Who created the creator?

[Psalehesost]

I'm having trouble seeing how spontaneous self creation really makes this any less tangled.. I mean, we don't have any demonstrable examples of it, so to assume it occurs, would seem to me to be a leap of faith.. Unless I'm missing something

It is indeed not demonstrable in 3D terms, since the entire framework of demonstration (including space and time as we experience it) would not exist before.

With the consciousness ("creator") existing beyond time and space (there being no structure outside the one mind to shape or limit it, for instance in terms of space and time), once creation "comes into being" within it, along with the experience of space and time, creation has "always been there" and "always will be there", so to speak.

Notice that, given the timelessness of all beyond creation, the above does not really describe a process - since a process implies time.

At any rate, taken as a "reason" for creation existing rather than a "process" of its creation, it is consistent. Though something is still needed to motivate it. Such as:

1. The existence of experience/awareness, which is not reconcilable with a universe without consciousness.
2. The fact that one thing - consciousness - is sufficient to explain the existence of all.
3. Occam's Razor.

It simply ends up being - to my limited knowledge - the simplest explanation that does not have logical problems. Purely intellectually, I think that is either as far, or near as far as one can go.

 

[Muxel]

You've seen the repeated feedback that you've received here, including recently--what do you think? Do you want to actually Work, or dream that you're working?

My problem was, I did not truly follow all the advice given me. I didn't see the mirrors the way you guys saw them. If I make a commitment to be honest with myself all the time, do I still have to share the shameful details with you guys? Everyone has already been catching me when I go off, so maybe we can continue that way. I ask that you assume every post here onward is written under the influence of programs. Would that work?

Just to confirm that I'm understanding you correctly Muxel, and I could be misreading your reply, but are you saying that if you hadn't manifested this forum it wouldn't have existed?

Enough, just tell me why you think it's wrong! Did I not consider infinite possibilities - that this forum could exist even if I "did things right"? That "everything happens at once"?

 

[Buddy]

With the consciousness ("creator") existing beyond time and space (there being no structure outside the one mind to shape or limit it, for instance in terms of space and time), once creation "comes into being" within it, along with the experience of space and time, creation has "always been there" and "always will be there", so to speak.

Notice that, given the timelessness of all beyond creation, the above does not really describe a process - since a process implies time.

At any rate, taken as a "reason" for creation existing rather than a "process" of its creation, it is consistent. Though something is still needed to motivate it. Such as:

1. The existence of experience/awareness, which is not reconcilable with a universe without consciousness.
2. The fact that one thing - consciousness - is sufficient to explain the existence of all.
3. Occam's Razor.

It simply ends up being - to my limited knowledge - the simplest explanation that does not have logical problems. Purely intellectually, I think that is either as far, or near as far as one can go.

I agree Psalehesost, but I don't know many people who have experience with 5-dimensional thinking. Why don't we just say that the logic here is of reality as never-ending story? With no end, there is no real beginning, so we just pick a place and go from there.

Boolean logic with its 'proof by contradiction' method can lead to social consensus but that's still a wee bit far from the 'Absolute' knowing of Gurdjieff's 4th state of consciousness, OSIT.

 

[Gonzo]

Muxel,

It's up to you how much you share and how honest you want to be. Of course, being deceptive affects you more than anyone else, as it says much about you, how much you value and respect yourself and those on the forum, to yourself. Also, confessing, for the right reasons in appropriate circumstances, often brings relief and gets one past an obstacle wholly of one's making. And being honest is simply respecting others, notwithstanding strategic enclosure, whereas dishonesty often serves to protect the very thing we are here to change in ourselves.

An interesting gauge for you might be, how well has the status quo been serving you? Have you made much headway in growing and changing, in identifying and purging programs, etc.? Perhaps status quo isn't serving you well enough and a change in approach is in order.

Gonzo

 

[Muxel]

wholly of one's making.

Thanks.

I think the status quo worked as far as I let it. I was afraid of confessing that I didn't read the whole of the Wave, that I didn't start EE until June 19 this year, that I built grand illusions about myself which blocked me from perceiving anything I thought was "better" - because I was trying to avoid "punishment"/"rejection". But answers were still being given to me, and the blocks made it hard for me to function, so I recently read more chapters of the Wave, finally bought Trapped in the Mirror, truly understood what self-importance meant... - you know, stuff I was told to do from day one.

