What is God Generically & Actually...

[Rob]

HI All,

what is god?

very simple (IMO).

The answer is split into two:

1. The concept or definition of a generic god.
2. What god is in reality (ie what 'brand' is god).



1. A generic definition:

Thiink of what a generic product is, like a car or breakfast cereal.
A brand of product is NOT a defintion of the product.

A 'car' is not defined as a Ford-like or BMW-like means of transport, etc, but simply a form of transport, that typically has 4 wheels, etc etc.
A breakfast cereal is not 'Kelloges' but a breakfast food made of cereal.

Same with God. God is not a Jewish entity, Christian etc, or an old man in the sky.

The generic definition of what a God would be (if real) is:

Something that is:
1. All knowing
2. All powerful
3. Omnipresent
4. All concepts, thoughts, etc
5. etc etc

AND .....ALL THAT EXISTS....


In other words the implication of the above is that for any entity to be classed as a GOD (as opposed to a demi god like Zeus) IT would have to be ALL THAT IS or EXISTS.

Only by being ALL THAT IS can an entity represent 100% of the power of the entire universe, encompass (ie, BE) everything, know everything, etc.
A God cannot be the most powerful being, because by definition/logic alone that would simply make god a demi-god if you will, but still not GOD. God has to BE everything, or not exist at all.

That is, there can be NO other entity or substance in existance other than GOD.
Not even ideas can be anything other than god 'expressed'.

the universe(s), soil, trees, u, me, angels, devils, maths, .. everything IS GOD.

Just like our mind creates its own universe in its dreams, the entire physical universe & all concepts are GOD EXPRESSED.

We can visualise this simply by thinking of God as a person alone in space dreaming of an infinate number of universes contining all sorts of beings etc.
And that person is floating in darkness & nothing exists in that darkness external to that person. The space doesnt even exist, its a void.
This visual is full of inaccuracies due to attempting to demonstrate ethereal-like reality but in a physical setting. Our physical relm, the universe, may not exist except as a dream/expression of God.

"But we can feel our envionment, we live, die, eat, see /feel time pass, etc..." Hmmm... Do we? Or do we merely 'think' these things occur or exist?
We perceive eveything via our senses, but we only detect a small fraction of what is actually around us, we do not see into thge atomic level, or beyond. Only science can do that.
The reality is that we do not see the universe as it is but simply as our minds paint them to be based on our senses, & even that on the most basic & obvious level. Ans so each person senses this universe in a slightly different wayt to the next person till you have 6 billion or so different views of life from 6 bill earthlings.

IMO time does not exist. Its passage is an illusion & the creation to teh destruction of this universe may occur in an instant in reality or however god want to view it.

You cannot touch time, even with science, you cannot measure it, alter it, catch it, etc. But we have clocks... All they represent r imprecise representations of the concept of time, by physically showing movement, similar to the sun's progression across the sky. Organic life is attuned to capture this procession maybe due to the frequncy of its atomic structure, of organic life forms. I need to consider this more to form any real oppinion though. :P Many insect species live only a few days or weeks, & so their concept of time may be more compressed than ours. Maybe they feel time passes just like ours, but then maybe the passage of the sun from day to night just once (a day to us) may seem like a yr to them.

who is right? Seems like all r correct from certain perspectives (if god is everything).


Problem is that people think organically/biologically & linearily (ie sequential time).
And as if everything has biological constraints or desires or needs.
Humans define most things (if not everything) based on their animal/biological/instintctive/genetic perceptions.

Hence why many hard core christians etc think god gets angry & vengeful toward sinners, as if god has something to loose if sinners exist, or as if god is so feeble that god cant ctl its emotions, or that it even has emotions, or that sin even exists. One has to laugh at their severe lack of thought or logic. All of which causes very limited perception & description of reality.

I am not saying there is a god, but that if there is one then we r all god.
ANd not just children of god as some new agers or more liberal christians etc think.
That again implies seperation or disconnection which means god is not 100% all that is.
Your little finger is as much a part of you than your much bigger leg, no more no less.
Any thought of being an offspring or child is a biologically based belief & so is impossible. (A side topic though is that nothing is impossible when it comes to god, so maybe god is ethereal & biological. Its almost like the chicken & egg question, but where both appear at the same time which is what is alluded to if nothing is impossible... so even 1 + 1 may = 3 & 4 & 5 etc)

Being carbon based life forms (yes i like Star Trek;)) people cant help but think in physical & biological forms & constraints.


