Realization leads to God

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Realization leads to God

Post #1

Post by Swami »

I would like to introduce the concept of realization. Realization is the way to true knowledge. To realize means that you become aware of something that was always there. This is what I practice.

In the West, the theory for gaining knowledge is that it must be learned. On a very basic level I agree. However, you will not see the big picture. Besides that, you are wasting a lot of time and energy.

What many scientists do not understand is that we exist in consciousness. All knowledge is contained in it since we can not experience anything outside of it. You then ask, if we all possess consciousness, then why don't we know everything? Why do we learn as if things exist outside of our awareness? The problem is the mind and senses. They are limited. They create the illusion of something "out there". If you follow the full implications of what I am saying, then there is nothing out there to learn. That means it's already in you waiting to be "realized". Intuition is a form of realization and scientists already accept this! It is knowledge that comes to you without learning.

Where does God come in? It comes from you realizing that you are omniscient, and everything exist in you.

Is intuition a product of realization or learning?

Please offer me a scientific reason for relying on learning over intuition.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #31

Post by William »

Dimmesdale wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:50 pm
William wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:07 pm [Replying to Dimmesdale in post #29]
William wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:05 pm Why only "maybe"?
I do not think consciousness can experience itself by simply "being itself."
I think that if there is nothing else to experience, but itself, then consciousness can experience itself as being conscious.

What that might mean for it, as in "I am [exist as a conscious self awareness] therefore "What Am I?" is different...
Even within consciousness alone, there is a dynamism. It isn't a static oneness, in other words. There are two parts: "I" and "am".

Is it the "I" that says "am" (and hence sees itself through "am") or is it that "am" points to I in the first place, being the precondition for it? Actually, I think it's a neverending loop. "I am that I am" can be read forwards and backwards. "Am I that Am I."
William wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:07 pm
I think it has to fold in back upon itself. In which case it needs an experiencing mode, to know itself.
But this would mean it is 'knowing itself' through objects which is only really knowing itself through objects. These would amount to other experiences - experience with objects "What am I like within a human form?" might bring about some interesting things in relation to the question "What Am I?" but in that, the answer could only be "In a human form, I am [such and such]" which in and of itself, does not really answer the question.

Without objects one can simply say "I Am" rather than objectify what "I Am" is ["What Am I?"]
I think there is content in the experience of "I am" if you look at it long enough. I don't think it is contentless. It is inexpressible, at one level, but there is more to it.

Just because the Absolute Truth is not another (limited) being, doesn't mean it isn't a being in its own right. It is a unique being, but still a being.
William wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:07 pmAgain it is not a question of "Who Am I?"
or "What Am I?" as experience...
But simply a state of "I Am"

I Am experiencing itself, without the props....as it were....
A simple state of "I am" is boring to me and I am not interested in it very much. It's the beginning for me, not the end.
"I" is the being - "Am" is the realization of being. Creation of objects is consequence of that.

The reason The Creator then Created [objects] was because it learned that It could do so Part of the "I Am" process...but is that simply a case of being bored?
Whatever - Creation [of things to experienced as "other than" the Self] would not have been the default setting, but a consequence of that.

Creation [object] is likely all in The Mind of The Creator...as an extension of who It is in relation to what It can do....

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #32

Post by Dimmesdale »

William wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:10 am
"I" is the being - "Am" is the realization of being. Creation of objects is consequence of that.
That's the particular interpretation you give it. That "am" is simply our recognition of "I." But I take a different view. I believe "Am" is inherent in "I." Without "Am" there would be no "I." "I" is like a "what." "Am" on the other hand is what gives substance to this "I" -- the thatness to its whatness.

For example, let's say I win the state lottery. I have so much money, that people recognize me on the news. I go from being a "nobody" (without money) to a "somebody" (with money). The gaining of wealth causes an increase in my power of existence. People can see that I am a rich man, famous, etc.

The same thing with the "AM" part of "I AM THAT I AM." Without AM "I" would not even exist.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #33

Post by William »

Dimmesdale wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:19 am
William wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:10 am
"I" is the being - "Am" is the realization of being. Creation of objects is consequence of that.
That's the particular interpretation you give it. That "am" is simply our recognition of "I."
Correct.

