Demons

[XianeX]

yeah I watched c-span. you talking about the dude and the genetics and shit? that WAS deep. I was glued.
I also watched the bill gates thingy.

you don't think we sound country???? interesting.

yeah my cousin has his own perspectives on god. I only debate stuff like this with you because it's fun to explore facts and possibilities plus you are the few that can hold your own in a debate with me. what's the fun in challenging someone that can't compete? kna'mean. what's the use of fighting a battle that doesn't advantage you in more than whats obvious and/or one facet? anybody that knows me in my everyday world knows that "theism" is almost a loathed thing to discuss around me. (I live in the bible belt)

I don't believe in labels as a capsule for the way i think. fuck atheism deism and theism. all labels are innacurate and subject to connotation.

This last post has been your most informative yet. I'll modify my previous assessment. we're talking about the same picture from different perspectives. Now I definitely don't see a great divergence from what we believe "at base". our approach to the information greatly diverges. but I don't think we're looking at different pictures.

if the "god" you are refering to is the figurative/speculative/subjective/theological one which is by definition virtual or unreal yes "god" can do anything you make him to do in virtual reality. but no he can't do anything in reality. if that's the page you're on that's then we've been on the same page if not oh well.


Your getting warm I'm almost proud of you. Seriously. Thanks for showing part of your deistic perspective I appreciate that. Yes you can make a virtual or unreal god do anything you want just like you can manipulate facts to further your agenda. You can have this "god" chanting "ambamaba bababababababababa" and transforming pigs into butterflies but if he can't transform those pigs in reality or you can't SEE or HEAR him chanting whatever the hell it was he was chanting guess what? He exists in your perspective and your realm thus making him real to you and not to the next man. Now the question is can this deity do the logical impossible and if it can't do what is logically impossible is it still "OMNI"?

I get it, but i still won't add subjectivitity to the concept. I'll say this though: it is IN omni.

I killed that post because it contributed to the pinwheel and It didn't serve a purpose anymore I had what I wanted. but you gave way more clarification (and some damn good points) so I guess leaving it wouldn't have been a bad thing.

I'm just exhausted with the tet-a-tet now that certain things aren't expressed. I'd be afraid of what would happen if we were ever to fight on the same side against anyone else. ROFL we already eliminate thread themes with our presence.


as always, respect to my sparring partner. much!

 

[XianeX]

thanks @ the song. thanks @ my verse.

I still don't have a clue of who stevie and ray are. LMFAO.

unless you're talking about the blind artists. which is hilarious

 

[XianeX]

@916 - do you think that "one and none inclusively" is solely a monist perspective??? I identify the differences but refer to them singular because they validate/establish each other. seperate but equal / same but distinct.

the all thing is not not. and the not thing is all not. but they both are all and not inclusively. neoplatonism comes to mind. a monist perspective removes the distinction and inclusivity.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

@916 - do you think that "one and none inclusively" is solely a monist perspective???

"one and none inclusively", in my opinion, seems like word jugglery in attempt to satisfy both the mayavada (monist) and the sunyavada (voidist) philosopher. Whatever it may be, monist or voidist, it does not go past the impersonal Brahman conception I explained earlier.

I identify the differences but refer to them singular because they validate/establish each other. seperate but equal / same but distinct.

If you refer to them as singular because they validate/establish each other then you understand oneness in relationship, which I agree with. If this is your position then how come you have a discrepancy with the concept of God as a distinct entity?

the all thing is not not. and the not thing is all not. but they both are all and not inclusively. neoplatonism comes to mind. a monist perspective removes the distinction and inclusivity.

If the "not thing" is all not then how come we need to even talk about it? If there is not a thing then there is nothing. So when you refer to "they both" you are already mistaken. There is only one thing you can be referring to, the "all thing".
Oh, you've been referring to the distinction between a "not not" and an "all not"? That would change my reply to your previous paragraph a bit. The distinction is this: one of the two does not exist, so why regard it? It seems nothing more to me than word-jugglery semantics. Honestly, what does it amount to?

 

[XianeX]

If you refer to them as singular because they validate/establish each other then you understand oneness in relationship, which I agree with. If this is your position then how come you have a discrepancy with the concept of God as a distinct entity?

I don't have a discrepency with both inclusively being the One. the problem is if you disregard one of the two you inherently disregard the other. Theist tend to disregard absence in places and disregard presence in places. that Denies Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence. If what is divine 'can only' or 'cannot' it is found lacking in power. This is my issue with words such as can and can't neither words are used objectively only subjectively. The importance is in is or isn't. In other words describing what 'is' with what 'isn't' is futile and contradictory at root.

'can' refers only to potential/absence of the divine. 'is' refers to the kenetic reality of the divine. since can is speculative I won't use that as a qualification of divine presence only of divine absence.

I can/will speculate on the contiuencies of the absolute if I'm speaking with one who fully comprehends, but If I discuss the absolute with those that do not understand in allegory I will damage them on their path to truth.

The Inclusive One is distinct. But it is hard for many to grasp because it is a paradox (Something one should expect of the Divine anyway). When one chooses 'which side' power in the divine is, there is always error confusion and contention. This is the error in theology. when you carve the paradox into chewable fragments you eliminate the ability to reconcile the inclusivity of absence and presence. Therefore people can say that god turned his back on jesus on the cross or jesus turned into a glowing light. figuratively in an imaginary (absent) context that "can" be true. but in a literal context it personifys those deities in such a way that it weakens them. when you cross the boundaries of reality and speculation you become harmful to your belief system.

This is why Scientific belief systems are more productive and more empowered than "Faith-based" systems. Scientific beliefs say: there is presence / there is absence. I'll explore the absence and presence without prejudice until 'all' 'is' known. Faith systems say: There is presence / there is absence. I will make what i want present out of absence and make absent what i dont want present and thus I will reconcile 'the all' that I want. which will always be incomplete messy & fabricated. Artifice/fabrications will continualy need to feed remain in existance. (priestcraft witchcraft and whatever theo-craft you wanna call it). golems demons and spirits come to mind. Thus the biggest jobs in all religions are marketing and client-retention efforts

In short, 'non'-existsance is 'an' existance. To eliminate it from 'all' existance is an error and vice versa. Not semantics but paradox.

I know this is long and you'll prollly have to read it a couple times to see what I'm getting at. I apologize if it isn't clear. I'll clarify whatever you want.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I don't have a discrepency with both inclusively being the One. the problem is if you disregard one of the two you inherently disregard the other. Theist tend to disregard absence in places and disregard presence in places. that Denies Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence. If what is divine 'can only' or 'cannot' it is found lacking in power. This is my issue with words such as can and can't neither words are used objectively only subjectively. The importance is in is or isn't. In other words describing what 'is' with what 'isn't' is futile and contradictory at root.

