Ego sum qui sum.

That is true.

We cannot completely free ourselves from evil because it is our part of existence, in the same way the good is.

Going deeper, even God is not totally free from evil. This saying i am what i am manifests from evil. This desire to express and know himself by the God is evil/saitan. Otherwise, there was no need to say that. This sense of selfism in the God is Saitan.

This is a subtle yet very simple concept.

There are three different stages.

1. IT IS WHAT IT IS

This is the most basic or primary stage. It is pure but that does not mean it must be good by default. Actually, the question of neither good or bad is relevant here. It is beyond good and evil. That is why it is simply what it is, nothing else and beyond adjectives too.

It means that there is no way of knowing it other than itself. Because, firstly it is unexplainable and secondly, it can be known by experience only. But, as it has no counterpart in the world, hence difficult to explain.

This is the stage of pure consciousness. It is both omnipotent and omnipresent, but not omniscient. It exists but does not aware about its existence. it just hanged there for eternity because there was not even time present at that moment. This is the stage of complete un-untrory or harmony.

2. I AM WHAT I AM

Now, here comes the our well known God. First stage is beyond the Christian perception of the God, and perhaps the weatern philosophy too.

I am what i am implies the sense of self-recognition. The God becomes omniscient too and thus complete in all senses. This is precisely the moment when Bibical God says - Let there be light and light came into existence.

First stage was pure, without any will, even to exist. But, being an omnipotent entity, the possibility of happeining anyting was there. So, the first possibility materlises and that was having a Will. That is the only logical possibility that may happen. Because, that omniscient entity must have a Will in the first place before willing for anything else.

This Will or desire of anything is evil or Saitan. But, Saitan is mostly associated with evil desire only, which is not justified. Saitan represents all types of Will whether good or bad. In technical terms, Saitan is that will which caused entropy. Having said that, we also realize that no change or further development was possible without that Saitan/change either.

So, Saitan is as necessary for the existence as the God is. Forget about humans, even God himself cannot exist without Saitan.

That is precisely why the terms like Detachment or Emptiness were used by Buddhism instead of simple goodness. Detachment simply means to detach from all desires, it does not care about whether those desires are good or bad. And, the same is truefor Emptiness as it referrs to the state whenone becomes conpletely empty from all types of desires.

On the other hand, Both Christianity and orthodox Islam (not Sufism) focus on virtue; good intentions and deeds.While, most schools of Hinduism go a step beyond and ask to get rid of all types of Willingness; both good and bad. Christianity focuses on soul while Hinduism on consciousness. And, this difference reflects in both eastern and western religions and philosophies too.

3. I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE -

This the third and last stage. This is what we are, the humans. This implies that humans are also God, though an intruded one.

But, let us also not forget that these three stages are in very broad terms. This is to say that there are enumerable intermediate stages between these three. It goes down step by step and each step creates a different realm of existence. That is what Godheds, Deities and other higher spiritual entities exactly are.

with love,
sanjay

Great rundown sanjay. Thanks.

V,

You are always welcome.

with love,
sanjay

So you are arguing that self assertion is inherently evil? That to be a mere assumption. The desire to express oneself is essentially evil? Damn the arts then? Why is selfism inherently evil if the self in question is a perfect one? I agree there seems to have been no necessary need. No need for a creation. The creation itself seems to be an excess. In positive spin: a superabundance. In negative spin: A superfluity.

Mystical ethics usually begin and ends in a God “beyond good and evil.” That is perhaps mysticism’s greatest deficiency. For, we humans cannot allow a person to transcend ethics. Socrates called the gods into ethical account. Universal ethics demand that we do the same with our God. Our mythology should reflect this. I say this recognizing the ontological problems it creates.

As a work of art, it is the ultimate act of mind blowing genius!

Pure consciousness yes. Omni-characteristics or maximalism is implied particularly in the translation “I will be what I will be.” On that score, any trait that God has is a maximal one. So, if scientience is an ability of God then it must be omniscience. I’m not familiar with the term “un-untrory”, but I see no necessary reason why omniscience could not exist in harmony with consciousness, self-identity, and will.

