Everything created needs a cause. This is the scientic way. All this phenominal reality here is bound by cause and effect. The question for you is how did it all start? The big bang materials cannot have caused themselves. Why can you not theorise where they came from?

We need an original cause, and we can’t have something coming from nothing. These things are obvious, to me at least. The Bible actually claims that we were “brought forth”, or made from existing materials. This creation must have arisen from something that exists, but isn’t possesed of the same qualities, and there must have been a reason for it, and this reason, or cause, needs to be able to design things of incredible complexity.

So this creation has as its original substance, this higher reality. Mysticism makes just this claim. The claim is that we are really composed of something higher, and we can connect with it, because we are of it. This satisfies my logical inquiry perfectly. And as to a designer, scripture details thousands of years of interraction with God. A problem that exists though, is that there are many mystics who fall prey to illogical thinking and assume that there is no personal God. They have the same problem as you. In the end, they cannot answer how and why they exist.

As my name implies, I am both a believer in God as a personal entity, and a believer in God as an omnipresent impersonal God as well. My position satisfies all the logic that must be satisfied.

"Ever since the creation of the world his invisible, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse..."

Romans 1:20

I find it unfortunate that the most beautiful, eternal, and empowering relationship is probably the most neglected relationship in existence.

I find that many decide that God doesn't exist based upon the most flawed reasoning. Even people that consider themselves deeply spiritual have stipped God of His personality (in their own minds) and have opted out of relating with God personally.

People think a personal God is some kind of a limitation. The ironic thing about that is that by elliminating God's personality, and embracing a purely impersonal God, they are actually the ones imposing limits.

Does anyone realize that the impersonal reality that meditators are seeking might have a personal manifestation? Do people not find it reasonable that our complex reality would have a designer who is powerful and intelligent?

Many, most especially Buddhists, think that individuality has arisen by mistake, as if it's some sort of curse. And they assume that the cure for this curse is to destroy their individuality, because life is suffering.

How exactly can anyone tell another person that their destiny is to not exist? Did someone experience non existence and conclude that? It is imposible to even speak of not existing, because there would be no memory of it, because there was no one to experience it.

Why would anyone want to kill themselves in the first place? Life has all sorts of joy and possitivity in it. For those who feel ready, I think it's great to pursue personal empowerment to the point of not needing to reincarnate. This is for the purpose of strengthening the ego, not destroying it. Being givin a personal expression that has many weaknesses is a great motivator to seek growth. It isn't that our present individuality is terrible, but that it has opportunites for growth. What growth would be pursued if we were created already perfect. Such an existence would be pointless.

I read the words of impersonalits speaking about how they will die and just merge into God and not exist anymore. This is an assumption they have made. If within meditation you experience oneness with God, why would you assume you are meant to merge and destroy your ability to relate, rather than relate with God eternally and always learn?

Those who don't believe in God are limited. Mystics reach a certain level of oneness with God and they give up when they feel they might have found God. They're not sure, but they assume that they're finished. Yet, when you ask them why we came to exist? and how? they are speechless. Are we to accept that one who has reached ultimate truth doesn't even understand their own origin and destination?

Their story is like this: we have inexplicably popped into existence, totally by accident, and we must destroy ourselves and end this malady with meditation. This is exactly the same as non spiritual people who think our reality arose by chaos and when we die we just go back into nature. People who are unable to think logically will be simular, both in the spiriual arena and the non spiritual one.

I feel agitated that that spiritual seekers are bombarded by people such as Ken Wilber, or Eckhardt Tolle. All of them. Non of them are enlightened. The world has seemingly fallen pray to  hoards of unenlightened "masters." They teach us to embrace flowery concepts that make us feel "spiritual" yet leave our deepest questions unanswered. And they are growing so rich by their books.

I would like to see all these people gathered together and asked if there's a God. Their answer would be, "no, because I haven't seen Him." Then they will be asked how we came to be and why? They will say, "we, don't know." And these are the fools teaching us?

Maybe they think their can be no individuality within unity. Unity on has meaning when their is individualty. That's the point. The whole is composed of parts and always will be. That is what gives the "whole" it's meaning. Individuality is present precisely because it allows for experience. God has always had His own personal identity. His invdividuality didn't come to be like ours. He has always existed.

Our reality is bound by cause and effect. The universe didn't create itself. Everything in our reality needs to have had a cause. Time and space had to have been caused. What is the cause? God is the one who has created this reality. He isn't bound by cause and effect, or time and space. He has set all this into motion. "From everlasting to everlasting Thou art God." God doesn't need a cause because He created the phenominal.

The only question is I think is valid is what could have the ability to set everything into motion. What has the power and intelligence to do it? I see only one claim when it comes to this. We have scripture detailing interaction between man and God and He is the one who claims to have created us.

