Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

[Immanuel Can]

God talk just doesn't resonate with me at all...it's all too contrived and controlling.

I get it. If there's a God, we are not the ultimate power in the universe, and we are accountable to our Creator for what we do and become. The instinctive reaction is to prefer not to be accountable to anyone. And, of course, one might fear the very real danger of being sucked into some man-made religion instead of finding the truth. That's a significant problem, too.

But it does beg the question of truth. If what I'm saying is right, and is the Word of God, then better you know it than that you don't. And I would never want to take away your right to choose the terms upon which you live and die. That's beyond my pay grade. But I'm telling you what I believe and what I know about this subject. So now you know.

Tony Parsons,

I'll find out who he is. I have not encountered him.

thankyou for your time and effort spent on explaining your belief in God.

My pleasure. And, I hope, to your benefit.

[Dontaskme]

Tony Parsons
I'll find out who he is. I have not encountered him.

Thanks IC...I'll give to a helping hand if you like...here https://www.google.com/search?q=tony+pa ... e&ie=UTF-8

[Dontaskme]

I get it. If there's a God, we are not the ultimate power in the universe, and we are accountable to our Creator for what we do and become.

As I undertand using the only knowledge available to me. I do not know any knowledge of a creator of me as a human being.

How could I know my creator, unless I just make one up using imagination. I know I exist, that is self evident, but I have no idea what, or who I am or where I come from...how could I know my origin, I would have to have been there at my own conception. So who am I but nothing and everything.

But it does beg the question of truth. If what I'm saying is right, and is the Word of God, then better you know it than that you don't.

How can a word be God's word when god is just a word too.

How can we not know a word, how can we not know any word, words are knowledge, so no thing could possibly be known to exist if they were not known. We cannot know HOW OR WHY words took root in conscious sentient beings known as humans, we cannot just say God put them there ...because God is also a word. We could just as easily say a fairy put them there, it's all so easy to make a creator out of a word.

But all this knowledge is irrelevant...knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality, in that it is unknowable...yes, we know we exist, but only as and through knowledge, which arises from no one really knows where, but does so as the apparent appearance of 'me' aka the named ONE...but the named one is only a known appearance of the unknowable.

Our human reality can be likened to a dream, and in the dream we have to live by the laws of cause and effect, and we know these laws automatically via our direct experience of them, we learn by our mistakes, which are needed in order to remember how to function efficiently and smoothly to our advantage, we learn to perfect only through imperfection, and what becomes an advantage to us is born out of the natural avoidance of disadvantage. In duality, there has to be opposing forces working together at all times, there is no other way it could have been. We are always a work in progress, so there is nothing wrong with how the brain functions simply because what ever happens in any given moment, is just what's happening, even the thought I want to be a good or a bad person is just what's happening. There is nothing wrong with anything that happens, just as there is nothing wrong with earthquakes, and tsunami's killing thousands of sentient creatures without any moral conscience or care for their welfare. The universe just does what it does without intent or a mind to do so. It is only in the illusory dream of separation that conscious intention arises, but it's just an illusory appearance.

And I would never want to take away your right to choose the terms upon which you live and die.

Personally, I have no choice in whether I live or die, I did not choose to be born, and I will not choose to die, as I understand I have no choice there because I am the universe itself that cannot know itself.

Choice only exists within the illusory dream of separation, where I am only an idea, not actually real.

[Immanuel Can]

How could I know my creator...

Perhaps you couldn't...unless He wants you to.

How can a word be God's word when god is just a word too.

The problem is your word "just." A word is an expression signifying the reality of something. Some such things are concrete, some are abstract, and some only "exist" in imagination, perhaps. But a word is never just a word. It always refers to something.

The vexed question, then, is what sort of word is the word "God"? Is it a concrete word, and abstraction or does it merely indicate an imagining? But your assumption is that it is "just a word." Are you suggesting you have warrant to think it's "just" that? What would that warrant be?

..the illusory nature of reality,...

This claim also puzzles me. You say there's a thing called "reality". But then you say it's "illusory," which then means "not real." It's got to be obvious to you that the term "unreal (or "illusory") reality" is a self-contradiction. So you need to explain that in a way that does not undermine your own premise there.

Our human reality can be likened to a dream,

I don't doubt we can choose to view it that way. But what gives you confidence that's the right way to view it?

And I would never want to take away your right to choose the terms upon which you live and die.

