I Have Found God

Elijah_NatureBoy's picture



Average: 4.3 (3 votes)

Throughout the Bible, and other scriptures as well, the term god appears. Many attributes are given this entity of deity including "infinite love". By using the term love I have come to the following conclusion concerning the existence of god.

God does exist, it spells g-o-d and is pronounced giving it that much existence at least. I have never found evidence of an entity to fulfill the expectations and attribute given to the word, especially "infinite love".

As suggested in the opening post of another forum where I posted this on the subject, "for it to be infinite it has to be without exception or opposites", and love as is believed by man-in-mass does not fit that term. There is one thing I have found to have infiniteness, change. No physical existence is outside of change. Although some things change faster than others they all still change.

Since love has the opposite of hate god has to be an infinite hater as well as lover. However, indifference [commonly called unconditional love] is in the difference between love [to like so much that one desire to keep and control] and hate [to dislike so much one wants to control it by keeping it away]. Using those definitions for love and hate indifference would be "respecting the existence of while staying far enough away that one does not control".

If we say indifference is god, may be we would be correct, so let us explore it.

If indifference is god, then god only allows while doing no thing to interfere with the activities of. It neither draws nor repeals. It will give no instructions, it will not classify, it will not punish nor reward and it will do no thing except be.

So god sounds like the Phoenix to me. The Phoenix comes into existence remains for its time, burns itself up for its time and then is born again out of its ashes into the Phoenix without cessation. That, then, points us back to change as it is born, lives, dies, remain discarnated and then incarnates again unceasingly.

So yes, god does exist. It can be spelled, pronounced and it has been identified by a mythological term, Phoenix.



Omkaradatta's picture

Indifference?

From my guru, Nisargadatta Maharaj:

Q: You seem to be so very indifferent to everything!

NM: I am not indifferent, I am impartial. I give no preference to the me and the mine. A basket of earth and a basket of jewels are both unwanted. Life and death are all the same to me.

Q: Impartiality makes you indifferent.

NM: On the contrary, compassion and love are my very core. Void of all predilections, I am free to love.

I would add too, that God is within. He cannot be found outside of us. Those who would look in vain, look, until you get tired of it and become introspective.

P.S. The external focus, the looking, creates the looker, which *takes us away from* God! This is clear here from direct, immediate experience.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Mon, 12/15/2008 - 00:21
Elijah_NatureBoy's picture

Indifference is Unconditional Love

I have to agree, especially with god is within. I wrote that for those who are searchers for god, I know everyone is their own god.

Really I was arguing against there is no god, I know how to take either stand and make a fine argument.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you questioned your beliefs? Reason the different concepts until all pros and cons are integrated into the 64,800 degrees of your vision.
--Elijah "NatureBoy"--

Elijah_NatureBoy | Wed, 12/24/2008 - 02:07
Phroggy's picture

~

Forget Phoenix, forget indifference and forget about trying to find God.

As far as change, this is always present in experience only because it IS experience. All experiences are made up of events, which are movement, which is change over time.

Phroggy | Mon, 12/15/2008 - 01:03
Omkaradatta's picture

Ahh, shooks

"Forget Phoenix, forget indifference and forget about trying to find God."

Ahh, shooks... ya don't want me to find mySelf? ;-).

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Mon, 12/15/2008 - 02:03
Phroggy's picture

~

Well, on a really clear night, ya might catch a glimpse of Him, but that's it.

Phroggy | Mon, 12/15/2008 - 02:50
Omkaradatta's picture

~

sniff :'-(

Guess I'll just have to BE my Self, unless you can suggest some... ahem... other alternative ;-).

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Mon, 12/15/2008 - 05:42
Elijah_NatureBoy's picture

After all, we are each the

After all, we are each the ghost of the Phoenix, be one's self and be god. How much more simpler can it be?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you questioned your beliefs? Reason the different concepts until all pros and cons are integrated into the 64,800 degrees of your vision.
--Elijah "NatureBoy"--

Elijah_NatureBoy | Wed, 12/24/2008 - 02:09
Omkaradatta's picture

We are...

After all, we are _____ ___ ___ ____ __ _____.

If the words aren't there, what are we?

I Am. What more need be said?

