Demons

[n9newunsixx5150]

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, because we are not "secular" entities.

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".

No. I do not agree that "Arjuna's story" is a mental concoction.

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.

No. There is a descension. We already went over this. It had to do with the discernment between God's all-pervasive capacity and the Supreme Person. Just because God is found in all things does not negate Him from Personally descending. Inclusive oneness.

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.

Or as mental speculation gratifies the mental speculator...
"Fruitless except" means that there is fruit. So either we accept the fruit of material suffering or we accept the fruit of our spiritual constitution.
All action is not divine because all action is not directly rendering service to God.

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.

Beside false ego, out of what necessity do you feel there is to reconcile the self-effulgent, Divine texts to secular application?
No, I'm sorry. You don't see it from my perspective. Where we disagree is where there is no reconciliation. Now, I understand your principles and incorporate them up to that point of disagreement. What this debate comes down to is whether we accept the Shastra as it is or if we interpret it according to our speculation. We each feel that our own way of looking at it is correct. You feel that all sense of personality pertaining to the Divine is not factual and I feel that it is. One thing you are assuming though is that my "interpretation" constitutes giving up discernment.

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.

Honestly, I really don't care one way or the other because this is your concoction.

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.

There is no possible literal interpretation of this. "Truth" is a principle. "Sword" is a tangible object. Therefore it is obviously meant to be figurative. This does not compare to Krsna explaining His transcendental abode or explaining how one who worships demigods will go to the planets of the demigods. There is nothing implying a figurative interpretation. Sure, you can screw one out if it gratifies you but it is unnecessary, mental masturbation.

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

Hovering on the plain of mental speculation is some artificial form of nirvana. The problem is not with me only being able to comprehend a literal interpretation, it is with you not being able to comprehend it. I can comprehend any interpretation you screw out of it. You have difficulty accepting what IT SAYS whereas I can very easily accept it for what it is as well as entertain myself in mental speculation, if I so desired. You cannot attest to the same because you cannot properly understand the direct interpretation. If you could you would have no problem accepting it.

 

[XianeX]

:: XianeX blows on the pinwheel ::

we aren't secular entities? so you're saying that we do not exist in material form and in this universe?

It IS Arjuna's story/vision. in other words it came from his own imagination/perspective. so you're saying that he wasn't 'instrumental' (artificial (using semantics again)) in the constitution (artifice) of the gita?

If the Divine is not REALLY a "person" the personification of descending is artifice/personification. Inclusive oneness virtual and literal

Suffering is all in ones perspective.

If all action is/of/from the Divine what isn't divine action?

Divine text has been artificed for the usage of mankind. It doesn't 'benefit' (which is a personific attribute to) the Divine, only material creation.
I don't feel you are giving up discernment completely. I believe that you are giving up the ability to use a tool for what ever purpose it can be used either in context or out. it is at your discretion how you view and use it, of course. but using it in only one fashion limits its applicability/power.

There is no possible literal interpretation of this. "Truth" is a principle. "Sword" is a tangible object. Therefore it is obviously meant to be figurative. This does not compare to Krsna explaining His transcendental abode or explaining how one who worships demigods will go to the planets of the demigods. There is nothing implying a figurative interpretation. Sure, you can screw one out if it gratifies you but it is unnecessary, mental masturbation.

literal interpretation of a man 'vision/explanation/personification' of the divine. "fiction facts" comes to mind.

Hovering on the plain of mental speculation is some artificial form of nirvana. The problem is not with me only being able to comprehend a literal interpretation, it is with you not being able to comprehend it. I can comprehend any interpretation you screw out of it. You have difficulty accepting what IT SAYS whereas I can very easily accept it for what it is as well as entertain myself in mental speculation, if I so desired. You cannot attest to the same because you cannot properly understand the direct interpretation. If you could you would have no problem accepting it.

artificial? possibly. I comprehend the literal interpretation. I also comprehend it's improbability in the natural (a;\lbeit not the virtual) realm. Because I do accept that facts are facts I DIRECTLY don't accept them as they are given (I say this while smiling about my candle of ganesha that I'm looking at). To accept whatever youre given as being healthy and best is foolish. it is akin to someone sprinkling poison on poopoo and saying that it is edible. yes I can eat it but is that prudent? It may be useful to a fly but not me. It may be ones view of sustanence but not for me. I discern that it has an application and that the application of it 'to me' is harmful.

same as all theology. just like a cigarette, It might be good right now but harm me in the long run. I may enjoy it now and hate injusting it later. I don't suggest that you should change your view. That is your perrogative. I don't commit that your view is completely wrong. I do submit that it is not for everyone unless everyone finds it useful to themselves. I do submit that theology is unecessary.

You know as well as I do peolpe find nirvana differently since it is subjective/mutable/virtual to the individual same as anything else in the nautral realm. no one shares the same point of view. but the denial that another view has 'some' equal validity because of their position is ridiculous.

I not constraining myself to my view. I'm indulging yours to broaden ours. disguard my words at your discernment. I will.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

we aren't secular entities? so you're saying that we do not exist in material form and in this universe?

I am saying that our real business is not in seeking material sense gratification because we are not material living entities. Actually, that is contradictory. Something is either material or it is a living entity. In other words, we are not the body. So we have nothing to do with bodily gratification. Our business pertains to knowledge of the transcendental soul.

It IS Arjuna's story/vision. in other words it came from his own imagination/perspective. so you're saying that he wasn't 'instrumental' (artificial (using semantics again)) in the constitution (artifice) of the gita?

You can’t be serious. Who or what told you that the Gita is Arjuna’s imagination? I am sure it conveniently fits into your philosophy to say that the people and events in the Gita are fictitious, but you have nothing to back that up beside your own disbelief.