Personally, I have no choice in whether I live or die

Apparently, you do. One can't make oneself live, but one can most certainly kill oneself. That's empirically obvious.

Even a reincarnationist knows that. Otherwise, why would he talk about "more than one lifetime"?

[Dontaskme]

How could I know my creator...

Perhaps you couldn't...unless He wants you to.

Too circular IC...one simply cannot know ones creator, you'd have to be a creator to know what is a creator. You'd have to split yourself in two into creator and created. Only creation is known. And remember, Jesus talked about the immaculate conception. So he was talking about no one is born or dead, there's just life living itself as and through the conceptual knowing.
Only concepts are known in this conception. Our own personal conception, we can never be witness to it, it's only known upon association with the knowledge that the conception of I exists....I is known and that knowing is by the only knowing there is which is consciousness one without a second. There is no one, because there is no OTHER than one. You already are the knowing that cannot be known.

How can a word be God's word when god is just a word too.

.

The vexed question, then, is what sort of word is the word "God"? Is it a concrete word, and abstraction or does it merely indicate an imagining? But your assumption is that it is "just a word." Are you suggesting you have warrant to think it's "just" that? What would that warrant be?

Maybe God is a word pointing to something or somewhere that is beyond the limitation of mans intellectual understanding? something or somewhere that cannot be touched or experienced using a word. I think even Jesus is said to have said that too.

..the illusory nature of reality,...

This claim also puzzles me. You say there's a thing called "reality". But then you say it's "illusory," which then means "not real." It's got to be obvious to you that the term "unreal (or "illusory") reality" is a self-contradiction. So you need to explain that in a way that does not undermine your own premise there.

It's not contradictory, because both the words unreal and real have to exist in the exact same moment, real can only have meaning in relation to it's opposite, which exist at the same time.

Our human reality can be likened to a dream,

I don't doubt we can choose to view it that way. But what gives you confidence that's the right way to view it?

In the sense of the LIGHT that knows... for example: the light that sees a nightly dream full of characters and things, is the same light that sees the characters and things upon waking, lets remember that things are concepts known including light. Something knows, but this ''something'' cannot be SEEN literally, only known conceptually. One cannot see WHAT'S SEEING one can only be what's seeing.

And so that NOT-KNOWING SEEING can only conceptualise itself, in this conception because that's the only thing it can know.

Personally, I have no choice in whether I live or die

Apparently, you do. One can't make oneself live, but one can most certainly kill oneself. That's empirically obvious.

IC, the self that believes it can kill itself can only do so because there is the belief that there is a self there to kill.
Notice there is no self there to choose to be born.

Believing you can kill yourself is believing you have been born, that you have a self to kill....there is no such self there except as a dream character within the dream of duality....remember, you didn't choose to be born, because there is no such self existing to make that choice. Therefore, if you didn't choose to be born, the self that is believed to be born is only an illusion, albeit a persistent one. Self is just an illusory appearance of nothing, appearing as something.

And that something is only known in relation to nothing. All sums to zero in the end, but yes, the illusion is real, apparently.

Another thought IC..is that you cannot know death, the idea that you can kill yourself is another illusion, for in death nothing is known. Only in knowledge is anything really known, and knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality, in that there is no one actually running the show.

That which lives never dies, and that which dies never lives... ponder that!

From that knowledge it can be known that no thing is alive nor dead, it only seems that way...because knowledge informs of such, but knowledge has no actual known origin or source...except in this conception aka the known that cannot be known.

Life is irrational IC ..especially for the one that wants to know it's origin, simply because that one that wants to know, does not exist.

Anyways, believe what you want to believe IC... it's always your prerogative...as many authors appear to be apparently. But the reader of all apparent stories can never be seen without making the reader into a character in the story.

[Immanuel Can]

How could I know my creator...

Perhaps you couldn't...unless He wants you to.

...one simply cannot know ones creator, you'd have to be a creator to know what is a creator.

This isn't at all so.

If one is distinct from the Creator (which one cannot possibly fail to be, if one is posited as "the created") then it is plausible to complain that the creature cannot, of his own engineering, obtain understanding of the Creator; but it seems to present absolutely no difficulty at all to say that the Creator could speak to the creation. After all, mere creatures such as we are communicate all the time; why would we even entertain the slightest doubt that the Supreme Being could be capable of the same?

Jesus talked about the immaculate conception.