Chaos isn't a valid answer at all. This chaos is movement and I would ask how things became chaotic in the first place, and where did the chaotic materials come from? How idiotic to say, "I see order in things and purpose, so the only explanation that makes sense is that it was all a big accident." What's scientific about that? That is the opposite of science as far as I can tell.

As far as I know, science started out with the belief that things were orderly and could be studied. When it comes to God, all of the sudden cause and effect is side-stepped. Why is this? Why has the most obvious answer been brushed aside by so many? It's because they don't want to believe in God. God is a threat to their nihilistic existence. If they would conclude that their is a God, then they must decide on what to do with this knowledge and that's what scares them. How to go about deciding which religion to belong to? or how to relate with this all powerful God?

Atheist think they're being intelligent to conclude that there's no God, but it's actually the opposite.

Meditators who don't believe in God won't find Him, simply because they're not looking. If you want to find someone how will you go about it by assuming that they don't exist. People think they're going to force God out of hiding. No, they have to realize that there is a God, and pray to Him, come to terms with the fact that enlightenment is about finding God, and it's His decision to reveal HimSelf. If mysticism was enough to reach God, people would have done it. But they haven't. The true masters are the ones who have practice religion and mysticism side by side and found God HimSelf.

If one doesn't seek God personally, I see no reason why God should reveal HimSelf to anyone. He isn't invasive. If an individual wishes to engage God soley impersonal, I believe God allows them to do so, but they will always be limited to interacting with God impersonally. That is only a partial relationship. Why settle for that? Why embrace a view of God that leads you to believe God has no idea you exist, and doesn't love you?

I'm optimistic about the future of spirituality, and believe that those who know the truth will soon become more and more known until the fakes are seen for what they are. Our scriptures have all hinted at the coming of this golden age. I look forward to the strengthening of people's knowledge of truth. It's time to end the lies and ignorance.

When all our loved ones die and move on to new incarnations, God will be the only one attentively watching over us. Becoming a Son of God is the goal. Having an eternal and fullfilling relationship with God is what's important. Why would you not wish to have God who is all powerful, loving, wise as your Father for all of eternity? This is the most lasting and amazing relationship we can have. All our possesions and relationships will be left behind, but God will always be there. He will always know you, and always be there for you. No one else can offer this.

I have noticed there is a certain negativity attached to life by many. I way of thinking that individuality is something bad, like a punishment of some sort. Statements such as we are born sinful, or life is suffering.

There is an idea out there that individuality is some impermanent illusion, one that isn't real, a dream. The solution to this is to wake up, or so they say.

I dissagree totally with the Hindu teaching that life is a lila, some divine play, a dream that God is having, implying that God is asleep. Where will these masters that die after their "enlightenment" go when they die? Will they merge with the whole, or cease to be individuals? Imagine the selfishness of such a thing. To learn so many things, only to voluntarily die/merge into the one? What would be the point of going from being the one, to being an individual only to just go right back where you came from?

Beyond that, why and how did individuality occur in the first place? I remember reading in the Bible a certain person who questioned Jesus concerning resurection? He asked Jesus which wife someone would have when they arise? Jesus said that you don't take wives at that point.

I also have read about the Buddhist idea of entering Nirvana after the need to reincarnate is no longer there. The question in my mind is how would someone know that there is an afterlife unless you still exist as an invidual once there? It's like me saying after I die I will no longer exist. And I know this because I didn't exist for a time and came back to existence. That wouldn't be knowledge at all, there is no way to to have an experience of non-existence because you wouldn't remember anything.

It seems clear to me that heaven and nirvana are one and the same. I would also say that you will have a body there, but a deathless one, that doesn't suffer.

I believe it to be most logical to believe that there is a God who caused your individuality to be, and that this individuality is eternal in one form or another.

 

One and Many

Our Divine Heritage

Creation:

People tend to think that God created us from nothing. This is not possible. Just as we create from existing materials we are created from what's already there and the Bible attests to this.

The Bible starts out in Hebrew, "B'reisheet barah Elohim..." The word "barah" means brought forth. When a Jew blesses fruit for example, they say "blessed is God, our God, King of the universe who brings forth the fruit of the tree." Here you can see that fruit is made from what is already in existence, as opposed to being made from nothing. God made us from Himself as He was all that was present.

We have functionally though not essentially separated from the whole:

If God is to create and He is infinite, there can be nothing outside of Him. Therefore, Logic dictates that we would be in Him, and of Him:

"For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain of your poets have said, for ye are also His offspring."

-The Acts 17:28 KJV

In order for God to create He focuses on an area within His being and gives it individuality. This entity then has the ability to function as though separate, but remaining essentially one with God.

Unity among mystics and devotees

The religious believe in a personal God, yet they say He is infinite. Logically speaking, God cannot be solely a personal God and be infinite.