If the Divine is not REALLY a "person" the personification of descending is artifice/personification. Inclusive oneness virtual and literal

Okay, then this is simple…
The Divine IS really, supremely a Person.

If all action is/of/from the Divine what isn't divine action?

Action is defined by consciousness. Two men can be engaged in the action of planting and tending a garden but one man may be doing it for his own sense gratification whereas the other man may be doing it and offering the flowers in devotion to God. Both men’s actions of planting and tending the garden are the same, but yet both men are not acting in the same capacity. All action may be from the Divine and thus all action may be thought of as divine, but spiritual consciousness is a factor from which can be deviated. In ignorance we seek to please the bodily senses, which have nothing to do with us, spirit-souls.

Divine text has been artificed for the usage of mankind. It doesn't 'benefit' (which is a personific attribute to) the Divine, only material creation.
I don't feel you are giving up discernment completely. I believe that you are giving up the ability to use a tool for what ever purpose it can be used either in context or out. it is at your discretion how you view and use it, of course. but using it in only one fashion limits its applicability/power.

The only tool you can possibly be speaking of is the tool of mental speculation. Yes, I gave that up. The discretion of using Divine text is this: either you regard it as it is, or you don’t regard it at all. Speculating on it is like selling your car for gas money. You aren’t getting anywhere.

literal interpretation of a man 'vision/explanation/personification' of the divine. "fiction facts" comes to mind.

Imagine what your speculation is actually worth. Then speculate on what your imagination is actually worth.
I’ll be over here with the literal, DIRECT interpretation as it is supposed to be understood according to the author, Srila Vyasadeva, his spiritual master, Sri Narada, and all the way down the disciple succession.

artificial? possibly. I comprehend the literal interpretation. I also comprehend it's improbability in the natural (a;\lbeit not the virtual) realm. Because I do accept that facts are facts I DIRECTLY don't accept them as they are given (I say this while smiling about my candle of ganesha that I'm looking at). To accept whatever youre given as being healthy and best is foolish. it is akin to someone sprinkling poison on poopoo and saying that it is edible. yes I can eat it but is that prudent? It may be useful to a fly but not me. It may be ones view of sustanence but not for me. I discern that it has an application and that the application of it 'to me' is harmful.

If Divine texts are poisonous poopoo or even just poopoo without poison, then why are you attempting to eat it up with your speculation? I don’t care how chocolatey your speculation is, you are still eating shit.
How is accepting the literatures as they are written and as they are supposed to be accepted according to the authority of the Parampara (disciple succession) likened to poison? That makes no sense. But I guess it sort of does make sense coming from a person who compares the Vedic Scripture to poopoo. So again I ask, why do you even persist in eating this poopoo at all?

same as all theology. just like a cigarette, It might be good right now but harm me in the long run. I may enjoy it now and hate injusting it later. I don't suggest that you should change your view. That is your perrogative. I don't commit that your view is completely wrong. I do submit that it is not for everyone unless everyone finds it useful to themselves. I do submit that theology is unecessary.

Perhaps now it is a poo-filled cigarette. Would that be good right now? In the long run I hope you see how ridiculous and impractical your speculation is. You do not accept the usefulness of the Vedas but yet you try to screw out your own interpretation nevertheless. This is like filling a cigarette with chocolate covered poo when neither smoking nor eating poo is your prerogative in the first place. My view parallels with the spiritual masters who came before me. It is actually useful to everyone. Unfortunately, not everyone will accept its usage. It is like when a doctor tells a diseased man that he cannot eat certain types of food. That may not be very “useful” to the man who likes to indulge himself in those things on a regular basis, but restricting his eatables is necessary for the healing process.

You know as well as I do peolpe find nirvana differently since it is subjective/mutable/virtual to the individual same as anything else in the nautral realm. no one shares the same point of view. but the denial that another view has 'some' equal validity because of their position is ridiculous.

Nirvana is like the feel good movie of the year. It is neat and you like experiencing it but there is life after nirvana. No, life after nirvana does not mean smoking a chocolatey poo filled cigarette. Nor does nirvana constitute the suicide of the individual soul. Let’s not pull a Kurt Cobain here. Whatever vehicle and whatever process you used to get to the theater is not what I am denying. I am denying that there isn’t active life after the movies. And if you want to be technical, the word nirvana constitutes those activities because it actually means the end of materialistic life. Having some great realization and feeling peace and tranquility is not the end of materialistic life unless it resolves into acting in knowledge of the transcendental soul and its relationship with the Absolute Supreme Person.

I not constraining myself to my view. I'm indulging yours to broaden ours. disguard my words at your discernment. I will.

How are you indulging mine when the whole time you have been denying it by calling it imagination, artifice, “fiction facts”, etc?

 

[XianeX]

to deny your nature to attain what you can attain without denying your nature is futile. but if you need to deny your nature to attain what you need so be it.

I don't discount the validities of the gita; i question its applicabilities.

'your' divine is 'supremely a person', that is your wish(virtualization) and design(artifice). so be it.
in this context your virtualization = your realization. so in this sense he is really a person (by design)(a point made by :h. but that does not substantiate that he exists in any other context.

actions happen regardless of a consciousness i.e. your heart beat the breeze of the wind.
if you find pleasure in pleasuring god then you are satisfying your senses. you've defeated that argument by contradiction. one doesn't do anything (study physiology) without the pursuit of self interest. short and long term investment comes to mind.

you've answered one of my questions. you've given up the ability to use discernment. in figurative words if you were told there was a man behind the mirror you wouldn't believe it because all you could see was your reflection.

let's analyze that allegory "all i see is me (text), my senses are useless because the fact remains that i see what is in front of me (pursuit of sensual gratification/validation is useless). you can tell me whatever you want but the mirror does not lie (only what i percieve in the text is correct)."

see the allegory, see the real meaning of what i'm trying to get across? my literal words may be literal, completely false, or speculative but the meaning behind it is more significant and pertinent to the scenario. of course you might not be so ingorant to discount a person behind a mirror. but that wasn't the point. the point was to illustrate something more significant which is to contextualize what youre saying about your beliefs in a figurative manner.

