by the most sacred obligations to recognize the facts?

Our dark path is dark enough on any hypothesis.

We cannot afford to turn aside after every ignis fatuus without asking whether it leads to sounder footing or to hopeless quagmires.

Dreams may be pleasanter for the moment than realities; but happiness must be won by adapting our lives to realities.

And who, that has felt the burden of existence, and suffered under the well meant efforts at consolation, will deny that such consolations are the bitterest mockeries?

Pain is not an evil; death is not a separation;sickness is but a blessing in disguise.

Have the gloomiest speculations of avowed pessimests ever tortured sufferers like those kind platitudes?

Is there a more cutting piece of satire in the language than the reference in our funeral to the "sure and certain hope of a blessed resurrection"?

To dispel genuine hopes might be painful, however salutary.

To suppress these spasmotic efforts to fly in the face of the facts would be some comfort, even in the distress which they are meant to alleviate.

Besides the important question whether the believers can prove his dogmas, ther is, therefore, the further question whether dogmas, if granted, have any meaning.

Do they answer our doubts, or mock us with the appearance of an answer?

The believers rejoice in their knowledge.

Have they anything to tell us?

Leslie Stephen
Lovely quote - nothing at all to do with Leo's point however.

In fact it is so beside the point that I suspect some sort of leg-pulling must be going on.....

Naughty Toomby

;)



Leo wrote:



But what remains after the kill... only One
and this One is All






I speak of the attempt by the conceptual mind to define the ultimate reality.

I know.....i seems quite logical to say that "One is All"; but what I am saying that the concept actually means nothing.

It s merely the attempt by the conceptual mind to combine its multitudinous conceptual entities into one big conceptual entity.

Some call that reality.....some call it "God'.

I am stating that the attempt to point to an ultimate reality by the conceptual mind.....which by definition is confined to its own misinterpretation of reality....is an exercise attempted by the congenitally confused.....and can only lead to further confusion.

There is a part of the human brain that needs to make sense of the chaos.

Life has evolved to make itself experience pleasure and contentment.

But understanding its own ultimate reality will not come to the mind by combining and recombining its own personal stack of post-its.........or by pointing to some conceptual construct about how perfect "things" are.



toombaru
awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Fuck God

Post by awakening » Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:42 pm

toombaru wrote:


Leo wrote:



But what remains after the kill... only One
and this One is All


I speak of the attempt by the conceptual mind to define the ultimate reality.

I know.....i seems quite logical to say that "One is All"; but what I am saying that the concept actually means nothing.

It s merely the attempt by the conceptual mind to combine its multitudinous conceptual entities into one big conceptual entity.

Some call that reality.....some call it "God'.

I am stating that the attempt to point to an ultimate reality by the conceptual mind.....which by definition is confined to its own misinterpretation of reality....is an exercise attempted by the congenitally confused.....and can only lead to further confusion.

There is a part of the human brain that needs to make sense of the chaos.

Life has evolved to make itself experience pleasure and contentment.

But understanding its own ultimate reality will not come to the mind by combining and recombining its own personal stack of post-its.........or by pointing to some conceptual construct about how perfect "things" are.



toombaru
Who knows what happens with those pixels, once they leave my computer and travel trough cyber space, but I'm suspecting that what ever i write on this side comes out different at your side Toombaru.

You seem to respond to things i did not write
while not responding to what i did write.
Where is this pointing to how perfect things are?
All that seems clear is that the Isness that IS just IS.

I do not recall an attempt to define 'the ultimate reality' (an other concept) for if IT could be limited by definition it could not be 'the Ultimate Reality.' Here no difference is seen between Leo calling it IT, or God, or Toombaru using the label 'Ultimate Reality.' Both are definitions pointing to the undefinable. This is of course a paradox, but such is the limit of the spoken and written.

What i do get from your writing is that many -including Leo- suffer from some kind of confusion -especially around 'concepts'- which does not seem to affect Toombaru...even though he uses the same medium of expression.

All that is seen here is this One Presence
appearing as everything and nothing
as confusion and clarity
including the Toombaru story
and the letters that appear on this screen in response.

