I believe that “God” does “, “, “, “, “ and none of this sentence.

[Unreal Zelta]

Just a further note; ite seems much of your argument is on the semantics.

regards

Zelta

[melanie]

---To one phantom, another phantom is a real as they are, right?

But to you and me, a phantom seems to have no reality/existence, so how real can it be, right?

Whish is the reality or are there two perceptions of reality, in its infinitely finite (or is it finitely infinite) capacity?

Just to clear up some confusion over the concept ''illusory''

In the realization that I Am not the wave but the ocean, waves do not become illusory, they are how the ocean appears - appearances.

So although it appears that I Am a wave, an (appearance as a Relative Reality)(Finite)
What I actually Am is a relative appearance of the (Absolute Reality) (Infinite) ocean waving to ITSelf.....(Pure Absolute Awareness)

So, the Awareness reading this thread, is Infinite Awareness ...it only 'appears' to be finite...apparently!

[melanie]

which is what I prefer to use to describe what I perceive.

This reality, is already the 'perceived' any-'thing' perceived itself cannot Perceive

I don’t call it ‘god’, because that has connotations/implications of being majorly ‘good’ and IT isn’t.

God, is no-thing other than an imaginary idea/ concept,appearing in the imagination.
No-Thing is either good nor bad,only 'thinking' makes it so.
mind forming opinion, interpretation, perception.

"God" really doesn't come "into" It at all.
God actually comes out of It.
The word "God" (or the Self, Spirit, etc.)
is simply the ego's attempt to give a more formal name to the un-nameable "It-That-Is."

In short, all that there truly "is" is the seamless and unbroken Screen of Pure Awareness, Itself…..this mysterious "IT."

[futrethink]

---Unreal Zelta.

You cannot equate a theory of theology to a theory on physics.

---This thread is about existence, nonexistence and the interaction or lack of (depending upon how you see it or don’t see nonexistence). It is only a part of my whole hypothesis.
---It also, is not meant to be about theology, but about the state of existence/nonexistence of a perceived/actual spiritual/energy individual.

Optics is based on empirical exercises, your 'synergistic' proposals are merely point of views

---That was not the point of the rainbow metaphor. I was trying to show you that living as we do in a linear timeline and being only capable of verbally describing or writing things out one bit of information at a time, without actually having the rainbow to point at and let the listener/reader perceive fully for themselves, I can only describe parts of it, until you acquire enough information to use those parts to perceive the whole concept.
---Do the slightly differing points of view of a spherical object as a ball, orb, globe or marble change what the object is or the perceptions of the viewer?
---Do having differing points of view mean that they are all wrong from the one being shown or that the other differing points of views, from the one being shown, disappear from existence while it is being shown.

Please dictionary the word intangible in conjunction with Boson.

---Please reread what I said about the Boson’s (in)tangibility and the tenses involved? For someone arguing specifics, are you paying specific attention to what is being written out?

I can not deduce how you came to that conclusion. What I intended was for you to stop acting with such self centrality, by disposing everyone elses ideas as garbage while asking for them.

---I don’t consider everyone else’s ideas to be garbage and where did you get that idea?
---Are you getting your ideas of my self-centrality from this, “Another reason is that it is a waste of time and energy, which has seemingly been done to death on every thread that I have scanned through on this site and others. To me, beating a dead horse, simply to try and get someone else disgusted enough to give up their side of a debate is that; beating a dead horse. Don’t waste my time and yours.”?
---This discussion is not about what IT is, but what IT’s state of existence is, so if I ask people to not argue about what it is, how is that considering their ideas about what it is to be garbage? What I am doing is asking people to not argue about what the ball/sphere/orb/marble is, but whether whatever the object is is bouncing or not. So in being specific about the limits about the argument and what exactly the argument is to focus on, where is my lack of knowledge/feeling and my, according to you, possibly having alexithymia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia) about the outside world coming into it?

Just a further note; ite seems much of your argument is on the semantics.

---Since I have to use a language in which a single word stands for many things, instead of a language in which one words stands for one thing, yeah, it does seem like I am basing my argument on semantics, doesn’t it? But no, it isn’t a play on words, because I am attempting to use objective definitions and meanings, as best as possible, without writing entire books to show the meant concepts. As much as you would like to use that to show how foolish I am, please don’t, as it has backfired on more than one person attempting it.

[futrethink]

---melanie.

''Pure Awareness'' is infinite unlimited.

---Not including the fact that you are being redundant with ‘infinite’ and ‘unlimited’ both in the same sentence to describe the same thing, you aren’t aptly explaining the concept you are using those words to describe. But, I’ll get into that later, even if you keep showing you already understand the limitations to that illusion/belief.

We know that simply because awareness is present in deep dreamless sleep where mind is not.

---Yes, which has been relatively proven within a human and other organic minds, while they exist within a finite space and time. So, to say that it is the same for a ‘god’, whose existence we can only guess about, is just that, an assumption. Which I admit I am making in my opening post, yes, but I include the idea that that final level of that being’s existence has no objective reality outside of IT’s existence to use to show time and space, in comparison to ours.

---One thing to look at is that to be infinite, IT is has to experience being nonexistent in all forms, including removing IT’s awareness from existence as well. IT, in essence, has to die/become nonexistent in ALL ways, shapes and forms. Otherwise IT is finite, because how can IT know what it is like for IT to die/experience death/be death if IT hasn’t tried it?

