Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

Well, it would be the sum of everything, not really just objects. I don't know if I would use the word "sum". Sum might imply distinguished parts that are independent of one another. It would simply be everything.

 

You can call it Partless Whole.  I also like to call it a Seamless Continuity.  I can even call it "Universe"  (if this simply means a Part-less Whole).

The individual mind imposes borders, divisions, barriers and parts on this Seamless Continuity or this Part-less Whole.   We falsely believe that the universe is made up of objects or things.  Some say it is made up of Earth, water, fire, and air.  some think it is made of atoms.  some think it is made up of energy.  some think it is made up of various objects put together.  But the true universe (as a part-less whole) is not made up of objects.  Objects are divisions and parts created or imposed by the mind onto the Universe.  

So, The Real You, Reality, God, the Universe, is nothing more than this Seamless Continuity of Experience or this Part-less Whole (or Consciousness).  

 

 

 

Quote

I'm not sure that consciousness would or could exist without objects. What would consciousness be without objects? 

Well, it wouldn't be like any "thing".  It would be more like "no thing".  You experience "no thing" in what we refer to as "deep sleep" or what we refer to as being "knocked-out".  There is "no thing", no "space" and not even "duration" or "time".(this is why it feels like no time has elapsed as soon as the body wakes up or as soon as the body appears as an object to your experience or consciousness).  This duration-less and object-less experience is the very essence of experience itself.  And the reason why you have this duration-less and object-less experience is because you are this very experience itself.  What this means is that when "the body goes to sleep and enters deep sleep" or when "the body gets knocked-out", this is nothing but you experiencing yourself without any objects and without any ideas of time and space.  

  

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 

 

You can call it Partless Whole.  I also like to call it a Seamless Continuity.  I can even call it "Universe"  (if this simply means a Part-less Whole).

The individual mind imposes borders, divisions, barriers and parts on this Seamless Continuity or this Part-less Whole.   We falsely believe that the universe is made up of objects or things.  Some say it is made up of Earth, water, fire, and air.  some think it is made of atoms.  some think it is made up of energy.  some think it is made up of various objects put together.  But the true universe (as a part-less whole) is not made up of objects.  Objects are divisions and parts created or imposed by the mind onto the Universe.  

So, The Real You, Reality, God, the Universe, is nothing more than this Seamless Continuity of Experience or this Part-less Whole (or Consciousness).  

 

 

 

Well, it wouldn't be like any "thing".  It would be more like "no thing".  You experience "no thing" in what we refer to as "deep sleep" or what we refer to as being "knocked-out".  There is "no thing", no "space" and not even "duration" or "time".(this is why it feels like no time has elapsed as soon as the body wakes up or as soon as the body appears as an object to your experience or consciousness).  This duration-less and object-less experience is the very essence of experience itself.  And the reason why you have this duration-less and object-less experience is because you are this very experience itself.  What this means is that when "the body goes to sleep and enters deep sleep" or when "the body gets knocked-out", this is nothing but you experiencing yourself without any objects and without any ideas of time and space.  

  

 

If there is no-thing, there is no awareness of things. Would it not mean that consciousness is meaningless without objects? What would be the purpose of no-thing? 

And, if there truly were ever no-thing, then how could consciousness exit it's duration-less "experience"? Would it not be duration-less forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

If there is no-thing, there is no awareness of things.

There is awareness of absence.  There is awareness itself.  
 

By way of analogy:

All the reflections (objects) in the mirror (of consciousness) can come and go, but the mirror remains intact and pure (unchanging).  Nothing is added to the mirror when new reflections appear and nothing is lessened from mirror when reflections on the mirror disappear.  This is because the reflections depend on the mirror but the mirror is independent of the reflections.  

Quote

Would it not mean that consciousness is meaningless without objects?

Not if you consider the reality and meaning of all things to be consciousness.  Each object is an aspect of one consciousness.  Each dream entity is an aspect of the dreamer herself.  So the meaning and reality of each dream entity is nothing but the dreamer.  the source of meaning of objects is in that which the objects depend on (namely consciousness or the one reality).  

Quote

What would be the purpose of no-thing? 

Since the reality of all things is consciousness, what is the purpose of things?  