He did not, actually. Not even once.

The prophet Isaiah did, and the angel who spoke to his earthly mother did, but Jesus Himself was utterly silent on that subject.

There is no one, because there is no OTHER than one.

This is absurd for several reasons. One is that if there is no "other," then neither is there a "one."

Think of it this way: picture your room as made out of nothing but water. Picture yourself as made out of nothing but water. Then include the sky, the ground, and all objects...make them all of nothing but water. Now include the universe itself, and whatever ultimate reality lies beyond it...all of one, all of water. Then, mentally, remove any membrane separating these things (a membrane would be "other than" water, so it must go, too).

Now you have a situation in which all is truly one. But since everything is now made of that "one substance," there is no longer anything there. There isn't even any "water," since the concept "water" depends on us being able to distinguish it from something that is "not water," something "other".

This is your picture of the universe? "All is one," you say. But that is exactly the same as to say nothing. You cannot, for that matter, even talk about "reality" or "appearances" or the "all" in that phrase. None of them exist, because things only exist in their specialness. And all things having been turned into liquid, there is nothing about which you can make an rational distinction. So there is no specialness, no existence, no all, no anything.

If that were true, then all a person who genuinely believed that could do is fall silent forever. Any attempt to say anything would actually be a refutation of the creed that "All is one."

Now, even Hinduism and Buddhism shy back from this conclusion. It is for this reason that both are forced to posit the existence of "the other," which, for them, is the wheel of reincarnation, physical existence, and samsara, suffering. But their "deity" or their conception of the spiritual realm is entirely dependent on this "other" existing: for which reason, suffering, the physical world and samsara are said to be eternal -- an unscientific speculation, to be sure; but necessary, since "All is one" is an incoherent idea, and one that, if taken seriously, would silence them forever.

.
The vexed question, then, is what sort of word is the word "God"? Is it a concrete word, and abstraction or does it merely indicate an imagining? But your assumption is that it is "just a word." Are you suggesting you have warrant to think it's "just" that? What would that warrant be?

Maybe God is a word pointing to something or somewhere that is beyond the limitation of mans intellectual understanding?

I'm sure that in one sense, that's true. It would be implausible to speak of a limited being, a creature, having exhaustive knowledge of the divine. But that is very different from saying that the creature is capable of having NO knowledge of the divine. That wouldn't follow at all, even if the first were so.

I cannot drink Lake Victoria. But I could pick up some of it in a cup. I could also drink it (at the cost of getting schistosomiasis). And it would really be a bit of Lake Victoria, and I would really be drinking it. As limited as I am, then, I can have genuine experience of Lake Victoria...even though it is so vast I cannot see across it, I have no idea how deep it may be, and the quantity it contains is vastly above my powers of total consumption.

Just so, we can know God. Nobody will know everything about Him. But that does not at all suggest we cannot know anything about Him....especially, if He has a word (or a Word) and speaks through it (or Him).

think even Jesus is said to have said that too.

Again, He did not say that. Check me, if you doubt it.

..the illusory nature of reality,...

This claim also puzzles me. You say there's a thing called "reality". But then you say it's "illusory," which then means "not real." It's got to be obvious to you that the term "unreal (or "illusory") reality" is a self-contradiction. So you need to explain that in a way that does not undermine your own premise there.

It's not contradictory, because both the words unreal and real have to exist in the exact same moment, real can only have meaning in relation to it's opposite, which exist at the same time.

That's not a coherent solution.

If, as you say, both "unreal" and "real" do "exist at the same time," you've got two things that "exist." And if things only have meaning "in relation to its opposite," then you would have to say that the statement "all is one" has no meaning.

Are you comfortable with that conclusion?

Our human reality can be likened to a dream,

I don't doubt we can choose to view it that way. But what gives you confidence that's the right way to view it?

In the sense of the LIGHT that knows...

It doesn't.

Mere "light" does not "know" anything. You might say that light "makes things knowable," but they have to be knowable to somebody, a conscious being that is absorbing and interpreting the light.

IC, the self that believes it can kill itself can only do so because there is the belief that there is a self there to kill.

Well, we'll see.

One thing is obvious: you believe there is a "you," and you believe there is a "me." Were it not so, you would not be talking to me -- both definitionally and as a matter of logical contradiction.

So the "all is one thing" falls apart again.

It doesn't seem that that premise has a rational 'leg to stand on,' actually.

