God does not exist and religion is the folklore of olden times

[AbrahamG]

Back up 1.5", you'll stop choking.

Don't underestimate me booster!

[IroNat]

Back up 1.5", you'll stop choking.

Excellent repartee.

[Royalty]

Don't underestimate me booster!

Your Necrosis account was supposed to say that.

[Necrosis]

Meister Eckhart? Didn't expect to see this here, very obscure

I think Aquinas was very interesting, his arguments for the existence of God as the strongest of his time

There is no god but eckhart is correct. Gelassenheit is the way.

Aquinas is ok but I agree with what you said about his arguments at the time. None of them are compelling because they rely on thought.

[Necrosis]

Back up 1.5", you'll stop choking.

Ty for assuming my dick is longer than 1.5 inches

[IroNat]

Coach is a good man.
I'll take his values over most regardless of whether God exists or not.

[oldgolds]

Just has to be said

Have a nice day folks.

Then who created us?  You think we could have evolved from amoeba's to where we are now?   Impossible...Even Einstein said there must be a God because there's  too much order in the Universe.

[Necrosis]

Then who created us?  You think we could have evolved from amoeba's to where we are now?   Impossible...Even Einstein said there must be a God because there's  too much order in the Universe.

He did not, he said he believes in spinozas god.

[oldgolds]

Which is God...

[BigRo]

There is no god but eckhart is correct. Gelassenheit is the way.

Aquinas is ok but I agree with what you said about his arguments at the time. None of them are compelling because they rely on thought.

Meister Eckhart never said there was no God he referred to the ground of being as Godhead instead of a separate deity apart from oneself.

"The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are on eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love"

"Gods ground is my ground, and my ground is Gods ground."

"Nothing in all creation is so like God as stillness"

"The very best and noblest attainment in this life is to be silent and let God work and speak within"

Obviously completely heretical stuff for a formal Christian.

[Necrosis]

Which is God...

no sir, not a separate entity. God is infinite substance that has infinite attributes of which we can detect two, extension (spatiality) and thought, those attributes combine into everything you see before you (modes). You, me, shit, puke, piss are god. It has no will and things follow and are as they are because of their nature, simple cause and effect. This is why einstein said god does not play dice, things are as they are and are predictable because they follow from laws.

[Methyl m1ke]

Coach is a good man.
I'll take his values over most regardless of whether God exists or not.

Coach is a patriot and all around good dude.

....but he's catholic....https://www.facebook.com/reel/2665826550538685/?mibextid=9drbnH&s=yWDuG2&fs=e

[Necrosis]

Meister Eckhart never said there was no God he referred to the ground of being as Godhead instead of a separate deity apart from oneself.

"The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are on eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love"

"Gods ground is my ground, and my ground is Gods ground."

"Nothing in all creation is so like God as stillness"

"The very best and noblest attainment in this life is to be silent and let God work and speak within"

Obviously completely heretical stuff for a formal Christian.

I didn't say he said there was no god. If you understood what I said then you would understand Meister, he is a radical non-dualist, my comment was non-dual. Saying there is a god is to say he is something as opposed to nothing, eckhart explicitly states much like David Chaim Smith that god is neither this nor that, its a pure apophatic pathway and neti neti can get one there.

To say there is god creates a duality, hence silence, it's nothing. it's very much in line with the likes of nagarjuna and the madhyamika two truths. God being absolute (its impossible to not use dualistic language unless your graham priest) is nothing, infinity in a cantorian absolute sense is without end, middle, beginning, neither here nor there, being nor non-being it's literally Ein Sof. One has to die to conceptual designations and to one's self to become simultaneously nothing-everything. Entering into that register creates pure ineffability, you could call that experience god after the fact, but prior to it's a cloud of unknowing as psuedo-dionysus the areopagite pointed out.

Meister has to use language to attempt to convey this but it's experiential and negation is imo the easiest way to the placeless place he is speaking, entering the gateless gate is right where you are without elaboration, that is mind/rigpa.

It's like saying there is a front to the wall and a back to the wall, have you ever seen a front without a back?

