Artsu

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,030

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Artsu

  2. Posted · Edited by Artsu

    21 hours ago, seeking_brilliance said:

    One interpretation can be :

    The father - unmanifest infinite potential 

    Holy spirit - consciousness, both 'material' Manifestation and immaterial - (the mother) 

    The son - prefect marriage of consciousness and Manifestation. For all we know has only manifested in humanity. 

    Jesus -  was like leo of his time. Basically trying to explain all this. Was made to be a God in religion. 

    No offense to Leo, but Jesus was far above Leo. We have a spiritual community here, and that is a great service to mankind, but Jesus shaped the face of the planet as we know it. He represents the turning point in history, since the birth of man!

  6. Posted

    1 hour ago, Himanshu said:

    @Artsu No conflicting ideas here.

     

    Exactly. 

    Yes so that is how we tie in Jungian type with actualisation. What is happening before you actualise? Well, you are going from your 1st to 8th function. It is only when you integrate your weakest part that you can start functioning as a whole. 

  9. Posted · Edited by Artsu

    Emotion is a broad term that applies to different subsets of cognitive states. Think of those other things being emotions, but there being more basic emotions that are classically studied.

    Emotion is a kind of cognitive state experienced as a feeling, often throughout the body or in some other part of one e.g. the mind. There are different forms of emotions. Some, for instance, relate to the MBTI dimension of Feeling. Others relate to the stress-oriented states in the enneagram (anger, shame, fear). Others are different from these entirely.

    The point of emotion is to guide one into better states of being, or to reflect a state of being. In that sense, they can be proactive or reactive. Emotion in a Feeling sense relates to a value judgement of some state of affairs, whether in the external world or within one, as to whether it is good, bad, important etc. So it is a basic form of reasoning.

  10. Posted

    24 minutes ago, Anderz said:

    @Artsu The overall Christian perspective I have figured out so far (without the Holy Spirit this time) is that the Father and the Son are one, and at the same time the Father is greater than the Son, and by Himself the Son can do nothing and only acts according to the will of the Father.

    All of that is true from what I can tell.

    All people are children of God, but the Son being the Christ is at-one with the Father. I think of it similarly to this: suppose you were meditating in a forest and felt that you were "at one with nature". At that moment, you have a deep connection with nature, but you are only a single person within it. This is similar to how it is for Christ. They are at-one with God at all times, but still a single being. They get their created nature from God, and only can act according to what is allowed of them. They learn from God. They align themselves with the Will of God.

    So, the Father is much greater than any who can be considered a Son. Perhaps Sonhood/Daughterhood could be considered a form of universal at-oneness with the Father.

  11. Posted

    12 minutes ago, Anderz said:

    @Artsu I haven't looked into the difference between Jesus and Christ much. My main point is that the Word of God is the whole of our reality. And the Word of God is the same as Brahman in Hinduism. The Word is the timeless Absolute that gives rise to time and our manifested reality. And the Word is a point in Indra's net in Buddhism that I posted about earlier.

    But if the Word is just a point, then what is the whole Indra's net? The answer (well, my answer) is that Indra's net is Para Brahman:

    So I often look at it from as big perspective as possible. Only from such view have I managed to get the different spiritual traditions and religions compatible with each other.

    And interestingly, someone mentioned Indra's net in a comment about The Wolfram Physics Project which has a graph as the foundation for physical reality. Indra's net is what in graph theory is called a simple complete undirected graph.

    200px-Complete_graph_K7.svg.png

    Religions, spirituality, science, logic and my own experience of reality, I want to have a consistent picture of all that, including what the nature of time is.

    This is interesting, and I will hopefully reply more later, as I do have an interest in graph theory for example, but what I will say for now is:

    I think of the word of God as being God "speaking", in the true language. This gives form to creation, such as our reality. As willing beings, we do not necessarily adhere to God's word, but we can become aligned with it, through prayer for instance.

    Yes, this word comes from absolutes, and is what gives rise to our reality. The Christ principle is separate from this, however I do believe they are related. I am not sure at this point in time what the relation is, but this is something I can investigate.

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, Anderz said:

    @Artsu It says in the Bible that Jesus is the Word made flesh. That to me means a physical human being. But Jesus also said that he and the Father are one, so Christ to me means all of manifested reality, while Jesus the man represents the whole Word as a person. And Christ consciousness is the same as self-realization or what it's called in nonduality.

    But something that puzzled me right now is that if the Father is the unmanifested and infinite Word, and the Son is the manifested Word, then what is the Holy Spirit?! It's a Holy Trinity and I have heard that the idea of a trinity exists in other religions too. Then I came up with the idea that the Holy Spirit means consciousness!

    Consciousness is an undivided whole, and holy as in Holy Spirit means whole. And Spirit means that it's not something material nor something unmanifested. And consciousness is truly timeless in the sense that consciousness is always the immovable witnessing/experiencing in the now.

