The Second Most Absurd Idea in Spirituality: “God Must Experience Everything”

[Xonas Pitfall]

3 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Hugs 

Hugs to you too!

 

[Sugarcoat]

2 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Hugs to you too!

 

🩶

[rudirotbart]

9 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

No, this is an illogical contradiction. Infinity is all; therefore, it is all. All exists. It’s really not much “deeper” than that, but experientially, it’s overwhelming haha.

When Leo or we say “God must experience,” it’s just semantics; you can define it better.

You have a set of all 10 numbers. That must mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are included, and they must be. If they weren’t, then the set “all 10 numbers” wouldn’t be a set of all 10 numbers.

The same goes for infinity. Infinity means it has all, therefore freedom and restriction, horrors and goodness, self and lack of it, etc.

If infinity couldn’t contain horrors or wouldn’t want them, then it would be limited by that, and it wouldn’t be infinite or free. (Again, when I say these human things like “want to” or “experience this,” it’s anthropomorphizing infinity.) Infinity is much more “impersonal” in that way. You can think of it more as a necessity or tautology.

That’s really it! 

You confuse potential with necessity. Infinity does include horror as a possibility, but that doesn’t mean Infinity is forced to enact it. Your analogy with numbers fails, because numbers exist as potential too — I don’t have to count to ten every single time to prove that ten exists. Existence of possibility is not the same as obligation.

 

By saying “Infinity must experience horror,” you turn God into a slave. That’s not Infinity, that’s ego — a cage built out of fear, a doctrine of “you must suffer or you’re not real.” True Infinity isn’t chained like that. True Infinity is absolute freedom. All potentials exist in it, but none are compulsory.

 

Calling it “semantics” only exposes that you don’t see the trick. The ego loves to wrap chains in fancy words, but the chain is still a chain. Infinity is not about “must.” Infinity is the power to choose, to play, to create, to ignore. Infinity is possibility without compulsion.

 

So no — God does not “have to” experience horror. God can, but God is never bound. If your Infinity needs horror to be valid, then your Infinity is weak. My Infinity is free.

 

[Xonas Pitfall]

49 minutes ago, rudirotbart said:

You confuse potential with necessity. Infinity does include horror as a possibility, but that doesn’t mean Infinity is forced to enact it. Your analogy with numbers fails, because numbers exist as potential too — I don’t have to count to ten every single time to prove that ten exists. Existence of possibility is not the same as obligation.

I’ll try my best to explain this. When we are talking about God, especially the absolute infinity, you cannot talk in dualities anymore. All dualities must collapse, because to prefer one thing over another is to be “limited” or to have an inherent bias, and since God is infinity, this goes directly against infinity. So we must always speak from a non-dual lens when we are talking about God. Do you agree with this?

When working with non-dualism, reality versus possibility collapses. For a possibility to “exist,” it must be “realized,” i.e., real. By making a possibility real, it always collapses to reality, to existence, for God. It’s the same question as: can a “non-being” be (exist)? Well, no, because if a non-being can exist, then it is, it is real, it is being. Again, the duality between real and possibility collapses. Can “nothing” exist? Well... if nothing can exist, then it exists, there is "something" that is "existing". When dealing with “God’s domain,” you are dealing with paradoxes, because all dualities collapse into one, merging into each other.

Quote

By saying “Infinity must experience horror,” you turn God into a slave. That’s not Infinity, that’s ego — a cage built out of fear, a doctrine of “you must suffer or you’re not real.” True Infinity isn’t chained like that. True Infinity is absolute freedom. All potentials exist in it, but none are compulsory.

Not necessarily. Again, remember we are looking from God’s perspective, from God’s point of view. Notions like “who is enslaving what” disappear. God is both “free” and “chained.” It is chained by its own nature, and free because there is nothing outside of it to control or change its nature; it is enslaved by itself, you could say.

Again, remember: all dualities collapse. That means the duality between master and slave, chains and freedom, is entirely eradicated.

God’s nature is that of absolute infinity. It is infinity; therefore, it must be all by its own nature.