In other words 'I' can hear facts and get the inference and disregard the illustration. another pratice of discernment. Thus, I'll be over here assurping all the gratification that you don't want.

poison can be used to cure people (a point made by :h. cow chips can be used to fuel a fire. a child chews on whatever it is given. the adult knows whats good and not good to put in its mouth. in plain terms I don't eat vedic teachings as poopoo i use them to my advantage. I don't need them at all but they gratify my senses in whatever way that i wish. once again theology is useless with the caveat that it is useful if i see it fit for my use.

I endulge you because I enjoy our discourse. when i grow tired of it i'll cease to respond. I say what I think will make you respond. I eat what you say from the parts that interest me. I see and understand your position I REALLY do, but i don't find them applicable to me. in contrast i think that my perspective can be more useful for you. but that is my speculation. I don't wish for you to change how you think at all. if we saw everything the same way we wouldn't be speaking.

*speculating is actually more like selling the car because you believe the gas money is going to be worth more than the car. if i keep the car i'm getting no where but at least i can buy a bus pass.

*I disreagard theological literals because i see it as a useless illustration, but I keep my interpretation because that's something that 'is' useful.

* = another illustration of how to discern figuratives and literals.

Paradise in paradox. you'll get what i'm saying if you can comprehend the difference in real and realized?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I don't discount the validities of the gita; i question its applicabilities.

What does this mean? You do not believe that the Gita is valid as it is written. So what are these “validities” you speak of?

'your' divine is 'supremely a person', that is your wish(virtualization) and design(artifice). so be it.

It is your artifice that the Gita is Arjuna’s imagination. I am just accepting the Gita for what it is. If you can’t accept the Gita as it is then you should have no concern with it.

in this context your virtualization = your realization. so in this sense he is really a person (by design)(a point made by :h. but that does not substantiate that he exists in any other context.

I have virtualized nothing. I am simply going by the authority of the Vedas, wherein God is really the Supreme Person. I can speculate that God is really without form and personality and try to manufacture some reason as to why the Vedas speak of a Personality God but that would be my virtualization through pointless speculation. I can try to explain a Personal God off by saying that these personifications fall under Maya, as do the conditioned souls. But then when I come back to reason I can understand how ridiculous it is to think that the Supreme Absolute Truth becomes conditioned by Maya. It is far more dangerous for you to take shelter under the Vedas while simultaneously deviating from the parts that don’t suit your speculation than it is for you to just reject the Vedas altogether. In other words, it is better that you just stick to being Buddhist than to try and make sense out of the Vedas. That would actually be following Gautama’s example. He rejected the Vedas altogether. The Bhagavad-Gita is the song of the Supreme Personality. If you do not accept the Supreme Personality then how can you accept the song, especially when He explicitly states in the song Itself that He Himself is the source of all and that He is the most confidential of all knowledge? You cannot reasonably manufacture your impersonalist philosophy out of such statements. Therefore you either accept the texts for what they are or you reject them completely.

actions happen regardless of a consciousness i.e. your heart beat the breeze of the wind.

This is not what I am talking about. You are asking what difference does it make what we do if all action comes from the Divine. I am saying that the difference is in consciousness. Refer to my gardening example and then understand that one of those men is actually free from karma. Actions happen regardless, yes, but karma is not transcended regardless.

if you find pleasure in pleasuring god then you are satisfying your senses. you've defeated that argument by contradiction. one doesn't do anything (study physiology) without the pursuit of self interest. short and long term investment comes to mind.

That’s a wonderful observation but you are assuming that I am promoting complete refrain from sense gratification. Sense gratification as a by-product of Divine worship is natural. One cannot and should not artificially try to check all sense gratification. Not only is it impractical, it is impossible. If you understand that all things come from God then you understand that we are actually serving God in one of two ways: either indirectly by serving the material senses or directly by serving Him. The difference between the two is that when we serve God indirectly we suffer the results of our attachment to the material energy, which constitutes ignorance of the Supreme Absolute Truth, Himself. Serving God directly constitutes transcending karmic attachment. Both forms of worship/service result in some amount of sense gratification, but only one acknowledges, in a practical way, the relationship between the living entity and the Supreme Absolute Truth. This is just like what we were talking about before; that no matter what, we have a relationship with God. But just because that relationship is there regardless does not mean that we can do anything we like and expect to reside in our pure spiritual constitution. By our own power we fall. Only by God’s power do we ever get up.

you've answered one of my questions. you've given up the ability to use discernment. in figurative words if you were told there was a man behind the mirror you wouldn't believe it because all you could see was your reflection.

let's analyze that allegory "all i see is me (text), my senses are useless because the fact remains that i see what is in front of me (pursuit of sensual gratification/validation is useless). you can tell me whatever you want but the mirror does not lie (only what i percieve in the text is correct)."

see the allegory, see the real meaning of what i'm trying to get across? my literal words may be literal, completely false, or speculative but the meaning behind it is more significant and pertinent to the scenario. of course you might not be so ingorant to discount a person behind a mirror. but that wasn't the point. the point was to illustrate something more significant which is to contextualize what youre saying about your beliefs in a figurative manner.

Hands down. No contest. There is more to be perceived in the texts as they are written than there is to deny parts of the text as “artifice” or “imagination”. When your speculation has become such a crutch so as to reject the actual teachings in the Vedas, the whole thing is spoiled. You might as well cease dealing with them altogether. Otherwise you can reconsider your entire philosophy, if your ego dare.

 

[XianeX]

What does this mean? You do not believe that the Gita is valid as it is written. So what are these “validities” you speak of?

every point is a point i.e. a fact is a fact. how that fact is interpreted and/or used is a point of discrepency.