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Wed, 12/24/2008 - 07:38
enlight's picture

words words words

As long as you want to realize things through the mind, yes you will need words, including some radical ones such as "I Am", "I", "Am", "Being". But the above only demonstrates to you that your effort of trying to understand and arrange through words is futile. Words can only function as limited poor signposts to the beyond of words and mind when you have no resources or access to heavy-duty tools.

It's time to upgrade to a more efficient tool, or more accurately to an efficient tool (the above fails to function as a useful tool). Don't waste your time - discover the understanding beyond words and mind - it's easily achieved through meditation.

enlight | Wed, 12/24/2008 - 09:40
Omkaradatta's picture

Who's 'you'?

"As long as you want to realize things through the mind, yes you will need words, including some radical ones such as "I Am", "I", "Am", "Being". But the above only demonstrates to you that your effort of trying to understand and arrange through words is futile."

Who's "you?" Who's being addressed,above? Are you not addressing your Self? Who *really* needs to realize this? Some unknown stranger out on the Net somewhere, or the one typing out yet more words?

Who's the "person behind the words?" Are you not sitting directly behind them? Is not that one neglected, as advices flow outward to unknown 'others'?

Omkaradatta doesn't need your advices or attention. Enlight needs them. Pay attention to the needy, and all needs will vanish.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Wed, 12/24/2008 - 12:19
sonti's picture

mind tricks

And what about theories?

Can you forget on the basis of this theory your wife, your kids? not eat for half a year? cross the highway blindfolded? be indifferent when someone very dear has been raped? forget the raper? why not? they are all movements, change over time etc etc.

sonti | Wed, 12/24/2008 - 18:30
Omkaradatta's picture

The examples

All the above examples are movements, changes over time, thus mind tricks and theories.

Actual events happening *now* are not.

The truth is so simple and obvious, the mind can't grasp it. To 'see' it clearly is the end of the mind. There is no scope for the mind here and now, no dimension in which it can exist.

P.S. the biggest trick the mind has in its arsenal is to dismiss what it doesn't like as a mind trick or theory. Trust/acceptance will be impossible as long as this continues.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Wed, 12/24/2008 - 20:50
Phroggy's picture

~

"There is no scope for the mind here and now, no dimension in which it can exist."

And more ominously, identity is contained wholly in the mind.

Phroggy | Wed, 12/24/2008 - 21:52
Omkaradatta's picture

Yes...

One's "personal horizons" are in the mind. Those will have to narrow, and narrow, and narrow, until they are gone. It probably sounds very ominous indeed to most, but in truth it constitutes peace, joy and freedom.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Wed, 12/24/2008 - 22:04
sonti's picture

petitio principii

The above definition of theory is based on a theory ;-)

Theory, by definition, is simply whatever is not based on personal direct experience.

Therefore, as such, there is no question of dismissal or approval of a theory. As long as it is a theory, it is an option, by definition, a possibility, a hypothesis, a commentary - it bares the potential to be true or to be false - a valid theory (one which does not have inherent contradictions) may prove one day true by direct experience (and so you cannot dismiss it upfront) and may turn false (and so you cannot approve it upfront).

The biggest trick of the mind is regarding a theory as a fact so that the mind could keep its attachment to this favorable theory undisturbed. This is what happens to religions - each attached to its different explanation of reality as if it is truth while it is just a theory and then religions start fighting each other, each one with its own different exclusive "truth".

The thing that makes this trick so dangerous for a spiritual person is that it blocks hermetically any possibility of change (mind hates change) - No change or development in understanding is possible when one perceives a theory as truth, when one perceives an option as a fact, when one confuses a 2nd-hand idea with a personally-verified fact.

Trust and acceptance have nothing to do with it. However, if mentioned, they are the main tools in real time to verify that your experience on which facts are based is valid.

sonti | Thu, 12/25/2008 - 01:23
Phroggy's picture

Petting principles aside.............

"The above definition of theory is based on a theory ;-)"

At least in theory. :)~

"Theory, by definition, is simply whatever is not based on personal direct experience."

I suggest you explore the possibility that experiences can be deceiving. If you have a personal experience of there being an oasis in the desert, or a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat, does that make it a prooven fact? Is the experience of a madman prooven simply because it was his experience? Are the ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic true? Does your experience of the words read in this forum necessarilly accurately reflect what was written? Are the experiences you have in meditation true?......Are you sure?