But I take a different view.
Also correct.
I believe "Am" is inherent in "I." Without "Am" there would be no "I." "I" is like a "what." "Am" on the other hand is what gives substance to this "I" -- the thatness to its whatness.
Have you ever experienced being just the "I"? I agree that "Am" is inherent in the state of "I" [alone], along with all the rest of that which derives from being "I" [including "What" and "Why" etc]
For example, let's say I win the state lottery. I have so much money, that people recognize me on the news. I go from being a "nobody" (without money) to a "somebody" (with money). The gaining of wealth causes an increase in my power of existence. People can see that I am a rich man, famous, etc.

The same thing with the "AM" part of "I AM THAT I AM." Without AM "I" would not even exist.
I disagree. "I" would always exist without the requirement for 'others' to agree "I" exists. "I" knows it exists. - and in that the potential to expand is inclusive with the "Am" which follows [is inherent with] the "I".

The "Am" is the ego aspect of the "I"...I use 'ego' as in 'personality' [potential development of] - the next step taken before the rest of the steps [who, what etc...]

This all happens a a projection onto the mind-screen of "I" and can be [and is] experienced by the likes of us, who follow that pattern of steps in the same way, only with 'environment'...but still the "I" with the "Am" is sourced with The One Who Is. The Originator - The First Source - The Creator of all else that is experienced...

Overall, the reason for all things existing is not because "I Am" didn't know itself and therefore created things in which to bounce off of in order to - somehow through that process - discover itself.

Rather It played an elaborate game of hide and seek and in order to do so had to create an elaborate labyrinth of interconnected worlds [universes - holographic reality experiences] in order to hide from Its own awareness of Self, by doing so, within Its own creation...

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #34

Post by Dimmesdale »

William wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:15 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:19 am
William wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:10 am
"I" is the being - "Am" is the realization of being. Creation of objects is consequence of that.
That's the particular interpretation you give it. That "am" is simply our recognition of "I."
Correct.

But I take a different view.
Also correct.
I believe "Am" is inherent in "I." Without "Am" there would be no "I." "I" is like a "what." "Am" on the other hand is what gives substance to this "I" -- the thatness to its whatness.
Have you ever experienced being just the "I"? I agree that "Am" is inherent in the state of "I" [alone], along with all the rest of that which derives from being "I" [including "What" and "Why" etc]
For example, let's say I win the state lottery. I have so much money, that people recognize me on the news. I go from being a "nobody" (without money) to a "somebody" (with money). The gaining of wealth causes an increase in my power of existence. People can see that I am a rich man, famous, etc.

The same thing with the "AM" part of "I AM THAT I AM." Without AM "I" would not even exist.
I disagree. "I" would always exist without the requirement for 'others' to agree "I" exists. "I" knows it exists. - and in that the potential to expand is inclusive with the "Am" which follows [is inherent with] the "I".
I'm not talking about recognition. I'm talking about the capital for that recognition. The power to exist. Recognition is only one facet. I myself feel better simply when I collect my paycheck. I feel "I amness" when it comes to my possessions, etc. In the context of finite life, that is "maya" or "illusion" but at root it speaks to real thing: the fact that the Absolute is opulent, is full of riches. That is how it has being in my view. Not merely because of "I am." If God simply existed, and was existence, that's all period, I wouldn't care a fig for that "God." I care about God because he has power and is powerful in his essential nature. A powerless God is not God. It would be something else, something lesser.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #35

Post by William »

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #35]

I think you are conflating what you believe The Creator to being with what the ideamof consciousness is at its core self, without the barest thread of costume. The Naked Being who has yet to Create anything.

To be fair, I did mèntion "The Creator" but only to give It a name. Sàme being, but before creation.

What you refer to is experienced of this universe and can be experienced of other universes as "something to show for it", but what I am referring to is the I Am realisation before the creation of everything.

