I almost said "You're high again, arentcha", whereas in fact you are low, ye old cynic... arentcha? Condolences...
Dont worry pinky ........ if you just have a little patience in a few years you wont be green anymore , you wont still be wet behind the ears and some hairs will grow on your balls .
Just came to this... Can't stop roflmao'ing We should start charging, nothing pricey, for being comedians here in MDL. Many here laughing at our expense, without paying?
You cannot debate about GOD. "thinking* on the subject = meditation. I have posted it is simple, but it is not easy. Since debates are products of conceptual thinking and duality 'such debates' appear as the mentioned phrases, metaphors, parables. Their 'job' is to overcome the 'first' dualism. If not we go on debating about concepts of god. The 'issue' on topic of this thread is that assigning omniscience to god is already a product of conceptual mind, leaving the totality. Subject / object = conceptual mind. Direct experience = meditation "When I think about..." you will be stuck in conceptions. One does NOT know GOD by "I think therefore I am." Neither do you get aware of your being by thinking. Religion and science are products of conceptual mind. 'Being' is not. When you ask people:" Are you aware of your own being?" Then most say:" Yes of course. I know that I am" and they move away....they are stuck in an idea of being. (and by that actually stuck in and idea of GOD). There is only one moment when one can be aware of the own being, this moment. And it is no thought, no product of conceptual mind. And here we are again at the odd phrases. I AM = becoming aware of one's own awareness. I am aware of awareness. Presence."being awake". Look at something, and be aware of the process of awareness, very awake, present. Withdraw focus on the process of 'name-giving' on the perceived objects. And then...see what 'happens'... Knowing GOD requires no thought, no conception.
I usually refrain from posting 'recommendations' when it comes to religious content. There is a Sanskrit term which describes that conciousness 'Samadhi'. One might search at youtube for "Samadhi Film." It comes also in German language and others. Nicely made.
I hate to break it to you, @Yen - but there are libraries and libraries of treatises and discussions, debates etc. attempted in rational, verbose manner on this subject... "Not hitting the mark", the lot of them, especially "Scholastic" stuff (since they know where they must arrive with their conclusions before they get into the "research") but OK... I understand why you are saying that (very intoxicating, since everyone is instantly an "expert") but it is factually wrong to claim such a thing, sorry...
Autistic, having problems with language, social mores, elementary human niceties, which are based in at least minimal consideration etc.??? OK, now I know...
Yes sure are there experts on this = concept of GOD. I am not one of those. But I am not talking about concepts. Since every human (actually any form of appearance and the unmanifest) is an expression of this totality everyone has access to it. You, me, everyone. Or do you honestly think it's only for a bunch of elites? The chosen one? Knowing and reaching GOD by study, by intellectual efforts? It is not recognizable by the conceptual mind and hence no subject of any study. No conclusion / result of any research. It is as it is, was and will be.
Let's make it a little bit more precise: we are not talking "concepts" (Begriff), when you are talking about it - but "Vorstellung/Anschauung"...
@ GOD / religeous experience Two things . Direct experience ....... and description . In meditation we empty our minds . We go inside ourselves and turn everything off besides awareness . We reduce ourselves to that that watches . We become the view experiencing the view . We become part of it . One with it . Near death experiences can do the same / similar . With managed LSD experiences we can do the same . As if we step out of ourselves and experience an oceanic oneness with the universe .......... from a non personal view point = not seeing ourselves as the center ......... and just being / knowing / acepting that we are an insignificant part of the universe like a grain of sand . BUT ........ its still subjective = Its us seeing = Did we realy have that experience or did we imagine it ? Example ---- > I was meditating ........ in the dark ........ turning things off in my head ........ looking for the white light ......... and ' found it ' ......... but i didnt feel ' cosmic ' ......... so i opened my eyes and ......... someone had turned the light on .......... that question only arises if we didnt ' see ' it .......... if we did its undenyable ........ unforgetable ......... it shapes our lives ......... we become more loveing . More understanding ........... ego and fear mean nothing anymore . Dieing means nothing . But is it GOD ?
Indeed, a good question! Yen claimed "knowing" and that kinda impression certainly has nothing to do with knowing/knowledge...
Since both require a dual structure there is actually no difference. The 'path' to GOD is to include and to transcend, or whatever you would call an appropriate method to overcome duality. There is only one answer. No it isn't. The Germans say GOTT, others use another word...alone this fact points on the issue of language. You can also say 'Oneness, totality, the one spirit' Concepts are related to culture, history...and their religions.... We are using a notion of what is without name. The experience itself and the retrospective thoughts are not the same. The experience itself can only happen in the now. The question: But it is GOD? is not existent at GOD-experience. Only the conceptual mind would ask such a question. The phrases, metaphors, parables try to 'dissolve' that issues that comes with language. When you only would experience GOD within complete stillness as frequently taught, how would it ever become an object one could think about in whatever form.....conception, imagination, idea, notion...? Compare for instance the 'concept' of Neti Neti to Tat Tvam Asi The former is negation of any-thing until 'the one' is left. The latter a direct way..the insight (Jnana) leads to liberation (Moksha). The insight ...Atman=Brahman 'Being' is the same. How would you tell somebody what 'being' is? This would lead to the same issues. One knows being by being and not by creating concepts / thoughts about. "Oh, let me think about.....how can I be? What do I have to do to be? Do I need something to know in advance before I can be? Ah and I need to have a concept of being...and how can I know that it is really being???"..... I AM Get it? It requires nothing.
This 'wish' actually only comes up when there is still 'something' required for it. When being observed closely...one can see that. There is 'something' that still asks for a precondition for being itself. That's why there are all those 'odd' phrases, metaphors, parables. 'Observe the thinker' That's also the reason why there is meditation. As long as that 'something' is still required all is just a bored repetition The real odd 'thing' is. When there is 'stillness' and the mind stops creating concepts, the sense of being shines. And 'this' needs no name. You are 'dwelling' in this sense of being. And when you then start thinking again your thoughts are fresh and creative. And when you don't need thoughts anymore you return to stillness and so on. Many people think 'stillness' or meditation is a sort of torture to distort the rational mind. And then the body releases some happiness hormones and THIS is experienced as ananda (GOD-experience). Or they think it is made to kill the mind. No, it's just a proper use of mind. It rests and it's used on demand, and then it rests again.