Are you certain that your perception of what is perceived on this forum as theory, is actually theory? How can you know? Where is your proof?

Phroggy | Thu, 12/25/2008 - 01:54
sonti's picture

no other valid options

Of course experience can be deceiving but it is still better than nothing - you have no other choice - you cannot have any direct validation whatsoever if something is only a 2nd-hand grapevine or even worse - not even a report of someone who experienced it personally. You only have your experience, you like it or not, experience is your direct interface to whatever.

I recommend you to read the post http://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/experience-vs-theory-or-moon-made-cheese or read almost any teacher's discourse on the subject (e.g. Osho, Papaji, Nisargadatta).

Don't be so afraid from experience. When it is from a perspective of a still mind, when it is in meditation it is very clear and pure.

sonti | Thu, 12/25/2008 - 02:13
Phroggy's picture

~

I see you trying to convince yourself, but it is my wish for you that you will ultimately fail and acknowledge that you do not know. Many of the teachers have said what I said about experience, including a recent Niz quote posted by Tim.

How could it be that you've never noticed that personal experience is not the deciding factor in what's true? You no doubt read that post the other day and still it didn't regiser. Simple really, you only see and hear what you want to see and hear, which is the primary reason experience cannot be trusted, even your "clear and pure" meditation.

There most definitely is another "valid option", but apparently nobody here is spiritually mature enough to understand, since it's been talked about repeatedly and recently.

Phroggy | Thu, 12/25/2008 - 03:07
Quantum's picture

Valid Option

"There most definitely is another "valid option, "

Please send me the link. I am new to this forum and an apparent stranger to all that "Is" in this here forum.

We [i.e. my mind/my emotions/my ego/my mind identified little self...and even "I"--and that includes "you" ;)] enjoy your posts.

Namaste.

Being,

Tao Now

Quantum | Wed, 09/16/2009 - 19:06
Phroggy's picture

Hi Quantum The option to

Hi Quantum
The option to conceptual understanding and the experience within the 'waking dream' is intuition, direct perception, apperception, clarity. It's the 'AHA!' moment of the scientist, the instinct of the mother, the insight of the mystic and it is how Truth realization itself comes about, which is why it's so ironic that this is not even recognized by most as a possibility. ALL valid insights, ALL realization takes place beyond the mind in this timeless clarity.

Phroggy | Wed, 09/16/2009 - 20:41
Quantum's picture

Intuition, insight

Thank you, Phroggy.

Interesting. Since I started meditating daily, morning, some evenings and as often I can in between, I have not noticed and objectively measurable changes. I am still irritable, become angry, etc. However, the changes that I've noticed are all internal, "in my head" so to speak. I have been getting aha moment after aha moment. More intuitive, I guess. There are moments when I just bask in it for hours and just listen to the aha messages after another. I stopped writing them (the aha thoughts) down because they happen so frequently now. I has some this morning, but didn't get to writing it down, now I forgot what it was. Common. Forgetting.

I feel I understand Jesus' supposed sayings now. Intuition and applied experience (my own of course) tell me Jesus was teaching "The Power of Now," the same as Eckart Tolle.

Share though, the meaning, or misinterpretation about his "dying for our sins." No amount of meditating clears that one up for me, other than it is not true, or at best, highly inaccurate.

Namaste

Quantum | Wed, 09/16/2009 - 21:24
Phroggy's picture

Wonderful, Quantum! I'm very

Wonderful, Quantum! I'm very pleased to hear about that. Yes, the insights came that way for me and it went on for years until all my questions were answered or disolved.

About the remembering. Notice that the realizations originate 'prior to' mind, between the thoughts or in the absence of thought, and there is a moment that follows in which the mind actually forms concepts about the insight so that it can understand, but since it is not an experience, it is not stored in memory, only the conceptual translation is. Notice that if you want to talk about your insights, you may need to 'look' again and see it fresh as you did the first time. Also, since a realization is not really remembered, it also cannot be forgotten. It will remain a part of you and will 'inform' the mind as needed.

'Dying for our sins' has no feel of 'Truth' around it. As with much of the Bible, I suspect any original meaning has been lost.

Phroggy | Fri, 09/18/2009 - 09:59
Elijah_NatureBoy's picture

I agree and disagree.

