My understanding of God

[Mellowmarsh]

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Anyway, always open to amplify my perspective 

Every form of identification is assumed, mostly due to language.
There’s no subject identifying as ( “my perspective”) in language.
Nor is there any doer identifying as (“my doing”) in language. 
You can of course “believe” there is a “me” who takes possession of formed assumption, but a lie won’t change the truth of a lie.The truth being is that truth cannot lie.

[Hyperion]

Good God, these types of threads never fail to crack me up lol.

Most people are so stunningly incoherent and illogical in their reasoning, it is truly amazing. Which of course shouldn't come as a surprise... lack of (meta)logical coherence and consistency are the means by which the ego mind keeps itself (un)comfortably stuck in delusion.

And so, round and round it goes.

[Mellowmarsh]

The mind is a projector. It takes the raw data of experience and projects a story onto it. The story is not in the data. It is added by the mind.

 

[Breakingthewall]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Breakingthewall God can be understood much clearer than you currently understand it. So you got room to grow.

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

That's sure

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Mellowmarsh said:

You can of course “believe” there is a “me”

Who can believe that there is a me? Me?

[Breakingthewall]

31 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

The mind is a projector. It takes the raw data of experience and projects a story onto it. The story is not in the data. It is added by the mind.

So there is a duality between the mind and the experience?

[cetus]

6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

So there is a duality between the mind and the experience?

 

[Breakingthewall]

10 hours ago, PolyPeter said:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster looks less entangled than this 

If something is outside of IT, it’s not Infinity

It's not so entangled. Look, when you say " if something is outside of IT, it’s not Infinity" you are implying that this infinite IT has dimension, and nothing could be outside of that dimension. The source is dimensionless, there is not inside or outside, dimensions are possible expressions of it. 

Putting in other words to understand it better, what we call God is the substance, the essence, and what we see as dimensional form is the expression. You can't say that the essence is infinite, what is infinite are the possibiles expressions, but the substance is not in the category that could be finite or infinite.

Another example, imagine an universe that arises from a big bang, you could say that the space that appears from it is finite or infinite. Yes, the space could begin and being automatically infinite, some models of cosmology admit that possibility.  Then, imagine that arises and it's infinite. Ok, but what about the origin of this infinite space, it's source? Is it infinite? Is it something? What is it? It's absolutely nothing, no thing, no dimension, it can't be thought, is impossible. It only can be described as absence of limits, and be observed in it's manifestations, but you can't say that is infinite because saying if you are putting in it a property and doing so you are closing yourself to it. 

Unlimited is not a property, is the absence of a property, having limits. Infinity is a property: what never ends. Anything that never ends has limits: being something. You can say, oh please, stop this shit, why making so much scandal for a word? Them I would tell you : in this case let's be in silence like the traditional mystics and stop using words, but if we are using words we have to do without deviation, because any deviation closes. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Kindness does not equate to understanding of God.

Pure heart is not kindness, is absence of closure, could be manifested in a samurai who cuts your head. The only possible understanding god is being open to it.

You can't understand God with schemas, you could understand what appears with them but not the source, the source only can be known being it, but not understood with the mind because mental understanding always implies definition in any level.

Or could you understand anything without defining if at least a bit? Any definition is a wall between you and the unlimited. 

[B222]

Could we say that infinity encapsulates everything which also includes nothing?

[Mellowmarsh]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Who can believe that there is a me? Me?

So the question is who’s asking, and who will answer. Impossible to say because “Who” can’t be known as an object of knowledge. 
 

Through direct recognition the knower is known not by being objectified, but by being self-luminous or self-aware. The knower knows itself simply by being itself, without a gap between a subject and an object. When the illusion of separation drops, the knower, the act of knowing, and the known collapse into a single reality where there’s simply knowing without knowing. In essence there’s only this immediate knowing that cannot be known by an object known because objects of knowledge know nothing of their reality or existence.