We are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself.

We are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self -- the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever.

What do you think about this physiology?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    God enables human beings to pretend that He does not exist by endowing them with the power of free will and telic recursion, trusting that morality will restrain them. Unfortunately, most humans are morally disinhibited, sociopathic, and unwise.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      the parasitic elite inevitably oppose any mass awakening of humanity. It threatens to stop them from winning.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t entertain unfalsifiable beliefs

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's undeniable that God is outside of this realm, what do you mean?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >outside of this realm
        either he interacts with this realm or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, then this is practically indistinguishable from his non-existence

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          there is clearly an evidence that he had so many interactions on this realm

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            except with amputees

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            even the blind are having dreams about God, clearly you have no light inside of you

            typical soulless atheist

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            > soulless
            at least we agree on one thing

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            How can anything be soulless if god imbued man with a soul?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Incorrect. If He's outside this realm then that means God is not omnipresent.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >omnipresent
          you can't comprehend it by your mind capacity

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Doesn't disprove anything I've said.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >But this is a subtlety which takes the whole excitement out of the issue. At the mythic level, Hinduism asserts that all experience whatsoever is God’s, and that God is the one and only knower and seer. All multiplicity, all sensations of limited and separate individuality, of the duality of here and there, I and thou, are God’s dream or maya — a word that signifies not only illusion but also art and miraculous power. The universe is therefore conceived as God’s game (lila) of hide-and-seek with himself, such that all beings are simply the masks of the one divine Self (atman).*

    >This is an essentially dramatic view of the cosmos, contrasting sharply with the Hebrew and Christian view of the world as an artifact. In the former, the creature is the role or disguise of the Creator, but in the latter the creature is as distinct from the Creator as the table from the carpenter. But from the Christian standpoint the former view is quite inadmissible, quite shockingly blasphemous. (The israelites felt the same about the divine claims of Jesus.) For one of the major values of Christianity, as of all strictly theistic religions, is the eternal importance of differences. Christianity therefore insists vehemently on an absolutely essential difference between the Creator and the creature, between good and evil, and between one creature and another. It has often struck me that Christian preachers and apologists like to assume a nubbly or prickly attitude when discussing these matters, coming out in the clipped and crusty tone of their voices.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You betcha

      ?si=G3KT6n_4EhARx9RL

      these are not irreconcilable

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is a clear mystical reading possible of the Gospels in which Christ is teaching His disciples how to attain the same sonship with God He has through following His example and under His inspiration, or reaching a transcendental spiritual state referred to as the kingdom of heaven (which, as the Gospels explicitly state, is not located in ordinary time and space as an ordinary kingdom is).

      Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
      If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
      Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
      If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
      But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
      -John 10:34-38

      Some of this is even clearer in the Gnostic and apocryphal gospels, which hence makes it unsurprising that they were so heavily censored and attacked, as the Gnostics themselves were, even down to the Roman Catholic Church waging a genocidal crusade against a sect with a remnant of their beliefs in France, the Cathars, some 14 centuries later, called the Albigensian Crusade. It threatens the religio-political hierarchy established in the name of the religion for men’s temporal power, in a similar parallel to how the Sufism nested within Islam enjoyed an ambivalent relationship historically with the greater mainstream Islam, in some cases being respected as its true mystical core and in other cases regarded as heresy, madness, and blasphemy. With later Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart and Jakob Boehme, who seemed as if unconsciously inspired by Gnosticism, you can find the other half of this ambivalent relationship, where highly respected mystics of the tradition tread on the boundaries of this same Gnostic doctrine expelled from the church.

      Strong religious conditioning has made the ordinary Christian response to such beliefs usually be to claim it is “the height of blasphemy” “Satanic,” “Luciferian,” and so forth, in a strange recapitulation of the unconverted israelites’ response to Christ’s teachings.