It is your artifice that the Gita is Arjuna’s imagination. I am just accepting the Gita for what it is. If you can’t accept the Gita as it is then you should have no concern with it.

I accept it how it is, but how I accept it is up to my own discretion/perspective. I accept that it is literally unrealistic. but figuratively/illustratively it is a brilliant masterpiece.

I have virtualized nothing. I am simply going by the authority of the Vedas, wherein God is really the Supreme Person. I can speculate that God is really without form and personality and try to manufacture some reason as to why the Vedas speak of a Personality God but that would be my virtualization through pointless speculation. I can try to explain a Personal God off by saying that these personifications fall under Maya, as do the conditioned souls. But then when I come back to reason I can understand how ridiculous it is to think that the Supreme Absolute Truth becomes conditioned by Maya. It is far more dangerous for you to take shelter under the Vedas while simultaneously deviating from the parts that don’t suit your speculation than it is for you to just reject the Vedas altogether. In other words, it is better that you just stick to being Buddhist than to try and make sense out of the Vedas. That would actually be following Gautama’s example. He rejected the Vedas altogether. The Bhagavad-Gita is the song of the Supreme Personality. If you do not accept the Supreme Personality then how can you accept the song, especially when He explicitly states in the song Itself that He Himself is the source of all and that He is the most confidential of all knowledge? You cannot reasonably manufacture your impersonalist philosophy out of such statements. Therefore you either accept the texts for what they are or you reject them completely.

Interesting. I don't take shelter in the vedas. I regard them as another tool. plain talk, if the divine is all things and is in all things why does not everything have a personality? if all things do not have a personality they can't be reconciled with the supreme person you call god. therefore to have personification at the source of divinity is illogical. Take for instance your 'he' references if the source of all things comes from an anatomical 'he' then what is 'his' counterpart? if creation at its source is a 'he' then 'he' is incomplete in creativity without a compatible opposite. personification is illogical foolishness.

I accept a text's inference when its reference is illogical. to reject texts wholely would be ignorant (ignore-ant) and irrational.

Actions happen regardless, yes, but karma is not transcended regardless.

What??? all things become transcended when the concept of transcending ceases. thus there is no need to transcend when there is nothing to transcend to or from. a 1:1 relationship has only 1 as the solution.

If you place yourself in karma then you may wish to transcend it but if you are devoid of karma you are already at one with transcendence.

That’s a wonderful observation but you are assuming that I am promoting complete refrain from sense gratification. Sense gratification as a by-product of Divine worship is natural. One cannot and should not artificially try to check all sense gratification. Not only is it impractical, it is impossible. If you understand that all things come from God then you understand that we are actually serving God in one of two ways: either indirectly by serving the material senses or directly by serving Him. The difference between the two is that when we serve God indirectly we suffer the results of our attachment to the material energy, which constitutes ignorance of the Supreme Absolute Truth, Himself. Serving God directly constitutes transcending karmic attachment. Both forms of worship/service result in some amount of sense gratification, but only one acknowledges, in a practical way, the relationship between the living entity and the Supreme Absolute Truth. This is just like what we were talking about before; that no matter what, we have a relationship with God. But just because that relationship is there regardless does not mean that we can do anything we like and expect to reside in our pure spiritual constitution. By our own power we fall. Only by God’s power do we ever get up.

If the Divine is 'all' inclusive which makes you as an individual/fraction/shard of the Divine then you are Divine, thus all your actions serve you as an incarnate aspect of the divine. it is foolish to distinguish holy(divine) from holy(divine) if all is holy(divine). i.e. good is good, there is no gooder or goodest. if all is divine distiguishing a 'more than common' divine attibute is redundancy and is erronous.

When one designates services to an idea that is personified as god they serve the idea not the divine. Divine knowledge negates trivial/fictive pageantries.

Simple question are you afraid to transcend your attachment to the adulterated illustration/personification of truth to embrace unadulterated truth? If there is no power other than the divine's power your assessment is flawed. What is the purpose of residing in static inspiration when the divine grants us unlimited dynamism?

Hands down. No contest. There is more to be perceived in the texts as they are written than there is to deny parts of the text as “artifice” or “imagination”. When your speculation has become such a crutch so as to reject the actual teachings in the Vedas, the whole thing is spoiled. You might as well cease dealing with them altogether. Otherwise you can reconsider your entire philosophy, if your ego dare.

You are "spiritually(an abstract word to describe a virtual state)" crippled. you crutch to a 'personality' (I believe) out of fear. if there is more to be percieved in the text than what is written "as they are written" then how would you attain the knowledge thereof without the ability of imagination and 'drawing out (artificing)' that information?

I doubt you've ever considered the WHY behind the written "why" that the text were written. It all depends on how you read a book.

You read the book to be enslaved to it. I read it to understand my freedom pre-posed to it. I am not hindi. I will say again that I am atheist. Not atheist by "belief" or title but because I don't believe in "gods" and theism. I believe in math and science. My philosophy is to parse the bullshit to find what's useful. in short, use logic. I will reconcile logic to logic by extrapolating it from foolishness in religious text if I desire. I see 'in' the texts "why" they were written. in other words, its "functional purpose" if you don't understand the functional purpose of your book both past and present you do not completely comprehend it. you only comprehend what you read for what it says. If that is the case you are a slave to its words and are not empowered by the depth of its conception.

 

[HERESY]

Let me pipe in for a second.


@Xianex you said:

I will say again that I am atheist. Not atheist by "belief" or title but because I don't believe in "gods" and theism.

With that being said I would not classify you as a STRONG ATHIEST (2-0-6 is the only STRONG ATHEIST I've encountered on this site). I would label you a WEAK ATHIEST who is borderline agnostic. Your disbelief in "gods" and theism (weak athiesm) is NOT the same as 2-0-6's stance that "god" does NOT exist.