Those who are mystical believe that God is infinite and impersonal. They believe God possesses no mind, intellect or emotions, which is hardly an all-powerful God. It makes the most sense for God to have a personal aspect so He can relate personally with His creations.

What I propose is not to be dogmatic, but to bring the religious and mystical together. Since God is universal, He is capable of being both impersonal and personal, both aspects being absolute. If God didn't have an impersonal aspect His omnipresence wouldn't be true.

God had His own awareness and we have our own awareness, but our awareness exists within God's awareness. Everything exists on their own, though they are connected to and essentially dependent on the existence of God.

God has a personal aspect which Adam was made in the image of, but going forth from God's personality is His impersonal aspect which allows God to be infinite. We are actually within His impersonal aspect.

With meditation your being attempts to experience you innate unity with God's universality. Through prayer you communicate lovingly with God's personality

While many assume the Buddha to have not believed in a personal God one can easily see by reading his words upon the dawning of his enlightenment that this was not the case:

"Through many a birth I have wandered in samsara, seeking, but never finding the House-Builder. It is such sorrow to take birth again and again.

O House-Builder, Thou art revealed! Thou shalt not build a house for me again. All Thy rafters are broken. Thy ridge-pole is shattered. My mind has entered the unconditioned and reached the end of craving."

-Dharmapada: 11:8-9

It is important to note that the Buddha was a philosopher and not a prophet. Therefore, it wasn't necessary for him to teach about God, only to teach people how to live a better life. It is my belief that the Buddha never intended for his teachings to justify non-belief in God.

God's personality is complex. "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are you ways My ways, ' says the Lord.'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."

-Isaiah 55:8-9

He is Love. His love is expressed in a very complex manner. In the Qur'an the angels ask God why He will create a man when he will act destructively. God says, "I know what you know not."

Our realm is imperfect complete with suffering and the evil that is the other side of the coin of duality in order to set-up a learning environment. Problems create solutions. This is the only way to learn.

Its amazing,

the beautiful love.

I can't think,

Searingly intense.

my senses overwhelmed,

my feelings sparked into extasy,

your eyes bring me to bliss,

your touch...

It makes me forget it all.

I could caress for an eternity,

kiss every inch,

your rain makes me vibrant,

your breath brings coolness.

Tingling and lighting my senses,

I'm just beholding you;

I've forgotten who I am,

I'm just flooded,

Tears trickling,

love from my heart saturates me,

I want to be close,

lose myself in you.

How I love you,

I adore you,

I can't stand the seperation at times,

I call your name,

Again and again.

begging you to touch me,

You're here.

I feel you.

closer than close.

I feel because I am,

You gave of yourself,

what I have is yours.

I want to give.

I want to love.

and to be loved.

Can I be with you?

Can we be one?

I love you, I cherish you, beloved-

My Father

My lover

My family

My self

It's all you.

Just you.

Only you.

Only love.

"Through many a birth I have wandered in samsara, seeking, but never finding, the House-Builder. It is such a sorrow to take birth again and again.

O House-Builder, THOU art revealed! THOU shalt not build a house for me again. All Thy rafters are broken. THY ridge-pole is shattered. My mind has entered the unconditioned and reached the end of craving."

Dharmapada 11:8-9

Many claim that Being has created mind, and mind has created ego. However, you can see above that the Buddha has met an individual who he calls, The House-Builder, who is other than himself, and is outside himself.

Can you see how the Housebuilder is addressed as THOU, and he is ME.

If he found out that he was a creation of his own mind he would have said:

"I have found MY mind, MY own mind will not build another house for me again. All MY rafters are broken, my ridge-pole is shattered..."

If everything but the mind is a creation of the mind, then the mind is a self, and if our mind is our self, than even if we find our mind, then we will still be a self in the form of a mind. Why then did the Buddha refer to the House-Builder as being other than himself, he is speaking to the House-Builder as if it's another person, not as if he's talking to his own mind. In fact, how can someone speak to their own mind, if they are only their own mind?

Beyond that, where did our minds come from? According to Annata, the mind is really just Being, if this is so, then Being became mind, and if that is so the self is not deluded, Being is deluded, but Being has no mind, so that is impossible, unless of course Being expresses as Ishvara(Brahman's Personal aspect) and He has created many more egos.

Wow, what an ineresting idea that is, that would account for Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Zoroastianism, Hinduism(the religion of the Buddha himself), Native American religions that believe in the Great Spirit....

Everything just seems to make sense with a little help from logic.

This is a discussion I am having someone who claims he is enlightened. I am the bold and he is the regular. I will update as the discussion continues. Hope you enjoy:

Part 1:

There is no "someone" to realize anything beyond individuality...but that which who/what we really are is not an individual. "Realization" is when the fictitious individual is recognized for what it is and then there is just being.  The individual drops away and then there just is what is. ‘What is' is neither existent nor non-existent...for those are just mental concepts that fail miserably in trying to put into a box what can not be put into a box.