      There is a beautiful little booklet of comparative religion between the Upanishads/Vedanta and the Bible, with a particular focus on Christ’s teachings in the Gospels and on the Book of Revelation, published by Sri Yukteswar Giri in 1894 and called “The Holy Science” (also published under the Sanskrit name “Kaivalya Darsanam”), which is worth reading if you want a more explicit, detailed work of comparative religion that takes on a perennialist view (under the influence of the Hindu teaching of the Sanātana Dharma, or Eternal Teaching beyond the limitation of ant individual culture, time, scripture, avatar, sage, prophet, or teacher, but found expressed sometimes through them).

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        good post

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Have you read Henri Corbin? His focus on Ismaili Shi'ism may interest you if not, but I assume you have.

        This is very close to my own interpretation of Christianity and oddly enough of Buddhism (I see Mahayana soteriology + Theravada openness as demanding synthesis rather than entailing an opposition). I also wonder what you think of Steiner's thoughts on the distinction between Jesus and the Christ essence.

        I wonder if you'd enjoy this quote, which you may have already seen:
        >Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.
        (Nietzsche)

        Do you relate any of your thoughts to something like tzimtzum, to create the necessary space in which man can strive for what Jesus opened the way onto? Steiner's poem reminds me of it:
        >The stars spoke once to man.
        >It is world destiny
        >That they are silent now.
        >To be aware of the silence
        >Can become pain for earthly man.
        >But in the deepening silence
        >There grows and ripens
        >What man speaks to the stars.

        Do you write or have you written anything on these topics? Can you recommend any places to look for thought more like yours? It's rare to see people articulating this position.. Do you have any thoughts on the Metaphysical Personalism of Borden Parker Bowne, George Holmes Howison, and Seth Pringle-Pattison? Or on Pudgalavada Buddhism?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          > Have you read Henri Corbin?
          I’ve not, but I’ve had him recommended a few times, and his interests seem to align with mine, so I should indeed get into him. Thanks for the rec. Nietzsche also certainly is a very powerful thinker, whether you love him or hate him, and I find it odd yet compelling how, when you read his full works, you sometimes find him veering into a sort of mysticism, in contrast to his public image as a firm antitheist and even his own (hyperbolic, I’m sure) claims that he was one since childhood and no thought of God’s existence ever entered into him, as he was too “healthy” for that (I believe he claims that in Ecce Homo, a book which makes you laugh from how bombastic it is). Poor Nietzsche!

          That is a beautiful little poem by Steiner, and I imagine even better in the original German. It vaguely reminds me of some (translated) Hölderlin and Rilke.

          From what little I know of the Kabbalah, tzimtzum is a Hebrew word for the “contraction” of the Infinite in the creation of the universe, creating a void God could subsequently emanate Himself into. It is a compelling idea. There is, interestingly. a similar Hadith which Sufis have historically made much of. It’s pretty similar to some of these ideas. It goes like this:

          “I was a hidden treasure; I loved to be known. Hence I created the world so that I would be known.”

          It’s all essentially a similar idea to the Hindu concept of Lila (the Divine Play of God), sometimes also Lila Shakti, or of another analogous Being like Brahman. Interestingly, an exactly analogous phrase was created by Medieval Christian mystics in the Latin language, of ludus amoris, lit. “the game of love” and referring to the divine game of God in hiding and revealing Himself.

          I’m not immediately familiar with those academic philosophers and their thoughts. If you want a recommendation, Idries Shah’s corpus is pretty interesting. It’s a big corpus, so I’d recommend “The Sufis” and “The Way of the Sufi” as some of the most comprehensive and powerful intros, but I’d also say not to underestimate the profundity of his collections of those quaint Sufi “folk tales” (teaching stories) that also make up a large bulk of his bibliography.

          I also don’t know much about Pudgalavada Buddhism off the top of my head, but, from looking online for a brief summary of it, can see it has similar thoughts as show up (implicitly or explicitly) in some Mahayana Buddhist sutras and schools of thought like Ch’an and Zen with phrases like “the self-nature,” “the Buddha-nature,” “the one Buddha-Mind,” “your true face” etc., or the Dharmakaya and Tathagatagarbha.

          "Have you seen him who has taken his desire to be his god and whom Allah has led astray knowingly, set a seal upon his hearing and heart, and put a blindfold on his sight? So who will guide him after Allah [has consigned him to error]? Will you not then take admonition?"