2. What is the 'brand' of god?
If the above is true then god certainly cant only be Christain, Jewish, Muslim, etc etc, (god is all of those & none of those as we desire it).
There is no hell or heaven, other than what we, as god, create for our own amusement.
The implication of god being all that is means we, as god, are simply making up an infinate number of realities for our amusement... and maybe...just maybe.. to distract ourself from the knowledge that we r all that is, that we r alone, that I am alone in this void.....(a human fear)... for ever or an instant... ,maybe in that instant the entire history of the universe(s) play out & then we die. Maybe we r a momentary spark of life in the void.

Does god have emotions & fears, or any other human-like characteristics that religions seem to use ? Yes & no. If we can think it, then it exists as god expressed. But only because we think it so, not because it has to be true due to for eg an unalterable law of math or physics. Emotions, even time, seems real to humans but it exists only in the mind (& genes), not any physcial reality. Our eyes 'perceive' colours for example, not as they trully r, but as the mind can in a limited fashion interpret the light frequency that leaves the object & hits our eyes which then alters this input & sends an electrical pulse to the mind which then interprets the pulse...

When i receive dental treatment i receive gas to relax me. The pain is still registered & i notice it, but the pain is registered in my conscious mind slower than normal, less consciously, while most of the pain is not even conscious to me, only the most severe which i dont even mind. What is the reality then, the pain i feel or the actual signals my brain is receiving?
A side note is that i feel so relaxed that i actually drop much of my defensive personality aspects & start to hmm 'love'?? the world & everyone in it.. Its an interesting phenominon that also has potential implications about how we truly are or would be if our physical needs werent dominaing our constant waking thoughts, & urges & reactions.... even pain is a beautiful thing at that time.... everything is beautiful.... is this how the soul is?? If so its something to aspire to....

Finally, I must admit that it is difficult to form any concrete definition if #1 is correct since any definition is a 'boundary' seperating the defined object from the rest of the universe. And since god is theoretically everything then there is no possible definition except in a concepotual way but not actual physcal way. Much like a throwing a bucket into an ocean of water & saying teh water in the bucket is different to the rest of the ocean. Physically it is different but it means nothing since its all just water. The same with the entire universe.. its made up of atoms, & sub-atomic particles that groups together to look like different objects but in reality you could disassemble any object & reasemble teh atoms into something completely different.

So i will finish by saying that god is everything, yet nothing, & when they say he is the alpha & omega they may just be onto something.... ;)

cheers
rob

 

[Oxajil]

"But we can feel our envionment, we live, die, eat, see /feel time pass, etc..." Hmmm... Do we? Or do we merely 'think' these things occur or exist?
We perceive eveything via our senses, but we only detect a small fraction of what is actually around us, we do not see into thge atomic level, or beyond. Only science can do that.
The reality is that we do not see the universe as it is but simply as our minds paint them to be based on our senses, & even that on the most basic & obvious level. Ans so each person senses this universe in a slightly different wayt to the next person till you have 6 billion or so different views of life from 6 bill earthlings.

Interesting. It reminds me of this:

We say that space is infinite -- that it is illimitable in both scope and direction. (There may be some who postulate an outer limit to space, but what they propose as being outside that limit is an even greater difficulty than that of infinity.) Space, as we perceive it, has only three dimensions; length, width, and height. We define this condition as three independent directions -- that is, each measurement lies at right angles to the others simultaneously.

But, this is a contradiction. For, if space is infinite, then it must possess an infinite number of lines perpendicular and not parallel to one another.

Is infinity, then, a foolishness and does space necessarily have a limit? If it does have a limit, in what space does our space exist? But, if space does possess an infinite number of lines perpendicular to one another, then we must ask why we can only perceive three. If we exist in a condition of mind that perceives only three dimensions, this must mean that the properties of space are created -- or differentiated – by certain attributes within us. For some reason or another, the Whole is inaccessible to us.

