GOD's Saga

genep's picture

Average: 3.8 (6 votes)

In the Beginning
there was nothing but Me, God, My-Self
so to entertain my-Self I created the Universe
out of the only thing there was, My-Self.

but this entertainment called maya, lila, was boring
until I made the universe APPEAR as if it was NOT me.

the DECEPTION that makes the Universe different from Me, My-Self, has no limits
to make the most decadently perverted and psychopathic sadist in the universe
appear to be not only an Angel
but ME, God, My-SELF.

K.Venugopal's picture

The game of hide-and-seek.

Very thoughtful. Maya is our - God's - game of hide-and-seek. Sometimes in hiding we forget the game and fail to seek ourselves - God. Till we regain our memory - wake up to the game - we take maya to be true and experience nightmare. The great masters help us to regain our memory and we wake up to continue the play of life that we have invented for ourselves.

K.Venugopal | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 18:20
mika's picture

forgetfulness is not accidental

Our forgetfulness is not accidental, it is an essential part of the game. In order for us to be fair and honest players in the game we must be made to forget that it is a game as beautifully explained in http://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/if-i-only-knew.

mika | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 18:45
Phroggy's picture


There is no forgetting since that which is prior to form is prior to memory and thought. It is even prior to the awareness of 'something', and so there was no plan to play some sort of game or to forget some sort of knowledge.

We could say that infinite potentiality expresses infinitely, but only that expression which does not collapse in upon itself will reveal a continuity about which we can speak and invent stories of forgetting and remembering.

Phroggy | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 19:55
Jasmin's picture

A matter of belief

It depends on the spiritual ideology one believes in and on the perspective, absolute or relative, it chooses to analyze which is usually derived from the former.

Jasmin | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 00:19
Phroggy's picture


Well, no, your guesses as to what is true would depend on belief and perspective. That which is prior to thought and memory is not, itself, thinking or remembering. That's how it is regardless of belief or perspective or analysis.

Phroggy | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 01:10
Jasmin's picture

Everything is a dependent theory

And what about trying to analyze that which is prior to mind using mind's logic?

Your decision to choose logic and the course of mind's logic you choose to analyze the matter depend on a belief that they can lead you to truth. Who said there is something prior to thought? Who said there is something prior to memory? Who said there is the "prior" relationship anyway? Who said there is a transcendental absolute perspective beyond appearance? Who said this absolute perspective is experience-able and thus have any validity apart of being a concept?

Have you deluded yourself even for a second that your philosophical stand is not a mere hypothesis? It is a vital step in spirituality as well as in philosophy to realize the simple evident fact that we cannot know anything for certain, that all is a dependent theory and to regard it as such. It is more important than any analysis itself.

Jasmin | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 08:12
Phroggy's picture


Your comments are full of incorrect assumptions, which I spose validates your perspective. Logic is useless here. Analysis is useless. Belief is useless. What somebody said is irrelevant. Philosophy is irrelevant.

Realization is not a process of mind, and when you 'logically conclude' that you can know nothing, you cause that to be your experience and you must then live with it. As Mooji says "You purchase the thought".

There is no knowledge which you must acquire, but somehow you must divest yourself of all these logical conclusions about what can and can't be seen. Clarity is an option for you, as it is for anyone, but you know too much, and so this stands in the way of that clarity. To know that you can't know is already too much knowledge to grasp.

Phroggy | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 20:17
Omkaradatta's picture


"Your comments are full of incorrect assumptions, which I spose validates your perspective."

Yes... if his (her?) commentary is assumed to be 'to himself' (which it is, as both self and other are similar mental constructs happening 'in the same location'), then it all makes perfect sense.

Moreover, "in my experience" anyway, if all are understood to be addressing an aspect of themselves ('other'), ego has nowhere to stand anymore. As it actually never did.


Omkaradatta | Sat, 07/04/2009 - 01:30
carlito santo's picture


Clearly you didn't read what she wrote you at all. It is so basic and so clear.

carlito santo | Sat, 07/04/2009 - 10:43
Phroggy's picture


I understand perfectly what she wrote. Apparently you didn't understand my response and ended up projecting your misunderstanding onto me, which is what Tim and I are talking about.

I'm not the one speaking from logic and reason and beliefs, rather this is what Jasmin was doing and then projected that onto me just as you have projected your misunderstanding onto me.

This projection is unconsciousness, and it's important to notice it. Whatever you do in your 'spiritual work', you need to become fully conscious.

Phroggy | Sat, 07/04/2009 - 20:02
carlito santo's picture

I don't think so

As a bystander I don't think so. I have seen over and over that the same beaten argument of projection is used by you and Tim whenever something threatens to spoil the theory you believe in instead of addressing the concrete arguments. This indicates an intense attachment to your views up to a possible conviction that your views are not just views but the irrefutable truth which is of course invalid. This is typical to beginners or/and religious people.

There are here some remarkably advanced and experienced people that if you open up and release your attachment to your views, you may benefit tremendously from them.

carlito santo | Sun, 07/05/2009 - 08:31
Omkaradatta's picture

If ya say so...

If ya say so, my good fellow.

Consider the possibility that one's perspective may be reversed -- that 'other' is 'self', observed is observer, ego seen is ego seeing.



Omkaradatta | Sun, 07/05/2009 - 08:39
Phroggy's picture


Well, I'm always willing to address "concrete arguments", but I don't recall too much in the way of those. Mostly what I rememeber is belittling, condescention, insults and judgment similar to your posts here. These are not concrete arguments.

Phroggy | Sun, 07/05/2009 - 08:56
Omkaradatta's picture

No point, perhaps...

Ego is always seen in others, rarely or never in oneself... thus, to point out that kinda stuff (belittling, insults, judgment, etc) probably looks egoic to the ego ;-).


Omkaradatta | Sun, 07/05/2009 - 08:59
Phroggy's picture


I don't have a point when i'm lookin to see what's true except to see what's true. You're right, of course, that I'll be seen as the egoic one. You are too, because you dare to talk about what's true to folks who have no idea what you're talking about except that it often feels scary and threatening, and even that feeling is projected. That's just how it is. When it comes to making points to 'others' here, you and i don't serve any purpose other than acting as mirrors for them.

Phroggy | Tue, 07/07/2009 - 04:26
Omkaradatta's picture


> When it comes to making points to 'others'
> here, you and i don't serve any purpose
> other than acting as mirrors for them.

Even in this case, I don't feel as though a 'role' is being played here. Rather, I am not around as an individual to serve any purpose at all, and neither is anyone else. "Duality" plays out, as it will... yet it does not.


Omkaradatta | Tue, 07/07/2009 - 06:49