          [...]
          [...]
          You might find interest in islam. Specifically the Shia and the Sufis (both Shia and Sunni). The Shia (and the Sufis) take God as The Ultimate existence. A popular slogan said by muslims is انا لله واليه راجعون We Belong to God and to Him We Return. Mulla Sadra, probably the most respect and influential explicit Shia philosopher (Ibn Sina Avicenna was not explicit) in his magnum opus Al-Asfar Al-Arba'a (The Four Asfar) talks about four journeys to God. In The Elixir of the Gnostics, which is shorter and translated to english, he talks about the souls origins from God, and its disengagement from the material world and towards a transcendental essence as it finally reunites with God.

          "Do not call those who were slain in Allah’s way ‘dead.’ No, they are living, but you are not aware.
          We will surely test you with a measure of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth, lives, and fruits; and give good news to the patient
          —those who, when an affliction visits them, say, ‘Indeed we belong to Allah and to Him do we indeed return.’
          It is they who receive the blessings of their Lord and [His] mercy, and it is they who are the [rightly] guided."

          > You might find interest in islam. >Specifically the Shia and the Sufis
          Thank you. In fact, it was getting interested in Sufism years ago which brought me to some of these ideas. I will keep those recommendations in mind!

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          > I also wonder what you think of Steiner's thoughts on the distinction between Jesus and the Christ essence.
          Also forgot to respond to this in this post of mine

          > Have you read Henri Corbin?
          I’ve not, but I’ve had him recommended a few times, and his interests seem to align with mine, so I should indeed get into him. Thanks for the rec. Nietzsche also certainly is a very powerful thinker, whether you love him or hate him, and I find it odd yet compelling how, when you read his full works, you sometimes find him veering into a sort of mysticism, in contrast to his public image as a firm antitheist and even his own (hyperbolic, I’m sure) claims that he was one since childhood and no thought of God’s existence ever entered into him, as he was too “healthy” for that (I believe he claims that in Ecce Homo, a book which makes you laugh from how bombastic it is). Poor Nietzsche!

          That is a beautiful little poem by Steiner, and I imagine even better in the original German. It vaguely reminds me of some (translated) Hölderlin and Rilke.

          From what little I know of the Kabbalah, tzimtzum is a Hebrew word for the “contraction” of the Infinite in the creation of the universe, creating a void God could subsequently emanate Himself into. It is a compelling idea. There is, interestingly. a similar Hadith which Sufis have historically made much of. It’s pretty similar to some of these ideas. It goes like this:

          “I was a hidden treasure; I loved to be known. Hence I created the world so that I would be known.”

          It’s all essentially a similar idea to the Hindu concept of Lila (the Divine Play of God), sometimes also Lila Shakti, or of another analogous Being like Brahman. Interestingly, an exactly analogous phrase was created by Medieval Christian mystics in the Latin language, of ludus amoris, lit. “the game of love” and referring to the divine game of God in hiding and revealing Himself.

          I’m not immediately familiar with those academic philosophers and their thoughts. If you want a recommendation, Idries Shah’s corpus is pretty interesting. It’s a big corpus, so I’d recommend “The Sufis” and “The Way of the Sufi” as some of the most comprehensive and powerful intros, but I’d also say not to underestimate the profundity of his collections of those quaint Sufi “folk tales” (teaching stories) that also make up a large bulk of his bibliography.

          I also don’t know much about Pudgalavada Buddhism off the top of my head, but, from looking online for a brief summary of it, can see it has similar thoughts as show up (implicitly or explicitly) in some Mahayana Buddhist sutras and schools of thought like Ch’an and Zen with phrases like “the self-nature,” “the Buddha-nature,” “the one Buddha-Mind,” “your true face” etc., or the Dharmakaya and Tathagatagarbha.

          [...]
          > You might find interest in islam. >Specifically the Shia and the Sufis
          Thank you. In fact, it was getting interested in Sufism years ago which brought me to some of these ideas. I will keep those recommendations in mind!