Many insect species live only a few days or weeks, & so their concept of time may be more compressed than ours. Maybe they feel time passes just like ours, but then maybe the passage of the sun from day to night just once (a day to us) may seem like a yr to them.

I think you will enjoy this part of the Wave: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave6.htm

I find this interesting:

For it (two-dimensional being) a new sun will rise every day. Yesterday's sun has gone and will never recur again. Tomorrow's sun does not yet exist.

Hence why many hard core christians etc think god gets angry & vengeful toward sinners, as if god has something to loose if sinners exist, or as if god is so feeble that god cant ctl its emotions, or that it even has emotions, or that sin even exists. One has to laugh at their severe lack of thought or logic. All of which causes very limited perception & description of reality.

Yes they paint God as a human being (STS being) just like themselves.

I am not saying there is a god, but that if there is one then we r all god.

Perhaps it better to say that we are altogether God in some way (I think you're also saying that). That we are the names of God.
Or as the Quran says: Each creature is a word (kalima) of God.
I would never think that my mind is God or something like that. But that I am a piece of the whole, an incomplete world:

"All the matter of the world that surrounds us, the food that we eat, the water that we drink, the air that we breathe, the stones that our houses are built of, our own bodies—everything is permeated by all the matters that exist in the universe. There is no need to study or investigate the sun in order to discover the matter of the solar world: this matter exists in ourselves and is the result of the division of our atoms. In the same way we have in us the matter of all other worlds. Man is, in the full sense of the term, a 'miniature universe'; in him are all the matters of which the universe consists; the same forces, the same laws that govern the life of the universe, operate in him; therefore in studying man we can study the whole world, just as in studying the world we can study man.

"But a complete parallel between man and the world can only be drawn if we take 'man' in the full sense of the word, that is, a man whose inherent powers are developed. An undeveloped man, a man who has not completed the course of his evolution, cannot be taken as a complete picture or plan of the universe—he is an unfinished world. [p.102]

This part of the Wave would be also interesting: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave12c.htm

ANd not just children of god as some new agers or more liberal christians etc think.
That again implies seperation or disconnection which means god is not 100% all that is.
Your little finger is as much a part of you than your much bigger leg, no more no less.
Any thought of being an offspring or child is a biologically based belief & so is impossible. (A side topic though is that nothing is impossible when it comes to god, so maybe god is ethereal & biological. Its almost like the chicken & egg question, but where both appear at the same time which is what is alluded to if nothing is impossible... so even 1 + 1 may = 3 & 4 & 5 etc)

Being carbon based life forms (yes i like Star Trek;)) people cant help but think in physical & biological forms & constraints.

I also think that many people understand something literal than trying to understand the symbolic meaning of it.

even pain is a beautiful thing at that time.... everything is beautiful.... is this how the soul is?? If so its something to aspire to....

I think that's a nice observation. In some way, sometimes, everything is beautiful and makes sense, when you see all that is as it is.
But then these moments might get washed away whenever we hear about innocent deaths and wars etc. when the dark starts to shine right at us again.

So i will finish by saying that god is everything, yet nothing, & when they say he is the alpha & omega they may just be onto something.... ;)

I also think that. Laura once wrote something that made so much sense (I can't seem to find the part!).
When reading her material I started to understand God so much better, the Divine Cosmic Mind. (I think)

My experiences with DCM have always been positive. Without DCM my life would have made little sense and much more difficult. Whomever I'm praying to might exist or not. But the results are helpful and for that I am grateful, every day.

This quote by Al Arabi really hit the nail on the head on how I experience Him/Her:

He who knows himself knows his Lord. This Lord is not the impersonal self, nor is it the God of dogmatic definitions, self-subsisting without relation to me, without being experienced by me. He is the he who knows himself through myself, that is, in the knowledge that I have of him, because it is the knowledge that he has of me. . .