Quote

And, if there truly were ever no-thing, then how could consciousness exit it's duration-less "experience"? Would it not be duration-less forever?

Excellent question!  

Just as consciousness doesn’t enter into duration-less and object-less experience, so also, consciousness does not exit duration-less or object-less experience.  Consciousness is itself object-less and duration-less experience; so how can it enter and leave itself?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iCenozoic

I was not able to complete my post yesterday but would like to add to the last two excerpts of my posts:

7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:
7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Since the reality of all things is consciousness, what is the purpose of things?  

What is the purpose and meaning of life with objects?  When we feel that our purpose and meaning is derived from an object (even if the object is an abstract idea of a situation or a circumstance - like

“I want to make the world a better place, I want to help people achieve this or that - or I want to earn X amount of money and live in a mansion - or I want my children to be the best they can be - or I want to enter Paradise - I want to NOT go to Hell - I want to be a holy or sincere person” etc etc”)

The individual mind (not you as consciousness itself) is what creates, imposes or sees objects, barriers, divisions and parts.  It sees objects in relation to itself (as a subject).  The subject and object co-exist together.  If there is a mind there is an object. And if there is an object, there is a mind.  The individual mind necessarily finds purpose and meaning through it’s object pair.  Now this is the part that might not be as obvious but here goes: there is only one object for the mind, and there is only one mind for each object.  So in every “moment”, there is a new mind along with a new object.  For all of us who believe ourselves to be a mind, this is where meaning and purpose is derived from.  It is this subjective mind along with its object pair where meaning and purpose arises.  The essence of the mind is to be incomplete.  This is why in life people always have “something to do” or “something to accomplish” no matter where you are in life.  Whether one is a baby and wants to always be close to the mother, or whether one is in the ICU attempting to catch his next breath due to the Corona-Virus.  

So, in this sense you have a point to your question: What is the meaning and purpose without objects?  The answer is that consciousness (which is not the mind) never finds meaning and purpose in object(s).  It is complete!  It IS it’s own meaning and purpose.  It suffices itself. It is already done!  It just IS!   So, it makes no difference if objects exist or don’t exist.  

7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Just as consciousness doesn’t enter into duration-less and object-less experience, so also, consciousness does not exit duration-less or object-less experience.  Consciousness is itself object-less and duration-less experience; so how can it enter and leave itself?

It is objects that exist and enter, not consciousness. Consciousness is always there and is unaffected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

It's not to be confused with a materialistic understanding of the theory of evolution, but rather means something more along the lines that, truth isn't really something that evolves. Whereas biological evolution might be something along the lines of maybe an expression.

Any kind of causal explanation or any kind of cosmological explanation one gives about phenomena, is nothing but that (I.e an explanation).  They are paradigms.  And paradigms are subject to change.  Reality is not truly caused, reality does not originate, reality does not undergo change, and reality is eternally present.  So any attempt to provide a causal explanation about what is real, is going to be nothing more than an idea.  
 

But ideas are powerful, don’t get me wrong.  Beliefs (inasmuch as you believe in them) are powerful.  The entire world you see right now and everything you see of it, is (After all) due to your belief in it.  Everyone has his or her own belief based on his or her own mind.  The way you see the world is based on the image you have of yourself.  So, if seeing the world through an evolutionary process, and if this helps you as a person, if it brings happiness to your life and if you enjoy it, then good.  The important thing is that you find it very beneficial, helpful, and that you are happy because of it.  
 

So the belief that makes you most happy is what is true.  If Atheism makes one happy, then good.  But many of us think we know what happiness is.  We imagine that we can find happiness in objects.  It can be a gross object like a sensible object or it can be a subtle object like a “belief” in “Paradise” or “God”).  But true happiness is found in knowing who you already are (namely this eternal, unchanging reality or consciousness that is complete and always is).  Certain beliefs, thoughts, cosmologies help facilitate this realization.  Other beliefs are more of an obstacle to this realization.  Some beliefs are benign (they don't cause serious harm nor do they cause much benefit). 

  

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2020 at 11:20 PM, eThErEaL said:

There is awareness of absence.  There is awareness itself.  
 