Two things:

Non belief in god (weak athiesm)

Belief that god does not exist (strong athiesm)


I see 'in' the texts "why" they were written. in other words, its "functional purpose" if you don't understand the functional purpose of your book both past and present you do not completely comprehend it. you only comprehend what you read for what it says. If that is the case you are a slave to its words and are not empowered by the depth of its conception.


I believe this is something every "religious" or "spiritual" person should understand and grasp. Some scriptures/books/doctrines/dogmas were written and or created for different purposes. Some may have been created to combat the ideas that were present during it's creation (sort of like polythiesm and monotheism) while others were created to hand down culture and familiy secrets. Still others were probably made while the great debate of GOD vs SCIENCE was in infancy, while others were created to make a political statement and to lash out against the ruling class.


You should always ask yourself "who" was this book written for and "why" was this book written for them? If you can do this you'll have an EASIER time understanding what you read....at least thats how it was in my case.


be cool people.



:hgk:

 

[XianeX]

@:H: - Thanks folks. I had no clue of what you meant by Strong/Weak atheist. What I still don't understand is "Borderline Agnostic". Please define your interpretation of agnostic. I'm sure you don't mean the text book definition of "one that doesn't know".

I believe this is something every "religious" or "spiritual" person should understand and grasp. Some scriptures/books/doctrines/dogmas were written and or created for different purposes. Some may have been created to combat the ideas that were present during it's creation (sort of like polythiesm and monotheism) while others were created to hand down culture and familiy secrets. Still others were probably made while the great debate of GOD vs SCIENCE was in infancy, while others were created to make a political statement and to lash out against the ruling class.


You should always ask yourself "who" was this book written for and "why" was this book written for them? If you can do this you'll have an EASIER time understanding what you read....at least thats how it was in my case.

I TOTALLY AGREE! Very insightful folks!

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

every point is a point i.e. a fact is a fact. how that fact is interpreted and/or used is a point of discrepency.

The point where Krsna explains that He is the Supreme Goal and the most confidential of ALL knowledge is either a fact or it isn't. There is no other interpretation that will hold up; it says what it means. If you believe it is not a fact then the discrepancy is actually the fact that you are attempting to understand a literature by rejecting key parts of it.

I accept it how it is, but how I accept it is up to my own discretion/perspective. I accept that it is literally unrealistic. but figuratively/illustratively it is a brilliant masterpiece.

No. How it is is not up to your discretion/perspective. You cannot do both. You cannot say that you accept it as it is and say that you accept it according to your own discretion/perspective. Either you speculate what it means so that it will fit into your own philosophy, or you accept it as it is.

Interesting. I don't take shelter in the vedas. I regard them as another tool. plain talk, if the divine is all things and is in all things why does not everything have a personality? if all things do not have a personality they can't be reconciled with the supreme person you call god. therefore to have personification at the source of divinity is illogical. Take for instance your 'he' references if the source of all things comes from an anatomical 'he' then what is 'his' counterpart? if creation at its source is a 'he' then 'he' is incomplete in creativity without a compatible opposite. personification is illogical foolishness.

Bhagavan, Paramatma and Brahman. That is: the Supreme Person, His plenary expansion residing within every living entity and His impersonal effulgence. God is Supremely Bhagavan, but this does not mean that everything must have a personality. Stop trying to homogenize everything. God is both personal and impersonal but the personal feature is the highest, most confidential knowledge. If the Divine is both personal and impersonal then it is reconciled that all things do not have a personality. Therefore to have the Supreme Person at the center of divinity is logical.
Krsna is He and Radharani is She. Both are one and the same Krsna but Radharani is His internal pleasure potency. They are non-different from each other yet they remain distinct personalities. That is because "spiritual" does not mean homogenous, as many people speculate. The male and female principles are there. If it were possible for you to give up your impersonal conception of the Divine you would come to understand this perfectly and you would know that it is neither illogical nor foolish.

I accept a text's inference when its reference is illogical. to reject texts wholely would be ignorant (ignore-ant) and irrational.

The reference is not illogical.

What??? all things become transcended when the concept of transcending ceases. thus there is no need to transcend when there is nothing to transcend to or from. a 1:1 relationship has only 1 as the solution.

The concept of transcending has ceased for the male praying mantis who has his head devoured by the female during mating. I guess your philosophy is that ignorance is bliss. The fact that you ever have at any time sought knowledge is grounds for the necessity of transcending ignorance.

If you place yourself in karma then you may wish to transcend it but if you are devoid of karma you are already at one with transcendence.

One is devoid of karma once one lives one's relationship with Bhagavan. That is being one with transcendence. Being one by merging with the impersonal Brahman is temporary liberation by the means of individual suicide. Eventually one falls down from that position due to the desire to act in an individual capacity (dharma). The details of that are explained in the Shastra.

If the Divine is 'all' inclusive which makes you as an individual/fraction/shard of the Divine then you are Divine, thus all your actions serve you as an incarnate aspect of the divine. it is foolish to distinguish holy(divine) from holy(divine) if all is holy(divine). i.e. good is good, there is no gooder or goodest. if all is divine distiguishing a 'more than common' divine attibute is redundancy and is erronous.

Then we are all divine idiots who suffer the consequence of our actions due to ignorance. Actually, The DIVINE does not fall into ignorance. Apparently we do. Therefore there is a distinction between Visnu-Tattva and jiva-tattva (God and us). The foolishness is when speculative philosophers try and homogenize everything as you have attempted to do here. Sure, we are all part and parcel of God, thus making us divine by constitution, but we also (due to our minute quantity of that divine quality) are prone to fall down when we seek to be our own independent entities. We are not independent. We are eternally part and parcel of the Infallible Divine. If we try and be independent of that eternal relationship then we fall down by constitution.