- Ibn al-'Arabi (1165 - 1240)

 

[obyvatel]

Hi Rob,
Your thoughts are in line with the concept of God in contemplative esoteric traditions like esoteric Christianity (as per Mouravieff and Gurdjieff), Sufism, Hinduism etc. You may want to check out
http://paleochristianity.org/documents/FOTCM_Statement_of_Principles.pdf
for some more information on this topic.

 

[Rob]

Hi Oxajil,

thanks for having a read & replying. Tis appreciated & u presented interesting points to consider. :)

hmm, i try not to get into too much technical detail since that is a potentially infinitely complex matter & requires far more science knowledge than i have. Hence why i stick to 'principles' which can allow conceptual understanding of something without knowing how it actually works on a technical/physical level. I may refer to quantum physics etc as clues but that's about it.

I'm up to reading Wave 4 i think. :) Which i must say i have seen similar reports over the last 20ish yrs of my seeking the 'truth' so to speak in the new age world. Ptah comes to mind. I have noticed that many prophesies have failed to occur which does not discount the validity of the messages but leaves doubt & greater caution on my part at least. No famous ones have come to pass that i know of but i dont leep track of them any more. Nostrasdamous may be an exception. Anyway, back to this topic...

Yes indeed, i meant Alltogether, ie, there is simply 1 being or energy that exists, which coaleses into things like planets, people, thoughts, etc, but is still just an ocean of energy.

I would never think that my mind is God or something like that. But that I am a piece of the whole, an incomplete world:

I know what you mean, i would never assume to 'consciously' have infinte power & knowledge etc. That may be delusional. ;)
But then again we may simply have that ability turned off by our 'higher' self.


To be strictly accurate (IMO) i dont think we can even say we r a 'piece' or part of anything, any more than saying my finger is a piece of me. I know what you mean though. ;)

It IS me. Its not a 'part' of me. The term 'finger' is an attempt at roughly defining a 'concept' as opposed to defining reality since no where does a dictionary say a finger is X mm long for eg. A car is a concept, Red is a concept, etc. Nothing can be defined exactly since we do not have the scientific knowledge to measure things down to sub-atomic level to definitaely state something is xyz size. But even then NO measurement can ever be 100%. 1mm is only a rough guide. Colour cannot be defined by machines let alone humans.

The finger does exist until you cut it off the hand & space appears between the hand & the finger. Until then there is no such thing as a finger.
I would argue that even then it is still connected energetically, invisibly. Afterall, take 100ml of water from a lake & its still water, nothing has changed to make it different to the lake water other than mere 'position'..

But overall, if everything is made out of energy then definitions r meaningless in reality. But they r necessary to function in our modern & deliberately 'limited' society, not that its a conspiracy, its just a natural biological reaction.

The difficulty in defining god beyond the simple concept & implications of 'the be all & end all' is that definitions r doomed to be inaccurate.

There is in reality nothing to define when it is ALL god.
What we see as cars n plans n people are in reality just a mass of energy assembled in that form (IMO).

And even that i suspect is a poor & inaccurate description. We assume energy exists, but does it? We would have to define energy, dark matter, etc. I suspect true matter (or should i say reality) is not as big & clumsy as atoms or even sub-atomic particles, but something completely different, not even spacially defined.
To even assume that there r building blocks immediately limits what reality might actually be.

For illustration, visualise an infinately large & solid block of glass (ignore that its supposeldy made up of atoms) that represents the universe.
To the naked eye the glass is solid, flawless, infinate, an ocean of uninterrupted matter...
And within that glass images form/coalesce into planets, grass, people, time, etc. (Similar to Superman in the glass-like cage in space).
The images think they r real & things occur according to the laws of physics.
But its all simply images, not real in a physical sense, yet real in A sense.
This could be a rough concept of reality.

Remember, the illusiuon is that there is 'seperation' between objects, even at atomic level.
That cannot be if god is all that is (the void cannot exist as well as god).

Just like our dreams seem real at the time, so does our waking world seem real.

How can there be a 'void' between 2 objects? The ocean is still an ocean even if ice cubes form in it & we can only see the ice cubes since our eyesight is not attuned to the ocean....

Is a dream or picture in our mind composed of energy? It is constructed by energy, but does the picture exist? Do atoms form the mental picture or something far more infintesimally small or as above there is no 'bits' only a whole, all that is.???.