By way of analogy:

All the reflections (objects) in the mirror (of consciousness) can come and go, but the mirror remains intact and pure (unchanging).  Nothing is added to the mirror when new reflections appear and nothing is lessened from mirror when reflections on the mirror disappear.  This is because the reflections depend on the mirror but the mirror is independent of the reflections.  

Not if you consider the reality and meaning of all things to be consciousness.  Each object is an aspect of one consciousness.  Each dream entity is an aspect of the dreamer herself.  So the meaning and reality of each dream entity is nothing but the dreamer.  the source of meaning of objects is in that which the objects depend on (namely consciousness or the one reality).  

Since the reality of all things is consciousness, what is the purpose of things?  

Excellent question!  

Just as consciousness doesn’t enter into duration-less and object-less experience, so also, consciousness does not exit duration-less or object-less experience.  Consciousness is itself object-less and duration-less experience; so how can it enter and leave itself?

 

 

 

"This is because the reflections depend on the mirror but the mirror is independent of the reflections.  "

What is a mirror without reflections? I'm not sure that it would even be a mirror at all. It would be... nothing or a blank-essence.

"Since the reality of all things is consciousness, what is the purpose of things?  "

 Maybe "things" are an inherent piece of consciousness. Like maybe a...coin where there must be a tails if there is a heads. Maybe the objects are like a byproduct of the existence of consciousness, like light is a byproduct of the sun. 

"Consciousness is itself object-less and duration-less experience; so how can it enter and leave itself?"

I see.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The answer is that consciousness (which is not the mind) never finds meaning and purpose in object(s).  It is complete!  It IS it’s own meaning and purpose.  It suffices itself. It is already done!  It just IS!   So, it makes no difference if objects exist or don’t exist.  "

Then why would objects ever exist?

If my individual mind were complete, I would never think of objects or feel the need for them. I would never think of them, they would never matter to me.

For consciousness as a whole, if it were complete, why would there even be an individual mind at all, or anything beyond just a no-thing type essence without any distinguishing features? If a mirror is whole and complete, why is there something that is reflected in it? Rather than nothing but the mirror itself?

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

"This is because the reflections depend on the mirror but the mirror is independent of the reflections.  "

What is a mirror without reflections? I'm not sure that it would even be a mirror at all. It would be... nothing or a blank-essence.

The reflections appear only in, by, through and with the mirror (I.e. the reflections depend on the mirror).  The reflections appear to move (from left to right, up and down), but the substance of the mirror does not change.  The reflections can be replaced with completely new reflections, but the mirror is the same mirror.  Nothing is lessened and nothing is added to the substance of the mirror when reflections come and go.  

But notice what really exists.  Do the reflections really exist?  They simply appear to exist, but what really exists is the substance of the mirror.  From this vantage point we can even say that the the appearance or existence of the reflection is nothing but the mirror, but the mirror is not this or that reflection.  

That was just an analogy.

In the case of consciousness the one who witnesses the “reflections” or ”objects” that appear through, in, by and with the mirror of consciousness, is none other than consciousness itself.  It is as if the mirror itself is conscious of what appears through itself.  the Mirror of Consciousness can choose to ignore itself (It’s substantial and real Self) or it can choose to not ignore its Self.  
Ignoring its true Self usually means that it chooses to believe that it is an individual-body-mind-entity that either dislikes or likes, fears or hopes for this or that object.  
you might ask, as you have already, what is the point of Ignoring Itself?  (This in religious language is known as the “Fall”).  But what is the point?  The answer is, “why not?”  Why do we watch movies and choose to ignore ourselves and who we are?  Why do we want to enter into a world of action-adventure and thriller and sci-fi?  Why do we temporarily assume the role of certain characters and get involved in the drama of the movie character’s life?  Why do people, especially children, day-dream and get lost in their imagination?  It’s fun!  Well, God is fun as well, and in the process “God” is expressing to Himself His talent and creativity as an Artist.  

10 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" notice what really exists.  Do the reflections really exist?  They simply appear to exist, but what really exists is the substance of the mirror.  From this vantage point we can even say that the the appearance or existence of the reflection is nothing but the mirror, but the mirror is not this or that reflection"

I think that this is an idea that I get hung up on. While the reflections themselves do not exist, the objects do. Without the objects, there would be no reflection. And I understand that without the mirror, there would be no reflection either, but the interactions seems as though it depends on both the mirror and object, neither depending on the other.

