It's only Us

Originally posted by karoly aczel
who ?beetle or joseph?

Well, evidently both, but I was referring to beetle

Originally posted by Taoman
Cheers BB, LOL!

What is called a gateless gate is separated as to the fact of there is a gate, no?

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
Well, evidently both, but I was referring to beetle

Then you could probably either answer directly my question or comment the way you please and share with me what you cherish most -if you could avoid preaching, that is😵

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
What is called a gateless gate is separated as to the fact of there is a gate, no?

All words are separating by their very nature, for language is all about categories and differentiation to communicate concepts. This is the reason when seeking to describe or refer to, or convey the experience of, this ultimately undefinable All-containing Source, it is referred to simply as "pointing to".

So the term "gateless gate" as with the correlate term "pathless path" is language and therefore, as you rightly say "separating", but it is intended to point to the nature of the "Great" (another label, found in Taoism), wherein at every moment one is actually passing through this "Gate", or stepping upon the "Path", wherein the living experience of the "Wholeness" snaps back into the normal split view and experience of reality as soon as we seek to fix the position or nature or form of this Mysterious Gate or Path that appears as you step upon it or through it.

Most of us can "get into" some sort of music or dance and these can be a helpful analogies. Another is making love of high merging nature of two individuals. All of these are essentially spoilt by trying to step outside the whole embracing experience of it and start talking or examining what is happening, trying to define it or describe what is happening.

In sport or some skillful art the best performances are reported to be when the "actor" gets into the "zone" and things appear to just "work" without effort or trying. Scientists have had "Eureka" moments suddenly when in a relaxed state (as in dreaming or (for one) relaxing in a bath, the truth breaks through and they say it was so clear in the end, as if it already was there and they just "saw" it.

I believe all of these sublime holistic moments in life reflect the nature of what our struggling words are seeking to describe.

The opening chapter of the Tao Te Ching (or Dao De Jing), the Chinese Taoist classic puts it this way.

(This is my attempt at transliteration of it. There are many.)

Dao De Jing

Chapter 1

A way that is described
is not the eternal way
A name that is spoken
is not the eternal name.

Nameless is the origin
of heaven and earth
Naming is the mother of
a myriad things.

Thus,
remaining without desire,
the subtle is perceived.
Holding to desire,
form is perceived.

Both are the same emerging,
while differing in distinction.
Their sameness speaks of the mystery,
a mystery leading to yet greater mysteries,
the gateway of a myriad wonders.

**************

Originally posted by black beetle
Then you could probably either answer directly my question or comment the way you please and share with me what you cherish most -if you could avoid preaching, that is😵

My friend, I in no way meant a disrespect, nor had I even read your topic, I was replying to Joseph's statement of the mind of God, and bringing to the attention there will come a day all shall have THIS MIND.

I do apologize

Originally posted by Taoman
All words are separating by their very nature, for language is all about categories and differentiation to communicate concepts. This is the reason when seeking to describe or refer to, or convey the experience of, this ultimately undefinable All-containing Source, it is referred to simply as "pointing to".

So the term "gateless gate" as with the correlat ysteries,
the gateway of a myriad wonders.

**************

>the term "gateless gate" as with the correlate term "pathless path" is language and therefore, as you rightly say "separating", but it is intended to point to the nature of the "Great" (another label, found in Taoism), wherein at every moment one is actually passing through this "Gate", or stepping upon the "Path", wherein the living experience of the "Wholeness" snaps back into the normal split view and experience of reality as soon as we seek to fix the position or nature or form of this Mysterious Gate or Path that appears as you step upon it or through it.~

I find this no different then "Heaven cometh not by observation, but is within you".

(Luke 17:20-21 KJ orig. -only-)

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
My friend, I in no way meant a disrespect, nor had I even read your topic, I was replying to Joseph's statement of the mind of God, and bringing to the attention there will come a day all shall have THIS MIND.

I do apologize

Oh, apologize to me not, we just enjoy a conversation -and I mistakenly thought you commented about something I had to clarify
😵

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
>the term "gateless gate" as with the correlate term "pathless path" is language and therefore, as you rightly say "separating", but it is intended to point to the nature of the "Great" (another label, found in Taoism), wherein at every moment one is actually passing through this "Gate", or stepping upon the "Path", wherein the living experience of t ...[text shortened]... ometh not by observation, but is within you".

(Luke 17:20-21 KJ orig. -only-)

One of my favorite quotes from the Christian scriptures. 🙂

indeed =]

YouTube

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
indeed =]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEW0BtFuj5I

Recommended. Tnx.

Originally posted by Taoman
Recommended. Tnx.

I came across this one today as well

YouTube

Originally posted by black beetle
All the other theologies, my dear josephw, for in my opinion all theologies are just an invention of the human mind alone.

First things first: kindly please define "god", then explain how a human being can be in touch with the entity you name "god" and how can it verify this contact, then demonstrate how a specific idea of that specific human being i ...[text shortened]... at would happen after that specific human being had indeed "an idea born out of God"
😵

"All the other theologies, my dear josephw, for in my opinion all theologies are just an invention of the human mind alone."