What is “absence”? Please give me an example of absence in context with an omnipresent God. I find this simultaneously present and absent philosophy to be unnecessarily abstract, but maybe I am missing something.

The Inclusive One is distinct. But it is hard for many to grasp because it is a paradox (Something one should expect of the Divine anyway). When one chooses 'which side' power in the divine is, there is always error confusion and contention. This is the error in theology. when you carve the paradox into chewable fragments you eliminate the ability to reconcile the inclusivity of absence and presence. Therefore people can say that god turned his back on jesus on the cross or jesus turned into a glowing light. figuratively in an imaginary (absent) context that "can" be true. but in a literal context it personifys those deities in such a way that it weakens them. when you cross the boundaries of reality and speculation you become harmful to your belief system.

Eliminates the ability to reconcile the inclusivity, perhaps, but we are assuming that such an inclusivity is necessary. What is the meaning and significance of being simultaneously present and absent? Is there some context I am missing? For example, Krishna, according to the Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam (as well as various other Vedic literatures) is considered to be God Himself. He came to earth just over five thousand years ago. Now He is apparently not present, at least not as He was back then. Yet, He is still present in His all-pervasive, unmanifest form. So in one sense He is absent in that He is Personally not present, but in another sense He is still present. Is this sort of what you mean by this inclusivity?

This is why Scientific belief systems are more productive and more empowered than "Faith-based" systems. Scientific beliefs say: there is presence / there is absence. I'll explore the absence and presence without prejudice until 'all' 'is' known. Faith systems say: There is presence / there is absence. I will make what i want present out of absence and make absent what i dont want present and thus I will reconcile 'the all' that I want. which will always be incomplete messy & fabricated. Artifice/fabrications will continualy need to feed remain in existance. (priestcraft witchcraft and whatever theo-craft you wanna call it). golems demons and spirits come to mind. Thus the biggest jobs in all religions are marketing and client-retention efforts

What you are describing as faith is called speculation. You are assuming that it is such. I will admit, often times faith is mixed with personal speculations; I have been guilty of it in the past. But unalloyed faith means that one gives up speculating and accepts what is revealed in scripture/shastra. A couple good examples of faith mixed with speculation would be the Mayavadi School of the Vedas and the Christian Science philosophy. They take what is present from the teachings and then because they do not understand its conclusions they add things that are not present in order to come to some adulterated interpretation of the texts.
This scientific belief system you speak of assumes that all can be known by their methods, which are ultimately inductive. This is an example of the nature of man in trying to become like God. People want “all” to be under the jurisdiction of their senses and be able to test “all” in their laboratories. To think that this is possible is simply phantasmagoria, in my humble opinion. At least, we should be able to agree that it is also a faith-based system in this sense. The modern scientists have faith that they have a sufficient facility for observing and empirically understanding ‘all’.

In short, 'non'-existsance is 'an' existance. To eliminate it from 'all' existance is an error and vice versa. Not semantics but paradox.

Why?
What we previously thought to not exist, if we now know it does exist, can we not simply move it in to the “existence” category? Why do we have to entertain this “non-existence is an existence” axiom when we could more reasonably just call ‘all’ things, “Existence”?

 

[XianeX]

I am Highly intrigued by this discussion and MANY of your observations. WOW, where do I want to start.

Eliminates the ability to reconcile the inclusivity, perhaps, but we are assuming that such an inclusivity is necessary. What is the meaning and significance of being simultaneously present and absent? Is there some context I am missing? For example, Krishna, according to the Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam (as well as various other Vedic literatures) is considered to be God Himself. He came to earth just over five thousand years ago. Now He is apparently not present, at least not as He was back then. Yet, He is still present in His all-pervasive, unmanifest form. So in one sense He is absent in that He is Personally not present, but in another sense He is still present. Is this sort of what you mean by this inclusivity?

The purpose of inclusivity is to give discernment. If the absolute was without absence or negative presence we would be incapable of drawing conclusions/specualations/perspectives. for instance, I know where you are by knowing where you aren't. I know where you can be by knowing where you aren't. I also can find where you are by examining your negative presence. If I 'only' comprehended that you are 'here' then I remove intelligence. another example. I speak to you in this thread. in a perspective you are 'here' albeit you are not be here absolutely. You comprehend my speech but not absolutely what I mean. We as humans are of limited intelligence. without our ability to discern we would learn nothing. in other words if we comprehended all presence we would 'know' 'nothing' (all absence) (hopefully you comprehend the paradox in that line).

Here's a concept to examine. what is the significance of 'sacrifice'? sacrifice is exchange, you give something to get something. what you give becomes the negative presence of what you had and you gain in the exchange the presence of what you had not (had negatively). if what you had is 'all' you would 'have' 'nothing', thus there would be no exchange (feel me). Humans exchange the void in our mind for information. The negative presence of the divine is why we search for the presence of it.

"apparently not present" I love that line! once again The divine is the paradox. the paradox is the absolute's power to be all and not all inclusively.

What you are describing as faith is called speculation. You are assuming that it is such. I will admit, often times faith is mixed with personal speculations; I have been guilty of it in the past. But unalloyed faith means that one gives up speculating and accepts what is revealed in scripture/shastra. A couple good examples of faith mixed with speculation would be the Mayavadi School of the Vedas and the Christian Science philosophy. They take what is present from the teachings and then because they do not understand its conclusions they add things that are not present in order to come to some adulterated interpretation of the texts.
This scientific belief system you speak of assumes that all can be known by their methods, which are ultimately inductive. This is an example of the nature of man in trying to become like God. People want “all” to be under the jurisdiction of their senses and be able to test “all” in their laboratories. To think that this is possible is simply phantasmagoria, in my humble opinion. At least, we should be able to agree that it is also a faith-based system in this sense. The modern scientists have faith that they have a sufficient facility for observing and empirically understanding ‘all’.

This is why I say faith is useless. What is the use in believing in 'the is that is' (or for the abrahamic followers The Am that I Am). Whether you believe or not It 'is'. 'It' can be whatever you want 'It' to be, but that doesn't mean that 'It' is 'That' presently or apparently. 'It' exists in the Virtual and Actual. Unfortunately since we exist in the actual it is fruitless for us to study the virtual unless it is in the quest of ascertaining the Actual. when we completely comprehend the actual we will completely comprehend the virtual.