You are assuming suffering is suffering for God, but it is not. It is a part of itself. To illustrate this, consider a classic example: an antelope and a lion are both praying to God, “Please let me survive today!!!” The antelope prays because it wants to escape the lion. The lion prays because it must feed its children and itself to survive. Whose wish does God honor? In one case, one party would suffer, and the other would experience pure bliss. Suffering is a relative bias. When you say God must suffer, you are projecting your limited human notion of suffering onto God. To God, nothing is suffering because it is all itself.

God is simply being itself, which is the ultimate freedom. Being itself is being All (Infinite), the good and bad, beautiful and repulsive, harmonious and chaotic, gentle and violent, orderly and chaotic, loving and indifferent, creative and destructive, everything and its opposite, infinitely.

Quote

Calling it “semantics” only exposes that you don’t see the trick. The ego loves to wrap chains in fancy words, but the chain is still a chain. Infinity is not about “must.” Infinity is the power to choose, to play, to create, to ignore. Infinity is possibility without compulsion.

Let me help you contemplate it! Chained to what? Why are you assuming God doesn’t want to experience suffering? Couldn’t you say that if God only wanted to experience happiness, it would be chained by its desire to be only pure, beautiful, perfect, and happy?

Being a slave or chained is “bad” to you, but how do you know it’s bad for God? If you are always escaping suffering, aren’t you chained by the desire to avoid it? Why would God not want suffering? Why would God not want to be a slave?

What is so bad about suffering and being chained? And again, don’t answer from your human point of view, that is clear. Try to imagine it from God’s perspective: if everything is Himself, if all is God, then why would He fear suffering, chains, or enslavement? He can only ever suffer by His own hand, bound by His own chains and His own self as the master.

Do you see how the duality collapses?

Quote

So no — God does not “have to” experience horror. God can, but God is never bound. If your Infinity needs horror to be valid, then your Infinity is weak. My Infinity is free.

If your infinity needs to hide away from all pain, horrors, and suffering, and deny the reality we are currently experiencing, then your infinity is a weak, scared child who wants their mommy to protect them and say, “It’s not true! I don’t have to experience this!”

Mine, however, embraces it all and wants to experience everything, good, bad, beautiful, ugly, joy, terror, ecstasy, despair, creation, destruction, and love. Mine is brave and free.

If your infinity wants only to be grand, beautiful, perfect, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, and glorious, then that is nothing more than a selfish god, one who refuses to understand or truly connect with His creations. Why would such a god not want to experience all the suffering and horrors of others? How would He know what it feels like to be limited, weak, vulnerable, or enslaved, experiences necessary to truly love, support, and nurture His creation?

Your god is isolated, selfish, and trapped in an ego. Mine is expansive, caring, selfless, and fully embraces all existence, in every aspect, joy, suffering, beauty, terror, love, despair, creation, destruction, freedom, and constraint.

But hehe...  jokes aside, I just wanted to give you these sentences back to show a reframed, alternative perspective! I don’t want to have a conflict or debate over whose infinity is “better” or not! I just want to discuss and contemplate it more.

I agree that God is free, but God is also “limited” in the sense that it can only be itself. Since... well, all is God! A part of "All" or itself is suffering, so why would God hide from that? It’s kind of like refusing to use your right hand even though it’s a part of you. If God tried to deny a part of itself, that God would be scared, living in a delusion about its own nature. Does this make sense?

Edited August 31 by Xonas Pitfall

[Sugarcoat]

I don’t know how someone devoid of a self experiences physical torture. If it’s suffering or not

But it seems the appearance of torture only becomes a problem when there’s a conscious experiencer of it

So if infinity gives rise to all appearance, it could potentially do so without there being a conscious experiencer experiencing every single appearance

Or does infinity also include all possible illusions (the self) from all possible POVs? Meaning for every appearance there is: there is a version of it with a conscious experiencer (illusion) that experiences it? Hmmm. Who knows

Edited August 31 by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, rudirotbart said:

You confuse potential with necessity. Infinity does include horror as a possibility, but that doesn’t mean Infinity is forced to enact it. Your analogy with numbers fails, because numbers exist as potential too — I don’t have to count to ten every single time to prove that ten exists. Existence of possibility is not the same as obligation.