There cannot be perception of objects without consciousness. But I just don't see why the existence of objects is dependent upon the mirror or consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

But I just don't see why the existence of objects is dependent upon the mirror or consciousness.

This is because we are treating consciousness, without us realizing it, as something limited.  This happens when we "think" about consciousness  (which is a very likely habit for most of us to do).  The real consciousness is not the thought you have of it.  The real or actual consciousness (which is the real You) is that which is aware of these words on the screen right now.  It just IS.  And through this consciousness (that is really You) that is aware, the words on this screen appears. 

Carry this experiment out:

About the device in which these words appear, ask yourself, "where is this device in relation to my consciousness of it?"

Is it in front of your consciousness?  behind your consciousness?  2 feet away from your consciousness?  

Obviously, the answer is that the device is neither behind, nor in front of, nor two feet away from your consciousness.  But rather, the device is IN your consciousness. 

Ask now, "WHERE in your consciousness is the device"?  You might say, it is in this room.  But WHERE in your consciousness is this room?  It is not in any place.  If you like, you can say, "it is in a place-less place".  Technically speaking, it is not even correct to say that your device is "in" your consciousness, but it is alright if we don't mean this is a strictly spatial sense.        

Now, WHERE is this place-less consciousness of yours ?  Can something that is place-less be in a place?  Now, can you say that there are objects "outside" your consciousness which is place-less?  What would "outside" even mean?  Can you even say that this location-less consciousness is "inside" some other reality?  What would "inside" even mean for a place-less consciousness?  Does this consciousness even have boundaries and limits?  Where are these limits? 

     

Quote

There cannot be perception of objects without consciousness.  But I just don't see why the existence of objects is dependent upon the mirror or consciousness.

The analogy is only concerned with the "reflections of objects" that appear in the mirror.  The moment we concern ourselves with the objects themselves, we have left the scope of the analogy.  

 

 

Quote

I think that this is an idea that I get hung up on. While the reflections themselves do not exist, the objects do. Without the objects, there would be no reflection. And I understand that without the mirror, there would be no reflection either, but the interactions seems as though it depends on both the mirror and object, neither depending on the other.

At some point all analogies break down because they are not what they are analogous to.  Obviously, in the case of a mirror reflecting objects, we know that reflection are possible only due to light bouncing on objects which then hit the surface of the mirror and then bounce back to the retina of your eye.  This mirror analogy is simply a tool or understanding aid that may or may not work for you (for me it hits the spot because my imagination can effortlessly bracket everything besides the the mirror and what is reflected in it).

The good news is that there are plenty of other analogies one can resort to.  For example, there is the analogy of light and its various colors.  There is one substance, we call light.  Light is, in and of itself, colorless, and yet, it is through light that various objects can come to light  (or are visible).  Without light all the various objects would be left in the darkness of nonexistence.  The question to ask now is, what is really visible? Is it the objects or it light? or you can say, am I ever saying anything other than light? I am seeing nothing light.  

We can use the an analogy of a movie screen which has various images that appear through the screen.  What really exists is nothing but the screen.  The images in the screen simply appear to exist through, by, in , and with the screen.  So, the question to ask here is, "am I witnessing anything other than the screen?"  "Is the landscape of the movie and the various characters other than the screen?" I am seeing nothing but the screen.  But most of the time when I watch a movie I ignore the screen and get lost in the drama of the film.  In the same I get lost in the drama of life and ignore consciousness.

We can also use the analogy of the dream entities that appear in the dreamer's mind.  What is real, is the substance (I.e. the mind of the dreamer).  What appears to be real are the dream entities within the dreamer's mind.  

We can use the analogy of sand wherein is a sand castle.  The substance is the sand itself.  This is what is real.  But the castle appears only through the sand.    

We can use the analogy of the ocean and its waves.  The waves appear only through the ocean itself.  No matter how many waves come and go, the ocean is still there.  

We can use the analogy of shadows on a wall.  Shadows can come and go, they can move up and down, but the substance of the wall remains the same, intact and pure. 

In the same way, you can simply ask yourself right now, am I ever witnessing anything other than consciousness?   