Mankind like all else is like 'god'. we are 'in' and 'of' god. We are without 'god' only by what we percieve and are closer to god in what we concieve (and vice versa). Mankind may be capable of comprehending all that is. when we do we will know what all isn't and that's when we'll know the Absolute. It is illogical and I'll assert impossible to know everything and not know nothing at the same time.

Why?
What we previously thought to not exist, if we now know it does exist, can we not simply move it in to the “existence” category? Why do we have to entertain this “non-existence is an existence” axiom when we could more reasonably just call ‘all’ things, “Existence”?

Yes we can. Reasonably! that would be the inclusivity of negative presence and positive presence. but without the identification of negative presence we eliminate discernment. The same as we include that all things are not nothing we must include that nothing is not all things. thing exists in both and not exists in both. ying yang.

::sidenote:: I'd love to discuss with you renounciation (Nirvana). I'm sure you'll provide even more deep insights.

Until mankind can ascertain the beauty and purpose of the paradox we will never know our absolute and inclusive "oneness".

All religions at their core say one thing. that 'god' is so simple that it is complex and so complex that it is simple.

Re-examine the upanishads. extrapolate all deistic references and all speculation and look at the core realities of what is being said. do it with the bible and others. "human error" in theology (as Heresy puts it) stems from speculations or unsubstantiated postulations about the divine.


I think this is why I enjoy the dance of war. I look at the debates I've had with heresy and others and enjoy them thoroughly no matter how brutal they become. they are beautiful to me because each uses the paradox of negative and present information to find ways to manipulate them to gain advantage. the beauty in the war paradox is that it must end. the only thing that is gained is what is achieved within it not the outcome. Winning is speculative and mutable to perspective. but the interchange in the interim is the most productive aspect.

So anything we discuss however heated I don't take it personally I think of it as business.

An Irony about myself. I went from studying religion to computer science into international business in my academeic studies. I must be insane. HAHAHA

 

[XianeX]

Another observation. if a computer was base-1 it could never work because it there would be no discernment between what was and wasn't (hence no information). My opinion is that the computer is mankinds mental altar to the divine. a base one system says that all is just is and denies the existance of negative presence.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

The purpose of inclusivity is to give discernment. If the absolute was without absence or negative presence we would be incapable of drawing conclusions/specualations/perspectives. for instance, I know where you are by knowing where you aren't. I know where you can be by knowing where you aren't. I also can find where you are by examining your negative presence. If I 'only' comprehended that you are 'here' then I remove intelligence. another example. I speak to you in this thread. in a perspective you are 'here' albeit you are not be here absolutely. You comprehend my speech but not absolutely what I mean. We as humans are of limited intelligence. without our ability to discern we would learn nothing. in other words if we comprehended all presence we would 'know' 'nothing' (all absence) (hopefully you comprehend the paradox in that line).

I understand what you are saying, but absence pertaining to God is only relative to the ignorant mind. For example, one may say that God is absent from sin. Of course, but we must discern what it is that constitutes sin. For instance, killing is said to be sinful. Nevertheless, God can kill and He will not be sinning. So the act of killing in itself is not the sin. The actual definition of sinning is ignoring God. Therefore, God’s absence from sin is relative to the ignorant minds. Objectively, God is all-pervasive. Therefore, God’s absence is actually subjective. He is absent only to the ignorant.

Here's a concept to examine. what is the significance of 'sacrifice'? sacrifice is exchange, you give something to get something. what you give becomes the negative presence of what you had and you gain in the exchange the presence of what you had not (had negatively). if what you had is 'all' you would 'have' 'nothing', thus there would be no exchange (feel me). Humans exchange the void in our mind for information. The negative presence of the divine is why we search for the presence of it.

Herein you give a perfect example. The “void in our mind(s)” is the negative presence of the Divine. We search for His presence because we have fallen ignorant of Him. Ideally, we are sacrificing that which causes us further ignorance in order to be filled with realization of God.

This is why I say faith is useless. What is the use in believing in 'the is that is' (or for the abrahamic followers The Am that I Am). Whether you believe or not It 'is'. 'It' can be whatever you want 'It' to be, but that doesn't mean that 'It' is 'That' presently or apparently. 'It' exists in the Virtual and Actual. Unfortunately since we exist in the actual it is fruitless for us to study the virtual unless it is in the quest of ascertaining the Actual. when we completely comprehend the actual we will completely comprehend the virtual.

Yes, whether we believe God exists or not does not change the fact. The use in believing is due to our being subject to our own ignorance. As long as we ignore God we are deviating from our constitutional position, which is the root cause of all suffering. Ignorance constitutes suffering, whereas faith in the knowledge of God constitutes liberation from suffering. That is the significance of belief/faith.
Forgive me if I am taking what you are saying out of context but, although we are of the Actual, we are covered by the Virtual, which constitutes the duality between self (soul) and surroundings (i.e.: the body). Through this discernment is the significance known as “self-realization”. Now, although God pervades both the Actual and Virtual, He never becomes entangled/covered in the Virtual as we do (i.e.: there is no difference between God’s Self and God’s Body). Self-realization, which amounts to God-realization, is (in its practical stage) the transmuting of the Virtual into the Actual by positive and direct association with the Actual Godhead. In other words, the Virtual, which is defined as such relative to the mode of ignorance, is purified when used in direct association with God. By this purification, what is known as “material” becomes “spiritual”; what is commonly utilized out of ignorance is instead utilized in knowledge. This, in itself, encompasses what is known as Karma Yoga. That is, offering the results of one’s actions to God rather than seeking to enjoy them oneself. Ultimately and ideally, Karma Yoga amounts to Bhakti Yoga, which constitutes not only a mechanical process of offering, but also a sense of devotion and mental attachment to God, the Supreme Actual.

Mankind like all else is like 'god'. we are 'in' and 'of' god. We are without 'god' only by what we percieve and are closer to god in what we concieve (and vice versa). Mankind may be capable of comprehending all that is. when we do we will know what all isn't and that's when we'll know the Absolute. It is illogical and I'll assert impossible to know everything and not know nothing at the same time.