Basically i suspect nothing is as it seems.

But then these moments might get washed away whenever we hear about innocent deaths and wars etc. when the dark starts to shine right at us again.

I agree, but that is because of our biological response to pain inflicted on others.
I suspect there is no such thing as morality or emotion or pain since it cant be defined precisely.

An example of morality not existing is that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Who is correct? Its possible both r correct or neither. To know the truth requires infinite knowledge to determine ALL the facts not just the most obvious ones that humans can destect, plus the imense wisdom to apply the logic & intent of the universe..
No.. there is no good & evil, fat & thin, up & down, etc. These r again mere artificial concepts & nothing that can be proven in any way, shape or form.
They opnly exist relative to somthing else. eg, something is fat only when compared to a thinner object, but thin when compared to a fatter object. Well, how can an object be fat & thin at the same time?? It cant. Hence adjectives do not exist in reality.

Pain/emotion is merely a biological constrcut of the mind in reaction to stimuli received by sensors in the body.

Under gas i felt pain but did not defend against it, just accepted it on some deep level such that pain was ok & not to be avoided but experienced just like joy. Hard to explain. Pain & joy in essence were the same thing. Just higher powered signals to the brain.

phew.. my head hurts.. How do i turn off that illusion..

PS I became ok with the world no matter what happens ever since i realised:

1) the truth sets us free, so i seek the truth no matter how inconvenient the answer
2) in the end nothing really matters since we r altogether god

All the best..

 

[obyvatel]

I suspect there is no such thing as morality or emotion or pain since it cant be defined precisely.

An example of morality not existing is that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Who is correct? Its possible both r correct or neither. To know the truth requires infinite knowledge to determine ALL the facts not just the most obvious ones that humans can destect, plus the imense wisdom to apply the logic & intent of the universe..

There is morality and there is conscience. Morality is subjective but conscience is objective

No.. there is no good & evil, fat & thin, up & down, etc. These r again mere artificial concepts & nothing that can be proven in any way, shape or form.

There is no good and evil from the perspective of God. We are created beings - parts of God as Oxajil wrote. Confusing the perspective of God with the perspective of a created being is rife with problems. At our level of existence, discernment and choice seem to be the main lessons (rather than finding proof) and these are related to a combined function of the emotion and intellect.

Pain/emotion is merely a biological constrcut of the mind in reaction to stimuli received by sensors in the body.

Under gas i felt pain but did not defend against it, just accepted it on some deep level such that pain was ok & not to be avoided but experienced just like joy. Hard to explain. Pain & joy in essence were the same thing. Just higher powered signals to the brain.

.
Emotion and pain are multilevel in nature (I mean multidimensional in the sense used by Dr Dabrowski - there is some material in the forum regarding his work). There is physical pain for one's own body at one level and there is emotional pain at the sufferings and injustice towards others at another. They may both translate to high powered signals to the brain but have different implications.

The statement of principles of the FOTCM has a very erudite and concise treatment of the topics in question here. Rob, if you are looking to broaden your horizons on this, it may be beneficial to read that document imo.

 

[Rob]

There is morality and there is conscience. Morality is subjective but conscience is objective

I dont see how conscience is objective. I would assume an 'objective' observation must be definable, ie have physical boundaries, & be proveable. Morality & conscience seem to be personal opinions or preferences & thus no different to ART. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is anything that is not physically or mathematically definable such as conscience. Conscience is simply the mind letting you know that something you believe in is being transgressed.

Basically if its not physical it then its not real, just a personal preference.

At our level of existence, discernment and choice seem to be the main lessons (rather than finding proof) and these are related to a combined function of the emotion and intellect.

I dont think there r any 'lessons' to be learnt if we r indeed god. God already knows everything. Lessons r a biological goal only. Of course, we need to learn to function in society etc but we do not need to learn to evolve toward god. That is a new age / religious concept again based on biological based logic. If god wanted humans to be 'perfect' or "wise' or something along those lines he has but to wish it so. the only thing i can think of that god wants, or more accurately does, is exist, in all its guises, thats all.