If I understand this correctly, you are implying that we are just being, with no mind, in essence, but somehow being has developed a mind, and this mind has developed a whole personality/self around this mistake.

How did mind develop from this being? Why?

Memory will put you back into delusion - memory is not an ally here.
Experiencing/observing needs a mind, but both need something separate - an object for the subject. Being is simply being...in the moment. It is not an experience.

Cease trying to use the mind to understand. The mind can not understand this.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, has said that the mind finds itself as absolute Being, this to me seems to imply that you will still have a mind, but instead of the mind identifying with a body, it will be merged with consciousness of oneness, a single flowing consciousness. The body and spirit still exist, but they are not perceived at this moment, but the spirit is strengthened by the experience, and upon return to the physical, the body also changes. I think body, spirit, mind all of it boils down to Being, but I think realizing this pure Being is meant to enrich the spirit, not to show you that you aren't the spirit, you are Being expressed as spirit and body.

Just because everything can be realized as Being, doesn't mean the expression of Being are not us, it just means that we are made from being, we are both, we are Being, and non-being, both are true. What do you think?

It is possible, but that is just another part of the illusion. This is still identifying with a mind made creation.

Ok, I see that we are trying to realize Being, but I don't see why body and spirit must be seen as illusion? Like Hydrogen and Oxygen, when they make up water and ice, these manifestations are not an illusion, they are phases of H and O. Water is both Hydrogen and Oxygen, and Ice at the same time, is this not so?

What/who we are is beyond the whole...and does not depend on anything.

Yes, the concept of whole only applies when you are an individual, when you are Being, it is something beyond individuality, but how do you know the Being is truer than individuality? Don't you prefer to be an individual with a good connection to Being?

Picking a belief that is agreeable to the mind will not free you from the creations of the mind.

Yes, I suppose transcending is what will bring you to Being, simple belief won't do, but I think beliefs are necessary, because they give you the means to transcend.

Here is a good question for you, brother, How do you know that Being is not evolving as well? How can you be sure that your Spirit isn't growing bit by bit, while Being is moving ahead as well, and because of this you will have to become a light body, because you have gone beyond the need for a body of flesh as you have now?

Do you know of Siddhar Sivavakiyyar? He has said that after the physical body is no longer needed a light body is used. Did you read how Jesus ascended, do you think that Heaven might be where these spirits with light bodies dwell?

How can you be sure that Being is not evolving? Would you say that Being can't improve? Surely all-powerful Being, can learn, maybe Being has a mind, intellect and emotions, but Being has not seen fit to reveal HimSelf to you, because you have not chosen to devote to Him? What do you say to that, brother?

Namaste to you as well, brother, and thank you for this good discussion.

Part 2: I am the bold, he is regular:

How did mind develop from this being? Why?

The essence of mind...also known as the unborn mind...is being.  Perhaps a slightly different verbage will help.

...this to me seems to imply that you will still have a mind, but instead of the mind identifying with a body, it will be merged with consciousness of oneness, a single flowing consciousness. The body and spirit still exist, but they are not perceived at this moment, but the spirit is strengthened by the experience, and upon return to the physical, the body also changes. I think body, spirit, mind all of it boils down to Being, but I think realizing this pure Being is meant to enrich the spirit, not to show you that you aren't the spirit, you are Being expressed as spirit and body.

The essence of mind is intrinsically pure.  It is not that the essence of mind will be merged with consciousness of oneness...it is that it never was separate from oneness.  It was the thinking mind and identification that caused the split and now that identified consciousness wants to merge with consciousness of oneness.  It is a trap of the thinking (misidentified) mind, caused by the thinking mind, perpetuated by the thinking mind.  Furthermore, letting go of the thinking mind and identifications and realizing the essence of mind (just being)...does not mean you do not perceive the forms of body and spirit.  There is awareness still of the forms of body and spirit.  The body can still act in the world.  There is no return...there is no leaving the physical.

Just because everything can be realized as Being, doesn't mean the expression of Being are not us, it just means that we are made from being, we are both, we are Being, and non-being, both are true. What do you think?

Either all the expressions are us...or none of the expressions are us.  The problem occurs when you want some of the expressions to be you but not others.  We are being...not made from being...all there is is being.  (being is said in a nondual sense, there is no such thing as non-being in how I used the term)

Ok, I see that we are trying to realize Being, but I don't see why body and spirit must be seen as illusion? Like Hydrogen and Oxygen, when they make up water and ice, these manifestations are not an illusion, they are phases of H and O. Water is both Hydrogen and Oxygen, and Ice at the same time, is this not so?