And yet God is the light according to tradition. So, created light may come divine light which is the source. I don’t think we can get behind thatfact of God.

.

We’re hitting on foundational assumptions. You can’t get below them. This comes by revelation in the book of Exodus. Accepting it as if it were an analytic fact is what theists do. But, as Ucci said earlier, this is not the [traditional]“God of philosophy”.

So God, in God’s desire for greater good inadvertently creates Satan? Socrates says no! We cannot have our God appear a buffoon! Sorry I have to purge you from my city. Not that I have a solution mind you, but I can’t accept that one. I’m open to suggestions, but my fall back position is to evoke the M-word i.e. it’s a Mystery.

See Socrates’s “response” above.

That’s why Christian critics of Buddhism charge that it is nihilistic…anti-creation. i suppose it puts Buddhism firmly in the pagan camp from a Christian POV.

No doubt.

Show me how you arrive at that implication.

According to hinduism and buddhism yes. Judeo-christian tradition allows for angels and demons…roughly the same thing. But, really, it was a kind of an embarrassment to some Christians theology in the modernist context. Given postmodernism, Hinduism might provide a welcome source of comparison for understanding the implications of western religions angelic mythology.

Oh, I don’t think of suffering as evil, but yes I agree- we’re going to suffer. As to whether or not all suffering can be traced back to agency, that’s an open question.

Thanks for clarifying. I don’t see not including suffering under the category of evil, and not necessarily tracing suffering to agency are not impediments to accepting God as “I will be what I will be.”

My apologies. It was a mistake of typing. Actually, it was un-entropy ( harmony, just opposite of entropy).

Felix,

Though, in general, I avoid saying such things even in R&S section but now i cannot answer your questions without that. And perhaps, this would answer even some of those questions, which you did not ask yet. I also think that perhaps V may have some interest in this too.

I would not answer to point to point as to avoid overlapping otherwise i may come up repeating the same thing again and again.

First issue is the definition of Evil/Saitan and its relation with the God.

Saitan is both Will and Time. I would like to call it TSW ( time, saitan and will).
All these three are the same.

Here is from where usually the confusion starts. We tend to see Saitan as an outright evil or bad, which is wrong in my opinion. Saitan represents both time and change. It allows anything to happen further, whether good or bad.

So, just like God, Saitan is also beyond good and evil. Saitan is the will to break the status quo which was there at the stage of it is what it is. Consciousness is just consciousness, not complete God because it does not have any desire, even to exist, know itself or create anything further .

Thus, forget about any further creation, the God cannot even exist without Saitan. Going even further back, Saitan was very much there (though hidden) at the stage of it is what it is as a possibility of exercising the power of omnipotence by consciousness. As soon as consciousness exercises its power to will to will to exist, Saitan comes into existence alongside the God as power to will.

No event can ever happen without time. It is a must ingredient. But, eternity entails that there should no time around. Eternity does not represent very long or even infinite time but beyond time only. Thus, in the case of it is what it is, no TSW is required. This stage may remain pure and forever but cannot not manifest anything either.

To manifest anything, consciousness must have a will to do so. And, as soon as it wills for anything, clock starts ticking and time comes into existence. Now, from here on, consciousness takes the back seat and becomes just the watcher instead of actor and Will takes the baton.

So, at second stage of I am what i am, there are two different entities instead of one. One is pure consciousness while the second is TSW. Former is passive while later is active. So, from here on, anything that happens further, is done by TSW, not consciousness. Consciousness becomes mere a silent witness and watches things to happen around it. Consciousness discards its all omnipotence in the form of TSW and become absolutely pure. Now it cannot do anything but watch only. Both of these active and passive unites combine to form a complete God and are not opposite but complementary. And, both are necessary for the existence of the God and further creation too.

So, whatever we see around us, is nothing but a concentrated form of Will, except a silent watcher in the form of consciousness which is still inside us as a crux of our existence. In other words, we can say that humans are more developed version of the God, but at the same time, more intruded also.