          . I don’t directly know enough of Steiner to speak on this yet, but he’s also on my backlog. I read a wonderful book, though, by a disciple of his influenced strongly by Steiner’s thought and Anthroposophy, Valentin Tomberg, “Anthroposophical Studies of the Apocalypse of St. John.” If it’s anything like Steiner’s thought, I’d be inclined to respect it as a compelling idea and reading of the Scriptures. After all, no one less than St. Paul speaks of a newfound spiritual resurrection in which it is “not I, but Christ in me” who now lives, speaks, and acts through him (Galatians 2:20).

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      "Have you seen him who has taken his desire to be his god and whom Allah has led astray knowingly, set a seal upon his hearing and heart, and put a blindfold on his sight? So who will guide him after Allah [has consigned him to error]? Will you not then take admonition?"

      There is a clear mystical reading possible of the Gospels in which Christ is teaching His disciples how to attain the same sonship with God He has through following His example and under His inspiration, or reaching a transcendental spiritual state referred to as the kingdom of heaven (which, as the Gospels explicitly state, is not located in ordinary time and space as an ordinary kingdom is).

      Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
      If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
      Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
      If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
      But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
      -John 10:34-38

      Some of this is even clearer in the Gnostic and apocryphal gospels, which hence makes it unsurprising that they were so heavily censored and attacked, as the Gnostics themselves were, even down to the Roman Catholic Church waging a genocidal crusade against a sect with a remnant of their beliefs in France, the Cathars, some 14 centuries later, called the Albigensian Crusade. It threatens the religio-political hierarchy established in the name of the religion for men’s temporal power, in a similar parallel to how the Sufism nested within Islam enjoyed an ambivalent relationship historically with the greater mainstream Islam, in some cases being respected as its true mystical core and in other cases regarded as heresy, madness, and blasphemy. With later Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart and Jakob Boehme, who seemed as if unconsciously inspired by Gnosticism, you can find the other half of this ambivalent relationship, where highly respected mystics of the tradition tread on the boundaries of this same Gnostic doctrine expelled from the church.

      Strong religious conditioning has made the ordinary Christian response to such beliefs usually be to claim it is “the height of blasphemy” “Satanic,” “Luciferian,” and so forth, in a strange recapitulation of the unconverted israelites’ response to Christ’s teachings.

      There is a beautiful little booklet of comparative religion between the Upanishads/Vedanta and the Bible, with a particular focus on Christ’s teachings in the Gospels and on the Book of Revelation, published by Sri Yukteswar Giri in 1894 and called “The Holy Science” (also published under the Sanskrit name “Kaivalya Darsanam”), which is worth reading if you want a more explicit, detailed work of comparative religion that takes on a perennialist view (under the influence of the Hindu teaching of the Sanātana Dharma, or Eternal Teaching beyond the limitation of ant individual culture, time, scripture, avatar, sage, prophet, or teacher, but found expressed sometimes through them).

      Have you read Henri Corbin? His focus on Ismaili Shi'ism may interest you if not, but I assume you have.

      This is very close to my own interpretation of Christianity and oddly enough of Buddhism (I see Mahayana soteriology + Theravada openness as demanding synthesis rather than entailing an opposition). I also wonder what you think of Steiner's thoughts on the distinction between Jesus and the Christ essence.

      I wonder if you'd enjoy this quote, which you may have already seen:
      >Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.
      (Nietzsche)

      Do you relate any of your thoughts to something like tzimtzum, to create the necessary space in which man can strive for what Jesus opened the way onto? Steiner's poem reminds me of it:
      >The stars spoke once to man.
      >It is world destiny
      >That they are silent now.
      >To be aware of the silence
      >Can become pain for earthly man.
      >But in the deepening silence
      >There grows and ripens
      >What man speaks to the stars.

      Do you write or have you written anything on these topics? Can you recommend any places to look for thought more like yours? It's rare to see people articulating this position.. Do you have any thoughts on the Metaphysical Personalism of Borden Parker Bowne, George Holmes Howison, and Seth Pringle-Pattison? Or on Pudgalavada Buddhism?