I've tried to explain this to you before, but let's try it this way:

The error is when you say there are things that are not you.  Water is both Hydrogen and Oxygen, and Ice at the same time...yes...but Water is not carbon or helium or etc.  You identify and say this is my body and my spirit...that is the illusion.  Either all the expressions are us...or none of the expressions are us. 

...but how do you know the Being is truer than individuality? Don't you prefer to be an individual with a good connection to Being?

There is an awareness that recognized itself in all forms - and a simultaneous realization that "I" was that awareness.  Tat tvam asi - you are That.  This can be directly realized.  With the realization, there is clear understanding that the individual is a fallacy...not much more than a dream character you dream at night - a character normally not aware that the real "you" has dreamed everything else in the dream that the dream character (what is identified with in the dream) considers separate.  If you are a lucid dreamer and realize you are dreaming...that is similar to what I am talking about.  You realize this is all a dream and even your character is a dream...that everything is you really.

I think beliefs are necessary, because they give you the means to transcend.

Just one more thing that needs to be transcended in the end.  Besides, truth doesn't need to be believed in.  Things that are not directly known (second hand or third hand knowledge)...and lies and fallacies...those need to be believed in to exist.  The truth is, regardless of our beliefs.  It is called insanity and delusion when our beliefs are contract to the truth.  It is best to not believe anything.

How do you know that Being is not evolving as well? How can you be sure that your Spirit isn't growing bit by bit, while Being is moving ahead as well, and because of this you will have to become a light body, because you have gone beyond the need for a body of flesh as you have now?

Forms evolve...what can change in that which has no form?

Do you know of Siddhar Sivavakiyyar? He has said that after the physical body is no longer needed a light body is used. Did you read how Jesus ascended, do you think that Heaven might be where these spirits with light bodies dwell?

Those too are temporary forms that one day shall pass.  No form is permanent.

Surely all-powerful Being, can learn, maybe Being has a mind, intellect and emotions, but Being has not seen fit to reveal HimSelf to you, because you have not chosen to devote to Him? What do you say to that, brother?

Part 3: I am the bold he is the regular:

The essence of mind...also known as the unborn mind...is being.  Perhaps a slightly different verbiage will help.

Why would Being become mind, a lesser version of itself? How did it all start? How did being become deluded, if Being has no mind itself, and not intellect, how can it be deluded? Pure Being, cannot become deluded unless it is an individual, unless it can think.

The essence of mind is intrinsically pure.  It is not that the essence of mind will be merged with consciousness of oneness...it is that it never was separate from oneness.  It was the thinking mind and identification that caused the split and now that identified consciousness wants to merge with consciousness of oneness.  It is a trap of the thinking (misidentified) mind, caused by the thinking mind, perpetuated by the thinking mind.  Furthermore, letting go of the thinking mind and identifications and realizing the essence of mind (just being)...does not mean you do not perceive the forms of body and spirit.  There is awareness still of the forms of body and spirit.  The body can still act in the world.  There is no return...there is no leaving the physical.

How did the thinking mind arise then, how did mind even enter the picture if there is only Being? If there is only Being, where did mind come from? You say the essence of mind is Being, well, that still does not explain how and why mind arose from Being. You haven't explained how mind arose from Being. How did thinking begin? Why?

Either all the expressions are us...or none of the expressions are us.  The problem occurs when you want some of the expressions to be you but not others.  We are being...not made from being...all there is is being.  (being is said in a non-dual sense, there is no such thing as non-being in how I used the term)

We are essentially made from Being, Being is expressing as individuals. We have an aspect that is relative, and an aspect that is unitive, both are us, neither one is more true. We are both impersonal and personal at the same time. Just as we could be said to be a pile of cells, or an individual being depending on how you look at it. When I say non-Being I mean to say the aspect of us that is not individualized. When we enter the state of Being we are Being, but when we are in the relative we are individuals, both are true, water is both water and H2O at the same time, Being is real, and it's relative expressions are real. The relative expression is real, because Being is real. We are expression of Being, when Being is expressed as body and spirit, it is body and spirit, when the mind finds itself as Being it is Being. After enlightenment you have realized that you are an expression of Being. For you to say we are Being and not relative is wrong. That is like 2 people are arguing over whether a puddle is H and O, or if it's water, its both, that's easy to see, it depends on how you look at it.

The error is when you say there are things that are not you.  Water is both Hydrogen and Oxygen, and Ice at the same time...yes...but Water is not carbon or helium or etc.  You identify and say this is my body and my spirit...that is the illusion.  Either all the expressions are us...or none of the expressions are us.

There is no need to choose, that is the point both are real. When you are a 'you' everything else is not you, that is obvious. While you are in the relative it is perfectly correct to say 'I am a man.' Who, thinking logically could argue such a thing? If someone chops your leg off, you will see that you are a man, you will scream just like any man, is this not so? Why is that? It is because you are a man, and a man is an expression of Being. In the beginning there was only Being, then Being expressed as man, because Being, has a mind, He is God, but God hasn't shown HimSelf to you, because you refuse to believe.