There was a post Laura made about how she saw new things with "child's eyes," and I made that my goal. To start using my "essence."

I had programs that revolved around bngenoh (well your posts did tend to stand out buddy :D), and how I perceived him, and his recent shock was like the Universe reminding me that I again "sinned against God," that he was human with his problems (quite similar problems too), that like Narcissus I was looking at myself when I thought I was looking at him.

Does that work?

 

[Laura]

My problem was, I did not truly follow all the advice given me. I didn't see the mirrors the way you guys saw them. If I make a commitment to be honest with myself all the time, do I still have to share the shameful details with you guys?

No, not necessarily. But coming to an understanding within your own being is important. Sometimes a person thinks something is shameful and a huge burden when, in fact, it is just normal survival behavior in a world of pathology. So if you can do writing exercises or work your way through it by gaining general, theoretical knowledge which you then begin to apply, you don't have to share everything in your past. The only thing that is important is that you be sincere and not lie about what you are doing/thinking in relation to The Work.

Everyone has already been catching me when I go off, so maybe we can continue that way. I ask that you assume every post here onward is written under the influence of programs. Would that work?

We already know that. You are more transparent than you imagine or can imagine.

 

[Sol Logos]

Going back to the question of the Creator.

For me, it's difficult to see that God's existence is dependent on mine and if it is, that I'd still have free will. I'm thinking about the idea that we're an inseparable part of the creator (mentioned above), which means in my mind, the creator can't have an independent existence, without our existence.

The other way is God is independent of her creation, which at some point She must have been (ie before creation happened). There, also free will seems more likely as a concept because my free will isn't linked to the condition of the being that created it.

Maybe the analogy of us, that our soul is independent of our body and exists with or without our body existing fits here - that God is to our souls like our souls are to our own bodies, independent but linked. That fits the idea of being created in His image too :)

It anyway fits my current logic. I can see though that this is a linear view of God and creation but for me to be honest the idea of cyclic time doesn't have much logic to it (from my humble perspective that is)

 

[MikaelYosef]

So who created the creator????

Despite the author already stating their purpose for posting this question (for amusement), I think the simplicity of the question is still quite powerful for some people.

To me, the question symbolically represents a general curiosity about the nature of things and a search for meaning outside of linear thinking. I think it's more of a spiritually rhetorical question because I really don't think that it's possible or even sensible to pursue.

But thinking about 'who created the creator' brings out a sense of wonderment and awe in my mind. For me it reiterates the fact that we really aren't that special. We are at the bottom and there is so much else above and beyond us.

 

[Peam]

Just to confirm that I'm understanding you correctly Muxel, and I could be misreading your reply, but are you saying that if you hadn't manifested this forum it wouldn't have existed?

Enough, just tell me why you think it's wrong! Did I not consider infinite possibilities - that this forum could exist even if I "did things right"? That "everything happens at once"?

That you used the word “manifested” in the context of finding this forum just seems slightly off to me. Maybe the saying “when the student is ready the teacher will appear” (or “when you are ready you will find the forum”) fits better. I could be wrong but manifesting sounds more like 'you create your own reality' to me.

 

[Menna]

Muxel - I think it is safe to say that people here want as much success for you as they do for themselves. I think this is the safest place to divulge information as long as it is for the aim of bettering yourself. Don't let your self importance stop you from growth. I believe that it is the emotion of vulnerability that you are afraid of.

 

[Buddy]

Just to confirm that I'm understanding you correctly Muxel, and I could be misreading your reply, but are you saying that if you hadn't manifested this forum it wouldn't have existed?

Enough, just tell me why you think it's wrong! Did I not consider infinite possibilities - that this forum could exist even if I "did things right"? That "everything happens at once"?

If I've learned anything from anart about writing for others, I'd say the answer to "...just tell me why you think it's wrong!" is simply this: Peam didn't understand you.

 

[Muxel]

I believe that it is the emotion of vulnerability that you are afraid of.

Yup.

If I've learned anything from anart about writing for others, I'd say the answer to "...just tell me why you think it's wrong!" is simply this: Peam didn't understand you.

Yeah, I should've done that.

Maybe the saying “when the student is ready the teacher will appear” (or “when you are ready you will find the forum”) fits better.

That sounds good; more inclusive.