No conceptual mind
no evolving life
not something that leads somewhere
and no needy parts of brains
have been discovered here.

There is the certainty of Being...
And the certainty that the knowing
that knows this
cannot be known by 'me'
as the appearance of 'I'
is itself a 'know object'

Utterly simple
yet a vast mystery
an Open secret
Immense
yet no-thing at all...

No definitions
just some random 'utterings'
from Self to Self


Just this..


toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Re: Fuck God

Post by toombaru » Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:12 pm

awakening wrote:
toombaru wrote:


Leo wrote:



But what remains after the kill... only One
and this One is All


I speak of the attempt by the conceptual mind to define the ultimate reality.

I know.....i seems quite logical to say that "One is All"; but what I am saying that the concept actually means nothing.

It s merely the attempt by the conceptual mind to combine its multitudinous conceptual entities into one big conceptual entity.

Some call that reality.....some call it "God'.

I am stating that the attempt to point to an ultimate reality by the conceptual mind.....which by definition is confined to its own misinterpretation of reality....is an exercise attempted by the congenitally confused.....and can only lead to further confusion.

There is a part of the human brain that needs to make sense of the chaos.

Life has evolved to make itself experience pleasure and contentment.

But understanding its own ultimate reality will not come to the mind by combining and recombining its own personal stack of post-its.........or by pointing to some conceptual construct about how perfect "things" are.



toombaru
Who knows what happens with those pixels, once they leave my computer and travel trough cyber space, but I'm suspecting that what ever i write on this side comes out different at your side Toombaru.

You seem to respond to things i did not write
while not responding to what i did write.
Where is this pointing to how perfect things are?
All that seems clear is that the Isness that IS just IS.

I do not recall an attempt to define 'the ultimate reality' (an other concept) for if IT could be limited by definition it could not be 'the Ultimate Reality.' Here no difference is seen between Leo calling it IT, or God, or Toombaru using the label 'Ultimate Reality.' Both are definitions pointing to the undefinable. This is of course a paradox, but such is the limit of the spoken and written.

What i do get from your writing is that many -including Leo- suffer from some kind of confusion -especially around 'concepts'- which does not seem to affect Toombaru...even though he uses the same medium of expression.

All that is seen here is this One Presence
appearing as everything and nothing
as confusion and clarity
including the Toombaru story
and the letters that appear on this screen in response.

No conceptual mind
no evolving life
not something that leads somewhere
and no needy parts of brains
have been discovered here.

There is the certainty of Being...
And the certainty that the knowing
that knows this
cannot be known by 'me'
as the appearance of 'I'
is itself a 'know object'

Utterly simple
yet a vast mystery
an Open secret
Immense
yet no-thing at all...

No definitions
just some random 'utterings'
from Self to Self


Just this..


Leo,


Let's try a different tack.


i think that there is agreement that the self is a non-existent entity.


How can a creature that does not exist possess a valid insight about the nature of reality (such as "all is one") when its only reality is an amalgam of arbitrary labels?

I think that I am wondering if any cogent belief system can evolve by imagining that the 'ultimate reality" is nothing other than the whole stack of post-its.


I hope that I am not coming off as being belligerent.


There is a persistent desire to root this out.......but even that is beginning to be perceived as restacking of pre-conceived ideas in an attempt to find the unifying Idea concerning all things spiritual........which by definition...are made up by the mind in a self-referential hall of smoke and mirrors.



toombaru
hybrid
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:46 am

Re: Fuck God

Post by hybrid » Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:17 pm

toombaru wrote:Thought.............conceptual thought.........is the only "thing" that should be taken seriously......studied with dispassion........and once seen for what it is.......... looses its opacity.....and the Ever-Opening-Naturalness into which we were born.........smiles through
the dream......and we remember who we are.

toombaru
God is a thought.

and accordingly to you, ought to be taken seriously studied with dispassion.

does dispassion means in a contemptous fucking way?

'suppose not.
Last edited by hybrid on Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Do not seek the Truth, just drop your opinions.

you cannot seek it without thoughts
you cannot get it with thoughts - zenrin
Post Reply