That's why I said there is no god but he is correct, its dialetheism brother.

Heidegger would frame it as- Being is pure openness which is nothing but pure mediation, a letting-be. Being is all particular beings but is itself not a being.

I don't think eckhart is the best teacher by a long shot though. Dogen is better, smith is better and as a system dzogchen is the best imo.

[Raymondo]

He did not, he said he believes in spinozas god.

These guys don't have a clue.

Try to explain what hundreds of millions of years of evolution or what Spinoza's God means to a bunch of knuckledraggers.

Go watch some footballs bros, the Jets are playing this Sunday. Leave all this confusing stuff to others.

[Necrosis]

These guys don't have a clue.

Try to explain what hundreds of millions of years of evolution or what Spinoza's God means to a bunch of knuckledraggers.

Go watch some footballs bros, the Jets are playing this Sunday. Leave all this confusing stuff to others.

Rather bball, preseason started!

[BigRo]

I didn't say he said there was no god. If you understood what I said then you would understand Meister, he is a radical non-dualist, my comment was non-dual. Saying there is a god is to say he is something as opposed to nothing, eckhart explicitly states much like David Chaim Smith that god is neither this nor that, its a pure apophatic pathway and neti neti can get one there.

To say there is god creates a duality, hence silence, it's nothing. it's very much in line with the likes of nagarjuna and the madhyamika two truths. God being absolute (its impossible to not use dualistic language unless your graham priest) is nothing, infinity in a cantorian absolute sense is without end, middle, beginning, neither here nor there, being nor non-being it's literally Ein Sof. One has to die to conceptual designations and to one's self to become simultaneously nothing-everything. Entering into that register creates pure ineffability, you could call that experience god after the fact, but prior to it's a cloud of unknowing as psuedo-dionysus the areopagite pointed out.

Meister has to use language to attempt to convey this but it's experiential and negation is imo the easiest way to the placeless place he is speaking, entering the gateless gate is right where you are without elaboration, that is mind/rigpa.

It's like saying there is a front to the wall and a back to the wall, have you ever seen a front without a back?

That's why I said there is no god but he is correct, its dialetheism brother.

Heidegger would frame it as- Being is pure openness which is nothing but pure mediation, a letting-be. Being is all particular beings but is itself not a being.

I don't think eckhart is the best teacher by a long shot though. Dogen is better, smith is better and as a system dzogchen is the best imo.

"I didnt say there is no God"..."thats why I said there is no God"...you should be a koan master.

To say there is God does not in itself create duality, for some the path of devotion and emotion suits them better. Even getting the right understanding of via negativa philosophy can become a thought process.

Nisgardatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharishi are worth looking in to.

[chaos]

As much time as some people spend trying to prove there is no God and writing all sorts of books about it, have they given the alternative thought the same effort or are they studying just to affirm their beliefs?

[Donny]

Aliens do exist

[Necrosis]

"I didnt say there is no God"..."thats why I said there is no God"...you should be a koan master.

To say there is God does not in itself create duality, for some the path of devotion and emotion suits them better. Even getting the right understanding of via negativa philosophy can become a thought process.

Nisgardatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharishi are worth looking in to.

You are now misquoting me. i said there is no god but eckhart is correct. you then said eckhart didn't say there was no god, to which I said I didn't say he said there was no god. Now you are saying I said I didn't say there was no god.

To say there is a god creates a duality, de facto. To say something is means something is not. IS is non-sensical without is not. Language as derrida and saussure pointed out is a system of differences, point blank.

Devotion still ends in the dissolution of the self in the beloved, sufis are examples par excellence. Anything you say creates a duality but can point to something that isn' beyond the words, this is the aporia of language. I would agree in the end one can use thought in a potentially non-dualistic way (as process without identification) hence my comments on the two truths. However, one still works within duality but is aware of it. Duality is an expression of the non-dual like a smile is an expression of the face, there is no such thing as a smile, its just the face but there is such a thing as a smile on the relative level because it's different from a growl. It includes it but you will never reach non-duality through it.