 

By saying “Infinity must experience horror,” you turn God into a slave. That’s not Infinity, that’s ego — a cage built out of fear, a doctrine of “you must suffer or you’re not real.” True Infinity isn’t chained like that. True Infinity is absolute freedom. All potentials exist in it, but none are compulsory.

 

Calling it “semantics” only exposes that you don’t see the trick. The ego loves to wrap chains in fancy words, but the chain is still a chain. Infinity is not about “must.” Infinity is the power to choose, to play, to create, to ignore. Infinity is possibility without compulsion.

 

So no — God does not “have to” experience horror. God can, but God is never bound. If your Infinity needs horror to be valid, then your Infinity is weak. My Infinity is free.

 

You made a point I haven’t thought about before

[Schizophonia]

6 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

I don’t know how someone devoid of a self experiences physical torture. If it’s suffering or not

But it seems the appearance of torture only becomes a problem when there’s a conscious experiencer of it

So if infinity gives rise to all appearance, it could potentially do so without there being a conscious experiencer experiencing every single appearance

Or does infinity also include all possible illusions (the self) from all possible POVs? Meaning for every appearance there is: there is a version of it with a conscious experiencer (illusion) that experiences it? Hmmm. Who knows

Technically without self torture is just chexxxheuejsb hddh666729 Jenn—— xxb…

[Sugarcoat]

Just now, Schizophonia said:

Technically without self torture is just chexxxheuejsb hddh666729 Jenn—— xxb…

What do you mean

[Schizophonia]

Just now, Sugarcoat said:

What do you mean

Without self torture is just forms that evolves it doesn’t makes a difference from any form of love.

Btw when you get older self is less dense and it’s when you begin to like harsh stuffs life hard sports, alcohol, food spicy or with lots of taste etc.

[Sugarcoat]

1 minute ago, Schizophonia said:

Without self torture is just forms that evolves it doesn’t makes a difference from any form of love.

Btw when you get older self is less dense and it’s when you begin to like harsh stuffs life hard sports, alcohol, food spicy or with lots of taste etc.

We could almost say nothing exists without a self, because the self is that sense of existence and reality

I think self solidifies and stays like that for the rest of life with a little bit of breakdown slowly like how a mountain is getting broken down over millions of years 

[Davino]

I remember vividly the moment I realized how God lived through every possible life, perspective and experience.

I was sitting in a bench, tripping on acid, insanely conscious and already with a couple of Awakenings on. A little bug 🪲 was crawling my hand and I looked at it, I felt it, became fully conscious of it. And like a lightning shock, all of Reality become like a book where each page I became an insect, and the pages continued to flip ever more quickly, into all possible lifeforms, into all possible realms of experience, finally to stop in the one page of a human being watching a little bug crawling a hand. The Strange Loop left me speechless and it was an Awakening which I deliberately left in the shelf, so that one day I may be ready to digest that Truth which was revealed.

This is spirituality, this is Awakening, otherwise it's empty guessing. I made a question to the OP, to tell me his Infinity Awakening and how it came to know what he's saying. I've talked extensively on my Infinity Awakenings (use the search function) and now I reveal how I came to cognise the implications of God's Infinity. 

[Xonas Pitfall]

9 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

What do you mean

It’s the same with grammar, sentence structure, and words! Without some kind of reference point, some shared understanding of what words mean and how sentences are structured, all you get is gibberish. You need a frame, a context, or an experiencer to make sense of it, and it will only make sense to that self. If you create a different observer, it might see something entirely different.