When one designates services to an idea that is personified as god they serve the idea not the divine. Divine knowledge negates trivial/fictive pageantries.

Speculation.

Simple question are you afraid to transcend your attachment to the adulterated illustration/personification of truth to embrace unadulterated truth? If there is no power other than the divine's power your assessment is flawed. What is the purpose of residing in static inspiration when the divine grants us unlimited dynamism?

We can both similarly make presuppositions to back up our own positions. You regard "personification" as static and impersonalism as dynamic. Whereas I regard impersonalism as static and knowledge of the Supreme Person as eternally dynamic, especially since it constitutes the reciprocation of transcendental love. In impersonalism you come to the stage of merging homogenously with the Divine. There goes your dynamism, right out the window. There is nothing dynamic about suicide of the individual soul. But the Supreme Person is so inconceivably kind that He will grant your wish by allowing you to merge into His impersonal Brahman effulgence. So everyone is happy, at least as far as they think happiness can go.

You are "spiritually(an abstract word to describe a virtual state)" crippled. you crutch to a 'personality' (I believe) out of fear. if there is more to be percieved in the text than what is written "as they are written" then how would you attain the knowledge thereof without the ability of imagination and 'drawing out (artificing)' that information?

I was previously an impersonalist. I wasn't even consciously looking for a personalistic philosophy. It came before me and I was immediately compelled to study it in humility yet scrutinizingly as well. At no point was there any type of fear concerning whether I should attach myself to the personal or impersonal conception.
Your question assumes that what may be gained from impersonalist speculation cannot be gained from simply reading and understanding the texts as they are written. Nothing you have offered by your speculative process on the Shastra is anything that cannot be known by understanding the texts as they are. I can only expound on your philosophies and you can really only follow me until the point when we cross the line from impersonalism into personalism. That has been demonstrated over the duration of our entire exchange here.

I doubt you've ever considered the WHY behind the written "why" that the text were written. It all depends on how you read a book.

Your doubt will not induce the desire for me to speculate along side with you.

You read the book to be enslaved to it. I read it to understand my freedom pre-posed to it. I am not hindi. I will say again that I am atheist. Not atheist by "belief" or title but because I don't believe in "gods" and theism. I believe in math and science. My philosophy is to parse the bullshit to find what's useful. in short, use logic. I will reconcile logic to logic by extrapolating it from foolishness in religious text if I desire. I see 'in' the texts "why" they were written. in other words, its "functional purpose" if you don't understand the functional purpose of your book both past and present you do not completely comprehend it. you only comprehend what you read for what it says. If that is the case you are a slave to its words and are not empowered by the depth of its conception.

You do not know the functional purpose of the Bhagavad-Gita. You only speculate its purpose by dint of your relative sense of logic. You may read of Krsna as such a great, mystical personality and think that such a thing is illogical because you have no experience of such a person. So logic is confined to the flaw of your ignorant existence. That is your impediment from advancing in the transcendental sciences. You may think of me as a slave to the Shastra's words just as I may think of you as a slave to your own speculation. We can go forever in circles on this, unfortunately. What to do?

 

[XianeX]

::XianeX blows the pinwheel again::

you keep talkin in circles about the same stuff folks. I've repeated myself so many times now I'm starting to question if you are actually reading this stuff.

I've told you already that I get it from how its taught, how it's read, and how I see it. What you are saying about it is nothing new to me. there hasn't been anything that you've said yet that has been a surprise. I understand it in every way that it can be understood that's the difference in our positions i.e. you only understand it how it is taught.

Unfortunately 'I' 'can' do both. if 'you' are incapable, then in that you are lacking. Just like I have two Eyes to see things three dimensionally so do I have eyes in my imagination to see things from more than that one perspective. the third eye comes to mind (analyze that one).

personality at the center of a 'realized' divinity is not illogical but 'can be logicized (realized/virtualized). personality as the absolute source of true divinity is foolishness.

I won't give up my position it is useless to try. I do not see the absolute as a person and never will. I can pretend which is my discretion, but why? I know I can, I know that what is the benefits thereof but the bottom line is futility.

I truely believe you are not reading.

If I know myself as a personified aspect of the divine i HAVE transcended karma. LMFAO!!!
The Absolute is not a person but I am. therefore I can see(virtualize) myself as 'god' and be transcendent. furthermore since i am in and of the divine i am divinity thus i am literally a 'god' form, thus 'a' supreme being hence the plethora of gods in human society. I don't think you have read your book well.

the Divine moves in individual capacity thus all of Its constituency, thus all is in dharma. "consequence" is the nature of time, suffering is personal attribute.

We can both similarly make presuppositions to back up our own positions. You regard "personification" as static and impersonalism as dynamic. Whereas I regard impersonalism as static and knowledge of the Supreme Person as eternally dynamic, especially since it constitutes the reciprocation of transcendental love. In impersonalism you come to the stage of merging homogenously with the Divine. There goes your dynamism, right out the window. There is nothing dynamic about suicide of the individual soul. But the Supreme Person is so inconceivably kind that He will grant your wish by allowing you to merge into His impersonal Brahman effulgence. So everyone is happy, at least as far as they think happiness can go.

Once again, I will quote "it is in it". But you still don't get it.

Of all your reading of what I said you've missed every point even when you ascertain them. It is amazing. We speak about the same things, but you say that I am ignorant. I say there is nothing wrong with you believing the way you do but you think my thinking is wrong. Much of what I've said can be backed by the gitas and the upanishads but you refute them. it is amazing how the theist is trapped by his own book.

impersonalism (zero) personalism(one) once again neoplatonic inclusiveness of the One. As I've said before the pinwheel will spin into infinity. Paradox is the source of it all.

I continually take what you say and embrace it then turn it back at you and you see the reflection of it and say that it is not the same thing. ROFL

I honestly don't believe you know where I'm speculating or stating facts (but humorously you discount everything i say as speculation HILARIOUS). Just like with my sparring partner I will not hunt down the foundations of these facts I will just say that they are in your book.

Like I've said before theology is pointless. the arguments will go on forever accomplishing nothing because people refuse to accept Paradox (some think of it as a factor of the middle path). If you can accept Paradox you can be it and use it however you wish. Unfortunately if you bias a position of the paradox you will become slave to your bias. The Divine is a changing thing that is always the same due to virtualization and reality. both sides of the equation share with each other thus things infinitely slip into and out of existance.

Do the math all is in balance, the discrepency comes from queries regarding the balance i.e. who is advantaged in the equation. The ability for folk like my sparring partner and I to manipulate the pinwheel is because we comprehend that balance. Hence we are the only ones that catch/divert each others darts. You have yet to make a dart stick.

If you were to reread our entire conversation I have continually made you change positions 'in' your position. your own words have been turned around at you and you've contradicted your logic in several places (even with the quotes you've used from your book). It is amusing to see you agree with what I say and disagree with it in the next post.

What is most interesting about our conversation has been that you insistently use 'book' terminology and bias to try and trip me up. to me it is fascinating as if you are trying to make me explain your own book to you more than trying to proselytize me. what is the point? There hasn't been anything that you've said that I haven't responded to forthcomingly or knowledgable about, but you persistently try to use the book to beat a person who is not confined to it. akin to beating the wind with a stick.

How can you possibly think that you can defeat the argument of a person that knows the maneuvers and evasions of your attack??? judo and aikido comes to mind.

Do you wish it to spin more or do you wish it to cease. My biggest thrill out of the entire conversation has been the fact that my interjection has assurped the entire thread. that it has increased the thread past 100 posts and has been viewed over a thousand times. FASCINATING!!! The amount of useless attention gleaned from talking in circles. WONDERFUL!

Paradise in Paradox.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

you keep talkin in circles about the same stuff folks. I've repeated myself so many times now I'm starting to question if you are actually reading this stuff.

I can say the same about you.

I've told you already that I get it from how its taught, how it's read, and how I see it. What you are saying about it is nothing new to me. there hasn't been anything that you've said yet that has been a surprise. I understand it in every way that it can be understood that's the difference in our positions i.e. you only understand it how it is taught.

You may understand what I am saying in concept, but because you do not accept the Supreme Personality you cannot possibly understand Bhakti. There is nothing that your interpretation can offer that the texts do not already explain if one is to take them as they are written. Knowledge of Bhagavan includes knowledge of Brahman. Unfortunately for you, knowledge of Brahman does not necessarily include knowledge of Bhagavan. So although you say that you understand this “in every way it can be understood”, you apparently do not if you continually reject Bhagavan.

Unfortunately 'I' 'can' do both. if 'you' are incapable, then in that you are lacking. Just like I have two Eyes to see things three dimensionally so do I have eyes in my imagination to see things from more than that one perspective. the third eye comes to mind (analyze that one).

I don’t need to analyze anything. You immediately reveal the mode of speculation of which is either delineated or defeated in the Shastra independent of your interpretation.

personality at the center of a 'realized' divinity is not illogical but 'can be logicized (realized/virtualized). personality as the absolute source of true divinity is foolishness.

Personality as the absolute source of Divinity is as foolish as the conclusion of the Vedas, which say that the Supreme Personality is the absolute source of Divinity. The conclusion of the Vedas does not say that XianeX’s interpretation is the absolute source of Divinity. Such may not be illogical but can be logicized (realized/virtualized). Screw that nonsense. Such that I speak is AUTHORIZED by the texts themselves. Period. End of story.

I won't give up my position it is useless to try. I do not see the absolute as a person and never will. I can pretend which is my discretion, but why? I know I can, I know that what is the benefits thereof but the bottom line is futility.

That is very unfortunate. Perhaps in your next life…

If I know myself as a personified aspect of the divine i HAVE transcended karma. LMFAO!!!

Only if that knowledge is put to practical use.

The Absolute is not a person but I am. therefore I can see(virtualize) myself as 'god' and be transcendent. furthermore since i am in and of the divine i am divinity thus i am literally a 'god' form, thus 'a' supreme being hence the plethora of gods in human society. I don't think you have read your book well.

Right, and I can virtualize myself as the bulletproof monk and be Chow Yun Fat.
Your logic is begging for insults. Since you are in the Divine you are a supreme being among a plethora of others? Logic says there is thus no meaning to being “supreme”, whether in this case you are referring to your artificing the “supreme” position or if you are stating that multiple entities are supreme, your logic is fallacious, my rubber-stamped guru.

the Divine moves in individual capacity thus all of Its constituency, thus all is in dharma. "consequence" is the nature of time, suffering is personal attribute.

The Divine moves in an individual capacity because the Divine is Supremely an individual Person. All action is not dharma and what is perceived as inaction is not all adharma. Dharma means religious principles. There is a difference between religiousness and irreligiousness otherwise Krsna would not have said:

“Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious (dharmasya) practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion (adharmasya)--at that time I descend Myself.” (Bg. 4.7)

Reconsider before you begin with the nonsense that all action is divine and thus it matters not how one acts. Apparently it does matter. But of course I am sure you can screw out your own interpretation of this verse if you artifice yourself as God.

Of all your reading of what I said you've missed every point even when you ascertain them. It is amazing. We speak about the same things, but you say that I am ignorant. I say there is nothing wrong with you believing the way you do but you think my thinking is wrong. Much of what I've said can be backed by the gitas and the upanishads but you refute them. it is amazing how the theist is trapped by his own book.

