"...and it all started with the Big Conspiracy."
The illusions of delusional worlds defy objective reality and feed subjective-certainty.
When one's world-view is but a mist of myths and mystical thinking, facts and logic do not cut, but pass uselessly through the void.
When it comes to the Big-Conspiracy, I am a follower of the path that teaches an extreme explanation of all and everything; the logic of which is irrefutable. Well, we know that some people can (claim to) refute anything. Better I say, "It is non-negate-able.
Waking up is not to be taken lightly. Wakening comes not from our daytime awareness-mind. Wakening is a gift given.
As a best thing, it is repeatable; we get the world to enjoy anew every dawn.
Deep is the dread of not-waking.
Sure, the mysteries of the Universe can be explored and explained, and understood by existent-consciousness; itself a non-deniable and non-negatable reality that can not be explained by Newtonian, quantum, or Einsteinian physics.
All science is possible due only to 'existent consciousness', the removal of which negates all knowledge.
Nothing can be known to exist without knowing-consciousness.
"Pre-ordained by God" sounds a whole lot like Karma to me.
But with God, not me, being responsible for my miseries.
We all can affirm that everyone is born into a particular circumstance of time, place, family, nation, culture, etc.
Some will proclaim that it is all randomness.
Others think that the setup is based on our past performances (think actors in roles over time).
But here, we see people saying God is responsible for the random wrappers in which the soul is born.
So is God just utterly capricious about how one gets what, where, when, why, how, whom?
Or is the a grand-harmonious, orderly, systematic realm of the cosmos that scientists study, also the source of everyone's gripes and complaints.
Karmic-reincarnation model suggests birth is a set-up, an improvisational stage walk on (so to speak) into an already on going play of magnificent proportions. It is a set up wherein the conscious-being-born-actor gets roles based upon previous appearances.
Sometimes people become typecast.
Both sides have to believe there is a permanent, immutable, non-negotiable, 'otherness - me-ness' that requires a ninja stance of attack-defend.
Extremely subtle thoughts in mind about concepts unverifiable are common in identity-crisis, Hatfield and McCoy issues wherein one's identity annoys another and the other needs to defend their identity.
We are who we think we are. It is time to stop feeding the angry wolf.
I identify as 'limitless-existent-consciousness' knowing the roller coaster experience of this limited body-mind-sensory-orgainization with a name, a known history (and a not-yet negated prehistory*).
*And that gentle reader involves karma, karma-phala, reincarnation, and one only limited-existent-consciousness (which is a whole lot of 'kevalam'), and a whole lot more as taught within my identity-church. Only the willing need apply, we do not evangelize. We do not attack. We do not defend. We live lifestyles till death that do not require disorderly otherness.
Identity is a problem when labels become reality and people fight to defend definitions.
We can't live without some names, labels, identities, but they should not act as fences, barriers, or jails for the conscious-human-being.
Confusion and worse comes unless one is absolutely clear about their basic, innate identity, free of confusions and mix-ups with non-identity labels.
One's conscious identity precedes one's name and birth and all all other labels of experiences, desires, activities, etc.
No one IS their religion. No one is their State.
50 people should not fight because of fifty different names that are not the fighters' own names.
Identifying as human is more humane than identifying self with any one of gods' infinite names.
Fighting over names is the confusion of extreme prejudice.
So the premise is that a conscious being is projecting illusions to conscious beings.
Where is it?
Simulating what? Reality or fiction?
Simulating something to whom?
Why? What motive, reason, desire, need, whim drives the 'sim'?
From whence come those beings who are being deluded by this computer (so to speak)?
The simplest answer to everything is to posit the existence of 'conscious-beingness' as the ground of all knowledge, pre-existent to creation, matter, etc.
Strip the universe of consciousness and NOTHING can be known or spoken of.
Thus those who posit consciousness as an unnecessary add-on to a 'sim' that would work equally well without conscious-beings, is talking unknown 'nonsense' about unknown 'nothings'.
The source of the oak tree is not outside of the acorn and the acorn is of the tree. The answer to ultimate mysteries are, as though, a Mobius Strip of increasing clarity and identity.
We all know that 'conscious-beingnessness' exists and is the essence of our 'internal self awareness', our essence, our nature, not equal to the ideas.
That which is born is existent-consciousness, likely there before baby's first breath and certainly there before the baby's brain is filled with stuff that is not equivalent to the 'born-being'.
None-the-less the born-being is taught to think the world is a certain way. It is like family hypnosis precedes family therapy.
If existence exists and consciousness exists, the explanation for them must be existent and conscious. The 'what-it-is' of existence and of consciousness can't be an added on to something else, a 'could-be-might-not be' attribute added to a 'is-ness' that is otherwise a non-existent and non-conscious (what?). Nothing comes into being, formed and defined, before its own existence. Nothing can be said to be known without affirming the 'consciousness' that knows. It is not just all robots and file drawers. Beyond food, drink, shelter, and security all desires are elaborated, grasped, pursued, enjoyed by 'conscious-beingness', not the inert, consciousness-less vectors and forces of primordial energy.
Everything known to us and and to science and to far-seeing space probes and to seekers of the mystery of the sub-atomic and of then infinitely grand universe; all knowledge is possible only due to and by 'existent-consciousness'.
All else is but lever and tool to build bigger databases of knowledge.
To know "Self" is to know Divinity. But keep in mind that everything we can seemingly know and say about the "Self" is not the "Self". Descriptions are costumes, not revelations of the self-nature.
This is due to the subjective-objective problem of the knower-known dilemma and the need for a way, a valid means of knowledge (how do we know what we know?)
Divinity had an itch and sneezed. No one will ever get a better answer to the mystery of God-Creation. But if they do, the answer will be known in consciousness.
Anyone, anywhere, at any time talking about, teaching about, preaching to, or otherwise telling me about God had best first define the term. God is a meaningless word, or more accurately a name for a widely and poorly presented concept (God, Divinity, Spirit, Life, Kriishna...).
So, whatever side of the fence one is on, I'd dearly like to know what God is. Not what God did or will do or deigns to do.
Tell me about the very essence and nature of God, qua sine non God. God without adjectival attributes like 'creator'.
Until there is a common understanding about what is affirmed or denied, both affirmation and denial remain non-verifiable statements and are thus equal.
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Home country: Born in the old USA
Current location: Still an Expat
Member since: Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:41 PM
Number of posts: 3,565