The nature to act as our own gods is there because we are made in God’s nature. The difference between God and ourselves is that we fall into ignorance whereas God does not. Similarly, God has free will and so we have free will but in minute quantity. Because we are similar in quality but dissimilar in quantity we are prone to fall down when we try to be equal to God in all respects.
In your context I understand that to “know nothing” refers to knowing a thing’s absence. Previously I was unaware of what you meant and so I took the phrase “knowing nothing” to be an absolute rather than a reference for discernment. Nevertheless, mankind cannot empirically know all that is. Mankind lacks the facility. As long as we are limiting what we know to what we experience by the material senses, we lack in knowing what all is or what all isn’t. Even in a dynamic sense of evolution will I disagree that mankind can ever grow to empirically understand all. Some may have faith otherwise, but I do not. To me it is a waste of time in the same way seeking God is a waste of time to atheists.

Yes we can. Reasonably! that would be the inclusivity of negative presence and positive presence. but without the identification of negative presence we eliminate discernment. The same as we include that all things are not nothing we must include that nothing is not all things. thing exists in both and not exists in both. ying yang.

I now understand your context and I agree with you. Although, negative presence pertaining to God can only be one of two brands: 1) subjective of the ignorant mind, or 2) the discernment of God within His various capacities, i.e.: knowing the difference between God being Personally present and God being present in His all-pervasive, unmanifest capacity (refer to my example of Krishna). Otherwise there is, in no objective sense, an absence of God. In other words (pertaining to option 2), the negative presence of God is actually simultaneously the positive presence of God in another form or capacity, which constitutes what it means to be Absolute.

::sidenote:: I'd love to discuss with you renounciation (Nirvana). I'm sure you'll provide even more deep insights.

Sure. What of renunciation do you have in mind?

I think this is why I enjoy the dance of war. I look at the debates I've had with heresy and others and enjoy them thoroughly no matter how brutal they become. they are beautiful to me because each uses the paradox of negative and present information to find ways to manipulate them to gain advantage. the beauty in the war paradox is that it must end. the only thing that is gained is what is achieved within it not the outcome. Winning is speculative and mutable to perspective. but the interchange in the interim is the most productive aspect.

When it comes to studying Vedic knowledge I disagree that it is a matter of speculation and perspective. Although, at the same time I also understand that the Vedas accommodate various levels of realization. It is a matter between what can be known and what will be accepted. Everyone has to work at his/her own level. That constitutes the dynamics of the Vedic system. The “interchange in the interim”, in my opinion, is productive to the point wherein speculations can go no further as to fall short of discerning the positive presence – including specifics of name, form, eternal abode, paraphernalia, pastimes, etc. – of the Personality of Godhead.

 

[Jake]

great topic/conversation...not a religious person but am still fascinated about it and topics like this

 

[XianeX]

Forgive me if I am taking what you are saying out of context but, although we are of the Actual, we are covered by the Virtual, which constitutes the duality between self (soul) and surroundings (i.e.: the body). Through this discernment is the significance known as “self-realization”. Now, although God pervades both the Actual and Virtual, He never becomes entangled/covered in the Virtual as we do (i.e.: there is no difference between God’s Self and God’s Body). Self-realization, which amounts to God-realization, is (in its practical stage) the transmuting of the Virtual into the Actual by positive and direct association with the Actual Godhead.

Beautiful! very interesting, but I think that one could go broader than that assessment.

ignorant mind meaning one that doesn't comprehend the absolute? hmm. interesting. I believe that can apply both ways. ones that only comprehend the divine as solely negative presence and ones that only comprehend the divine as solely presence would be the ignorant ones.

Ignorance = Maya? hmmm. I like that equation. replace everywhere you put ignorance with polarized bias.

Nevertheless, mankind cannot empirically know all that is. Mankind lacks the facility. As long as we are limiting what we know to what we experience by the material senses, we lack in knowing what all is or what all isn’t. Even in a dynamic sense of evolution will I disagree that mankind can ever grow to empirically understand all. Some may have faith otherwise, but I do not. To me it is a waste of time in the same way seeking God is a waste of time to atheists.

This is why faith is funny. both scientists and theists at least 'figuratively' seek 'god' by their own measure, just on different paths. maybe the unification of the two would be more productive. this is why i disagree with your assessment: you gave how mankind can overcome its flaw. your knowledge of how to overcome a flaw (and knowledge of the flaw) is 'answering' how mankind can attain absolute knowledge.

a book on Krsna is one of the few religious books I have left (including gitas and upanishads).

In other words (pertaining to option 2), the negative presence of God is actually simultaneously the positive presence of God in another form or capacity, which constitutes what it means to be Absolute.

Exactly!

“interchange in the interim” I love that! (we may have to revisit that concept later). I'll give you another bit of information about me you may not have known. my record label from it's beginning (Registered in clerk's office of OKC in 1999) is named T.R.A.N.S.C.endental Music (called TM to be ironic).

::Renunciation::

Do you understand it and how it relates to self-realization? Do you see it's relationship and contrast to Buddhist enlightenment? I don't intend to sway your opinion or offend you, but you won't be able to attain it until you eliminate your association to Hindi-isms. You from what you said in this previous post says that you comprehend most of it, but I don't think you fully understand it (even from our convo i think i'm starting to get closer to it). To attain Nirvana/enlightenment you have to be able to do similar to buddha and renounce all that you have either in the present and the virtual to attain the Absolute. for instance the elimination of bias to attain all.

Nirvana eliminates titles associations and constraints to become one with the absolute.

Our conversation has revealed something else to me. That the need to explore the spiritual/virtual is just as important as exploring the secular/real. both is needed to facilitate our comprehension of the Absolute. To abandon one for either is limiting and ensnaring. both must be accepted and explored equally. 'how?' is the bigger question.


@ siccfucc - i'm not a religious person either but i try to study the important aspects of everything in life. I share your fascination.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Beautiful! very interesting, but I think that one could go broader than that assessment.

For example...?

ignorant mind meaning one that doesn't comprehend the absolute? hmm. interesting. I believe that can apply both ways. ones that only comprehend the divine as solely negative presence and ones that only comprehend the divine as solely presence would be the ignorant ones.

What I find interesting reading through your entire post is that you simultaneously promote the positive and negative presence of the Absolute - which constitutes the discernment between God's various capacities - as well as the Buddhist conception of attaining a homogenized oneness with the Absolute, which constitutes the negation of discernment of the variegatedness of God. This seems to be contradictory. Buddhists do not deal with God the transcendental Person. Their highest conception is to merge into the Absolute's existence, which is described as void. What I follow constitutes a oneness in relationship, which does not homogenize us from discernment between God, the Supreme Person and His all-pervasive quality.