    Ah, I like your thinking, but you are mistaken.

    Jesus is as I described him earlier. Christ is different from Jesus. Jesus was the first Christ, but Christ is universal and multiple.

    Actually, you could think of the Holy Spirit more as the manifestation of God. The Holy Spirit is God's instrument for acting in the world(s). (I forget, perhaps Holy Spirit only exists in the physical/first world, but I feel like it is in the spirit realms as well).

    Christ is as I mentioned, the perfection in the divine love. Jesus was the first to obtain both divine love (at least on earth, I am unsure beyond that) and the first (on earth) to be perfected in it. This makes him the first Christ (the Original Christ or OC as I refer to him as :P). There are also other Christs that have come since.

    Consciousness is different from this, and is just what it is. Consciousness. I don't know how it relates to anything beyond that.

  13. Posted

    @Anderz So if Christ is something that a person becomes - Jesus was the first but there are many - does that mean that the only begotten son of God, is more of an abstraction rather than an actual entity?

    I am certain that Jesus was a real, historical person. However, many of the sayings attributed to him were not said by him or were distorted.

     

    Jesus speaks of the mustard seed that grows into the biggest tree, or the yeast that the woman mixes into the dough to make it leavened through. This is speaking of the divine love entering into a person and growing.

  14. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Jed Vassallo said:

    Because why? Covered pretty well by Christianity no? Even if he's not a fictional character written for a book to control people, which is debatable, he'd still be a imagination character of God (you). Nonduality is about waking up that you are God and imagined everything. 

    Covered by Christianity? More like distorted and used by Christianity.

    We need people with legitimate spiritual insight talking about these things, not just the rabble of doctrinists.

  15. Posted

    Tertiary educational institutes are also a place where science is focused on a lot, and there is a conflict between science and religion. Also the prejudices that many Christians suffer from (homophobia and so on) are grounds for attack in the eyes of many.

    I'm personally more on the spirituality side of the science vs religion debate. Sure, science can build technology, but it misses so much, and I would rather rely on a mythological account of creation than the scientific one.

  19. Posted

    @Anderz i would comment regarding God and time but that really gets to the limit of my knowledge and i am not comfortable speculating on it.

     

    I will mention that it is one of the prime mistakes of Christianity to suppose that Jesus is God's only begotten son. Jesus was a man, but he was born perfect (in the sense of having no evil in him). We are all children of the one father, but Jesus is closest to the father. He was the first on earth with the divine love, and preached about it to mankind.

    Christ refers to the principle of being complete in the divine love. All natural parts of the person are supplanted when one is Christ (Christ is a universal principle, and there are and have been multiple Christs).

  22. Posted

    10 minutes ago, Anderz said:

    Physicist Leonard Susskind said that the deepest law of physics he knows of is that information is indestructible. He also said that entropy is hidden information. Just because we can't experience all the information doesn't mean that it's gone. So all the past information may always be preserved and permanent.

    Also in The Wolfram Physics Project all information is preserved I think. They have a finite graph as the fundamental model of physical reality. The graph starts from an initial condition and then expands from there in a deterministic way. They believe that the effects of quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity can be explained with the graph. (To me quantum mechanics seems valid but Einsteinian physics looks like some kind of deception to me.)

    So the information around us could be infinite years old, whatever that means? Still, things would have to become less relevant over time. Events billions of years ago, if billions of years is even a thing, are less relevant than events that happened yesterday, although some age old events led to where we are now. Still though, if information continually grows, then surely the relevance of events diminishes until they are no longer of importance, although a) they will remain in the subtleties of the information around us, and b) the particular features of the world may be totally different depending on age old events,  e.g. due to chaos.

  23. Posted · Edited by Artsu

    I'm an INFJ, and i want to correct you on a couple points.

    First of all, Feeling is not about if you like something although that does overlap with Fi. Feeling is reasoning based on socio-emotional concerns rather than the logico-mechanical concerns of thinking.

    Second, people do generally develop their 4th function, even their 8th. It's when you get into the stages of Self and self-transcendence that things start really getting rarified.

     

    (As far as i am aware, you need to activate all 8 function positions in order for actualisation to be possible)

  24. Posted

    10 minutes ago, Anderz said:

    @Artsu I claim that the past is real but that all the past is information in the now. Otherwise as you pointed out there is the problem of the past stretching back an infinite number of years away from the now.

    And the past is expanding yet always finite information in the now. The entire history of our universe of billions of years is information in the now. This solves the false logic of infinite past and the false logic of time starting from no time somewhere in a past away from the now.

    So does anything that may have happened that we have no information of get put in the "unknowable" category? It still seems the past could stretch back infinitely, but perhaps there is a form of decay where past information becomes less and less relevant over time to the point it may as well not be there at all.