      You might find interest in islam. Specifically the Shia and the Sufis (both Shia and Sunni). The Shia (and the Sufis) take God as The Ultimate existence. A popular slogan said by muslims is انا لله واليه راجعون We Belong to God and to Him We Return. Mulla Sadra, probably the most respect and influential explicit Shia philosopher (Ibn Sina Avicenna was not explicit) in his magnum opus Al-Asfar Al-Arba'a (The Four Asfar) talks about four journeys to God. In The Elixir of the Gnostics, which is shorter and translated to english, he talks about the souls origins from God, and its disengagement from the material world and towards a transcendental essence as it finally reunites with God.

      "Do not call those who were slain in Allah’s way ‘dead.’ No, they are living, but you are not aware.
      We will surely test you with a measure of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth, lives, and fruits; and give good news to the patient
      —those who, when an affliction visits them, say, ‘Indeed we belong to Allah and to Him do we indeed return.’
      It is they who receive the blessings of their Lord and [His] mercy, and it is they who are the [rightly] guided."

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      what a gay. How is it a "dramatic" view of the cosmos? it's the opposite of drama. There's only the navel gazing narcissism of an essentially self-absorbed, isolated deity tricking itself. It's a ridiculous, pathetic farce.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >We are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self -- the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever.
    >What do you think about this physiology?
    Then bow to me. Because I Am your LORD.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is only one LORD Mortal

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who is that?

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=29kVBlAUhWE

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Stop vaping the DMT and get off of reddit, you need to do some serious grounding and reality checks pronto. You are only interpreting an experience with the ego you thought had died.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think you should read Jacob Boehme if you haven't already, he had this idea too

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Jacob Boehme

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes Jacob Boehme

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          what do you think about him?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think he's very original but very difficult to read

            My grasp on his ideas is pretty feeble but I'm enjoying learning more about them

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

    >Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

    >All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

    >But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called by His grace, to revealHis Son in me.

    >One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every dayalike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind

    Golgotha is Aramaic for skull, Christ was crucified within the skull of man. The miraculous virgin birth is when you conceive of a thought (unaided by another). We are told to become imitators of God and that we shall do greater works than that of Jesus Christ.

    >Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

    Christ uses kingdom of God and kingdom of Heaven interchangeably.

    >But whenever you pray, go into your innermost chamber and be alone with Father God, praying to him in secret.

    >And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

    >For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

    >Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

    >I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're the type of moron who'd read about the serpent bloodline with the divine right to rule and confuse his solipsism with that being a real possibility.

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I heard if you kys you finally see yourself (God)!

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can already feel Him

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  15. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    That’s just Gnosticism. It’s unhealthy as it results in worshipping yourself and not holding yourself accountable. Don’t go that route.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm Christian and i worship God, that thread was just for open thinking

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not necessarily, as since God dwells within everyone. The goal is to assume the state of Christ, every moment you can quite literally die and bury your old self. You see Christ within everyone, and love thy neighbor as you love yourself. And every act which anyone commits can be forgiven, as it's just a temporary state of consciousness. Condemn the act itself, and not the actor who performed it.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Since the same Spirit dwells within everyone, you love everyone, as Christ dwells within them. It's pure and Divine Love

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >There is one body and one Spirit, just as there is one hope to which God has called you. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; there is one God and Father of all, who is Lord of all, works through all, and is in all.

  16. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    1. In the indivisible Satchidananda whose nature is only unconditioned, and which is also the non-dual state, how is worship prescribed?

    2. Where is the invocation (avahana) of the Fullness, and the seat (asana) of the All-supporting How is there washing of the feet (padya), offering of water (arghya) and sipping (achamana) for the limpid and Pure One?

    3. How is there bathing (snana) for the Immaculate, and clothing (vasa) for the womb of the universe? How is there a sacred thread (upavita) for Him who is without lineage and caste?

    4. How is there sandal paste (gandha) for the Unattached, and flowers (pushpa) for the Odorless? What is the israeliteel (bhusha) of the Undifferentiated? What ornament (alamkara) for the Formless?