Achintya bheda abheda is truth.

I have read both of them, atma vichara which is Marharshi's (you spelled both of them wrong, as you know I am a published author known for my penmanship) main method results in thoughtless pure awareness so I am confused why you are using him as an example of devotion, self enquiry was his main method despite whatever bhakti he engaged in, advaita vedanta kinda sucks tbh. Nisargadatta's focus is literally on nothing. His book the experience of nothingness literally pushes one to dis-identify with thought and focus on nothingness as it's impossible to gain conceptual footing.

There is nothing inherently wrong with thought but it's shunyata like everything else and dangerous to tell a neophyte that it's not a problem. Silence is the absence of thought, eckhart is a good teacher here.

[BigRo]

You are now misquoting me. i said there is no god but eckhart is correct. you then said eckhart didn't say there was no god, to which I said I didn't say he said there was no god. Now you are saying I said I didn't say there was no god.

To say there is a god creates a duality, de facto. To say something is means something is not. IS is non-sensical without is not. Language as derrida and saussure pointed out is a system of differences, point blank.

Devotion still ends in the dissolution of the self in the beloved, sufis are examples par excellence. Anything you say creates a duality but can point to something that isn' beyond the words, this is the aporia of language. I would agree in the end one can use thought in a potentially non-dualistic way (as process without identification) hence my comments on the two truths. However, one still works within duality but is aware of it. Duality is an expression of the non-dual like a smile is an expression of the face, there is no such thing as a smile, its just the face but there is such a thing as a smile on the relative level because it's different from a growl. It includes it but you will never reach non-duality through it.

Achintya bheda abheda is truth.

I have read both of them, atma vichara which is Marharshi's (you spelled both of them wrong, as you know I am a published author known for my penmanship) main method results in thoughtless pure awareness so I am confused why you are using him as an example of devotion, self enquiry was his main method despite whatever bhakti he engaged in, advaita vedanta kinda sucks tbh. Nisargadatta's focus is literally on nothing. His book the experience of nothingness literally pushes one to dis-identify with thought and focus on nothingness as it's impossible to gain conceptual footing.

There is nothing inherently wrong with thought but it's shunyata like everything else and dangerous to tell a neophyte that it's not a problem. Silence is the absence of thought, eckhart is a good teacher here.

To say there is God does not create duality. Clinging to the ego "I am such and such did you not know" creates duality. The duality we human beings create between ourselves creates more separation from the enlightened state than whether one says there is or is no God.

I mentioned those sages not as examples of bhakti but as potential sources of interest for you. I left out an A in Nisargadatta  and in Maharshi put in an I but Marharshi is not actually correct.

I take it you actually meditate every day then? To be honest you come across with a slight sense of superiority but perhaps you have real experience born from a lifetime of meditation and sadhana?

[chaos]

To say there is God does not create duality. Clinging to the ego "I am such and such did you not know" creates duality. The duality we human beings create between ourselves creates more separation from the enlightened state than whether one says there is or is no God.

I mentioned those sages not as examples of bhakti but as potential sources of interest for you. I left out an A in Nisargadatta  and in Maharshi put in an I but Marharshi is not actually correct.

I take it you actually meditate every day then? To be honest you come across with a slight sense of superiority but perhaps you have real experience born from a lifetime of meditation and sadhana?

100% ego, not meditation.

[Coach is Back!]

You are now misquoting me. i said there is no god but eckhart is correct. you then said eckhart didn't say there was no god, to which I said I didn't say he said there was no god. Now you are saying I said I didn't say there was no god.

To say there is a god creates a duality, de facto. To say something is means something is not. IS is non-sensical without is not. Language as derrida and saussure pointed out is a system of differences, point blank.

Devotion still ends in the dissolution of the self in the beloved, sufis are examples par excellence. Anything you say creates a duality but can point to something that isn' beyond the words, this is the aporia of language. I would agree in the end one can use thought in a potentially non-dualistic way (as process without identification) hence my comments on the two truths. However, one still works within duality but is aware of it. Duality is an expression of the non-dual like a smile is an expression of the face, there is no such thing as a smile, its just the face but there is such a thing as a smile on the relative level because it's different from a growl. It includes it but you will never reach non-duality through it.