---What you are missing in most of your reading of my posts is that you are simply saying, in a different way, what I have already stated on the opening post. Which you and Drifter have already shown about yourselves, in another thread; you think that you need to explain things to people, even after they have already shown that they understand what you believe you need to explain. You don’t read, think or care what other people are saying, because you are right and everyone else is an idiot, right? You continue posting post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post saying the same things you have already said, in as many ways as you can think of and in doing so, you show that you have no respect for other individual’s intelligence or for them being a separate person within their own ways, knowledge, wisdom and rights.
---Also, when people point that out to you, in an attempt at constructive criticism and in no way, shape or form being insulting, you become highly insulted and attack them verbally. You denounce them in any way you can, without taking the time to think about what they are saying, and in taking that time, without being insulted, you would show your intelligence AND wisdom, which you have spouted you have (on another thread).
---Have you changed since I've last read though some of your postings on that other thread? I can't say, because I haven't searched for your writings lately, but I will wait and admit my error, if I am wrong about you.

[melanie]

---One thing to look at is that to be infinite, IT is has to experience being nonexistent in all forms,

IT as you put it .... IS the unborn- formless- imageless infinite mystery behind THIS IMMEDIATE SELF EVIDENT apparent existence.
IT is the SEEN ... and the seen cannot Look ...It is the already ''looked upon''

including removing IT’s awareness from existence as well.

We are ''finite appearances'' appearing within absolute infinite awareness.
To remove awareness from existence would be like removing the ocean from the waves.
So, i have no idea what you mean by saying 'removing IT's awareness from existence'



Consciousness is a relative finite aspect of infinite absolute awareness,not separate from.
''Removing'' implies something that is separate to be removed, where there isn't any such separateness...
we are life 'experiencing' life ....there is no 'experience' of life, except in the dream of separation... for who would there be to experience IT?

IT, in essence, has to die/become nonexistent in ALL ways, shapes and forms.
Otherwise IT is finite, because how can IT know what it is like for IT to die/experience death/be death if IT hasn’t tried it?

I understand what you are saying here, so here is my way of saying the same thing you are saying.....but in a different way....

It does know what it is like to all those things you mentioned ... by being/becoming/experiencing Itself relative to ITSelf...
for example TROUGH and AS an (appearance)(projection)(hologram)
(reflection)(duality)(mirage)


However, only IT's appearances of itself are born and die.
It is always the same one self being born and dying, there is no ''other'' self......

IT has no way to 'EXPERIENCE' death/birth
IT only ''KNOWS'' death/birth, relatively speaking.
death and birth ARE known in relative/consciousness AS the ''experiencing'' of birth and death.
But, the awareness that is witness to these apparent events is unborn undying imageless formless eternal beingness presence...(Absolute and Infinite)



All there is is SEENing ...Awareness
Except for the SEEN .. i have no way to ''experience'' death/birth.

[melanie]

FT
Have you changed since I've last read though some of your postings on that other thread?

I can't say, because I haven't searched for your writings lately, but I will wait and admit my error, if I am wrong about you.

No need to worry about being in error.....

I haven't changed ....

Change is appearance only... in reality NOTHING changes.

( but it was nice of you to think that you could have been wrong about me )

[Graybeard]

---Secondly, even though I know I am going to get arguments about the definition about what “God”, I would really wish that posters, on this thread, do not be so petty as to try and clog up the discussion as to what IT is. One reason for that, is that even though I know you want a solid and concrete something to be grab ahold of, to define it as other than a singularity capable of doing anything (with one exception; it can’t create the concept described by the word and any synonyms, “nothing”) and being anything it wants, at any time with nothing to stop it, is in my way of thinking simply putting a limit/mindtrap on your own thinking and mental capabilities.

---Another reason is that it is a waste of time and energy, which has seemingly been done to death on every thread that I have scanned through on this site and others. To me, beating a dead horse, simply to try and get someone else disgusted enough to give up their side of a debate is that; beating a dead horse. Don’t waste my time and yours.

The above is from the thread owner's opening post. And the thread owner has the right to direct the thread in the direction of his/her choice. But everyone has an onus to be polite ... if you can't sort it by PM, then report the post ... but don't display antagonism on the forum please.

Graybeard (mod)

[Unreal Zelta]

The above is from the thread owner's opening post. And the thread owner has the right to direct the thread in the direction of his/her choice. But everyone has an onus to be polite ... if you can't sort it by PM, then report the post ... but don't display antagonism on the forum please.

Graybeard (mod)

An eye for an eye.

Advice taken. I am surprised the posts were not deleted.

regards

Zelta

[melanie]

---melanie.
---Not including the fact that you are being redundant with ‘infinite’ and ‘unlimited’ both in the same sentence to describe the same thing,
you aren’t aptly explaining the concept you are using those words to describe.

I know i am not aptly explaining what you are stating,you are correct to pick up on that....
So then, that is why i have entered your thread topic, to try and do that.....aptly as best i can, that is the whole purpose of this discussion.


So Yes, stating points like 'infinite' and 'unlimited' kinda makes me look redundant, you is correct in that assessment ...
It would be a contradiction in terms for something finite to describe itself as infinite.

This is the unavoidable paradox of the dual nature of IT
However, IT is still the ''one same self'' expressing these paradoxes and contradictions.....as being finite and infinite in the same breath.

IT being no-thing expressing AS every-thing is quite the paradox is it not??

''The knower , one who knows his own Self as the Self of all beings , does not speak anything else.
For, knowing that all this is indeed nothing but the Self , what will he talk of? Only one who sees an object distinct from himself will have something to talk about.
The knower sees nothing other than the Self , hears nothing else , knows nothing else.''

But you know that don't you

But, I’ll get into that later,
even if you keep showing you already understand the limitations to that illusion/belief.

OK, i'll be waiting here, and looking forward to reading what you have to say later.