Nameste,

I disagree that there was ever a time before mind. Before mind there was no discerning and without discerning there is no existence. There has not always been imprinting of energy (I call ghost).

The thing about remembering is, each physical manifestation is duel, ghost and matter with separate minds, thus, it is the matter of us which is again comprehending what the ghost mind know. All of existence is imprinted there and in the process of taking on the different forms of existence matter's mind remembers.

It is my finding that questions are never dissolved. Just the fact there is a question means there is an answer. Integrated in all questions is the means of answering them.

As for "dying for sins", we need to know that 'die" or "death" is not to discarnate but to not remain in a single state of conscious. 'Sin' is to not be willing to change one's state of consciousness. Having those definitions, we are able to recognize the actual meaning is "the wisdom required to comprehend existence became scattered because man in mass were not evolved enough to comprehend truth at that time in that part of the earth".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you questioned your beliefs? Reason the different concepts until all pros and cons are integrated into the 64,800 degrees of your vision.
--Elijah "NatureBoy"--

Elijah_NatureBoy | Fri, 09/18/2009 - 12:14
Phroggy's picture

"I disagree that there was

"I disagree that there was ever a time before mind."

I was not referring to a time before mind. By "prior to mind" I mean the source of mind. Since the perception of time arises in the mind, this is also prior to the perception of time, but it is Now.

"It is my finding that questions are never dissolved. Just the fact there is a question means there is an answer."

The difficulty with answers is that they also seem to drag along a couple more questions, and this will become an endless mental process. Mind is inventing the questions, out of nothing, out of it's own ignorance. When the concepts are expanded through intuitive realization, at some point they pop like a balloon and it is seen that the question itself is meaningless.

Phroggy | Sat, 09/19/2009 - 02:33
Elijah_NatureBoy's picture

It always has been

I was not referring to a time before mind. By "prior to mind" I mean the source of mind. Since the perception of time arises in the mind, this is also prior to the perception of time, but it is Now.

All natural existences always have had mind, man, meaning mind able to comprehend all things is the only mind which is inquisitive. However, each individual man has to evolve, through their multitude of incarnations, to the point where they remember the answers.

The difficulty with answers is that they also seem to drag along a couple more questions, and this will become an endless mental process.

That is true to the man not evolved to the place of comprehending. Once man is evolved into a mind of comprehending and see the hidden relationship between concepts, when someone ask a question the question provokes the answer. But that require what Christianity calls new birth and nature present as metamorphosis. Here is the scenario.

After the ghost or life-force have evolved through every life type on earth it becomes a temporary man (TM) until it become an eternal man (EM), i.e., christ, buddha and any of the other titles of endarkened souls. As TM there are 150 different attributes the ghost has to manifest as, they are feminine and masculine = 2 + the four color ethnics = 4 + 12 eastern multiplied by 12 western Zodiac signs = 144 = 150.

Each TM incarnates as 1 attribute of 1, then includes 1 of another, then 1 of the third and 1 of the fourth. Then it incarnates as another of that first attribute and follow the same scenario, and does this through every one of the attributes as 2, then as 3 where there are, four where there are and 5 through 12 where they are. I have not work out the math but you can see how many times any ghost has to incarnate prior to becoming a man to go through the metamorphosis to become EM.

As TM the EM has to be conceived, gestate, trivial, is born and a baby, have a childhood where it nurses from its source of gestating, adolescence where it ceases to nurse but integrate its comprehension and finally become an adult with the abilities it is written Yeshua (Jesus) demonstrated. It is during the adolescence stage that the questions provokes the answer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you questioned your beliefs? Reason the different concepts until all pros and cons are integrated into the 64,800 degrees of your vision.
--Elijah "NatureBoy"--

Elijah_NatureBoy | Sat, 09/19/2009 - 11:36
Phroggy's picture

"All natural existences

"All natural existences always have had mind"

And you believe that you are one of these 'natural existences' which has always had a mind?

"man, meaning mind able to comprehend all things is the only mind which is inquisitive."

The what killed the cat?

"However, each individual man has to evolve, through their multitude of incarnations, to the point where they remember the answers."

Actually, there's no remembering involved. It's much more like a forgetting all that one has learned and come to believe in, like that stuff in the rest of your post.

Phroggy | Sun, 09/20/2009 - 05:31
Quantum's picture

I love you posts.