Achintya bheda abheda is truth.

I have read both of them, atma vichara which is Marharshi's (you spelled both of them wrong, as you know I am a published author known for my penmanship) main method results in thoughtless pure awareness so I am confused why you are using him as an example of devotion, self enquiry was his main method despite whatever bhakti he engaged in, advaita vedanta kinda sucks tbh. Nisargadatta's focus is literally on nothing. His book the experience of nothingness literally pushes one to dis-identify with thought and focus on nothingness as it's impossible to gain conceptual footing.

There is nothing inherently wrong with thought but it's shunyata like everything else and dangerous to tell a neophyte that it's not a problem. Silence is the absence of thought, eckhart is a good teacher here.

Of your 3000 books surely you’ve read this

https://catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/twenty-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god.html

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-ontological-argument-for-gods-existence

[Necrosis]

To say there is God does not create duality. Clinging to the ego "I am such and such did you not know" creates duality. The duality we human beings create between ourselves creates more separation from the enlightened state than whether one says there is or is no God.

I mentioned those sages not as examples of bhakti but as potential sources of interest for you. I left out an A in Nisargadatta  and in Maharshi put in an I but Marharshi is not actually correct.

I take it you actually meditate every day then? To be honest you come across with a slight sense of superiority but perhaps you have real experience born from a lifetime of meditation and sadhana?

Please with the superiority non-sense. You quoted me incorrectly and then called me a koan master or that I should be which was meant in a pejorative sense lol. I embrace my ego to destroy others, I am a death coach. You approached this conversation by trying to correct me then misquoting me then passive aggressively insulting me, now you are claiming I come across superior lol. I was just matching the energy broseph. All I ever do on here.

Meditation is what you are not something you do. I have done plenty, it's not necessary after the fact. I do it daily though for other purposes, but forgetting happens, gurdjieffs self-remembering is an apt term. Silence is a shitty facsimile of love, I am not sitting in a cave like bodhidharma here. Being aware of being aware is all you need.

Your initial sentence is just incorrect, I don't know how to help you out of that if you think there is something called GOD that's in anyway Other. To say anything is this or that is duality, that is the ego, it's a fiction. There is a level of truth but perhaps you need to tease apart what you mean by god.

I am comfortable on every level, reality is laminar but anneals at times. I don't shun the ego, that's dualistic. only initially should one do that for pedagogical purposes, then it's no problem at all.

[chaos]

I embrace my ego to destroy others, I am a death coach.

Bhank 2.0

[BigRo]

Please with the superiority non-sense. You quoted me incorrectly and then called me a koan master or that I should be which was meant in a pejorative sense lol. I embrace my ego to destroy others, I am a death coach. You approached this conversation by trying to correct me then misquoting me then passive aggressively insulting me, now you are claiming I come across superior lol. I was just matching the energy broseph. All I ever do on here.

Meditation is what you are not something you do. I have done plenty, it's not necessary after the fact. I do it daily though for other purposes, but forgetting happens, gurdjieffs self-remembering is an apt term. Silence is a shitty facsimile of love, I am not sitting in a cave like bodhidharma here. Being aware of being aware is all you need.

Your initial sentence is just incorrect, I don't know how to help you out of that if you think there is something called GOD that's in anyway Other. To say anything is this or that is duality, that is the ego, it's a fiction. There is a level of truth but perhaps you need to tease apart what you mean by god.

I am comfortable on every level, reality is laminar but anneals at times. I don't shun the ego, that's dualistic. only initially should one do that for pedagogical purposes, then it's no problem at all.

You are a death coach? To me it seems you have not died to your own staunch feeling of being a solid separate identity  so how can you help liberate others?  And if there are no others then how can you destroy them? 

Meditate upon this feeling of I and relax its fixation upon itself rather than saying " I am a death coach, I am a published author" dont you see its all about you as a little person?