 

x̷̡̖͖̙́͗̔́͐͑̓̾̌̀̓̐̈́̆͝j̷͈̳̹͔̀͋f̵̀̈̈́̈́͋́̏͒̿̑͂̆̃͘̕͜9̷̻͍̣̘̭̩̩͋̎̎̀l̴̢̨̦̬͚̼̞̳͙̪̼̒͛̔̀͊͐͝ͅq̶̭̤̼̰͗̑̐͗͐̓́̏̏́̅͂̿̋ͅo̵̢͕̳̹͎̱̙̙̿̌̏͊̆̈͑p̷͚̮̬͇͓̬̣̝̫̣͔̺̤̦̗͗̓̍͛̂̉̈́͆̽͊͛͝!̴̨͙̞̰̻̝͙̹̳̼̼̱̣̻̭̅̾̊͛̒͂̑̿̃͌̀̄͛̕ ̷̧̗̤̪̳̦͈̦̠̫̙̗͗̐̽̍̄̒͑͛́͘͝͝'̵̢̨̡̧̤̖͔̙͍̺̭̬̭͓̋́͐̈́͌͋͝͠'̷̢͚̫͔̬̼̗͔̟̯̬̉̾́͐̉̓̄̾̀͆̕͜͝͝'̷̛̠̏̋͐͋̒̿̔̔̾͐͋̚'̵̨̛̛̦͖̗̯͉̦̬͉͓͐̋͌̓̈́̄̋̍̋͆͝ ̷̡̛͙̗͎͉͔͙̂̌̾́͛͊̎̍͂̓̐̚͝A̴̹̍͛͐̐̉͐͋̑̎̏͠ź̷͙̘̆̆̔̉̌̎͂͑̀̕͝h̶̖̣̜̱̥̟͓̙̖̹͌̄͐͗͒̐̏̚͜͠͠B̴̯̭͍̠͗́̈̎̀̔A̷̖̯͍̻͍͈̔̃̐͗̔͘͝͝K̸̨̰͖͇͆̋̈̽͂̏̑͒̓͐̄̎͌͘Á̶̰͛̂̀̈́̆̍͗̾Ǘ̴̧̨͓̭̦̗͓̘͔͗͋̔̎̂͋̔͠Ủ̸̞̗̪̟͔͂4̴̧͚̺̬͓͚͍͓̘̻̟̩͉͒̾̂͂̌̂̉͊̑͐̓̚͘0̸̡̺͚͉̟̜͓͈̹̭͈̝͉̱͒̏͂̎̉̂̽̎̿͝^̷̡̯̳̲̹̠̙̰̱̫͋̽̎͊̀̄̓̽͑͆̅͘͝͝ͅ^̴̮̣͉͕̘̥̺͖̖̞͍̮͙̩͂̉̑̽̓̿̃̄̚^̸͇͖̯͐̑%̷̖̜̈́̾̎̂͒͋%̵̛̥̳̪̦̺͙̦̲̼͔̎́̎̈̅̂%̶̨̛̛͍̝̻͍̲̗̪̟͕̤̫̣̓͆͛̄̄̐%̷͙̖͇̊̿͛%̶͓̻̰̮̭͔̳͂̃͐̏̓̉͗̋͝%̸̭̬͕͚̜̠͇͚̠̌̏̽͒͆͒̒̏ → gibberish to most people.

 

To a trained cryptographer, the same string could be decoded into a meaningful message!

• To a computer running the right program: 01001000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111 → “Hello”
• To a musician reading sheet music: ♪ ♫ ♩ ♬ → a melody that can be played and heard
• To someone fluent in sign language: a series of hand gestures → a full sentence
• To a mathematician: ∑(n=1 to ∞) 1/n² = π²/6 → an elegant formula
• To someone unfamiliar with chess notation: Nf3 → meaningless; to a chess player, it’s a move in a game

https://libraryofbabel.info/ https://babelia.libraryofbabel.info/ → Go through here! This is what torture looks like to a no-self!

Edited August 31 by Xonas Pitfall

[Xonas Pitfall]

[Sugarcoat]

2 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

It’s the same with grammar, sentence structure, and words! Without some kind of reference point, some shared understanding of what words mean and how sentences are structured, all you get is gibberish. You need a frame, a context, or an experiencer to make sense of it, and it will only make sense to that self. If you create a different observer, it might see something entirely different.