Phroggy: "...the insights came that way for me and it went on for years until all my questions were answered or disolved."

Quantum: Then I have much to look forward to!

Also, your info on insights prio to mind, I do not fully intellectually understand, but intuitivevely I would agree.

Phroggy: "'Dying for our sins' has no feel of 'Truth' around it. As with much of the Bible, I suspect any original meaning has been lost."

Quantum: I am with you 1000000000% and more on this one. "Dying for our sins" does not feel true, and I also suspect/feel the original intent was lost.

I have a question for you about emotions. But maybe I'll "write to author" to you so as not to highjack this thread. Not to keen on using this so for bear my technical shortcomings.

Quantum | Fri, 09/18/2009 - 17:37
Elijah_NatureBoy's picture

Mind Hates Change?

There are certain minds which hates change but there are other minds which thrives on change. There are 2 types of people, "tree man" and "animal man".

The "Tree man" wants only to remain in a limited environment with its limited and minimum of changes, they are the ones who hates change. The "animal man" having mobility and never wanting to remain in one place long is the mind which thrives on change.

I have been both during this incarnation and have found tree man hate knowledge while the animal man thrives on new uncomprehended knowledge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you questioned your beliefs? Reason the different concepts until all pros and cons are integrated into the 64,800 degrees of your vision.
--Elijah "NatureBoy"--

Elijah_NatureBoy | Sat, 12/27/2008 - 03:19
Phroggy's picture

~

I agree it's not fundamentally so that mind hates change. Without change, there is no experience, and ego (the 'thing' that hates) can't exist at all. It gets bored and sets about creating change, even if it's painful.

Not being adverse to continual change is good, since life IS change, but what ego wants is change on it's terms only, and this is suffering.

Phroggy | Sat, 12/27/2008 - 07:25
Omkaradatta's picture

Yes...

It's not change the mind hates so much, as it is the unknown. As the function of the mind is to know, it lives in the known. The unknown is considered a threat and security is sought in the known, the familiar -- which is the past.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Sat, 12/27/2008 - 15:06
sonti's picture

Of course mind hates change.

Of course mind hates change. Mind lives on attachment - this is its basic way to relate to world objects as well as to mental objects. Change means that an object of attachment is no more at some point which is a serious problem for the attached mind which is reluctant to let go.

If you inspect closely you will see that those minds which look like they love change actually are attached to a certain type of change which gives them entertainment against boredom, against "always the same". As soon as you *change* the situation and take from them this certain kind of change they will get into stress.

sonti | Sat, 12/27/2008 - 10:40
Phroggy's picture

Mind loves change

Yes to the 'close inspection' but if you inspect more closely, you will see that attachment is not just to the way things are, but also to the way mind/ego wants them to be in the future. In fact, mind/ego is almost always in the process of trying to bring about the change it wants, which is why it cannot be 'present'. It's almost always anticipating the next moment, when things might be better.

Phroggy | Sat, 12/27/2008 - 18:42
Phroggy's picture

Trix

Yes, theories are mind games.

I suggested that the OP forget indifference, Phoenix and finding God because indifference is not unconditional love, Phoenix is mythology and not God, and God is not a person. All of it is just more mental noise best forgotten.

Apart from that, I was explaining that the reason change is always present in experience is because change IS experience. It's not that "change has infiniteness." If one is experiencing at all, that experience consists of change, movement. One cannot experience no-change.

There was no suggestion that you forget your wife and kids. :)

Phroggy | Wed, 12/24/2008 - 21:50
Elijah_NatureBoy's picture

Prove Indifference isnot Unconditional Love!

Society have defined indifference as "nor caring" but I find it impossible to not care in some respect. I find what anyone say they do not care about is something they dislike turning their care to the "negative". The very word suggests it is "in the difference of abstract opposites" such as love and hate, like and dislike, pretty and ugly, god and devil, good and evil and other theories based on what's conditioned into one tocause their acceptance of the abstracts.

Please provide me with your reasoning suggesting uncondition, which means "it is and has a purpose therefore I recognize it as something with a purpose", is something other than being in between likeing and disliking".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you questioned your beliefs? Reason the different concepts until all pros and cons are integrated into the 64,800 degrees of your vision.
--Elijah "NatureBoy"--

Elijah_NatureBoy | Sat, 12/27/2008 - 03:34