In your opinion, as far as you can tell. True?


"First things first: kindly please define "god",.."

"God" with a capital G. The creator of all that exists. The alpha and omega. Is this definition complicated enough? Or is it too simple? Can you accept this as a definition? Or do you require more terms?


"...then explain how a human being can be in touch with the entity you name "god"..."

No need for me to do that. You know. Don't you? Do you want a sermon?


"...and how can it verify this contact,.."

Within. You know what I mean.


"...then demonstrate how a specific idea of that specific human being is not actually its idea but an idea of the entity you name "god",.."

Where do you get your ideas? Do those ideas flow from within as a result of some mental process you engage in? Or do you reach outward to some outside source for inspiration? We can all have "ideas" of, and about God, or many gods, but that doesn't validate anything.

Actually, here is the whole crux of the matter we have been debating in this forum since before I arrived, and going back as far as recorded human history.

If I say there is a God, as defined above, another says prove it. The same is true for this particular conversation about the "idea" of "God". Did the "idea" arise in my own mind without a cause? Or is that "idea" planted in my mind by God?

Of course, you know the answer.


"...and then feel free to ask what would happen after that specific human being had indeed "an idea born out of God""

That individual would then have to make a decision.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"All the other theologies, my dear josephw, for in my opinion all theologies are just an invention of the human mind alone."

In your opinion, as far as you can tell. True?


"First things first: kindly please define "god",.."

"God" with a capital G. The creator of all that exists. The alpha and omega. Is this definition complicated en ...[text shortened]... ""[/b]

That individual would then have to make a decision.[/b]

Of course in my opinion;

The definition is fine; the idea for the invention of this definition is not justified because there is no need for the existence of a so called "creator" of "all that exists";

I don't know. Whenever a Christian tries to explain me the way, he ends up preaching to me nonsensical and unjustified religious beliefs;

"Within", in the context of our conversation, to me is merely a projection of one's thoughts. The main product of these thoughts (the so called communication of an individual with God as you defined this entity) is existent in your own mind alone;

I am geting my ideas form the world of the ideas whenever I have to solve a problem that takes place either in our physical world, or in my inner world, or in the world of the ideas. These worlds are identical to Popper's worlds and they are respectively known as the World 1, the World 2 and the World 3. The sole agent that keeps these three worlds together is my bodymind alone. My bodymind is empty😵


Edit: "Did the "idea" arise in my own mind without a cause? Or is that "idea" planted in my mind by God? Of course, you know the answer."

I know the answers of your questions, but these answers are fine solely to me. Methinks you should conduct your own evaluation of the mind and earn on your own your own answers. Then, when you will have evaluated in person that you did not took a, say, leap of faith and that there are no contradictions in your theory of reality that you brought up, do feel free to expose in full your view. I do not accept your current theology and I can discard it easily as a product of blind faith alone, but this is only me. Kindly please feel free to honour your spiritual teachers and to walk your way the best you can;


Edit: "That individual would then have to make a decision."

Sure thing
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Of course in my opinion;

The definition is fine; the idea for the invention of this definition is not justified because there is no need for the existence of a so called "creator" of "all that exists";

I don't know. Whenever a Christian tries to explain me the way, he ends up preaching to me nonsensical and unjustified religious beliefs;

"Withi ...[text shortened]...
Edit: "That individual would then have to make a decision."

Sure thing
😵

"The definition is fine; the idea for the invention of this definition is not justified because there is no need for the existence of a so called "creator" of "all that exists";"

Do you also think that it is an invention, the question of the origin of things?

Do you accept the idea that everything has always existed?

According to your way of thinking, if I understand you correctly, all ideas about anything are inventions and exist only in the mind.

Will you clarify?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"The definition is fine; the idea for the invention of this definition is not justified because there is no need for the existence of a so called "creator" of "all that exists";"

Do you also think that it is an invention, the question of the origin of things?

Do you accept the idea that everything has always existed?

According to your way of ...[text shortened]... , all ideas about anything are inventions and exist only in the mind.

Will you clarify?[/b]

The question regarding the origin of the observer universe is a justified question. I don't know the answer because I cannot cut through the veil called "point singularity".
Do you know the answer?

I accept the idea that, whatever exists, it is existing solely in relation to the existence of the observer universe;

Finally, in my opinion all our ideas about everything, along with all our theories of reality and thus all our religions, and our Fine Arts, our philosophical systems and our science too, they are solely products of our mind alone. Also, methinks we are products of these specific products of ours. You see, we are using elements of the interaction of our inner world and the physical world that they force us to bring up ideas for our convenience, and then we are implying these ideas of ours in our physical world -and by acting this way we are developing our inner world too. This way we are transforming constantly the World 1 and the World 2 whilst enriching endlessly the World 3. Since the sole bond between these three Worlds is our bodymind alone, this means amongst else that the realities are as many as the sentient beings.
All in all, the sole generator of the various blind religious beliefs known as "absolute truth" etc. etc. is in my opinion no other than the mind alone of the individual that decided to beleive them blindly
😵