But I suppose "legs" wouldn't be real either.

[Dontaskme]

One thing is obvious: you believe there is a "you," and you believe there is a "me." Were it not so, you would not be talking to me -- both definitionally and as a matter of logical contradiction.

So the "all is one thing" falls apart again.

IC, it's pointless me even trying to counteract your personal claims that are your own unique God understanding, so I'm not going to waste my energy pitting my counter claims with you. Our discussions are going nowhere, but round and round in circles. So be it.

I'm tired of trying to explain over and over again the concept that Nothing and Something are the same one energy, and that this one energy just happens to differ in appearance only. Reality is happening IC, but it's not happening to a ''somebody'' and that's the only illusion, that it's believed to be happening to a ''somebody'' when it's NOT ...THIS IS WHY WE BOTH STRUGGLE with this.

It's pointless IC, so I'm going to leave it now. If you really care to want to know how I am absolutely confident that Nothing and Something are the SAME one energy...then watch Tony Parsons Nonduality videos....and he will clarify for you what I am not very good at putting into words myself, although I do like to try.

Also IC...there is a guy called Jim Newman who is an American version of the English guy Tony Parsons...Jim is very articulate and is impeccable explaining the nothing and the something are the same one energy...so anyway, watch these people talk about this if you want, and maybe get back to be with your opinion ...but then of course, if you do not want to, then that's fine.

Have a nice day IC. And continue to enjoy the forum. It's something to do while we are waiting to die, so it's a good source of entertainment, and a fun distraction that helps to fill the empty void that is our true being. Have fun...and bye for now, until we meet again.


.

[Belinda]

DontAskMe wrote:

How could I know my creator, unless I just make one up using imagination. I know I exist, that is self evident, but I have no idea what, or who I am or where I come from...how could I know my origin, I would have to have been there at my own conception. So who am I but nothing and everything.

You know your creator if you know your parent(s) and the persons who surround you and influence you.

You know your creator to the extent you know and understand the natural world.

People who believe in a deity Who is a sort of person either use their imaginations or they accept what their betters have told them in a holy book, or a secular book, or by word of mouth.It is always a good thing to use your imagination but it is a bad thing to be certain what you imagine is the case.

You don't know you exist. All you know is something is happening.You do not know it happens to DontAskMe because DontAskMe cannot be proved to be more than imaginings.

[Dontaskme]

You know your creator if you know your parent(s) and the persons who surround you and influence you.

Knowledge of anything implies a knower which can only exist in the dream of illusory separation, hence why reality is likened to a dream where nothing is happening, only apparently happening...neither real or unreal.

You know your creator to the extent you know and understand the natural world.

Only within the dream...see above.

People who believe in a deity Who is a sort of person either use their imaginations or they accept what their betters have told them in a holy book, or a secular book, or by word of mouth.It is always a good thing to use your imagination but it is a bad thing to be certain what you imagine is the case.

Only within the dream...see above

You don't know you exist. All you know is something is happening.You do not know it happens to DontAskMe because DontAskMe cannot be proved to be more than imaginings.

I totally agree, yes.

For further clarification on what is meant by the dream of separation...check out Jim Newman/ nonduality videos.

Or Tony Parsons. . . but Jim cuts more to the bone than Tony does. So I like to watch Jim more than Tony.

Bye the way, I'd be interested in hearing your feedback about Jim or Tony videos if you do not mind, but only of course if you are willing to watch, if not, that's fine. Have a great day.

[Dontaskme]

Belinda, I highy recommend this video as an introduction - that's if you are not familar with this speaker of nonduality.

Tony and Jim are not teachers, pretending to know something you don't...they are simply messengers only. We can take or leave the message, hear it or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX3gh4LNUsE&t=5130s

[Dontaskme]

Belinda...think about it....the idea that ‘I know’ is an illusion.

also, im not sure if jim is american, I'm just guessing, im not really sure.


‘I know’ is an illusion | Jim Newman NON-DUALITY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN8HXNHdHoY

Every human can hear this message, if they are open and ready to hear it.

It's overwhelmingly beautiful when fully understood.

[Immanuel Can]

One thing is obvious: you believe there is a "you," and you believe there is a "me." Were it not so, you would not be talking to me -- both definitionally and as a matter of logical contradiction.

So the "all is one thing" falls apart again.

IC, it's pointless me even trying to counteract your personal claims

They actually aren't "personal" claims at all. They're logical claims, claims about what reason requires of all of us.

One thing that is a signal of the failure of an ideology is when the proponents cannot find any way to live it out consistently. To argue with somebody, while insisting that they don't exist as a distinct entity from you, is one such performative inconsistency that signals that.

...THIS IS WHY WE BOTH STRUGGLE with this.

And yet...I'm not struggling.

It's simply that I'm not seeing the logic behind your view, and I'm asking why you don't act as if you believe it.

Have fun...and bye for now, until we meet again.

Well, conversation is always a privilege granted by two, to each other, of course. But it's interesting you choose to leave with this particular question still on the table.

I don't see it as a hopeless question at all. I think it's very pertinent, and the answer is likely to reveal a great deal. But I am not here to "take prisoners"; so if you'd rather end the conversation than complete it, I cannot really object.

[Dontaskme]

One thing that is a signal of the failure of an ideology is when the proponents cannot find any way to live it out consistently. To argue with somebody, while insisting that they don't exist as a distinct entity from you, is one such performative inconsistency that signals that.

Sorry again IC, my bad.

What I am showing you, is not an ideology known by a person that must be able to live it out consistently. This is just not what I am talking about. I'm always inviting you to see how there is no other than the one talking to itself.

If you do not understand the concept of Oneness, as being the absolute and only reality where NOTHING knows itself, then we will continue to struggle to understand each other.

I understand religions and their dogmas IC...I get what they are pointing to. So there is nothing that you are saying to me that I do not already get.

If you really are interested in what I am trying to talk to you about...Watch the 'Jim Newman' video I posted today, and you will see what I am talking about...I know I am hopeless at putting this into words so that it makes sense to people. I am aware of that, but it's more to do with the point that what I am trying to talk about cannot be explained with words, although it is only through words that we are ever able to hear the message, it's a divine paradox.

Why haven't you yet said to me ( I will watch the video and will get back to you with my opinion ...? ) because I'm generally interested in your own personal opinion on what Jim talks about...but if you're not interested, then fine, we have nothing further to discuss...without going round and round in circles never really understanding each other, which is a pointless exercise. Note that Nonduality is NOT A PHILOSOPHY OR THEORY...and so that may be the reason why there is a stuckness here between what is actually being discussed.

I've already informed you that I do not believe in a supreme being called God that we are invited to love and worship, so I cannot go down that route with you...but you can look at my route if you are at all interested, it's your call.

.

[Lacewing]

Oh, hey...I get my own "part II." I feel privileged.

I was just thinking, why the Hell does a topic with you and your nonsense need a Part 2?

I guess it's because DAM is dramatic and likes to overblow things... and you like to be blown up.

My point is Immanuel,

IC will do. "Immanuel" is Christ. I'm don't propose to be that good.

You're puffed up in a way that "Christ" never was. Why do you suppose that is?

[Immanuel Can]

...there is no other than the one talking to itself.

You say that...

...and then you talk to me.

If you do not understand the concept of Oneness,

I understand it. "All is one" is about the easiest concept there ever could be. Even "nothingness" is a harder concept to figure out.

It's not understanding that's the problem. It's logical coherence and performative consistency that are problematic here.

... it's a divine paradox.

It's not really a "paradox" at all, I would say, DAM. It's a contradiction-of-itself.

Why haven't you yet said to me ( I will watch the video and will get back to you with my opinion ...? )

I went and looked at Mr. Parsons, actually. (Munich, 2016) So now I do have a perspective on that.

I would just ask what makes you think that what Mr. Parsons says is the truth.

I've already informed you that I do not believe in a supreme being called God that we are invited to love and worship, so I cannot go down that route with you...but you can look at my route if you are at all interested, it's your call.

I'm looking, but I'm not seeing an non-self-refuting way in which all that is said by Mr. Parsons, etc. can be true.

Mr. Parsons even contradicts himself in the ways of which I'm speaking: he spends his time saying there is only a great "one," but does it to an audience of many, and speaks of "me" and "the child," (presumably also not Mr. Parsons) even while he does.

And that's what I'm asking about. If "all is one," then why is the "one" talking at all...far less talking to many, and talking about generalized others like "the child." Then he talks about a reality separate from "me," a thing "out there." The grammar of his speech shows that he too doesn't really believe in the "all is one" dictum.

So I'm looking for the background explanation that would make sense out of the logical and performative inconsistency there.