My understanding of God

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

Instead of theorizing, you’d be better off just looking at It. All this belief does is prevent you from seeing and actually gaining some real knowledge. Your beliefs are completely useless - in fact, they’re detrimental.

It’s not merely empty theorizing . It makes logical sense  and is based on already established knowledge.
 Why does Leo make a thousand videos explaining god if that’s useless and people should discover on their own ?

[Sincerity]

@Someone here No. Logical sense is completely useless (for the purpose of your seeing). „Established knowledge” even more so.

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Why does Leo make a thousand videos explaining god if that’s useless and people should discover on their own ?

Of course people should discover on their own. Wtf are you talking about???

If you don’t discover it, it’s not discovered.

I’m not saying pointers don’t have validity. They do. But when you don’t know and you try to point… well, that’s pointless lol. You in particular don’t know where to point to. You’re not actually pointing anywhere, because you can’t see It.

Leo might be pointing somewhere, but you’re not doing that here. You’re parroting pointers, AKA belief.

[Someone here]

9 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

No. Logical sense is completely useless (for the purpose of your seeing). „Established knowledge” even more so.

What are you using to make sense of the world ? Your intellectual factuality and your knowledge you’ve  gained from school , life experience, education, books you’ve read , plus how you yourself intuit and interpret your experiences?

9 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

Of course people should discover on their own. Wtf are you talking about???

I’m not saying they should not. That’s not the point I’m making. Try to understand before commenting.

9 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

If you don’t discover it, it’s not discovered.

This is simply false , and even silly . 
I didn’t discover gravity , Newton did . That means it isn’t discovered?

9 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

I’m not saying pointers don’t have validity. They do. But when you don’t know and you try to point… well, that’s pointless lol. You in particular don’t know where to point to. You’re not actually pointing anywhere, because you can’t see It.

Leo might be pointing somewhere, but you’re not doing that here. You’re parroting pointers, AKA belief.

1- open yourself to the possibility that I do know . 
2-how do you know that Leo knows ?

3- just because you don’t know , doesn’t mean I don’t know.

Edited 7 hours ago by Someone here

[Sincerity]

44 minutes ago, Someone here said:

What are you using to make sense of the world ? Your intellectual factuality and your knowledge you’ve  gained from school , life experience, education, books you’ve read , plus how you yourself intuit and interpret your experiences?

This „intellectual faculty” you’re speaking of gets you nowhere close to seeing It. In fact, it gets you further away. Interpretation is not seeing It as well, nor is it getting any closer to knowledge.

44 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I’m not saying they should not. That’s not the point I’m making. Try to understand before commenting.

I understood your point. You asked what’s the point of Leo making videos if people should discover on their own anyway. And I answered in two parts: 1) People MUST discover on their own, otherwise it’s not discovered in their experience and 2) there IS validity in Leo’s pointing (through videos), because he is actually pointing.

44 minutes ago, Someone here said:

This is simply false , and even silly . 
I didn’t discover gravity , Newton did . That means it isn’t discovered?

The fact that you’re putting seeing something ineffable and a belief in a concept (such as gravity) in one basket, speaks for itself.

44 minutes ago, Someone here said:

1- open yourself to the possibility that I do know . 
2-how do you know that Leo knows ?

3- just because you don’t know , doesn’t mean I don’t know.

1 - It’s very very obvious that you don’t. Trust me man.

2 - You can sense such things, similar to how you can sense when someone doesn’t know.

3 - Haha.

All in all, your responses very obviously show you have no clue what you’re talking about. Sorry, it’s harsh, but it’s true. Please spare me from further engaging in this pointless dialogue.

Edited 6 hours ago by Sincerity

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

 

no , that’s not true .  The real reason is because what I said . 
your “challenges “ are endless . And therefore they will never lead anywhere . 
maybe you are a Type of person who enjoys the questioning more than the answers , the journey rather than the destination.  
You do you . Again thanks for sharing your reflection but I would refrain . No offense or ill feeling towards you whatsoever . 

2 hours ago, Hyperion said:

 

That's not the point. For example when I said that god is not being, but that god is, because being is an affirmative property, how god manifests, I'm pointing a key for the real openess. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

If you don't see it, that's ok, but my objective is not the discussion but pointing the closures

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

This „intellectual faculty” you’re speaking of gets you nowhere close to seeing It. In fact, it gets you further away. Interpretation is not seeing It as well, nor is it getting any closer to knowledge.

that doesn’t answer my direct question which you’ve quoted. This is deflection and changing  the topic into repeating your baseless belief that I must not know . But I’m not distracted by your silly tactics , answer the motherfucking question . 

7 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

1) People MUST discover on their own, otherwise it’s not discovered in their experience and 2) there IS validity in Leo’s pointing (through videos), because he is actually pointing.

Again , “people must discover on their own “ isn’t the issue . If you understood what I meant then why are you repeating it again .

how do you know there is validity to Leo’s pointers through his videos ? You don’t know that . You just believe in it because you don’t know. 
 

14 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

The fact that you’re putting seeing something ineffable and a belief in a concept (such as gravity) in one basket, speaks for itself.