Look at this passage from the Bhagavad Gita:

"Though I am unborn and of imperishable nature, though Lord of all beings, yet remaining in my own nature I take birth through My own power of creation."     
Bhagavad Gita 4:6

You can see that God has made us by altering areas within His Being, We are part of Him, even when expressed as individuals, both are true. You refuse to see the obvious, brother.
 
There is an awareness that recognized itself in all forms - and a simultaneous realization that "I" was that awareness.  Tat tvam asi - you are That.  This can be directly realized.  With the realization, there is clear understanding that the individual is a fallacy...not much more than a dream character you dream at night - a character normally not aware that the real "you" has dreamed everything else in the dream that the dream character (what is identified with in the dream) considers separate.  If you are a lucid dreamer and realize you are dreaming...that is similar to what I am talking about.  You realize this is all a dream and even your character is a dream...that everything is you really.

Yes, you realize that you are an individualized expression of Being. Before enlightenment you can know this philosophically, but after enlightenment you realize directly that you are an expression of Being. The individual is not a fallacy, if Being is real, than whatever expression Being takes is also real, whatever is made form something that is real is also real, that is logic. You are not a character being dreamed by yourself, even when a lucid dreamer knows he is dreaming he is still an individual. Also, as I have said if you are dreaming yourself, then you are still an individual, and you say there is no self, you can't have it both ways, brother. It is true that we don't exist independently, we exist dependent upon the existence of the whole, and due to the fact that we are individuals we are free to act as we please.

Just one more thing that needs to be transcended in the end.  Besides, truth doesn't need to be believed in.  Things that are not directly known (second hand or third hand knowledge)...and lies and fallacies...those need to be believed in to exist.  The truth is, regardless of our beliefs.  It is called insanity and delusion when our beliefs are contract to the truth.  It is best to not believe anything.

Of course, objective truth, that is what we want, not only to have faith, but to know directly. By applying logic to our beliefs we can know if they are good beliefs. I believe in science, and science works, the reason why it works is because there is order, and this order is why logic works. You meditated for years before you experienced your Self, you believe in a concept of enlightenment, and you believe meditation would get you there, why would you assume that nothing need be done, that doesn't even match your own experience.

Forms evolve...what can change in that which has no form?

Forms evolve? I thought you said form is an illusion, how can an illusion evolve? From your beliefs, it seems form is Being in a devolved state, if Being can go backwards, how do you know it can't move forward? How do you know Being doesn't have a mind? That is only a belief of yours. The change happens as Being learns, Being has a mind, and therefore it can learn, you just haven't experienced this mind. Why would Ishvara show HimSelf to someone who doesn't wish to know Him? You made your choice.

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, ' says the Lord.' For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV

This is why you are still an individual, even after realizing your Self, because only God's mind, stays at the level of Being, your mind is still evolving, that is why you had to meditate to find yourself as Being, and why you will evolve eternally as an individual, and you will always be less than God, so you must devote if you wish for Him to reveal HimSelf.

Those too are temporary forms that one day shall pass.  No form is permanent.

 How do you know they will all pass? A light body can last indefinitely, it is not a vibratory body, it doesn't die. You only believe all forms will pass.

The light body is eternal, it doesn't die like an earthly body, but it isn't necessarily the final form. Being is evolving so a form will always be necessary because we can't catch up to God, He is so above us, we can merge our consciousness with His in meditation, but we then come back to our relative form.

I and Being are one.

Many mystics know that, but you have said there is no self, if there is no self, how can you make the claim that you are one with Being? Oneness requires you to be a self. It requires that you be an individual, you can't escape logic.

Part 4:

Why would Being become mind, a lesser version of itself? How did it all start? How did being become deluded, if Being has no mind itself, and not intellect, how can it be deluded? Pure Being, cannot become deluded unless it is an individual, unless it can think.

Being did not become mind.  Being did not become deluded.  The mind became deluded.  If you knew what Being was, you would not be asking these kinds of questions.

How did the thinking mind arise then, how did mind even enter the picture if there is only Being? If there is only Being, where did mind come from? You say the essence of mind is Being, well, that still does not explain how and why mind arose from Being. You haven't explained how mind arose from Being. How did thinking begin? Why?

I don't care about philosophizing about how it began.  Some people spend all their time discussing how the world began.  Both questions are pointless.  How it began started before humanity began...and we are not even sure how humans began.  It is better to focus on what is now...things we can actually directly experience and understand.  Much of the thinking mind, as we know it today, was learned from our parents, teachers, peers, etc (as I have told you before).  It is habit and assumption that created the thinking mind that is then identified with.

You refuse to see the obvious, brother.

You are fooled by what you see, brother.

even when a lucid dreamer knows he is dreaming he is still an individual.

Not necessarily, I have dreamed as an observer (no longer an individual - but all the characters) - you must watch your assumptions, brother.

Also, as I have said if you are dreaming yourself, then you are still an individual, and you say there is no self, you can't have it both ways, brother.

You are not dreaming yourself - but a character you created.  You only think you are in an individual in the dream if you identify with an individual character...in reality nothing in the dream is separate or another - it is all you.

You meditated for years before you experienced your Self, you believe in a concept of enlightenment, and you believe meditation would get you there, why would you assume that nothing need be done, that doesn't even match your own experience.

Are you even reading my posts...if you are, you haven't understood much.  I never believed meditation would get me there (another assumption on your part), and as I said before - after awakening, there was the deep understanding that nothing was gained or attained...and all effort that I was doing to get there was not helping but interfering.  What I said does indeed match my own experience - but you are trying your best not to hear me.

Forms evolve? I thought you said form is an illusion, how can an illusion evolve?

Illusion...mirage might be a better word.  They may not be ultimately real, but they do temporary exist.  If a magician shows you the stage illusion of sawing someone in half...it was not real, but something did happen.  You can't say it was totally non-existent.  Sawing a Women in half is an illusion that has evolved since the original days of its creation.  Illusion can evolve...but that does not make it anymore real (ultimately).

From your beliefs, it seems form is Being in a devolved state, if Being can go backwards, how do you know it can't move forward?

Watch your mind and assumptions, brother.  If you think I said Being can devolve...you haven't understood a thing I said.

How do you know Being doesn't have a mind? That is only a belief of yours.

Apparently the term essence of mind did not help at all.

This is why you are still an individual, even after realizing your Self, because only God's mind, stays at the level of Being, your mind is still evolving, that is why you had to meditate to find yourself as Being, and why you will evolve eternally as an individual, and you will always be less than God, so you must devote if you wish for Him to reveal HimSelf.

You think this is an individual speaking...no, you haven't understood at all.

How do you know they will all pass? A light body can last indefinitely, it is not a vibratory body, it doesn't die. You only believe all forms will pass.

Do you know your own light body right now?  On what basis do you say this...or is it belief?

if there is no self, how can you make the claim that you are one with Being?

You questioned me in dualistic terms and implying separation...I answered in kind and pointed towards unicity.  There is only Being...there is no "you" or "me" beyond Being's dream.

Oneness requires you to be a self. It requires that you be an individual, you can't escape logic.

Oneness is a misnomer because it implies duality.  There is no oneness...just Being.  As for logic, Eric Hoffer said it best when he said "the Greeks may have invented logic, but they were not fooled by it."

Part 5:

Being did not become mind.  Being did not become deluded.  The mind became deluded.  If you knew what Being was, you would not be asking these kinds of questions.

You stated that mind is essentially Being, if this is so there must have been a process of becoming. If you have realized that you were originally Being, the next question should be why? How did it all start? You have only realized where you came from, but you still have yet to realize the reason, and you don't seem to know what comes next. So, as I was trying to demonstrate, you don't know, enlightenment is to know the truth, if you have only realized part of the truth, how can you claim to be awakened? You aren't finished yet, brother.

I don't care about philosophizing about how it began.  Some people spend all their time discussing how the world began.  Both questions are pointless.  How it began started before humanity began...and we are not even sure how humans began.  It is better to focus on what is now...things we can actually directly experience and understand.  Much of the thinking mind, as we know it today, was learned from our parents, teachers, peers, etc (as I have told you before).  It is habit and assumption that created the thinking mind that is then identified with.

Of course you don't care, because if you did, you would have to continue searching, you would have to humble yourself, and admit that you still don't understand. When someone can't understand something, it is such a sign of weakness to just say, 'who cares, no one can know such a thing.' The correct answer is, 'I don't know.' You say, the mind became deluded, that means you accept cause and effect, so what caused the first effect? That is the next thing you should look for, if you sencerly want to be liberated. Siddhar Sivavakiyyar has said, 'the Lord will reveal HimSelf.' Marishi Mahesh Yogi has also called Him the Lord, Vyasa in Bhagavad Gita called him the 'Friend of all Beings.' Maharishi was greater than you, had more knowledge than you, much more scholarly than you. I wonder why we have a record of all these Prophets coming, has the general popluation been fooled for thousands of years? Again and again? Has Maharishi lied? What makes you greater than Maharishi? What makes you greater than Siddhar Sivavakiyyar? The awakened one who says, 'I DON'T KNOW.' in the cop-out form of, 'I DON'T CARE.' You would be a great teacher for those who would like some of the truth.

Not necessarily, I have dreamed as an observer (no longer an individual - but all the characters) - you must watch your assumptions, brother.

Yes, and that was a dream wasn't it, have you not awakened to realize you were still you?

You are not dreaming yourself - but a character you created.  You only think you are in an individual in the dream if you identify with an individual character...in reality nothing in the dream is separate or another - it is all you.

You have already said there is no self, how can you have created anything? Who are you? Are you everthing? If you are everything, expressing as Eric Putkonen, who am I? If you are everything, did you create me? You are reading what I have typed, I assure you I am typing it. What nonsense! You exist in a certain point in Being. You are an expression of Being, therefore you are both an indvidual and Being, that will stand up very well, for those of us who consider ourselves sane, and who are logical.

Illusion...mirage might be a better word.  They may not be ultimately real, but they do temporary exist.  If a magician shows you the stage illusion of sawing someone in half...it was not real, but something did happen.  You can't say it was totally non-existent.  Sawing a Women in half is an illusion that has evolved since the original days of its creation.  Illusion can evolve...but that does not make it anymore real (ultimately).

It was an illusion, but all the actors were real, those watching were real, that is different. What do you mean they 'may not' be unlitimately real, you say all form is temporary, and an illusion, how do you know that this 'mirage' will every pass? If it can last indefinatly, how can it be temporary? Everything has expressed from Being, since Being is real, everthing it expresses as is real, more logic for you, brother.

You think this is an individual speaking...no, you haven't understood at all.

I know there is one, I have directly experienced this, as you have directly experienced Being, unless you are insane still? Maybe you imagined seeing Being? Once insane, always insane I guess?

Do you know your own light body right now?  On what basis do you say this...or is it belief?

Yes, it is a belief, because unlike you I can say, 'I don't know', just as you don't know all form is impermanent, just as you believe you know the truth, but don't care to know, just as you believe that it doesn't matter how you were created, but you don't know it doens't matter, beliefs are something we have in common.

Oneness requires you to be a self. It requires that you be an individual, you can't escape logic.

Oneness is a misnomer because it implies duality.  There is no oneness...just Being.  As for logic, Eric Hoffer said it best when he said "the Greeks may have invented logic, but they were not fooled by it."

We are one and many at the same time, this is possible for God. We are areas within His Being which have been altered, the illusion is that we aren't connected, as my teacher says, 'we have functionally, though not essentially, seperated from the whole.' Maybe you know better than him too? Oh that's right, you don't care, so you don't have to know. So, who is the House-Builder? Do you not care?

Let those who are reading this take note, Eric does not know how he came to be an individual, he does not know why he became one, and he doesn't believe in logic. The awakened one who doesn't know!

Namaste, Mr. not-know-it-all. What was your site again? Oh wait, I already don't know, maybe not after all. You are contributing to the endless teachers who are teaching guesses and lies, I doubt God would approve of such a thing. Does God exists, oh yeah, you don't know.

I don't believe eating plants instead of animals is a lesser evil. The reason for this is that I believe that it is possible to live without any evil actions which as I understand it is a product of the enlightened condition.

I don't think that we live in an existence where we must commit evil simply because we want to live. The way creation is made seems to show that everything eats something else that was once alive, whether it be plant or animal, you need the life force of something to continue living.

Whatever, or whoever is responsible for creation must be in favor of good actions, and to create something where a person must victimize a plant or animal and be 'violent' would not make any sense unless we come to the realization that it is not violent, but a function of a system that is larger, and greater than any of our beliefs, a creation where everything functions as it does for a reason.

I believe a person can live a completely peaceful existence and to say that we must commit evil or be violent actions simply to live to me seems to be a misguided belief. Thinking thoughts of appreciation and gently uprooting it do not cancel the fact that you have ended its existence, so I feel that consuming another life is not bad, but instead a sign that we should rethink the stance, if we have taken it, that it is wrong to eat meat, or a lesser evil to eat plants.

I think it's very positive to be a caring person, and to not wish harm for any creature, and also, lessening meat consumption is healthy for the body. The digestive system is very long, and meat rots on the way down, and what we eat eventually becomes our body, so eating fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, milk or milk products is very good for the body. However it is good to be a balanced individual and not be fanatical about your diet, a limited amount of meat consumption will keep the body strong; 'balance in all things.'

In addition to these points I would like to say that a person who is a vegetarian, or thinking of becoming one should be on the lookout for becoming unhealthily thin, or loss of energy. Over time the immune system can weaken if you have not received the proper nutrition and disease can result. Remember that the Buddha said, 'You as much as anyone deserve your compassion.' We humans having the moral capacity can do much good, but if we deprive ourselves of the proper nutrition we risk limiting our ability to function properly, and even to die and that wouldn't be very good for ourselves or those we could have helped. Remember that service to fellow man has been emphasized by Jesus, 'The greatest in my Father's kingdom is he who serves his fellow man.'