    5. What use of incense (dhupa) for the Spotless, or of lamps (dipa) for the Witness of everything? What is here the food-offering (naivedyam) for Him who is satiated only with His own bliss?

    6-7. How does one prepare betel (tambula) for the Rejoicer of the universe? He whose nature is self-luminous consciousness, that Illuminator of the sun and other stars, who is sung by `shrutis', how is there for Him the light- waving ceremony (nirajana) What circumambulation (pradakshina) for the Infinite? What prostration (pranama) for the non-dual Reality?

    8. For Him who is unknowable by the words of the Vedas, what praise (stotra) is prescribed? How is there the ceremony of dismissal (udavasana) for Him who is established inside and outside?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Guru said:

      9. I worship the symbol of the Self (atmalinga) shining like a israeliteel and situated in the heart-lotus within the city of illusion, with the ablutions (abhisheka) of the unsullied mind from the river of faith, always, with the flowers of samadhi, for the sake of non-rebirth.

      10. `I am the One, the Ultimate'. Thus one should invoke (avahayet) Lord Siva. Then one should prepare the seat (asana) , that is thinking of the self-established Self.

      11. `I have no contact with the dust of virtue and sin.' Thus should the wise one offer washing of the feet (padya), that is such knowledge destroying all sins.

      12. One should pour forth tha handful of water which is the root- ignorance held from time without beginning. This is verily the water- offering (arghya) of the symbol of the Self.

      13. `Indra and other beings drink only the tiny fraction of a drop from the waves of the bliss ocean of Brahman.' That meditation is considered as the sipping (achamana).

      14. `All the worlds are bathed verily by the water of Brahma's bliss which is indivisible.' That meditation is the ablution (abhishechana) of the Self.

      15. `I am the light of Consciousness without any veil'. This thinking is the holy cloth (sad vastram) of the symbol of the Self. Thus should think the wise one.

      16. `I am the thread of the garland of all the worlds which are in the nature of the three gunas'. This conviction is verily considered here as the highest sacred thread (upavita).

      17. `This manifold world mingled with numerous impressions is supported by me, and by no other'. This meditation is the sandal paste (chandana) of the Self.

      18. With the sesamum-flowers in the form of renunciation of the activity of sattva, rajas, and tamas, one should always worship (yajet) the symbol of the Self, for attaning liberation while living.

      19. With the non-dual Bel leaves devoid of the triple distinction between the Lord, the guru, and the Self, one should worship (yajet) Lord Siva that is symbol of the Self.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        20. One should think of His incense (dhupa) as the giving up of all impressions. The wise one should show the lamp (dipa) that is the realization of the luminous Self.

        21. The food-offering (naivedyam) of the symbol of the Self is the big rice pudding known as the egg-universe of Brahma. Do drink the sweet nectar of bliss that is the delightful beverage (upasechana) of Mrityu or Lord Siva.

        22. One should remember that cleansing the remnants of ignorance with the water of knowledge, is the washing of hands (hasta prakshalana) of the pure symbol of the Self.

        23. Giving up the use of the objects of passion, this is the chewing of betel (tambula) of Lord Siva, the supreme Self who is devoid of the attributes beginning with passion.

        24. Knowledge on one's own nature of Brahman, most shining, and burning to destruction the darkness of ignorance, that is here the waving of lights (nirajana) of the Self.

        25. The vision of the manifold Brahman is the ornament (alamkritam) with garlands. Then one should remember the vision of the all- blissful nature of the Self, as the handful of flowers. (pushpanjali).

        26. `Thousands of Brahma's mundane eggs revolve in me, the Lord, whose nature is immovable and steady like a heap.' This meditation is the circumambulation (pradakshina).

        27. `I am verily worthy of a universal salutation. Apart from my true Self, none is so worthy of salutation.' This reflection is verily here the salutation (vandana) of the symbol of one's own Self.

        28. The idea of the unreality of duties is termed as the saintly act (sat kriya) of the Self. Thinking of the Self as being beyond names and forms, this is the praise of his name (nama kirtana).