However, maybe god may wish to 'play' or forget that it is 'alone' by creating physical universes & the laws of physics to run perpetually & then forget that it is god by 'emersing' itself in the universes... Of course fear & loneliness r biological based concepts that would not apply to teh supreme being.. so the cause may not be lonliness but something else...

Emotional pain is a concept, & while physical pain has a more.. physical.. aspect to it, but it is nontheless a concept as well... caused by an electrical impulse reaction to external stimulii which the brain interpets as pain & is not therefore in reality 'pain' but simply a biological code that helps biological beings to avoid death from unnoticed physical harm. Pain in any form does not exist other than as a concept like art. If it existed you would not be able to turn it off or make it unexist.

A basic law of physics is that what exists today always has existed & alwys will, & visa versa what does not exist today never has or will.


PS These r just my opinions.

 

[obyvatel]

Basically if its not physical it then its not real, just a personal preference.

This preference is at variance with the general consensus understanding of this forum.

[quote author=Rob]
I dont think there r any 'lessons' to be learnt if we r indeed god.
[/quote]
This idea that we are God has been contradicted twice already - but you seem unable to consider this. Is your cup full?
If you believe that there is nothing to learn then why are you here? The purpose of this forum is to network and learn.

[quote author=Rob]
Emotional pain is a concept, & while physical pain has a more.. physical.. aspect to it, but it is nontheless a concept as well... caused by an electrical impulse reaction to external stimulii which the brain interpets as pain & is not therefore in reality 'pain' but simply a biological code that helps biological beings to avoid death from unnoticed physical harm. Pain in any form does not exist other than as a concept like art. If it existed you would not be able to turn it off or make it unexist.
[/quote]
Have you ever felt anything that could be classified as emotional pain?

[quote author=Rob]
PS These r just my opinions.
[/quote]
This thread might be of interest regarding opinions

 

[Tigersoap]

Hi Rob,

Maybe you should watch this : Critical thinking

 

[T.C.]

Hi Rob

1) the truth sets us free, so i seek the truth no matter how inconvenient the answer

Okay, with that in mind, what is your aim with regards to sharing your opinions?

2) in the end nothing really matters since we r altogether god

Okay, with that in mind, what is your aim with regards to sharing your opinions?

 

[ana]

I dont see how conscience is objective. I would assume an 'objective' observation must be definable, ie have physical boundaries, & be proveable. Morality & conscience seem to be personal opinions or preferences & thus no different to ART. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is anything that is not physically or mathematically definable such as conscience. Conscience is simply the mind letting you know that something you believe in is being transgressed.

Morality and conscience are not the same, in fact they are rather opposites.
Maybe this can help you to start to differenciate and give each word its real meaning.

Conscience' is again a term that needs explanation.

In ordinary life the concept 'conscience' is taken too simply. As if we had a conscience. Actually the concept 'conscience' in the sphere of the emotions is equivalent to the concept 'consciousness' in the sphere of the intellect. And as we have no consciousness we have no conscience.

Consciousness is a state in which a man knows all at once everything that he in general knows and in which he can see how little he does know and how many contradictions there are in what he knows.

Conscience is a state in which a man feels all at once everything that he in general feels, or can feel. And as everyone has within him thousands of contradictory feelings which vary from a deeply hidden realization of his own nothingness and fears of all kinds to the most stupid kind of self-conceit, self-confidence, self-satisfaction, and self-praise, to feel all this together would not only be painful but literally unbearable.

"If a man whose entire inner world is composed of contradictions were suddenly to feel all these contradictions simultaneously within himself, if he were to feel all at once that he loves everything he hates and hates everything he loves; that he lies when he tells the truth and that he tells the truth when he lies; and if he could feel the shame and horror of it all, this would be the state which is called 'conscience. A man cannot live in this state; he must either destroy contradictions or destroy conscience. He cannot destroy conscience, but if he cannot destroy it he can put it to sleep, that is, he can separate by impenetrable barriers one feeling of self from another, never see them together, never feel their incompatibility, the absurdity of one existing alongside another.