I am not the one rejecting the Shastra. I am rejecting your partial rejection of it. I am saying that if you are going to reject it you might as well reject it in its entirety. That is for your benefit.
Interestingly enough, I am “trapped” by the same book that has defeated you. And all you had to do to avoid defeat was reject the texts entirely.

impersonalism (zero) personalism(one) once again neoplatonic inclusiveness of the One. As I've said before the pinwheel will spin into infinity. Paradox is the source of it all.

Yes, the pinwheel of speculation will spin on and on and on. So either one reconciles it by accepting the authority of Shastra or one makes statements like, “Paradox is the source of it all”.

I continually take what you say and embrace it then turn it back at you and you see the reflection of it and say that it is not the same thing. ROFL

Embracing it with your impersonal speculation distorts the reflection. I am only rejecting the distortion.

I honestly don't believe you know where I'm speculating or stating facts (but humorously you discount everything i say as speculation HILARIOUS). Just like with my sparring partner I will not hunt down the foundations of these facts I will just say that they are in your book.

“My book” has refuted your claims.

Like I've said before theology is pointless. the arguments will go on forever accomplishing nothing because people refuse to accept Paradox (some think of it as a factor of the middle path). If you can accept Paradox you can be it and use it however you wish. Unfortunately if you bias a position of the paradox you will become slave to your bias. The Divine is a changing thing that is always the same due to virtualization and reality. both sides of the equation share with each other thus things infinitely slip into and out of existance.

The Divine is independent of your virtualization/speculation. You regard this virtualization as one of two sides but the fact is that virtualization is the lack of (at least) a side and thus a lack of the whole in the same way that ignorance is not the opposite side to knowledge because it is actually the lack of knowledge.

Do the math all is in balance, the discrepency comes from queries regarding the balance i.e. who is advantaged in the equation. The ability for folk like my sparring partner and I to manipulate the pinwheel is because we comprehend that balance. Hence we are the only ones that catch/divert each others darts. You have yet to make a dart stick.

The virtualization/artifice of sticking darts is meaningless. What you are proposing is a mundane battle of wits.

If you were to reread our entire conversation I have continually made you change positions 'in' your position. your own words have been turned around at you and you've contradicted your logic in several places (even with the quotes you've used from your book). It is amusing to see you agree with what I say and disagree with it in the next post.

I am sure you can give example of this otherwise bare assertion. Can’t you?

What is most interesting about our conversation has been that you insistently use 'book' terminology and bias to try and trip me up. to me it is fascinating as if you are trying to make me explain your own book to you more than trying to proselytize me. what is the point? There hasn't been anything that you've said that I haven't responded to forthcomingly or knowledgable about, but you persistently try to use the book to beat a person who is not confined to it. akin to beating the wind with a stick.

You are either in the book or you are not. If you are not in the book then we can just agree to disagree and go our separate ways. In the beginning of this conversation I was merely suggesting things and trying to show how they are plausible and practical to active life (not to mention being backed up by Vedic Shastra). You do not accept those things. But when you try and use bits and pieces of Shastra to disprove other parts of Shastra you are fool number one.

How can you possibly think that you can defeat the argument of a person that knows the maneuvers and evasions of your attack??? judo and aikido comes to mind.

What is enlightening is that I need not defeat anything. The Shastra defeats your arguments. All I have to do is present It appropriately.

 

[XianeX]

:: XianeX stops blowing pinwheel ::

If you say so. You still try to bend my opinion to be ensared in your thought process. nope. I am not bound to your book therefore I am not obligated to believe or think as the acolyte.

Right, and I can virtualize myself as the bulletproof monk and be Chow Yun Fat.
Your logic is begging for insults. Since you are in the Divine you are a supreme being among a plethora of others? Logic says there is thus no meaning to being “supreme”, whether in this case you are referring to your artificing the “supreme” position or if you are stating that multiple entities are supreme, your logic is fallacious, my rubber-stamped guru.

Remember virtuals. They say that anything is possible while realities say that some things are more probable than others. all things can be logicized in the virtual realm. review my statements.

Reconsider before you begin with the nonsense that all action is divine and thus it matters not how one acts. Apparently it does matter. But of course I am sure you can screw out your own interpretation of this verse if you artifice yourself as God.

LOL. I do not believe that KRSNA is the Divine. I believe KRSNA is a divine personification. Therefore what one allows KRSNA to say is refutable. Once again I am not bound by that book. plain talk, your deity is not my Divinity

I am not the one rejecting the Shastra. I am rejecting your partial rejection of it. I am saying that if you are going to reject it you might as well reject it in its entirety. That is for your benefit.
Interestingly enough, I am “trapped” by the same book that has defeated you. And all you had to do to avoid defeat was reject the texts entirely.

show me a fault to balance the "benefit" you speak of. if there is no disadvantage there is no advantage. How can a book (rules) defeat me when I don't play its game (rules). I am not attached to the book so there is no defeat. just amusement. you can't lose in a game you don't play. common sense. Discernment allows all things to be useful to me in whatever capacity I wish. I reject what I will and accept what I will. You won't influence me otherwise.

The Divine is independent of your virtualization/speculation. You regard this virtualization as one of two sides but the fact is that virtualization is the lack of (at least) a side and thus a lack of the whole in the same way that ignorance is not the opposite side to knowledge because it is actually the lack of knowledge.

Huh?! what? That didn't make sense. clarify. Are you saying that what I virtualize or speculate doesn't exist in the realm of the divine? That my words are independent of the divine?

I am not bound to those books. It is very easy to contradict facts against other facts. not all facts are equal, adjacent, or substitutible. One can take a day reading the gitas and the upanishads and find allegories that 'at literal' conflict with other allegories. when literals conflict the only way they are reconciled is by extrapolating core logic.

If you believe the Shastra defeats me then I am pleased. I do not wish that you leave this conversation without feeling victorious. I am still entertained and I still respect your opinion.