The idea behind all these analogies is to give you a hint of the "relationship" between Consciousness / Reality and all the various shadows / images/ objects that appear through or within this One Substance of Consciousness / Reality.  You can simply ask yourself right now, "Am I ever experiencing anything other than consciousness?" 

There are three steps:

1. Within experience there are

    a. sensible objects,

    b. emotions and

    c. thoughts. 

2. Upon closer examination we notice that: 

    a. Sensible objects are nothing but sensing.

    b. Emotions are noting but feelings.

    c. And the thoughts are nothing but thinking

3. Upon even closer examination we notice that:

    a. Sensing,  b. feelings, and c. thinking take place only through, by, in, and with your awareness of them.

So all there is one, indivisible, part-less, seamless, unchanging, duration-less (timeless) awareness.  This is, in reality, all that one experiences.      

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

Carry this experiment out:

About the device in which these words appear, ask yourself, "where is this device in relation to my consciousness of it?"

Is it in front of your consciousness?  behind your consciousness?  2 feet away from your consciousness?  

Obviously, the answer is that the device is neither behind, nor in front of, nor two feet away from your consciousness.  But rather, the device is IN your consciousness. 

Ask now, "WHERE in your consciousness is the device"?  You might say, it is in this room.  But WHERE in your consciousness is this room?  It is not in any place.  If you like, you can say, "it is in a place-less place".  Technically speaking, it is not even correct to say that your device is "in" your consciousness, but it is alright if we don't mean this is a strictly spatial sense.    "

 

For a chair to be in, of and through consciousness, the chair itself would have to be consciousness.

If consciousness were everything that exists, then a chair would be consciousness, the reflection of the chair would be consciousness, and I would be consciousness as well.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" I am seeing nothing but the screen.  But most of the time when I watch a movie I ignore the screen and get lost in the drama of the film.  In the same I get lost in the drama of life and ignore consciousness."

in order for the objects to "be sensing", then sensing itself would have to be the universal essence that simply could manifest itself as something like a physical object.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" a. Sensible objects are nothing but sensing."

Maybe a different word should be used for "sensing". Such as, sensible objects are...of a universal essence.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We can use the analogy of sand wherein is a sand castle.  The substance is the sand itself.  This is what is real.  But the castle appears only through the sand.    "

 

Would you say that the sand itself is consciousness?

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

" I am seeing nothing but the screen.  But most of the time when I watch a movie I ignore the screen and get lost in the drama of the film.  In the same I get lost in the drama of life and ignore consciousness."

in order for the objects to "be sensing", then sensing itself would have to be the universal essence that simply could manifest itself as something like a physical object.

Exactly.  So long as sensing cannot itself be differentiated from something else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

"We can use the analogy of sand wherein is a sand castle.  The substance is the sand itself.  This is what is real.  But the castle appears only through the sand.    "

 

Would you say that the sand itself is consciousness?

Yes.  Sand itself in relation the castle is analogous to consciousness in relation to the myriad things that appear within consciousness.  
 

the point of what I was saying regarding the a,b,c steps of going from sensible objects to sensing and then finally to consciousness is to shift our focus towards the fundamental make-up of everything that is experienced.  
 

we so easily fall into the mistake, simply out of bad habit, to assume that the sensible objects that we experience are out there and that they fundamentally have nothing to do with our consciousness.  But this is an unfounded assumption. An assumption that is itself created or that arises from within our consciousness (that comes in the form of a thought).  The truth is that these sensible objects are nothing but our sensing.  And our sensing is nothing but undifferentiated knowing consciousness.   This knowing consciousness is, just as everything else is, Universal or Cosmoc (it is not of a person or a thing or an individual).  This universal knowing or cosmic consciousness can also be called “God” for lack of a better word.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Yes.  Sand itself in relation the castle is analogous to consciousness in relation to the myriad things that appear within consciousness.  
 

the point of what I was saying regarding the a,b,c steps of going from sensible objects to sensing and then finally to consciousness is to shift our focus towards the fundamental make-up of everything that is experienced.  
 

we so easily fall into the mistake, simply out of bad habit, to assume that the sensible objects that we experience are out there and that they fundamentally have nothing to do with our consciousness.  But this is an unfounded assumption. An assumption that is itself created or that arises from within our consciousness (that comes in the form of a thought).  The truth is that these sensible objects are nothing but our sensing.  And our sensing is nothing but undifferentiated knowing consciousness.   This knowing consciousness is, just as everything else is, Universal or Cosmoc (it is not of a person or a thing or an individual).  This universal knowing or cosmic consciousness can also be called “God” for lack of a better word.  