        29. The hearing (shravana) of that God is the thought of the unreality of things to be heard of. The reflection (manana) of the symbol of the Self is the thought of the unreality of things to be reflected on.

        30-31. Knowledge of the unreality of things to be contemplated upon, is the deep meditation (nididhyasana) of the Self. Devotedness to the Self by the absence of all delusion and distraction, is named the perfect steadiness (samadhi) of the Self; and not delusion of one whose mind rests on something else. This is called the eternal reposeof the mind (chitta vishranti) in Brahman itself.

        32-33. Thus performing till death or even for a moment this worship of the symbols of one's own Self, which is expounded according to Vedanta, one who is well concentrated should give up the illusion of all bad impressions, as dust from the feet. Having shaken off the mass of ignorance and pain, one attains the bliss of liberation

  17. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  18. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    pantheism is gay. If I was God, I would have made me be a lot happier. Also, it implies that there is no love in the universe (there is only the illusion of love—"God", in this view, is really only this giant homogenous stasis which momentarily forgets itself). It's bullshit and evil. No wonder it was invented by Indians, the accursed race.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      what a gay. How is it a "dramatic" view of the cosmos? it's the opposite of drama. There's only the navel gazing narcissism of an essentially self-absorbed, isolated deity tricking itself. It's a ridiculous, pathetic farce.

      t. someone who is spiritually a pharisee

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well, sure, but what I'm saying isn't entirely wrong. Pantheism is logically false and blinkered with respect to love. I know I'm not a great advocate for theism, given that I'm a cold hearted sociopathic, proud butthole. But just think of it as an exaggeration for polemical effect.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Pantheism is logically false and blinkered with respect to love.
          Logically false in what way?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            If we are God, we would know that we were God. We would also be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. but none of us are any of these things. Yes, we all feel some inexplicable affinity with the eternal, but essential to this love is that it is an affinity, not an identity.

            Like at the End of Evangelion—without differences, love is not possible. There is only this blank, amoral, faceless ocean of impersonal energy. Even a single human being (inasmuch as he is capable of love) is more than that; God must be much, much more.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If we are God, we would know that we were God. We would also be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.
            That line of reasoning has the flaw of presupposing certain conceptions of God which are not actually necessary outside of a Christian context. For example the One in the model of Plotinus has no knowledge of particulars and isnt omniscience in that sense, and it's not loving either. Similarly in certain types of Vedanta this is the case too. For example in Advaita Vedanta, they hold that the Atman that is one's innermost awareness is itself identical to the Supreme Brahman and that it's the source of the universe, and there is nothing about this that is logically contradictory or contradicted on an empirical level in our experience.

            >God must be much, much more.
            why?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If we are God, we would know that we were God.
            Not necessarily, if God couldn't limit Himself, that'd be a limitation in of itself.
            You also say that if you were God, you'd make yourself happy, when that is a choice. And you choose to not be happy, and you probably choose to not be present in every moment, which also can cause you to not be happy. As every moment, you can feel gratitude, love, and peace, which in of itself is happiness

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            God "can't" limit Himself, because the concept of "limited God" is a contradiction in terms—in other words, nonsense. God also can't help but be present in all moments. He is the tablecloth on which the cutlery and dinner of our reality is based—or, better, He's the table itself. If He was able to "not" be anywhere, nothing else could be there, because it is from Him that all things receive their being.

            >If we are God, we would know that we were God. We would also be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.
            That line of reasoning has the flaw of presupposing certain conceptions of God which are not actually necessary outside of a Christian context. For example the One in the model of Plotinus has no knowledge of particulars and isnt omniscience in that sense, and it's not loving either. Similarly in certain types of Vedanta this is the case too. For example in Advaita Vedanta, they hold that the Atman that is one's innermost awareness is itself identical to the Supreme Brahman and that it's the source of the universe, and there is nothing about this that is logically contradictory or contradicted on an empirical level in our experience.

            >God must be much, much more.
            why?

            Absolute being can't lack any knowledge, because any imperfection would mean that it isn't absolute being.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God "can't" limit Himself
            That's a limitation. You're saying God is limited by implying that He couldn't limit Himself.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is only one God

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            read the next sentence man.