"But fortunately for man, that is, for his peace and for his sleep, this state of conscience is very rare. From early childhood 'buffers' begin to grow and strengthen in him, taking from him the possibility of seeing his inner contradictions and therefore, for him, there is no danger whatever of a sudden awakening. Awakening is possible only for those who seek it and want it, for those who are ready to struggle with themselves and work on themselves for a very long time and very persistently in order to attain it. For this it is necessary to destroy 'buffers,' that is, to go out to meet all those inner sufferings which are connected with the sensations of contradictions. Moreover the destruction of 'buffers' in itself requires very long work and a man must agree to this work realizing that the result of his work will be every possible discomfort and suffering from the awakening of his conscience.

"But conscience is the fire which alone can fuse all the powders in the glass retort which was mentioned before and create the unity which a man lacks in that state in which he begins to study himself.

"The concept 'conscience' has nothing in common with the concept 'morality.'
"Conscience is a general and a permanent phenomenon. Conscience is the same for all men and conscience is possible only in the absence of 'buffers.' From the point of view of understanding the different categories of man we may say that there exists the conscience of a man in whom there are no contradictions. This conscience is not suffering; on the contrary it is joy of a totally new character which we are unable to understand. But even a momentary awakening of conscience in a man who has thousands of different I's is bound to involve suffering. And if these moments of conscience become longer and if a man does not fear them but on the contrary cooperates with them and tries to keep and prolong them, an element of very subtle joy, a foretaste of the future 'clear consciousness' will gradually enter into these moments.

"There is nothing general in the concept of 'morality.' Morality consists of buffers. There is no general morality. What is moral in China is immoral in Europe and what is moral in Europe is immoral in China. What is moral in Petersburg is immoral in the Caucasus. And what is moral in the Caucasus is immoral in Petersburg. What is moral in one class of society is immoral in another and vice versa. Morality is always and everywhere an artificial phenomenon. It consists of various 'taboos,' that is, restrictions, and various demands, sometimes sensible in their basis and sometimes having lost all meaning or never even having had any meaning, and having been created on a false basis, on a soil of superstition and false fears.
"Morality consists of 'buffers.' And since 'buffers' are of various kinds, and as the conditions of life in different countries and in different ages or among different classes of society vary considerably, so the morality created by them is also very dissimilar and contradictory. A morality common to all does not exist.

"Many people say that they do not understand the moral side of your teaching," said one of us. "And others say that your teaching has no morality at all."
"Of course not," said G. "People are very fond of talking about morality. But morality is merely self-suggestion. What is necessary is conscience. We do not teach morality. We teach how to find conscience.

 

[Gertrudes]

Hi Rob,
On the subject of morality, there is a very interesting article: Moral Endo-skeletons and Exo-skeletons: A Perspective on America's Cultural Divide and Current Crisis
which you might like to take a look at.
It explores the concept of morality dividing it into 2 categories, the moral endo-skeleton, and the moral exo-skeleton. It is well worth the read

 

[Oxajil]

Hi Rob, others have been given great replies to you. There is much to learn here for all of us, if we are sincere and open to learn.

I know what you mean, i would never assume to 'consciously' have infinte power & knowledge etc. That may be delusional. ;)
But then again we may simply have that ability turned off by our 'higher' self.

Assuming we have infinite ''power'' & knowledge ''unconsciously'' might also be delusional.

Perhaps our state before the Fall of Eden (assuming such thing occured) could be seen as ''Godlike'' and comparing that STO state with our current STS state, you could say that something has been ''turned off'' (by the many changes that have been made; hemispheres, DNA etc.).

To be strictly accurate (IMO) i dont think we can even say we r a 'piece' or part of anything, any more than saying my finger is a piece of me. I know what you mean though. ;)

It IS me. Its not a 'part' of me.

I'm not sure anyone can be ''strictly accurate'' in such discussions, do you agree?

I think there are many point of views possible. I see my finger as a part of me, including my body, but I also see that it is me. The question is; who/what is ''me''?
So, many POV's are possible.
And I'm not sure which point of view is ''strictly accurate'', since it is a matter of how you look at it, based on which knowledge and/or awareness.