 

x̷̡̖͖̙́͗̔́͐͑̓̾̌̀̓̐̈́̆͝j̷͈̳̹͔̀͋f̵̀̈̈́̈́͋́̏͒̿̑͂̆̃͘̕͜9̷̻͍̣̘̭̩̩͋̎̎̀l̴̢̨̦̬͚̼̞̳͙̪̼̒͛̔̀͊͐͝ͅq̶̭̤̼̰͗̑̐͗͐̓́̏̏́̅͂̿̋ͅo̵̢͕̳̹͎̱̙̙̿̌̏͊̆̈͑p̷͚̮̬͇͓̬̣̝̫̣͔̺̤̦̗͗̓̍͛̂̉̈́͆̽͊͛͝!̴̨͙̞̰̻̝͙̹̳̼̼̱̣̻̭̅̾̊͛̒͂̑̿̃͌̀̄͛̕ ̷̧̗̤̪̳̦͈̦̠̫̙̗͗̐̽̍̄̒͑͛́͘͝͝'̵̢̨̡̧̤̖͔̙͍̺̭̬̭͓̋́͐̈́͌͋͝͠'̷̢͚̫͔̬̼̗͔̟̯̬̉̾́͐̉̓̄̾̀͆̕͜͝͝'̷̛̠̏̋͐͋̒̿̔̔̾͐͋̚'̵̨̛̛̦͖̗̯͉̦̬͉͓͐̋͌̓̈́̄̋̍̋͆͝ ̷̡̛͙̗͎͉͔͙̂̌̾́͛͊̎̍͂̓̐̚͝A̴̹̍͛͐̐̉͐͋̑̎̏͠ź̷͙̘̆̆̔̉̌̎͂͑̀̕͝h̶̖̣̜̱̥̟͓̙̖̹͌̄͐͗͒̐̏̚͜͠͠B̴̯̭͍̠͗́̈̎̀̔A̷̖̯͍̻͍͈̔̃̐͗̔͘͝͝K̸̨̰͖͇͆̋̈̽͂̏̑͒̓͐̄̎͌͘Á̶̰͛̂̀̈́̆̍͗̾Ǘ̴̧̨͓̭̦̗͓̘͔͗͋̔̎̂͋̔͠Ủ̸̞̗̪̟͔͂4̴̧͚̺̬͓͚͍͓̘̻̟̩͉͒̾̂͂̌̂̉͊̑͐̓̚͘0̸̡̺͚͉̟̜͓͈̹̭͈̝͉̱͒̏͂̎̉̂̽̎̿͝^̷̡̯̳̲̹̠̙̰̱̫͋̽̎͊̀̄̓̽͑͆̅͘͝͝ͅ^̴̮̣͉͕̘̥̺͖̖̞͍̮͙̩͂̉̑̽̓̿̃̄̚^̸͇͖̯͐̑%̷̖̜̈́̾̎̂͒͋%̵̛̥̳̪̦̺͙̦̲̼͔̎́̎̈̅̂%̶̨̛̛͍̝̻͍̲̗̪̟͕̤̫̣̓͆͛̄̄̐%̷͙̖͇̊̿͛%̶͓̻̰̮̭͔̳͂̃͐̏̓̉͗̋͝%̸̭̬͕͚̜̠͇͚̠̌̏̽͒͆͒̒̏ → gibberish to most people.

 

To a trained cryptographer, the same string could be decoded into a meaningful message!

• To a computer running the right program: 01001000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111 → “Hello”
• To a musician reading sheet music: ♪ ♫ ♩ ♬ → a melody that can be played and heard
• To someone fluent in sign language: a series of hand gestures → a full sentence
• To a mathematician: ∑(n=1 to ∞) 1/n² = π²/6 → an elegant formula
• To someone unfamiliar with chess notation: Nf3 → meaningless; to a chess player, it’s a move in a game

https://libraryofbabel.info/ https://babelia.libraryofbabel.info/ → Go through here! This is what torture looks like to a no-self!

I think you’d need to be devoid of self to know how torture is in its pure form….