 

[axj]

I think the other interesting view that is shared by Castaneda and the eastern religions that is sort of related here is that intellect and the knowledge we accumulate through it cannot be used to explain concepts or ideas that are outside of its scope. This is what Castaneda called 'the unknowlable', things that are beyond our grasp as human beings in our present state of evolution. Castaneda says there is knowledge that we must learn and understand, and then there is knowledge that we KNOW, but cannot explain how by 'rational' means.

fwiw :)

I also think that the question "who created the creator?" probably falls within the scope of the 'unknowable' at our present state of evolution. We can of course create all kinds of theories about it, but this has nothing to do with having knowledge on this topic.

 

[Psalehesost]

I agree Psalehesost, but I don't know many people who have experience with 5-dimensional thinking.

I don't think it requires any such: You have a representation of the cosmos (doesn't matter how it "looks") - one dimension of thought - then thinking of it existing endlessly in time - adding another dimension of thought - and finally, recognizing something roughly "perpendicular" to all this, going beyond it and yet being the basis of it - thus, three dimensions of thought.

Why don't we just say that the logic here is of reality as never-ending story? With no end, there is no real beginning, so we just pick a place and go from there.

That works. The point of going further is to try to understand more, or deeper - this may or may not succeed, and a limit must be drawn somewhere, or it will eventually descend into wiseacring.

Boolean logic with its 'proof by contradiction' method can lead to social consensus but that's still a wee bit far from the 'Absolute' knowing of Gurdjieff's 4th state of consciousness, OSIT.

Anything we know is far from "objective consciousness" - this is a given. This doesn't prevent knowing some objective truths.

And the search for objective truth involves sorting lies from truth (and when not possible, estimating which is likely which) - there is only truth and lies, objectivity and subjectivity. As truth/falseness is fundamentally binary-valued, it seems very strange to me to say that logic that deals with it is only a matter of social consensus.

That said, logic proper is not the same as thinking in general, whether such thinking seems logical or not. Thinking in general is subjective, though we can gradually improve the heuristics it uses as well as our error-checking. (thus increasing its "hit rate" and decreasing its "miss rate")

In general, we all play "fast and loose", compared to a formal process of logical deduction - this goes to some extent for my previous post as well, as well as almost every post ever written in this forum. (otherwise, everything would be very slow, and many tentative leaps would be impossible)

I also think that the question "who created the creator?" probably falls within the scope of the 'unknowable' at our present state of evolution. We can of course create all kinds of theories about it, but this has nothing to do with having knowledge on this topic.

Some things can be concluded for sure, such as: If the creator is understood to also be the created, and all that exists, then by definition, there cannot be anything outside of all that is, so there cannot be an external "something" (a "who" or otherwise) that created the creator. So the question would then be nonsense.

But as for understanding the "creator" in detail - intellectual descriptions cannot capture the essence of it. And here we indeed also enter into the at present unknowable.

If I make a commitment to be honest with myself all the time, do I still have to share the shameful details with you guys? Everyone has already been catching me when I go off, so maybe we can continue that way. I ask that you assume every post here onward is written under the influence of programs. Would that work?

Given the resistance to sharing certain things, and your own moralistic judgment of those things, it seems fairly clear that you've got programming in that area to deal with. Given this, confronting it by going through with posting it is likely to be a constructive and helpful effort. On the other hand, hiding from it and being held back by fears is not a productive way to deal with an issue.

 

[Sol Logos]

Some things can be concluded for sure, such as: If the creator is understood to also be the created, and all that exists, then by definition, there cannot be anything outside of all that is, so there cannot be an external "something" (a "who" or otherwise) that created the creator. So the question would then be nonsense.

But as for understanding the "creator" in detail - intellectual descriptions cannot capture the essence of it. And here we indeed also enter into the at present unknowable.

I wonder if the idea the creator is all that exists is correct. It could be the same as saying we individually are all our material body, which a lot of people see as a fact too. For me, free will appears to be intrinsically connected to being created as independent souls, ie God exists
separate to us, or closer that God's existence is not determined by us and the choices we make with the free will that we have. It doesn't seem logical to me at least, that an infinitely intelligent creator would create beings to her own potential detriment.

Of course this is my unlearnt perspective, and I know my intellectual reasoning is not enough to really "get" it anyway. All the same it 's a topic that fascinates me. And I do agree too with the above mention, it instills a sense of awe in me also.

(n.b. using "her" because creation is linked to the female but I don't believe the creator to have one or the other gender)