There is such a state one can experience, where one understands being that being and it is not as you are presuming lacking power and those other things you require in a Creator. "You" doesn't exist in that place so what you do or don't believe about, as far as "what is a powerful god" or not, would not exist either. In that place one simply experiences as being that living self aware being of pure consciousness where others [the objective] do not exist and are not experienced.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #36

Post by Dimmesdale »

William wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:20 pm I think you are conflating what you believe The Creator to being with what the ideamof consciousness is at its core self, without the barest thread of costume. The Naked Being who has yet to Create anything.
I believe in uncreated being, and that being is not naked. I believe in the path of via positiva not just via negativa. In other words, God has uncreated qualities which are still... qualities. But spiritual and uncreated in nature.
William wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:20 pmTo be fair, I did mèntion "The Creator" but only to give It a name. Sàme being, but before creation.
Why shouldn't God have a name? Why should he be nameless? Oh, right, because everything we experience in "duality" isn't spiritual. But that doesn't mean God doesn't have a name. Just that His name differs from all other names by actually being spiritual.
William wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:20 pmWhat you refer to is experienced of this universe and can be experienced of other universes as "something to show for it", but what I am referring to is the I Am realisation before the creation of everything.
And I find that realization to be much inferior in quality compared to a God who we can experience with qualities. Unlike you, I believe that in the beginning there was more than just "I am." There were spiritual qualities and forms before "the universes" arose. But I know you don't accept that.
William wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:20 pmThere is such a state one can experience, where one understands being that being and it is not as you are presuming lacking power and those other things you require in a Creator. "You" doesn't exist in that place so what you do or don't believe about, as far as "what is a powerful god" or not, would not exist either. In that place one simply experiences as being that living self aware being of pure consciousness where others [the objective] do not exist and are not experienced.
I believe that is an experiential state, but that it isn't the Ultimate Reality. I believe the Ultimate Reality is one where you experience qualities of Gods, not simply the absence of duality.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #37

Post by William »

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #37]
And I find that realization to be much inferior in quality compared to a God who we can experience with qualities. Unlike you, I believe that in the beginning there was more than just "I am." There were spiritual qualities and forms before "the universes" arose. But I know you don't accept that.
Why do you think I don't accept that?

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #38

Post by Dimmesdale »

William wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:55 pm [Replying to Dimmesdale in post #37]
And I find that realization to be much inferior in quality compared to a God who we can experience with qualities. Unlike you, I believe that in the beginning there was more than just "I am." There were spiritual qualities and forms before "the universes" arose. But I know you don't accept that.
Why do you think I don't accept that?
OR perhaps you do. Actually, I'm not fully certain. But you come across as an impersonalist who believes that "I am" existed and then gave rise to illusory forms. I have come across many thinkers like you. There are many, many such Vedantins who stop at that "I am" - without form. You yourself said this was a "Naked Being." I assume therefore that you think all form is caused by matter and duality. Prove me wrong.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7144
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1271 times
Been thanked: 1504 times

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #39

Post by Tcg »

Dimmesdale wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:58 pm I assume therefore that you think all form is caused by matter and duality. Prove me wrong.
You create a strawman and then challenge a fellow poster to prove you wrong? Proper logic of course is that one is only responsible to support the claims they have made. Logically speaking, no one is required to support the claims another has made based on an assumption that poster has about the other's post. This is basic logic if one is concerned about such things.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #40

Post by Dimmesdale »

Tcg wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:58 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:58 pm I assume therefore that you think all form is caused by matter and duality. Prove me wrong.
You create a strawman and then challenge a fellow poster to prove you wrong? Proper logic of course is that one is only responsible to support the claims they have made. Logically speaking, no one is required to support the claims another has made based on an assumption that poster has about the other's post. This is basic logic if one is concerned about such things.


Tcg
Maybe it is a strawman. I don't know Wiliam that well, or his views. I'd like to know more, actually. I invite him to open up.

All I know for sure is that there are COUNTLESS people who assume that the Ultimate Reality is a formless void, like many Buddhists and impersonal Hindus believe in. It's a very common niche for mystical thinkers, such as William, to land themselves in. That's really all I want to say.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

Post Reply