See what obyvatel writes:

There is no good and evil from the perspective of God. We are created beings - parts of God as Oxajil wrote. Confusing the perspective of God with the perspective of a created being is rife with problems. At our level of existence, discernment and choice seem to be the main lessons (rather than finding proof) and these are related to a combined function of the emotion and intellect.

So you are trying to view the world by trying to use the eyes of God, but you are not God. You can try, but what results has it given you so far? Headaches? or Success in life? Health? Discipline? Self-respect? Awareness? Or are these of no importance?

Maybe everything we see, smell and hear is an illusion, but this is where we are and this is what we got.
If we cannot even grasp the STO point of view, then how are we going to grasp the point of view of God?

A: The bottom line is this: You are occupying 3rd density. You are by nature, STS. You can be an STO candidate, but you are NOT STO until you are on 4th density. You will NEVER grasp the meaning of these attempted conceptualizations until you are at 4th and above.

If you think you are ''unconsciously'' God, then... what now? What is your goal in life? Why do you think you are here?

Let's say you are in class 3 and decided to understand everything with the knowledge and awareness of class 7. Since you are in class 3, you lack the knowledge and awareness (that students in class 7 have), of course there might be glimpses, but the whole is not within your reach.
So what then? Do you keep on trying to understand how people in class 7 understand things, or will you continue studying in class 3?
Because that is where you are and perhaps ''should be''.

 

[Windmill knight]

If you think you are ''unconsciously'' God, then... what now? What is your goal in life? Why do you think you are here?

Let's say you are in class 3 and decided to understand everything with the knowledge and awareness of class 7. Since you are in class 3, you lack the knowledge and awareness (that students in class 7 have), of course there might be glimpses, but the whole is not within your reach.
So what then? Do you keep on trying to understand how people in class 7 understand things, or will you continue studying in class 3?
Because that is where you are and perhaps ''should be''.

I think this is an excellent point and very well explained too. Theodore Illion said it this way:

TI: "Life would have no meaning if there was no alternative between light and darkness," I said. "There are two currents of life. One is moving upward and the other downward. The moment one loses one's soul one is precipitated into the downward current."

Dolma:"How can one lose one's soul?"

TI: "By sinning against one's soul."

Dolma: "By a sensual life?"

TI: "Oh no, in most cases that is a sin against one's body. You may suffer for it in this life or in some future incarnation."

Dolma: "By treating other's badly, then?"

TI: "No, as a rule, even this is no sin against your soul. You will get your punishment for treating others badly in this or some future incarnation, although wanton cruelty to defenceless creatures, ratlike ingratitude, or an innate tendency to spy on others already reveal a certain degree of soullessness which may be due to sins committed against one's soul in former incarnations."

Dolma: "Well, then, what is a sin against one's soul?"

TI: "Using spiritual things for selfish purposes. Dragging God down to earth. Trying to put oneself on a level with the Creator."

One could say that by trying to put yourself at the level of the Creator (by skipping class 3 and trying to sneak into class 7) you are rejecting the only thing that the Creator asks from you: to be yourself. If you reject your being, what naturally follows is non-being. No wonder then that all those hardcore 'love'n light' newagers seem so soul-less.

This also reminds me of a quote that moderator herondancer has as a signature:

A fanatic is a man who does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the matter.

 

[Laura]

Life is religion.

Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God. Those who are asleep are those of little faith in terms of their interaction with the creation. Some people think that the world exists for them to overcome or ignore or shut out. For those individuals, the worlds will cease. They will become exactly what they give to life. They will become merely a dream in the "past." People who pay strict attention to objective reality right and left, become the reality of the "Future."

Cassiopaeans, 28 September 2002

 

[realitybugll]

Windmill! :) that quote is really cool I enjoyed it a lot. very good dialogue. This: "Using spiritual things for selfish purposes. Dragging God down to earth. Trying to put oneself on a level with the Creator" makes me think a lot. as I read down the dialogue I am wondering what's a 'sin against the soul'.. then there it is. I will have to check that guy out and maybe find a copy of darkness over Tibet. thanks for the Link to the article too.


Rob, I can't really help you out with "what is god?" at the moment. I have my own ideas mostly shaped here, which a few forum members have echoed closely. interesting discussion, best of luck.