This is why faith is funny. both scientists and theists at least 'figuratively' seek 'god' by their own measure, just on different paths. maybe the unification of the two would be more productive. this is why i disagree with your assessment: you gave how mankind can overcome its flaw. your knowledge of how to overcome a flaw (and knowledge of the flaw) is 'answering' how mankind can attain absolute knowledge.

Perfect knowledge of the Absolute is passed down from the Absolute. Otherwise there can be no other way. Modern scientists are very much attached to their flaw. I am just saying that by their method they cannot attain absolute knowledge.

a book on Krsna is one of the few religious books I have left (including gitas and upanishads).

If you are interested I can send you a copy of the Bhagavad-Gita: As It Is. Hit me up in PM.

“interchange in the interim” I love that! (we may have to revisit that concept later). I'll give you another bit of information about me you may not have known. my record label from it's beginning (Registered in clerk's office of OKC in 1999) is named T.R.A.N.S.C.endental Music (called TM to be ironic).

What does the acronym T.R.A.N.S.C. mean?

::Renunciation::

Do you understand it and how it relates to self-realization? Do you see it's relationship and contrast to Buddhist enlightenment? I don't intend to sway your opinion or offend you, but you won't be able to attain it until you eliminate your association to Hindi-isms. You from what you said in this previous post says that you comprehend most of it, but I don't think you fully understand it (even from our convo i think i'm starting to get closer to it). To attain Nirvana/enlightenment you have to be able to do similar to buddha and renounce all that you have either in the present and the virtual to attain the Absolute. for instance the elimination of bias to attain all.

Buddhist enlightenment/liberation does not encompass discernment through the positive and negative presence of the Absolute in It's various capacities.
The elimination of the bias to attain all, I agree is a necessary stage of enlightenment. The Vaisnava does not seek to attain all. Nor does he/she even seek liberation/enlightenment/nirvana. The advanced Vaisnava's only concern is rendering devotional service to the Supreme Person.
The Buddhist conception of renunciation I cannot agree with. They promote that we should renounce all, even God. Renouncing God is like renouncing renunciation. We must make a choice in our capacity to exist. Either we renounce the things that draw us away from God or we renounce God so as to indulge ourselves in the Maya that keeps us in ignorance. The Buddhist's want us to completely deny our capacity to exist altogether by saying that we can renounce all things pertaining to that capacity, i.e.: merging homogenously into the Absolute negates our capacity to exist; it is adharma.

Nirvana eliminates titles associations and constraints to become one with the absolute.

Nirvana means ending the process of materialistic life. It also constitutes implementing spiritualistic life. The Buddhist idea amounts to pure inaction of the individual soul. So they are, at least for some time, ending materialistic life, but they do not know how to implement spiritualistic life. This is very much like suicide. A man who does not know how to heal a disease becomes overwhelmed and kills himself. The Buddhist prescription is no different. They think the remedy for karma is to kill the individual. This is like chopping down a tree to obtain a single apple that seemed otherwise unreachable. It is overkill. Buddhism has no knowledge of the spiritual. Beyond the material they only know void. So at some point it will be necessary for them to sacrifice their conceptions in order to fill the void in their mind.

Our conversation has revealed something else to me. That the need to explore the spiritual/virtual is just as important as exploring the secular/real. both is needed to facilitate our comprehension of the Absolute. To abandon one for either is limiting and ensnaring. both must be accepted and explored equally. 'how?' is the bigger question.

I see that your “real” is my “virtual” and that my “real” is your “virtual”. When I say that we are “actual” but covered in the “virtual”, I am describing the spirit-soul taking shelter in a material body.
Knowledge purely for the goal of sense gratification is not needed for our comprehension of the absolute. Knowledge of the material world for the sake of spiritual advancement is necessary.

 

[XianeX]

I'm trying to frame a new perspective from all of this. Trying to distinctively merge the tangible and intangible i.e. give each there place but signify/find their oneness (A perspective that has never been brought to the board). you've been very useful. bare with me because I may venture into speculative territory.

Do your buddhist history. Buddhism is a derivitive of hinduism (i.e. what was buddha before buddha). It is even been noted that buddhist enlightenment is nirvana with extra features. Better stated it is the evolution of nirvanic teaching. What I find interesting is that Buddhist practice is in many ways embracing the same 'pole'. while Hindi/theist embrace the virtual as virtual reality the buddhist/atheist embraces the virtual as the void. both Identify the virtual as an escape from reality but bind with it differently. Both teach of the merits of the inclusivity but their participants tend to bias the virtual more than reality. My opinion is that the participants of both are aware of a 'middle-path' but chose a pole (the virtual pole) in unique fashions. The Masters of any philosophical or religious doctrine have one thing in common that distiguishes them from their followers. They draw power from both poles to substantiate one goal which is the ability to influence/control.

Influencing/controlling the universe (or 'god') in one fashion or another is a common theme in all religions.

Whether one identifies a relationship to the absolute or not 'it' exists. whether one finds influence/control over the absolute one 'already does' in a fragmented way.

This is what I mean by both paths can be useful together @ scientist and theist: both assert hypothesis both explore them. each need common ground for there discoveries. My sentiment is that theist theories provide no salvation in the present world only to the virtual world and afterlife. Theist provide a real system of morality or guidance into the virtual, Scientist provide a system of morailty or guidance into materializing virtual things into reality.

I have the Baghavad Gita: As it is. The T.R.A.N.S.C. acronym is purposefully 'virtual'

Nirvana and enlightenment have been skewed by bhakti (if i remember coreectly 'devotional' or religious) yoga (practice) and the associated teachings. many tend to believe that the attainment of 'all' is the attainment of all 'is' or all 'not'. it 'actually' is the attainment of the inclusivity of the two 'the unification of opposites'.

The truth of Nirvanic renunciation and Enlightenment is the same but their usages are different. renuncation IS the renounciation of 'god' to embrace ones 'inclusive oneness'. and you're correct renouncing renunciation is the goal (akin to Paul's "all things to all people"). The teachings of the middle-path is the path of moderation (another thing mentioned by paul & jesus (although not explicitly with jesus)). The the failure I believe in buddhist 'practice' is that participants bind to the middle-path as a pole. the middle path is a 'wave'. what many don't percieve is how to become the wave. the result is that they become like what is said in the bible (a boat being tossed by every wind of doctrine).

(I'm sure you notice by now how I've been incorporating various religions (specifically their principles) into this one discussion)

nirvana/enlightenment/salvation etcetera are all forms of the inclusive oneness. To attain 'it' one must reconcile the virtual with reality and navigate the two responsibly. The problem I've found with those that pursue enlightenment/salvation/nirvana is that they tend to deny existance for the virtual or vice versa. The paradox in buddhism is that they do "spiritual/religous" things all the while denying the existance thereof. The teachings explain it but the followers don't get it.

On the contrary, I find your reality and virtual reality 'one'. I don't see you as absolutely wrong or right. What I do see is that you have a position. study Tao study Nirvana study Salvation. All teach of a wave in one form or another. My opinion/understanding is that the "straight-path" is figurative and discribed in a misleading way. All paths are straight going 'forward and backwards' although the path itself may indeed be crooked i.e. Hinduism (if I'm not mistaken I believe it is mentioned in the Baghavad Gita) say all paths lead to the same destination.

Here to here, there to there ceribus paribus.

Knowledge of the material and spiritual world have there benefits but 'how' they benefit leads to the discrepencies.

 

[XianeX]

If heresy is still reading I wonder if he ever studied the bahir. DEEP shit. I shoulda kept that book too

 

[XianeX]

Bahir quotes: note "It is in it"

What then is the aspect of these container-elements in which Aleph is buried? The life in them simply swarms, uncontrolled, in a state of (says the verse) "Tohu and Bohu", which is a whirlpool of life, not limited to the planet earth, but cosmically including all that exists in the Universe. And, at "the face of its very self", in its very "deepness", that chaos it totally fecund, abundant, prolifically fertile. Such is the "darkness" referred to in the accepted translation. And such is the true meaning of the first part of the second verse concerning Eretz, the so-called earth: that in which Aleph is concealed.
Suares, Cipher of Genesis, p.81


2. Rabbi Berachiah said:
It is written (Genesis 1:2), "The earth was Chaos (Tohu) and Desolation (Bohu).
What is the meaning of the word "was" in this verse? This indicates that the Chaos existed previously [and already was].
What is Chaos (Tohu)? Something that confounds (Taha) people.
What is Desolation (Bohu)? It is something that has substance. This is the reason that it is called Bohu, that is, Bo Hu -- "it is in it."
Aryeh Kaplan, The Bahir, Weiser, 1989, section 2 p.1.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Do your buddhist history. Buddhism is a derivitive of hinduism (i.e. what was buddha before buddha). It is even been noted that buddhist enlightenment is nirvana with extra features. Better stated it is the evolution of nirvanic teaching. What I find interesting is that Buddhist practice is in many ways embracing the same 'pole'. while Hindi/theist embrace the virtual as virtual reality the buddhist/atheist embraces the virtual as the void. both Identify the virtual as an escape from reality but bind with it differently. Both teach of the merits of the inclusivity but their participants tend to bias the virtual more than reality. My opinion is that the participants of both are aware of a 'middle-path' but chose a pole (the virtual pole) in unique fashions. The Masters of any philosophical or religious doctrine have one thing in common that distiguishes them from their followers. They draw power from both poles to substantiate one goal which is the ability to influence/control.

Nirvana with extra features? What nirvana are you speaking of? Buddhism is Vedic philosophy minus God, minus the individual soul, and thus minus Bhakti. Where is the “extra” part? It is not evolution. It is Vedic philosophy made palatable for the atheist class.
To Vaisnavas there is no practical meaning to these “poles” you speak of. It is not that our focus is on escaping one reality or another. Both the material and spiritual realm are real. Constitutionally, the spirit-soul is resident of the spiritual manifestation. Nevertheless, mukti (liberation) is instantaneous. It is not that one dies and then becomes liberated. A pure Vaisnava is already liberated even while still residing in this material world. By Godly association, themselves and everything that they come in contact with is spiritualized. Only in the neophyte stages is there possibly the desire for escape/liberation. Also, there is no “middle path” in Vaisnavism. One either engages in activities influenced by the material modes of nature or one engages in activities influenced directly by God. In other words, one either acts in ignorance or one acts in knowledge of the soul.

Whether one identifies a relationship to the absolute or not 'it' exists. whether one finds influence/control over the absolute one 'already does' in a fragmented way.

Just because the relationship is there does not mean that we can excuse our ignorance. If you know that the relationship is there then you will engage your self in it.

This is what I mean by both paths can be useful together @ scientist and theist: both assert hypothesis both explore them. each need common ground for there discoveries. My sentiment is that theist theories provide no salvation in the present world only to the virtual world and afterlife. Theist provide a real system of morality or guidance into the virtual, Scientist provide a system of morailty or guidance into materializing virtual things into reality.

Salvation/liberation is there, now. It is not that one is liberated once one dies and goes to the spiritual world. Liberation is a matter of the constitutional activity of the soul. Modern science may materialize things but when those things are primarily meant for the advancement of sense gratification, they are detrimental to our returning to our constitutional, spiritual position.

I have the Baghavad Gita: As it is.

Have you read it?

Nirvana and enlightenment have been skewed by bhakti (if i remember coreectly 'devotional' or religious) yoga (practice) and the associated teachings. many tend to believe that the attainment of 'all' is the attainment of all 'is' or all 'not'. it 'actually' is the attainment of the inclusivity of the two 'the unification of opposites'.

Nonsense. Bhakti Yoga is the perfection of nirvana. The word yoga means "connection" and implies a connection with God. Bhakti constitutes the most confidential realization of God, the Supreme Personality. So first you find Nirvana, then you find Bhakti. Or you may go straight to Bhakti, and by doing so you will attain nirvana without separate endeavor. Either way will work. Bhakti fills the Buddhist void. What more can I say?

The truth of Nirvanic renunciation and Enlightenment is the same but their usages are different. renuncation IS the renounciation of 'god' to embrace ones 'inclusive oneness'. and you're correct renouncing renunciation is the goal (akin to Paul's "all things to all people"). The teachings of the middle-path is the path of moderation (another thing mentioned by paul & jesus (although not explicitly with jesus)). The the failure I believe in buddhist 'practice' is that participants bind to the middle-path as a pole. the middle path is a 'wave'. what many don't percieve is how to become the wave. the result is that they become like what is said in the bible (a boat being tossed by every wind of doctrine).

What you do not understand is that knowledge of the Supreme Person already contains knowledge of one's 'inclusive oneness'. It is not that we must get rid of God in order to have this conception. Knowledge of God has knowledge of inclusiveness, but knowledge of inclusiveness does not necessarily have knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Renouncing renunciation means that there is no renunciation involved. Thus there is no goal because there is no endeavor to begin with. So then, why did you bring up renunciation? What exactly, in your conception, is being renounced?

nirvana/enlightenment/salvation etcetera are all forms of the inclusive oneness. To attain 'it' one must reconcile the virtual with reality and navigate the two responsibly. The problem I've found with those that pursue enlightenment/salvation/nirvana is that they tend to deny existance for the virtual or vice versa. The paradox in buddhism is that they do "spiritual/religous" things all the while denying the existance thereof. The teachings explain it but the followers don't get it.

Yes, it is interesting that the Buddha taught these “spiritual/religious” processes yet He denied spiritual existence. This is easy to understand since it is explained in the Srimad Bhagavatam that the Buddha is an incarnation of God who came to deliver the atheists. He took Vedic principles and made them palatable for the non-believers. That was His purpose. God cannot fail.

On the contrary, I find your reality and virtual reality 'one'. I don't see you as absolutely wrong or right. What I do see is that you have a position. study Tao study Nirvana study Salvation. All teach of a wave in one form or another. My opinion/understanding is that the "straight-path" is figurative and discribed in a misleading way. All paths are straight going 'forward and backwards' although the path itself may indeed be crooked i.e. Hinduism (if I'm not mistaken I believe it is mentioned in the Baghavad Gita) say all paths lead to the same destination.

My position is not concerned with “virtual” and “real”. My position is concerned with acting in the knowledge of the soul and its relationship with God.

All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha. (Bg 4.11)

Is this what you’re talking about? This does not mean that everyone, no matter what they do or whom they worship, is heading directly toward God. It means that everyone is, directly or indirectly, seeking God. Just as in your example of how both the theists and the scientists are both looking for God. Also, if Krsna is here saying that no matter what we do we will return to Him then how come later He states:

Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet. (Bg 7.23)

We should not excuse the former verse to mean that we can do whatever we want and still all end up in the same place.

 

[XianeX]

http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/panel.html a lil suntin i picked up not to long ago.

@ bhagavad gita - yes i've read it. it's one of the few religious books that i still like.

Nonsense. Bhakti Yoga is the perfection of nirvana. The word yoga means "connection" and implies a connection with God. Bhakti constitutes the most confidential realization of God, the Supreme Personality. So first you find Nirvana, then you find Bhakti. Or you may go straight to Bhakti, and by doing so you will attain nirvana without separate endeavor. Either way will work. Bhakti fills the Buddhist void. What more can I say?

Very interesting! This reverts to what I mentioned earlier. Taking what you just said, the relationship already exists. One in Nirvana does devotion without effort and without pageantry. Beyond that, Bhakti as a themed practice is useless if all other practices are just as suitable. Once again religion (or how one performs Bhakti) is unecessary.

What you do not understand is that knowledge of the Supreme Person already contains knowledge of one's 'inclusive oneness'. It is not that we must get rid of God in order to have this conception. Knowledge of God has knowledge of inclusiveness, but knowledge of inclusiveness does not necessarily have knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Renouncing renunciation means that there is no renunciation involved. Thus there is no goal because there is no endeavor to begin with. So then, why did you bring up renunciation? What exactly, in your conception, is being renounced?

one must get rid of the personified god. (the mental/spiritual pacifier)

This is my problem with personifications. The Supreme Being is the personified version of the inclusive One. I agree knowledge of 'god' has knowledge of inclusiveness in it and you're further true that the knowledge of the inclusive One does not specify that one should have a knowledge of a Supreme personification. More truth with your statement about renunciation of renunciation (which brings to mind twice born). Correct the endeavor is artifice. Artifice used to capture minds/souls in order to (at least implied to) set them free. for one to truly renounce the attachments of the world one detaches from all biases/poles. That includes ones personified view of the Divine.

Yes, it is interesting that the Buddha taught these “spiritual/religious” processes yet He denied spiritual existence. This is easy to understand since it is explained in the Srimad Bhagavatam that the Buddha is an incarnation of God who came to deliver the atheists. He took Vedic principles and made them palatable for the non-believers. That was His purpose. God cannot fail.

Very interesting!! I'd amplify your statement to include that Buddha comprehended the trap and made use of it. For instance, He left the trap and became aware of it (became enlightened). He comprehended the trap and made it work for him.

All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha. (Bg 4.11)

Is this what you’re talking about? This does not mean that everyone, no matter what they do or whom they worship, is heading directly toward God. It means that everyone is, directly or indirectly, seeking God. Just as in your example of how both the theists and the scientists are both looking for God. Also, if Krsna is here saying that no matter what we do we will return to Him then how come later He states:

Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet. (Bg 7.23)

We should not excuse the former verse to mean that we can do whatever we want and still all end up in the same place.

Peep the depth in those scriptures. Remember that this is the supreme "personification" speaking, and that this is an "illustration" of divinity (parable formed out of the virtual to describe the divine). One could as easily say that worshiping the personification of Divine is as useful as worshipping the demigods. To substantiate this point, all those that worship deities believe that they are servicing the divine in most cases the Supreme being. If there is no indication that the Divine is wanting or in need of service what is the devotion worthy of? "you are in truth the truth you seek" have you ever heard that before? if I'm looking for what I can find without process what is the use of performing a process? if all things that people do effortlessly serve the Divine why make a pageant out of it

Obviously the Divine/'All Inclusive One' is not "really" living on some planet with other gods with their own respective planets that people get to go to. These are illustrations. Used in the hope that one can pierce the virtual veil. This is the whole purpose of meditation/thinking. there is something to figure out there is a conclusion to ask/pray for. I'll say again strip the baghavad and the upanishads of virtual reality and see it for what it is really saying. there wasn't a "real" human-esque person "talking" to arjuna (I think I remembered the name right). If you can seperate the desire to place literals where figuratives are you'll get my point.

(I wish I still had my rg veda. I never got to finish it.)

All theologies can be broken with discernment.

 

[Cheaptimes]

i think its what ever you want them to look like. Just like ones personal hell, you would have your personal demons. it could be a dog, your grandmother, that kid down the street that pee'd on youre head when you were 8 (sorry about that by the way)...

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Very interesting! This reverts to what I mentioned earlier. Taking what you just said, the relationship already exists. One in Nirvana does devotion without effort and without pageantry. Beyond that, Bhakti as a themed practice is useless if all other practices are just as suitable. Once again religion (or how one performs Bhakti) is unecessary.

Being without pageantry is ideal. I am not promoting show-bottle-ism. But you are ignoring the fact that so long as we exist we must act. Effort is there automatically. So either we focus our efforts in ignorance of that relationship or we focus them in knowledge of that relationship. One in nirvana is not exempt from activity. Therefore the performance of Bhakti is absolutely necessary. It is the practical application of our existing capacity in knowledge of our Divine relationship.

one must get rid of the personified god. (the mental/spiritual pacifier)

No. One mustn't.

This is my problem with personifications. The Supreme Being is the personified version of the inclusive One. I agree knowledge of 'god' has knowledge of inclusiveness in it and you're further true that the knowledge of the inclusive One does not specify that one should have a knowledge of a Supreme personification. More truth with your statement about renunciation of renunciation (which brings to mind twice born). Correct the endeavor is artifice. Artifice used to capture minds/souls in order to (at least implied to) set them free. for one to truly renounce the attachments of the world one detaches from all biases/poles. That includes ones personified view of the Divine.

No one is promoting the personification of one's view of the Divine. That is called concoction. One should not concoct God. So renouncing one's own concoction is necessary. Renouncing what is revealed about God the Person in Shastra is detrimental.

Peep the depth in those scriptures. Remember that this is the supreme "personification" speaking, and that this is an "illustration" of divinity (parable formed out of the virtual to describe the divine). One could as easily say that worshiping the personification of Divine is as useful as worshipping the demigods. To substantiate this point, all those that worship deities believe that they are servicing the divine in most cases the Supreme being. If there is no indication that the Divine is wanting or in need of service what is the devotion worthy of? "you are in truth the truth you seek" have you ever heard that before? if I'm looking for what I can find without process what is the use of performing a process? if all things that people do effortlessly serve the Divine why make a pageant out of it

The "Supreme Personification" also says:

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be. (Bg 9.11)

The depth is so literal it is amazing. There is no need for an impersonalist adulteration of the self-effulgent words of Krsna. Let us renounce from concocting a parable where one is not present.

It doesn’t matter what demigod worshippers believe. They can believe that they are serving the Divine, but they would be wrong. And worshipping and serving God is not meant as a benediction for God. That is preposterous. Your reasoning is assuming that such is the only plausible purpose for worship. Worship benefits the worshipper by direct association with God. All things that people do (with or without effort) are not necessarily serving the Divine in direct association. Therefore, what you call “making a pageant out of it” is actually action in knowledge of that relationship.

Obviously the Divine/'All Inclusive One' is not "really" living on some planet with other gods with their own respective planets that people get to go to. These are illustrations. Used in the hope that one can pierce the virtual veil. This is the whole purpose of meditation/thinking. there is something to figure out there is a conclusion to ask/pray for. I'll say again strip the baghavad and the upanishads of virtual reality and see it for what it is really saying. there wasn't a "real" human-esque person "talking" to arjuna (I think I remembered the name right). If you can seperate the desire to place literals where figuratives are you'll get my point.

If you can separate the desire to place figuratives where literals are you’ll get my point. The only virtual reality overlying the Gita and Upanishads is the one you are attempting to adulterate them with. There is what the texts actually say and then there is what you would like them to say. Sometimes renunciation constitutes giving up some things we like in order to obtain a greater benefit.

 

[XianeX]

Being without pageantry is ideal. I am not promoting show-bottle-ism. But you are ignoring the fact that so long as we exist we must act. Effort is there automatically. So either we focus our efforts in ignorance of that relationship or we focus them in knowledge of that relationship. One in nirvana is not exempt from activity. Therefore the performance of Bhakti is absolutely necessary. It is the practical application of our existing capacity in knowledge of our Divine relationship.

once again the "how" question arises. How we act is more important than acting for the sake thereof. If the relationship exists regardless wouldn't it would be more effective to direct those energies into something more productive in the secular realm?

No one is promoting the personification of one's view of the Divine. That is called concoction. One should not concoct God. So renouncing one's own concoction is necessary. Renouncing what is revealed about God the Person in Shastra is detrimental.

so you'd agree with me that one's perceptions and conceptions are ones concoction? which is something that one must detach from to attain nirvana? if so, you are agreeing with me that theology is voidable. arjunas story has been artificed/concocted into a book. Arjuna's vision/virtualization/personification of god becomes the gitas and cantos. would the unnamed Divine exist without the name Krsna? of course, but the usage of the name creates an interpetation of a divine 'form' or "Supreme personality".

The "Supreme Personification" also says:

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be. (Bg 9.11)

The depth is so literal it is amazing. There is no need for an impersonalist adulteration of the self-effulgent words of Krsna. Let us renounce from concocting a parable where one is not present.

It doesn’t matter what demigod worshippers believe. They can believe that they are serving the Divine, but they would be wrong. And worshipping and serving God is not meant as a benediction for God. That is preposterous. Your reasoning is assuming that such is the only plausible purpose for worship. Worship benefits the worshipper by direct association with God. All things that people do (with or without effort) are not necessarily serving the Divine in direct association. Therefore, what you call “making a pageant out of it” is actually action in knowledge of that relationship.

mmmm, interesting. If all is/of the One there is no literal descension only a permutation. The Divine can be found in all things. of course it is foolish for one to believe that something be it rock or human is void of Divinity.

Exactly! Worshipping benefits the worshipper just as masturbation gratifies the masturbator. fruitless except for sense gratification be it spiritual sense or physical sense. Once again, if all action is divine what is the point of 'pointing out' that a 'some specific actions' are divine-centric actions? redundant tautologies.

I'm like this. A book says what it says. what i assert as an interpretation is speculative. The difference in my position and the theist position is that I can reconcile them to secular application. I see it from your perspective and mine equally. I 'totally' understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. I respect the book and the common interpretation but I refuse to give up discernment (ascertainment of present/absent facts)(or the "power of god") to see beyond the common veil.

the difference between "i casted forth my hand and angelic voices emitted from my palm" and "I put my fingers on a synthisizer and the mechanics therewith produced sound" is a matter of taste and preferences. the virtual and literal inclusively says that both sentences are true. If you believe one and not the other 'great' do what works for you.

Here's a perfect biblical example "Truth is a two edged sword". If you don't believe that facts can cut (figuratively) in two directions you deny inclusiveness. Think with me. is 'truth' literally a two edged sword? NO. of course not, but you can create a two edged sword and call it truth you also can virtualize/concoct/speculate/fabricate truth into a sword. if one wishes to believe that deities allow people to travel to their planets so be it. but if one wishes to believe that planets are significant of something more allegorical one can't be denied that truth either.

Holding fast to a single perspective is not nirvana/enlightenment. being only able to comprehend and accept literal interpretation is not nirvana/enlightenment.

ultimately Nirvana/Enlightment/Salvation equate to intelligence.