            Here's what I'm saying: when we say or think we imagine "God limiting Himself," we are speaking words, but the underlying words connect to no real meanings. It's like if we say "square circle." The image generated can't have any real existence, so it fails to rise to the level of thought, because it's actually contradictory.

            The same is true of "limited God." That phrase can never be more than a phrase, because "limit" and "God" are opposed concepts. God (not the concept, but the reality) is beyond all limitation. To think "limit" and "God" is to attempt to think a contradiction, which just isn't possible.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            God can't be limited then he is not God anymore

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            God can limit attributes attributed to Himself. Like the rays of sunlight which shine from the sun itself.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Absolute being can't lack any knowledge, because any imperfection would mean that it isn't absolute being.
            The problem with that reasoning is that it is an entirely subjective judgement which is not founded upon any self-evident logical principle for one to assume that not having knowledge of every particular object in the universe is an imperfection.

            As an example of how one can flip that position on its head, in Advaita the objects in the universe are only illusions, so to say that the Brahman-Atman only knows itself without knowing particulars is actually saying that It's not effected by illusions and doesn't have illusions intrude upon It or It's awareness, and that It knows ultimate reality (what is true) only. Or a Neoplatonist might say that if the One had knowledge of particular things that might be a kind of imperfection by virtue of being kind of unexplainable and contradictory multiplicity in the One which is supposed to be ontologically prior to all plurality.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that not having knowledge of every particular object in the universe is an imperfection

            yes it is, what are you trying to prove, God created the universe and know literally everything about every single being

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >yes it is,
            What I was pointing out is that there is no logical argument which actually proves this true, it's just something you are uncritically accepting. For someone with different presuppostions from a Christian like a Neoplatonist or a person into certain types of Eastern philosophy they have no reason to take that assertion seriously. it's ultimately not a serious philosophical argument if it's just an arbitrary assumption.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Psalm 147:5 - "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit."

            1 John 3:20 - "For if our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

            Psalm 139:4 - "Before a word is on my tongue you, Lord, know it completely."

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think once you deny the reality of the world, you've made a mistake somewhere.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I think once you deny the reality of the world, you've made a mistake somewhere.
            "The point of importance is that the Vedantic position is in perfect agreement with the Platonic, which is that things are 'false'(anrta) in the sense that an imitation, though it exists, is not 'the real thing' of which it is an imitation; and with the Christian doctrine as formulated by St. Augustine in Conf.7.11.4: 'I beheld these others beneath Thee, and saw that they neither altogether are, nor altogether are not. An existance (esse) they have, because they are from Thee; and yet no existence, because they are not what Thou art. For only that really is, that remains unchangeably: Heaven and Earth are beautiful and good, and are (sunt), since God made them', but when 'compared to Thee, they are neither beautiful, nor good, nor are at all' (nec sunt). The Vedantic doctrine that the world is 'of the stuff of art' (māyā-maya) is not a doctrine of 'illusion' but merely distinguishes the relative reality of the artefact from the greater reality of the Artificer (māyin, nirmānakāra) in whom the paradigm subsists. The world is an epiphany; and it is no one's fault but our own if we mistake 'the things that were made' for the reality after which they were made, the phenomenon itself for that of which phenomena are appearances! Moreover, 'illusion' cannot properly be predicated in an object, it can only arise in the percipient; the shadow is a shadow, whatever we make of it."

            Ananda K. Coomaraswamy - Time and Eternity

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            God bless you

  19. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have thought this before but I do not like the idea
    God protects me

  20. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Abject heresy. Please refer to Aquinas’ Summa first part questions 1-26. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

    All philosophy East of Mesopotamia is nonsense.

  21. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can do the will of God without being Him, like Jesus Christ did. Who's will are (you) doing?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      I and my Father are one, my Father is greater than I

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        But I am one with the Father

        Ever heard of solipsism? I doubt OP's hypothesis disproves it.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      I and my Father are one, my Father is greater than I

      But I am one with the Father

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *