OVER THE EDGE

[Dontaskme]

don't you see that there is only oneness?

Yes... and the oneness contains ALL of it... the glorious and the understood and the repulsive and the misunderstood and the unrelenting egos messing with all of it. Don't YOU see that there is only oneness when you are telling "others" what THEY are/aren't and all that you suppose they aren't aware of? Why do you need to judge and tell oneness anything?

Listen to yourself, who is the other one who is supposed to be judging and telling what this oneness right here and now is already expressing and is aware of ??

The other one aka ego is oneness pretending to be other...it's a game it plays with itself...no one is doing this...it's all the play of lila, the play of opposites, the illusory game of duality...

No one is messing anything up here, what is being expressed here is oneness expressing itself as the many... It cannot mess up, it's one unitary action, it's the flow of life in constant flux....there is no dress rehearsal. The river of life cannot run backwards...It cannot go back and fix what it doesn't like about itself, otherwise it would change what's already happened and then it wouldn't be what's happened, it'd be what didn't happen, and how do you think that can happen...nothing is happening because what is apparently happening is not happening to any one, it's all one without a second/other.

including this......

What the heck is wrong with you?

[Lacewing]

Man, you guys are so intoxicated with trigger words. "Messing" is another way of saying "playing".

what is being expressed here is oneness expressing itself as the many...

I agree.

Why don't you read your response and apply it to yourself?

[Skip]

I don't experience this much-vaunted "oneness". I experience myself as discrete and separate from the world and all other entities in the world. This way I can have interactions and relationships, rather than dissolution in the great universe. I figure time and entropy will take care of that soon enough.

[Dontaskme]

Man, you guys are so intoxicated with trigger words. "Messing" is another way of saying "playing".

what is being expressed here is oneness expressing itself as the many...

I agree.

Why don't you read your response and apply it to yourself?

There is no reality in ideas... said Nisargadatta, and yet: Nisargadatta spoke a lot.. Didn't he?

The language of silence is misunderstood even more often than words. There are ideas strengthening the believes of the mind and there are ideas revealing the illusoriness of all believes, if it happens that they are understood.

How the Enlightened Being expresses its realisation is unique. Some keep silent, some talk. Life determines it so.

There is no reality in ideas and yet - what a miracle - illusory words point out to their own illusoriness to let the real reveal itself spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably.

[ken]

I’m fascinated yet repulsed by this condition where so many people are presenting themselves as having a uniquely direct line to a superior and/or divine awareness and/or truth WHICH THEY THINK OTHERS HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED OR UTILIZED IN ANY WAY.

Do you have this condition also?

How did you get to see "behind the curtain"?

Do you think it was through a common way or a unique way?

Why are you repulsed by a condition that so many people have, which is also just a normal part of Oneness?

Could being repulsed by a condition other people have be just your separate ego thinking it is somehow better than those other people with a certain repulsed condition?

Oneness, or whatever other word you would like to use, has a full understanding of the condition, which ALL adults are prone to have, and so certainly is NOT repulsed by that condition at all.

Such representation of course PRESUMES a great deal about the reality of all things, and about other people (and their own paths or lack of them). Such people will say that they aren’t presuming anything... that they KNOW. They don’t seem to notice that THEY (themselves) are actually part of a SEA of such people, all presuming DIFFERENT things, and blasting projections at people who they presume to be unaware of the “truth” they are uniquely aware of.

Could this be just a generalized presumptuous view of all people with a preconceived condition?

Some might say that we all have access to “the greater truth” they speak of, if we are willing or open enough to see it. Which is, again, presumptuous and rude.

How exactly is just saying 'being open enough' is being presumptuous and rude?

Are you, yourself, ever presumptuous and rude?

Could some of the things you express here be, or perceived to be, presumptuous and rude?

Such “supreme” positioning is such an intoxicated trip... that it often seems like there’s LESS AWARENESS rather than more. It becomes blinded and disoriented from staring into its own light. And whether it is identified as a type of theism or something else, it offers an other-worldly invincible cloak to conceal/deny its lack of immunity from the darker elements by which all manner of injustices and ignorance can continue being carried out.

Is this view similar to a view like, "I do not have to look at and change my own behavior because I just allow Oneness to flow and I am just a part of that one"?

When people adopt a position of speaking “the ultimate truth”, they stop noticing that they can’t and don’t.

Could having a belief that another person can not do something before they are even given a chance to do it be a very presumptuous condition to have?

Do you think it is good and/or right to presume things?

Could the way you are expressing your views here, as though it is "the ultimate truth", also be affecting all manner of injustices and ignorance?

As I wrote elsewhere...

I'm wary of a lot of people these days who get really high and fast on some supposed dose of "broader awareness". They are ready to tell everyone else how it is (based on their particular perspective), and thereby catapulting themselves into a position of higher authority (which they usually want recognition for). There's something about that, that seems really wrong to me; I suspect that the human ego is quick to go along for the ride, hiding in the backseat. It seems dangerous and often delusional. Across our landscape/reality, it's as if a new battlefield is being set up for the mini-gods to stake their claims... and there are so many of them!

Lots of assumptions, and truth, here.

Are you also wary of or aware that you also appear to be getting really high and fast on some supposed does of "broader awareness" here?

And, it could also appear as a very ego-boosting statement in of itself. For example, "I do not need to hear how you got to a broader awareness because I have already seen behind the curtain, thus I already have a "broader awareness", could be seen as a view that is driving an ego along very nicely. Although this ego may clothed in ignorance of this fact.

These hordes of “ego-riding masters”, tripping off of their particular encounter with cosmic or god consciousness, are turning that into an ideal delusion that glorifies themselves and sets others beneath them. Such intensity is really very creepy on this world stage. Our past history has had its encounters with such extremes, and we appear to be full speed ahead for our own “armageddon”: the battle of the wannabe gods who seem to be so far afield from any true understanding of unity. Such egos are lifting themselves into the “heavens”, crowning themselves, sitting on thrones, and laying waste to those who attempt to speak otherwise to them.

Which, to Me, sounds exactly like what you, yourself, are doing here.

You have even talked about keeping the discussion in the Oneness, and unity, where you are alleging you are coming from, but at the same time trying to ridicule others, that "their" condition repulses the stature of people like you. The ridiculing being just an attempt to lay waste to those who attempt to speak otherwise to you.

This is how your writings could be perceived.

What causes people to go so completely over the edge... such that they actually STOP SEEING MOST EVERYTHING/EVERYONE, while they SAY they see more than everyone else?

Maybe answering the question of what causes you, yourself, to go so completely over the edge, then you will have gained the answer to what causes others to do it also?

Have you been here all along in this post talking about the conditions that "they/others" have and which they, themselves, can not see, but which you, yourself, are fascinated and repulsed by, which in other words also means you are SAYING that you see more than everyone else?

The answer is really a very simple one and an extremely easy one to understand also. If, and when, you look honestly at what you, yourself, do, and then be truly open and honest about changing that, then you will obtain the answer you are asking here. What causes you to do so completely over the edge IS the exact same reason that causes every adult human being to do it also.

(Even Donald Trump is an example in this regard.) It is a bizarre kind of madness, is it not? Is it a ramped-up version of delusion associated with our apparent ramped-up evolution (too much, too fast, too disconnected) -- or is it just more of the same of our human history (same madness, different day)?

[/quote]

No it is NOT a bizarre kind of madness at all. There is nothing bizarre about it at all when fully recognized and understood. But I totally agree that it appears as madness.

[ken]

I always find it so strange when people think that NO ONE ELSE has experienced or heard anything about "greater awareness" and "divine connection" and "ultimate being", etc. That somehow we don't know about these concepts of which they speak, regardless of the words that are used.

Have you ever experienced younger people telling you some knowledge, or telling you about a "new" song or even a joke, which they think no one else has experienced or heard about before. This is just a normal part of being a human being. When a person first sees, hears, or learns something, and they think no one else has experienced or heard about it before, then they of course would naturally think in that way. Why would you even consider this behavior not natural nor normal, let alone find it so strange?

In reply to lacewing, sthitapragya wrote:

I think I have told you I had a vision or epiphany or sensus divinitus or whatever it is called. And I literally did not know anyone else who had been through anything similar. So it was obvious to me that I really did know something no one else had experienced. They might have heard of God. I had felt It. And along with it comes a conviction of the existence of God which cannot be doubted at all. I absolutely had no doubt that God existed till I decided to challenge my theory. Even then I was completely convinced from the bottom of my heart and soul that God existed. It was just my theory that was in question.

Would I be rude in asking what the vision, or epiphany or sensus divinitus or whatever else it was, was, and how it happened? I am very interested to learn this.

Do you still have no doubt God still exists or do you believe God is not possible, or.... something else?

Could it, now, still be possible that the God that you felt and had no doubt about existing previously could still exist now but just not in the way you were thinking God existed in previously?

By the way why would you make a 'theory' without evidence or proof. I think it best to have proof and evidence before assuming/theorizing anything.

[sthitapragya]

I think I have told you I had a vision or epiphany or sensus divinitus or whatever it is called. And I literally did not know anyone else who had been through anything similar. So it was obvious to me that I really did know something no one else had experienced. They might have heard of God. I had felt It. And along with it comes a conviction of the existence of God which cannot be doubted at all. I absolutely had no doubt that God existed till I decided to challenge my theory. Even then I was completely convinced from the bottom of my heart and soul that God existed. It was just my theory that was in question.

Would I be rude in asking what the vision, or epiphany or sensus divinitus or whatever else it was, was, and how it happened? I am very interested to learn this.

I have already posted my experience twice on this forum. Basically it is not important. It just showed me that nothing except logic works in this world and nothing except logic should be given importance.

Do you still have no doubt God still exists or do you believe God is not possible, or.... something else?

The existence of God is of no significance to me. If he exists, fine, if he does not, fine. Makes no difference whatsoever to reality.

Could it, now, still be possible that the God that you felt and had no doubt about existing previously could still exist now but just not in the way you were thinking God existed in previously?

No. It was not a conditional existence of God. A sensus divinitus (if that is the correct term) is a CONVICTION that God exists. There is no particular kind of God that you know of. You just know that God exists. Who he is or what he is, is not important. What is absolutely clear is that God exists.

So no. When I started reading science and understanding it, every kind of God was rejected. Essentially, it is not the kind of God, it is the concept of God that has no place in reality.

By the way why would you make a 'theory' without evidence or proof. I think it best to have proof and evidence before assuming/theorizing anything.

You believe that the mind and brain are independent of each other without proof or evidence. So you should not be giving advise that you do not follow.

You also make the mistake of calling my rejection of God a theory. God is a hypothesis without proof. I do not have to have a theory to reject a hypothesis which has not been proved. I have pointed this out to you often, but you don't seem to get it. It is upto the people who put up a hypothesis to prove it. It is NOT upto the people who are skeptical to disprove it. That is how things work. You might not like it. But that is how it is.

Rejection of God is just a rejection of a hypothesis. No theory is needed for it.

This is one basic problem I have with you and other theists. You have come up with a theory. It has no proof so it is a hypothesis. Then you ask us to disprove it. You just don't seem to understand that since it is your theory, you need to prove it. We don't need to disprove it. We can simply reject it. this takes care of people who make ridiculous claims like, "I am God". You don't have to prove him wrong. He has to prove he is right.

So God or a mind separate from the brain are hypotheses that need proof. Hopefully you understand this. If you don't please don't even bother to reply. I will not answer.

[Lacewing]

In response to what

...

Ken, I want to be courteous and answer questions, but the way you are bombarding me with so many, peppered with your projections, is a bit much. I have also gotten the impression that when I interact with you, you MISS much of what I’m communicating (perhaps because of some ideas you have about me or everything in general), so I no longer feel a need to invest in going round and round with you.

But rather than ignoring you without any explanation, here is my general response to your post. Hopefully you will not feel a need to disect this further –- because if you can’t see/understand who/what/how I am based on this, I’m guessing there’s nothing more I can say to change that.

I FULLY understand that everything I say about people is a potential (and sometimes actual) within myself... and I truly consider THAT while I communicate it. (I've said this before.) My communication is often about making a broader point to others or to us all when it feels useful to do so. It’s not about determining or defining absolutes about anything or anyone, so therefore it’s not meant to be about hashing out every word or phrase that’s used as if to prove something. It’s also not about setting myself above others, as I genuinely see myself in others, and them in me... and I think of it as “the same one” talking to itself... perhaps asking “why are you doing that?” and “can you see what you’re doing?”... IF it applies to the one reading it. I only say what seems useful at the time to say -- often informed by my intuition or something nameless -- and I can express myself passionately as a human WHILE also remaining aware that I’m not limited (nor are others) by such perceived separations. So it's not so serious... it's meant to be informative for us all.

[ken]

I think I have told you I had a vision or epiphany or sensus divinitus or whatever it is called. And I literally did not know anyone else who had been through anything similar. So it was obvious to me that I really did know something no one else had experienced. They might have heard of God. I had felt It. And along with it comes a conviction of the existence of God which cannot be doubted at all. I absolutely had no doubt that God existed till I decided to challenge my theory. Even then I was completely convinced from the bottom of my heart and soul that God existed. It was just my theory that was in question.

Would I be rude in asking what the vision, or epiphany or sensus divinitus or whatever else it was, was, and how it happened? I am very interested to learn this.

I have already posted my experience twice on this forum. Basically it is not important. It just showed me that nothing except logic works in this world and nothing except logic should be given importance.

I am confused now, did the vision, etc., show you that nothing except logic works in this world, or, did the vision, etc., show you that God exists?

What is not important to you may be important to Me. Can you direct Me, in logical steps, to where you have already posted your experience twice?

Do you still have no doubt God still exists or do you believe God is not possible, or.... something else?

The existence of God is of no significance to me. If he exists, fine, if he does not, fine. Makes no difference whatsoever to reality.

Great, so you are open to the possibility that God could still exist, right?

Not sure why the use of 'he' though?

There is nothing anywhere to suggest that God is, or could be, a 'he'.

Could it, now, still be possible that the God that you felt and had no doubt about existing previously could still exist now but just not in the way you were thinking God existed in previously?

No. It was not a conditional existence of God. A sensus divinitus (if that is the correct term) is a CONVICTION that God exists. There is no particular kind of God that you know of. You just know that God exists. Who he is or what he is, is not important. What is absolutely clear is that God exists.

So, are you still absolutely clear that God exists, or are you somewhat unclear now, or you do not have this view at all now and now believe that no God could ever exist?

So no. When I started reading science and understanding it, every kind of God was rejected. Essentially, it is not the kind of God, it is the concept of God that has no place in reality.

But what concept of God?

If there is no particular kind of God, when you know God exists, then there also could be no particular concept of God?

Who would even have a particular concept of God, especially if they did not know what God is or could be?

Assuming what God is would be a rather very stupid thing to do, would it not?

Assuming that, to Me, has no place in reality.

For you information, assuming anything at all, to Me, in fact has no place in reality.

Reality is based on what is true; not what is assumed to be true.

By the way why would you make a 'theory' without evidence or proof. I think it best to have proof and evidence before assuming/theorizing anything.

You believe that the mind and brain are independent of each other without proof or evidence.

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD?

I DO NOT HAVE A BELIEF. THEREFORE, I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE.

So you should not be giving advise that you do not follow.

Who says I do not have proof or evidence?

It would help you so much more if you stopped assuming anything at all about Me. For example if you stopped having a concept of Me, before you know Me, then you could better fully understand Me.

Also, if you stopped assuming things, and then saying those things about Me, then you can not and will not look so silly when you are proved wrong.

You also make the mistake of calling my rejection of God a theory.

When in any Universe did I EVER even suggest that you have a rejection of God, AND THEN calling that rejection of God a theory?

See that question I just asked? If there is at ANY TIME you assume that i called your rejection of God a theory took place, then go back and point out exactly where I supposedly made this mistake, of calling your rejection of God a theory.

Point that out to everyone here so that we can discuss that issue. If you do not, then can others "safely assume" that was just another one of your assumptions, which was also wrong?

For your information I had only asked you questions in relation to God in my last reply, which you have only just answered in this reply. So, where and when could have I ever also make the mistake of calling your rejection of God a theory?

Your assumptions and beliefs are so strong that even when I just ask a seriously but very simply, straight forward open-ended question from a completely open inquisitive viewpoint with absolutely no assumption nor preconceived ideas, nor any thing untoward in thought, you STILL assume something and jump to the wrong conclusion. Are you sure that having and maintaining beliefs is truly necessary to existence? They sure seem to show otherwise to a clear and understanding existence.

I am now puzzled, and trying to work out, as to why you once believed a sensus divinitus (if that is the correct term), which you had, gives a completely clear conviction that God exists, but when you started reading science and understanding science, then every kind of God was rejected, and now even the concept of God has no place in reality. If you did not start reading science and "understanding" science, then you would still believe God exists, right?

God is a hypothesis without proof. I do not have to have a theory to reject a hypothesis which has not been proved. I have pointed this out to you often, but you don't seem to get it. It is upto the people who put up a hypothesis to prove it. It is NOT upto the people who are skeptical to disprove it. That is how things work. You might not like it. But that is how it is.

You have a very strong drawing back to using the words 'theories' and 'hypothesis', which may probably stem from your once absolute belief in your own theory, and then to the absolute demise of that same theory, you also like to explain how theories and hypothesis work and do not work, which to Me really does not matter at all because I have no interest in what you think/believe I am doing. I am, and let us see if you can read and hear this, NOT thinking about nor am I writing any theory or hypothesis. Can you and do you understand this NOW?

If so, then there is NO need for you to mention about theories and hypothesis's ever again in relation to Me.

You are the one who said you had a theory, which was so amazing and perfect, that was until you realized you were totally wrong. So, your preoccupation and hangup with your totally inaccurate theory has nothing at all to do with Me, okay?

All I am doing now is trying to get an understanding of you.

Rejection of God is just a rejection of a hypothesis. No theory is needed for it.

You said you had a theory. I did not say you did. I also have absolutely no idea what your theory was or could have been about, and, I do not care about it yet, really.

So, I will ask you in another way, do you now, after having no doubt previously that God existed, reject a God that could exist in any kind, or exist in any concept, or exist in any shape, or exist in any form, or exist in any being, or exist in any way, whatsoever, am I right?

A simple yes or no would help in gaining a better understanding. But you answer that any way you like.

[ken]

In response to what

...

Ken, I want to be courteous and answer questions, but the way you are bombarding me with so many, peppered with your projections, is a bit much. I have also gotten the impression that when I interact with you, you MISS much of what I’m communicating (perhaps because of some ideas you have about me or everything in general), so I no longer feel a need to invest in going round and round with you.

But rather than ignoring you without any explanation, here is my general response to your post. Hopefully you will not feel a need to disect this further –- because if you can’t see/understand who/what/how I am based on this, I’m guessing there’s nothing more I can say to change that.

I FULLY understand that everything I say about people is a potential (and sometimes actual) within myself... and I truly consider THAT while I communicate it. (I've said this before.) My communication is often about making a broader point to others or to us all when it feels useful to do so. It’s not about determining or defining absolutes about anything or anyone, so therefore it’s not meant to be about hashing out every word or phrase that’s used as if to prove something. It’s also not about setting myself above others, as I genuinely see myself in others, and them in me... and I think of it as “the same one” talking to itself... perhaps asking “why are you doing that?” and “can you see what you’re doing?”... IF it applies to the one reading it. I only say what seems useful at the time to say -- often informed by my intuition or something nameless -- and I can express myself passionately as a human WHILE also remaining aware that I’m not limited (nor are others) by such perceived separations. So it's not so serious... it's meant to be informative for us all.

That last sentence is great, just as long as you know that what appears, to Me, especially when you point out things like that what you find fascinating and repulsive in, what is suggested as others, but is really in all people, and which you ask questions in relation to IS what I SEE in your own writings. The very things you are fascinated, repulsed and are inquisitive is the very you, in YOU.

I am only suggesting that if, and when, people are truly honest about their own wrong doings, and seriously want to change those ways in a truly open and honest manner, then they will discover what it is that they are actually looking for. For example the answers to those questions you ask are of "others" but really of yourself are what you are looking for.

[sthitapragya]

Would I be rude in asking what the vision, or epiphany or sensus divinitus or whatever else it was, was, and how it happened? I am very interested to learn this.

I have already posted my experience twice on this forum. Basically it is not important. It just showed me that nothing except logic works in this world and nothing except logic should be given importance.

I am confused now, did the vision, etc., show you that nothing except logic works in this world, or, did the vision, etc., show you that God exists?

What is not important to you may be important to Me. Can you direct Me, in logical steps, to where you have already posted your experience twice?

Do you still have no doubt God still exists or do you believe God is not possible, or.... something else?

The existence of God is of no significance to me. If he exists, fine, if he does not, fine. Makes no difference whatsoever to reality.

Great, so you are open to the possibility that God could still exist, right?

Not sure why the use of 'he' though?

There is nothing anywhere to suggest that God is, or could be, a 'he'.

Could it, now, still be possible that the God that you felt and had no doubt about existing previously could still exist now but just not in the way you were thinking God existed in previously?

No. It was not a conditional existence of God. A sensus divinitus (if that is the correct term) is a CONVICTION that God exists. There is no particular kind of God that you know of. You just know that God exists. Who he is or what he is, is not important. What is absolutely clear is that God exists.

So, are you still absolutely clear that God exists, or are you somewhat unclear now, or you do not have this view at all now and now believe that no God could ever exist?

So no. When I started reading science and understanding it, every kind of God was rejected. Essentially, it is not the kind of God, it is the concept of God that has no place in reality.

But what concept of God?

If there is no particular kind of God, when you know God exists, then there also could be no particular concept of God?

Who would even have a particular concept of God, especially if they did not know what God is or could be?

Assuming what God is would be a rather very stupid thing to do, would it not?

Assuming that, to Me, has no place in reality.

For you information, assuming anything at all, to Me, in fact has no place in reality.

Reality is based on what is true; not what is assumed to be true.

By the way why would you make a 'theory' without evidence or proof. I think it best to have proof and evidence before assuming/theorizing anything.

You believe that the mind and brain are independent of each other without proof or evidence.

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD?

I DO NOT HAVE A BELIEF. THEREFORE, I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE.

So you should not be giving advise that you do not follow.

Who says I do not have proof or evidence?

It would help you so much more if you stopped assuming anything at all about Me. For example if you stopped having a concept of Me, before you know Me, then you could better fully understand Me.

Also, if you stopped assuming things, and then saying those things about Me, then you can not and will not look so silly when you are proved wrong.

You also make the mistake of calling my rejection of God a theory.

When in any Universe did I EVER even suggest that you have a rejection of God, AND THEN calling that rejection of God a theory?

See that question I just asked? If there is at ANY TIME you assume that i called your rejection of God a theory took place, then go back and point out exactly where I supposedly made this mistake, of calling your rejection of God a theory.

Point that out to everyone here so that we can discuss that issue. If you do not, then can others "safely assume" that was just another one of your assumptions, which was also wrong?

For your information I had only asked you questions in relation to God in my last reply, which you have only just answered in this reply. So, where and when could have I ever also make the mistake of calling your rejection of God a theory?

Your assumptions and beliefs are so strong that even when I just ask a seriously but very simply, straight forward open-ended question from a completely open inquisitive viewpoint with absolutely no assumption nor preconceived ideas, nor any thing untoward in thought, you STILL assume something and jump to the wrong conclusion. Are you sure that having and maintaining beliefs is truly necessary to existence? They sure seem to show otherwise to a clear and understanding existence.

I am now puzzled, and trying to work out, as to why you once believed a sensus divinitus (if that is the correct term), which you had, gives a completely clear conviction that God exists, but when you started reading science and understanding science, then every kind of God was rejected, and now even the concept of God has no place in reality. If you did not start reading science and "understanding" science, then you would still believe God exists, right?

God is a hypothesis without proof. I do not have to have a theory to reject a hypothesis which has not been proved. I have pointed this out to you often, but you don't seem to get it. It is upto the people who put up a hypothesis to prove it. It is NOT upto the people who are skeptical to disprove it. That is how things work. You might not like it. But that is how it is.

You have a very strong drawing back to using the words 'theories' and 'hypothesis', which may probably stem from your once absolute belief in your own theory, and then to the absolute demise of that same theory, you also like to explain how theories and hypothesis work and do not work, which to Me really does not matter at all because I have no interest in what you think/believe I am doing. I am, and let us see if you can read and hear this, NOT thinking about nor am I writing any theory or hypothesis. Can you and do you understand this NOW?

If so, then there is NO need for you to mention about theories and hypothesis's ever again in relation to Me.

You are the one who said you had a theory, which was so amazing and perfect, that was until you realized you were totally wrong. So, your preoccupation and hangup with your totally inaccurate theory has nothing at all to do with Me, okay?

All I am doing now is trying to get an understanding of you.

Rejection of God is just a rejection of a hypothesis. No theory is needed for it.

You said you had a theory. I did not say you did. I also have absolutely no idea what your theory was or could have been about, and, I do not care about it yet, really.

So, I will ask you in another way, do you now, after having no doubt previously that God existed, reject a God that could exist in any kind, or exist in any concept, or exist in any shape, or exist in any form, or exist in any being, or exist in any way, whatsoever, am I right?

A simple yes or no would help in gaining a better understanding. But you answer that any way you like.

The existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant to me. It makes no difference in reality. I don't care either way.If he exists, fine, if he does not, fine. God is insignificant. Pretty much like some 60s one hit wonder. Is that clear enough? The existence or non-existence of God has no effect on reality whatsoever.

You also keep challenging me when I say you have no proof of your theory that the mind and brain are independent. And you never give it. That is tiring. If you have proof, give it. You don't give it. You keep saying you have it. Why do you expect people to believe you? You are a stranger. I don't know you. Nothing you have said so far suggests to me that I should take your word for everything you say. So If you have proof give it. Otherwise, stop blaming me for saying you don't have proof. It is weird.

[ken]

This is one basic problem I have with you and other theists.

You had better be very careful of what you keep accusing Me of, again, based on wrong assumptions.

If you can not point out any indication where and why you would start to think that I am a theist, then all you are doing is showing through evidence from your own words, which is actually providing the scientific evidence needed for what I have been saying all along. You are providing the proof I need.

You have come up with a theory. It has no proof so it is a hypothesis.

Again, point out any indication of any theory that I have supposedly come up with, if not, then more evidence of a brain working on a belief system, based on wrong assumptions, and not working on truth through open Mindedness.

Then you ask us to disprove it. You just don't seem to understand that since it is your theory, you need to prove it. We don't need to disprove it. We can simply reject it. this takes care of people who make ridiculous claims like, "I am God". You don't have to prove him wrong. He has to prove he is right.

Proving is what I am doing, right HERE and right NOW. But it is just the case you are unable to see this yet, which I have already explained I WILL show and prove with evidence and proof when I am ready to; not when you say so.

Do you have any clue as to how many assumptions were made in your statement, let alone how many of them were actually totally WRONG?

By the way, why do you suggest that claiming 'I am God' is ridiculous? Are you even able to answer that question properly?

So God or a mind separate from the brain are hypotheses that need proof. Hopefully you understand this. If you don't please don't even bother to reply. I will not answer.

Of course they need proof and of course I understand this. In fact all along I AM THEE ONE, who has been saying it is totally ridiculous to believe anything to be true and/or assume anything to be true, and so just remain open so that Truth can be found and seen easily and quickly.

YOU, on the other hand, ARE THE one, who says we must and have to believe in things that we assume to be true, even without proof and/or evidence.

Can you see the absurdity of what has been taking place so far?

You are the one, by your very own words and actions, is proving WITH evidence what I have been saying all along. This evidence that YOU ARE SUPPLYING is what I am going to and will use when I get around to explaining what IT is that I want to express and explain.

The more you have been trying to refute everything I say the more evidence you are providing to support My claims, which I have not even truly began yet.

If you can not see and understand this, then great. The more you reply and try to refute the more support you are giving and providing ME. Your own words alone is more and enough evidence for future generations to be able to look back on upon and see as proof of what I am expressing and WILL write.

I have always said, I can prove that I am God before you could prove I am not. But the trouble I have is with people like you who believe that every person MUST believe things assumed to be true, so when claims or hypothesis are expressed, before we can even begin to look into them, people just like you are not open to seeing the Truth. You already believe you KNOW the truth already because of what you assume is true.

[ken]

I have already posted my experience twice on this forum. Basically it is not important. It just showed me that nothing except logic works in this world and nothing except logic should be given importance.

I am confused now, did the vision, etc., show you that nothing except logic works in this world, or, did the vision, etc., show you that God exists?

What is not important to you may be important to Me. Can you direct Me, in logical steps, to where you have already posted your experience twice?

The existence of God is of no significance to me. If he exists, fine, if he does not, fine. Makes no difference whatsoever to reality.

Great, so you are open to the possibility that God could still exist, right?

Not sure why the use of 'he' though?

There is nothing anywhere to suggest that God is, or could be, a 'he'.

No. It was not a conditional existence of God. A sensus divinitus (if that is the correct term) is a CONVICTION that God exists. There is no particular kind of God that you know of. You just know that God exists. Who he is or what he is, is not important. What is absolutely clear is that God exists.

So, are you still absolutely clear that God exists, or are you somewhat unclear now, or you do not have this view at all now and now believe that no God could ever exist?

So no. When I started reading science and understanding it, every kind of God was rejected. Essentially, it is not the kind of God, it is the concept of God that has no place in reality.

But what concept of God?

If there is no particular kind of God, when you know God exists, then there also could be no particular concept of God?

Who would even have a particular concept of God, especially if they did not know what God is or could be?

Assuming what God is would be a rather very stupid thing to do, would it not?

Assuming that, to Me, has no place in reality.

For you information, assuming anything at all, to Me, in fact has no place in reality.

Reality is based on what is true; not what is assumed to be true.

You believe that the mind and brain are independent of each other without proof or evidence.

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD?

I DO NOT HAVE A BELIEF. THEREFORE, I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE.

So you should not be giving advise that you do not follow.

Who says I do not have proof or evidence?

It would help you so much more if you stopped assuming anything at all about Me. For example if you stopped having a concept of Me, before you know Me, then you could better fully understand Me.

Also, if you stopped assuming things, and then saying those things about Me, then you can not and will not look so silly when you are proved wrong.

You also make the mistake of calling my rejection of God a theory.

When in any Universe did I EVER even suggest that you have a rejection of God, AND THEN calling that rejection of God a theory?

See that question I just asked? If there is at ANY TIME you assume that i called your rejection of God a theory took place, then go back and point out exactly where I supposedly made this mistake, of calling your rejection of God a theory.

Point that out to everyone here so that we can discuss that issue. If you do not, then can others "safely assume" that was just another one of your assumptions, which was also wrong?

For your information I had only asked you questions in relation to God in my last reply, which you have only just answered in this reply. So, where and when could have I ever also make the mistake of calling your rejection of God a theory?

Your assumptions and beliefs are so strong that even when I just ask a seriously but very simply, straight forward open-ended question from a completely open inquisitive viewpoint with absolutely no assumption nor preconceived ideas, nor any thing untoward in thought, you STILL assume something and jump to the wrong conclusion. Are you sure that having and maintaining beliefs is truly necessary to existence? They sure seem to show otherwise to a clear and understanding existence.

I am now puzzled, and trying to work out, as to why you once believed a sensus divinitus (if that is the correct term), which you had, gives a completely clear conviction that God exists, but when you started reading science and understanding science, then every kind of God was rejected, and now even the concept of God has no place in reality. If you did not start reading science and "understanding" science, then you would still believe God exists, right?

God is a hypothesis without proof. I do not have to have a theory to reject a hypothesis which has not been proved. I have pointed this out to you often, but you don't seem to get it. It is upto the people who put up a hypothesis to prove it. It is NOT upto the people who are skeptical to disprove it. That is how things work. You might not like it. But that is how it is.

You have a very strong drawing back to using the words 'theories' and 'hypothesis', which may probably stem from your once absolute belief in your own theory, and then to the absolute demise of that same theory, you also like to explain how theories and hypothesis work and do not work, which to Me really does not matter at all because I have no interest in what you think/believe I am doing. I am, and let us see if you can read and hear this, NOT thinking about nor am I writing any theory or hypothesis. Can you and do you understand this NOW?

If so, then there is NO need for you to mention about theories and hypothesis's ever again in relation to Me.

You are the one who said you had a theory, which was so amazing and perfect, that was until you realized you were totally wrong. So, your preoccupation and hangup with your totally inaccurate theory has nothing at all to do with Me, okay?

All I am doing now is trying to get an understanding of you.

Rejection of God is just a rejection of a hypothesis. No theory is needed for it.

You said you had a theory. I did not say you did. I also have absolutely no idea what your theory was or could have been about, and, I do not care about it yet, really.

So, I will ask you in another way, do you now, after having no doubt previously that God existed, reject a God that could exist in any kind, or exist in any concept, or exist in any shape, or exist in any form, or exist in any being, or exist in any way, whatsoever, am I right?

A simple yes or no would help in gaining a better understanding. But you answer that any way you like.

The existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant to me. It makes no difference in reality. I don't care either way.If he exists, fine, if he does not, fine. God is insignificant. Pretty much like some 60s one hit wonder. Is that clear enough? The existence or non-existence of God has no effect on reality whatsoever.

You also keep challenging me when I say you have no proof of your theory that the mind and brain are independent. And you never give it. That is tiring. If you have proof, give it. You don't give it. You keep saying you have it. Why do you expect people to believe you? You are a stranger. I don't know you. Nothing you have said so far suggests to me that I should take your word for everything you say. So If you have proof give it. Otherwise, stop blaming me for saying you don't have proof. It is weird.

Seriously can you see how many assumptions you make just in a very short statement?

This was never about anything I have said in the past. I asked you a serious of questions trying to understand if you can accept if any kind of God could exist or not. If the existence of non-existence of God is irrelevant or not to you is of no concern here to any person. ALL I was wondering was if you could or could not accept that God could or could not exist? In other words I am just wanting to prove to people how beliefs stop people from seeing openly and how beliefs stop people from seeing truth and reality. Your answers are providing this proof for Me.

Your complete rejection of answer any of My questions is what I have been seeking from you. The less you answer the more I am supported.

[Lacewing]

That last sentence is great, just as long as you know that what appears, to Me, especially when you point out things like that what you find fascinating and repulsive in, what is suggested as others, but is really in all people, and which you ask questions in relation to IS what I SEE in your own writings. The very things you are fascinated, repulsed and are inquisitive is the very you, in YOU.

I am only suggesting that if, and when, people are truly honest about their own wrong doings, and seriously want to change those ways in a truly open and honest manner, then they will discover what it is that they are actually looking for. For example the answers to those questions you ask are of "others" but really of yourself are what you are looking for.

I understand. That is what I often see in the questions that you ask: that it is more about you, even though it is not framed so.

I'm not sure the framing is the most useful thing to argue over, however -- as the boundaries may become a bit blurry when we're all one. Rather, is there truth in what is being seen from a certain viewpoint... and does it apply to any of those it is being shared with?

[sthitapragya]

I am confused now, did the vision, etc., show you that nothing except logic works in this world, or, did the vision, etc., show you that God exists?

What is not important to you may be important to Me. Can you direct Me, in logical steps, to where you have already posted your experience twice?



Great, so you are open to the possibility that God could still exist, right?

Not sure why the use of 'he' though?

There is nothing anywhere to suggest that God is, or could be, a 'he'.



So, are you still absolutely clear that God exists, or are you somewhat unclear now, or you do not have this view at all now and now believe that no God could ever exist?



But what concept of God?

If there is no particular kind of God, when you know God exists, then there also could be no particular concept of God?

Who would even have a particular concept of God, especially if they did not know what God is or could be?

Assuming what God is would be a rather very stupid thing to do, would it not?

Assuming that, to Me, has no place in reality.

For you information, assuming anything at all, to Me, in fact has no place in reality.

Reality is based on what is true; not what is assumed to be true.



HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD?

I DO NOT HAVE A BELIEF. THEREFORE, I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE.



Who says I do not have proof or evidence?

It would help you so much more if you stopped assuming anything at all about Me. For example if you stopped having a concept of Me, before you know Me, then you could better fully understand Me.

Also, if you stopped assuming things, and then saying those things about Me, then you can not and will not look so silly when you are proved wrong.



When in any Universe did I EVER even suggest that you have a rejection of God, AND THEN calling that rejection of God a theory?

See that question I just asked? If there is at ANY TIME you assume that i called your rejection of God a theory took place, then go back and point out exactly where I supposedly made this mistake, of calling your rejection of God a theory.

Point that out to everyone here so that we can discuss that issue. If you do not, then can others "safely assume" that was just another one of your assumptions, which was also wrong?

For your information I had only asked you questions in relation to God in my last reply, which you have only just answered in this reply. So, where and when could have I ever also make the mistake of calling your rejection of God a theory?

Your assumptions and beliefs are so strong that even when I just ask a seriously but very simply, straight forward open-ended question from a completely open inquisitive viewpoint with absolutely no assumption nor preconceived ideas, nor any thing untoward in thought, you STILL assume something and jump to the wrong conclusion. Are you sure that having and maintaining beliefs is truly necessary to existence? They sure seem to show otherwise to a clear and understanding existence.

I am now puzzled, and trying to work out, as to why you once believed a sensus divinitus (if that is the correct term), which you had, gives a completely clear conviction that God exists, but when you started reading science and understanding science, then every kind of God was rejected, and now even the concept of God has no place in reality. If you did not start reading science and "understanding" science, then you would still believe God exists, right?



You have a very strong drawing back to using the words 'theories' and 'hypothesis', which may probably stem from your once absolute belief in your own theory, and then to the absolute demise of that same theory, you also like to explain how theories and hypothesis work and do not work, which to Me really does not matter at all because I have no interest in what you think/believe I am doing. I am, and let us see if you can read and hear this, NOT thinking about nor am I writing any theory or hypothesis. Can you and do you understand this NOW?

If so, then there is NO need for you to mention about theories and hypothesis's ever again in relation to Me.

You are the one who said you had a theory, which was so amazing and perfect, that was until you realized you were totally wrong. So, your preoccupation and hangup with your totally inaccurate theory has nothing at all to do with Me, okay?

All I am doing now is trying to get an understanding of you.



You said you had a theory. I did not say you did. I also have absolutely no idea what your theory was or could have been about, and, I do not care about it yet, really.

So, I will ask you in another way, do you now, after having no doubt previously that God existed, reject a God that could exist in any kind, or exist in any concept, or exist in any shape, or exist in any form, or exist in any being, or exist in any way, whatsoever, am I right?

A simple yes or no would help in gaining a better understanding. But you answer that any way you like.

The existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant to me. It makes no difference in reality. I don't care either way.If he exists, fine, if he does not, fine. God is insignificant. Pretty much like some 60s one hit wonder. Is that clear enough? The existence or non-existence of God has no effect on reality whatsoever.

You also keep challenging me when I say you have no proof of your theory that the mind and brain are independent. And you never give it. That is tiring. If you have proof, give it. You don't give it. You keep saying you have it. Why do you expect people to believe you? You are a stranger. I don't know you. Nothing you have said so far suggests to me that I should take your word for everything you say. So If you have proof give it. Otherwise, stop blaming me for saying you don't have proof. It is weird.

Seriously can you see how many assumptions you make just in a very short statement?

This was never about anything I have said in the past. I asked you a serious of questions trying to understand if you can accept if any kind of God could exist or not. If the existence of non-existence of God is irrelevant or not to you is of no concern here to any person. ALL I was wondering was if you could or could not accept that God could or could not exist? In other words I am just wanting to prove to people how beliefs stop people from seeing openly and how beliefs stop people from seeing truth and reality. Your answers are providing this proof for Me.

Your complete rejection of answer any of My questions is what I have been seeking from you. The less you answer the more I am supported.

Yayyyyy for you. You win!!