I suspect that the world views God as something beyond the universe itself. As if God is maybe beyond anything that we even know to exist or even beyond consciousness. And yet God is also present everywhere.

Is it reasonable to suggest that perhaps God is beyond consciousness itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

I suspect that the world views God as something beyond the universe itself.

“God” is such a holy word.  It is very sacred.  But unfortunately, the hypocrites of religion have abused this “word” by not giving it proper treatment.  How? They have made “God” very personal, instead of seeing that they are made in His image, they made God into their own image by treating “God” as if it were some thing with the biggest Ego, Individual or Mind out there!  One can say that the word “cosmic” or “universe” has more sacredness and more mystery after what sacrilege they (The religionists) have committed against “God”.  The scientists ought to be praised more.  
 

Quote

As if God is maybe beyond anything that we even know to exist or even beyond consciousness. And yet God is also present everywhere.

Religious zealots are remarkably ignorant.  
by this logic....We know what it means to be “beyond”, so, how is God even “beyond”?  
.............

Any scholastic theologian (whether Christian Or Islamic),  knows that God is at once Transcendent and Immanent.

in Arabic it is called “Tanzih” and “Tashbih”.  Many zealots love to speak only of Tanzih (I.e. transcendence), but they completely ignore and forget about God’s Tashbih, as if to say the Qur'an has never spoken of God’s Immanence or Tashbih aspects!).  Even if they do acknowledge it, they don’t give it it’s due attention.
 

But to answer your question finally:

Consciousness is simply another word for “God”.  This is because consciousness, if understood for what it is, is at once Transcendent and Immanent.  Consciousness is not something that belongs to an individual mind.  If this is what consciousness means to someone, then he should be told that consciousness is NOT God.  

Quote

Is it reasonable to suggest that perhaps God is beyond consciousness itself?

It depends what you mean by God and what you mean by consciousness.  
 

if I take consciousness to be reality, and if someone asks me, can God be beyond reality or consciousness, I will tell him, nothing is beyond reality or consciousness!  Nothing is “beyond” being real!  How can anything be beyond “reality?”  So, either we say, God is reality as such, or God is a figment of our imagination.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

“God” is such a holy word.  It is very sacred.  But unfortunately, the hypocrites of religion have abused this “word” by not giving it proper treatment.  How? They have made “God” very personal, instead of seeing that they are made in His image, they made God into their own image by treating “God” as someone with the biggest Ego, Individual or Mind out there!  One can say that the word “cosmic” or “universe” has more sacredness and more mystery after what sacrilege they (The religionists) have committed against “God”.  The scientists ought to be praised more.  
 

Religious zealots are remarkably ignorant.  
We know what it means to be “beyond”, so, how is God “beyond”?  

any scholastic theologian (whether Christian Or Islamic),  knows that God is at once Transcendent and Immanent.

in Arabic it is called “Tanzih” and “Tashbih”.  Many zealots love to speak only of Tanzih (transcendent), but they completely ignore and forget about God’s Tashbih, as if to say the Qur'an has never spoken of God’s Immanence or Tashbih aspects!).  Even if they do acknowledge it, they don’t give it it’s due attention.
 

But to answer your question finally:

Consciousness is simply another word for “God”.  This is because consciousness, if understood for what it is, is at once Transcendent and Immanent.  Consciousness is not something that belongs to an individual mind.  If this is what consciousness means to someone, then he should be told that consciousness is NOT God.  

It depends what you mean by God and what you mean by consciousness.  
 

if I take consciousness to be reality, and if someone asks me, can God be beyond reality or consciousness, I will tell him, nothing is beyond reality or consciousness!  Nothing is “beyond” being real!  How can anything be beyond “reality?”  So, either we say, God is reality as such, or God is a figment of our imagination.  

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...