If gravity is a belief then go jump off the 11th floor without parachute. Otherwise you are full of shit .

16 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

1 - It’s very very obvious that you don’t. Trust me man.

2 - You can sense such things, similar to how you can sense when someone doesn’t know.

3 - Haha.

All in all, your responses very obviously show you have no clue what you’re talking about. Sorry, it’s harsh, but it’s true. Please spare me from further engaging in this pointless dialogue.

1- it’s very obvious that YOU are the one who doesn’t know . Trust me , boy .

2- no that’s a layman answer . Answer with rigor : how do you know that Leo knows his head from his ass ? How do you know?

3- it’s obvious that you don’t know and you projecting your own ignorance on others.  Just because you don’t know, doesn’t mean I don’t know. 
thank you 

.

[Sincerity]

@Someone here You might not know it, but I’m actually rooting for you. Godspeed.

[Someone here]

18 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

That's not the point. For example when I said that god is not being, but that god is, because being is an affirmative property, how god manifests, I'm pointing a key for the real openess. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

If you don't see it, that's ok, but my objective is not the discussion but pointing the closures

Okay . Let’s just discuss one point at a time .

when you say that God is “ what Is “ rather then “ being “ . I honestly think we are saying the same thing.

”being “ could mean an entity or it could mean isness . I mean isness , which is the same as “what is “. 
my ultimate point is that that thing is nameless. 

[Inliytened1]

29 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Okay . Let’s just discuss one point at a time .

when you say that God is “ what Is “ rather then “ being “ . I honestly think we are saying the same thing.

”being “ could mean an entity or it could mean isness . I mean isness , which is the same as “what is “. 
my ultimate point is that that thing is nameless. 

It's a waste of time he is using AI.

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

 he is using AI.

I don’t think so . This has always been his writing style.

[Leo Gura]

'Being' and 'what is' are the same thing.

[Joseph Maynor]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Your human self is a confusion overlaid on top of God.

If you strip your human ego self of all it's crap, God will remain.

The human self is crap encrusted on top of God.

Think of God as a battleship and your human self as barnacles encrusting its hull. Under all the barnacles is Pure Infinite Mind.

The Pure Mind underneath the human self is God.

Interesting.  

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

my ultimate point is that that thing is nameless

It has name: god. A name is a word that we put is something that we perceive.

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

when you say that God is “ what Is “ rather then “ being “ . I honestly think we are saying the same thing.

No because being is an affirmative property of God. God is being you, but God is let's say the absolute potential that makes possible the fact of being. Being is a fact, anything that is is happening, what is not happening isn't. God is prior to being, the absolute potential don't "is", being is a dimension, a possibility. This idea opens your mind to the unfathomable, to the breaking of the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, something or nothing. God is nothing, but being nothing, is everything. This is not a paradox or a mystical mysterious quote, it is an inevitable relationship. What god is is limitlessness, and limitlessness doesn't "is", but manifest being 

Edited 2 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

Btw, god is not "infinite", the numbers are infinite, god is unlimited. Unlimited is not big, finite or infinite, is dimensionless, you can't think about it, you can be open to it, to the absolute abyss that implies absolute life, saying it poetically 

[Leo Gura]

38 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Btw, god is not "infinite"

Yes it is.

God is Infinity itself.

[PolyPeter]

56 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

god is unlimited.

if you take a plane, on this planet, and just fly straight, you will find no limits

but it doesnt mean the planet is infinite

god is infinity because if it weren't then it would be somehow finite, which is limited, which god is not.

[Leo Gura]

Guys, when I give you an articulation of God these days, it is very precise. I am not guessing.

[Terell Kirby]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Guys, when I give you an articulation of God these days, it is very precise.

Had to watch this a few times, on top of contemplations to really grok it, there's no video on YT with this level of depth on the topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgmJj0Gn1WM&t=747s

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Terell Kirby

[Breakingthewall]

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes it is.

God is Infinity itself.

The point is the term "infinity". 

28 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

if you take a plane, on this planet, and just fly straight, you will find no limits

but it doesnt mean the planet is infinite

god is infinity because if it weren't then it would be somehow finite, which is limited, which god is not.

The term infinity means something that never ends, for example the odds numbers, but it is limited to the odds numbers. Infinity is a dimension and it's used in mathematics . God is prior that any dimension. God is not "a lot of things that never end", is what those things are, it's source, it's essence. God is not hidden in those things, is expressed by those things. Those things could be infinite, but God isn't , it's non dimensional, but it's expressions are infinite. Do you see the point? I think it's essential. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Breakingthewall

[PolyPeter]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Do you see the point? I think it's essential. 

I think we actually agree, we're just using "infinity" differently.

You're taking it in the mathematical sense: a quantity or a dimension that never ends, like the odd numbers. But as you said yourself, that kind of infinity is still limited to something. That's exactly why it's not what we mean when we say God is Infinity.

Here infinity just means no limit, no boundary, nothing outside of it. Something prior to any dimension, not contained in anything, the source and essence of everything, is exactly that. What you're describing as "non-dimensional" is what Leo and I are calling infinite.

So the disagreement is about the word, not about God.