Now comes the issue of evilness in God. As i said earlier, both ingredients of good and evil are necessary for the existence of anything, and that includes the God too.

Let us go back to it is what it is. it was perfect situation as a complete harmony. So, what was the need of disturbing it? It would have remained the same forever but could not do so. Because, being an omnipotent, the possibility of exercising its power to will was always there. And, as soon as it willed so, things started happening.

So, here a question arises whether its willing was good or bad?

I would like to take a analogy to find the answer.

Let us assume that a pair of twins is born. And, just after two years, when they become able to survive independently, one of those is escorted to complete uninhabited island which has enough facilities to survive for a human, while the other was kept within society.

So, what would be their state after 20 years? We can safely assume that the first one must be free from all bad habits which are found generally in the society. He perhaps would have not even know how to speak a lie or become angry. Because, he neither is in any need nor faced any such favorable circumstances, which may have taught him all this. But, we must not forget that he may not have any good qualities like love, compassion, helping others and wisdom either.

Now, think of the second child. He may have become a hardcore criminal. He may have developed all bad habits. But, in the other hand, there is also a possibility of becoming a very wise and noble person also.

The important thing to understand here is that, though there is still a remote possibility of changing a hardcore criminal into a noble and wise one, but, there is absolutely no possibility of becoming wise and noble for that one who is living alone on the island.

The first one living on the island is consciousness and the second is TSW.
So, given the choice, in which situation we want to be in?

My vote goes for the later one.

So, this is the context of the God and Saitan. It is nothing but the journey from being mere an omipotent to omniscient. And, that omniscience entails Saitan. But, journey does not end her but begins only.

Now comes the real battle ground and good and evil come into play. Here the Will have to fight none other than but with itself because there is no one else there to engage with. There is no Saitan present to fight with. But, evil and good in Saitan parts ways and struggle for the dominance over each other. That is human zone, under the strict surveillance of Saitan, who is the dean of this vast university, while some Deities and other higher spiritual entities from different intermediate realms are the professors of different subjects. And, they take care about the education of those who come from those very realms here as humans.

In other words, we can also say that this human realm is merely a training and testing centre for those higher spiritual entities. That is why they are interested in us and use to send prophets time and again as to provide guidance and avoid any derailment of the human race from its very goal.

And, this university of Saitan does not have only one but many different courses and classes too; from KG to PH.D. Every different course and class entails different effort. Sometimes we have to study but would have to pass the exams in the end also. That is what determinism and free will is all about.

When we study, there is not much of free will. But, more leverage is allowed at the time of testing as to see whether the student has been learned enough or not. And, both of these are done by circumstances.

We are far more controlled than we think. And, it is done in two ways. Firstly by circumstances and secondly through our subconscious mind. Our administrators have the capacity to plant required thoughts in our mind that are necessary to keep us on the designed track. We are not competent enough to realize that and tend to confuse those as our own and act accordingly.

if a student passes the test, he can go back to his home, to the higher spiritual realms in the form of soul, from where it came to incarnate as a human. If not, then he would have to incarnate here again as a human and study in the same class. This process would be repeated till he becomes able to pass the test. That is destiny and it is inescapable too.

Here wisdom has to win over ignorance; from omnipotent to omniscient. Humans are also omnipotent and can be omniscient too. We can replicate what the God did and become him too. Because, we have the same ingredients as the God has. That is enlightenment. It is not only about the knowledge of the process as merely that is not enough, though necessary. Enlightenment entails going through the process in person.

Humans have will but do not have complete control on their will.
The God also has the same will but he also has complete control on his will.
Thus, the difference is only quantitative, not qualitative.

This addresses the issue whether self assertion is inherently evil or not.

The answer is no, it is not. But, it lays down the foundation for the evil for sure. That is where the problem lies.

Self realization is not bad on its own, but in the virtue. The problem starts when the will to know itself does not stop there but continues its process. Then many other different wills start coming because that very source of the will, which is TSW, never dries out and keep producing will after will. That is the real issue. As TSW is also eternal like consciousness and God thus there is no way to stop it. And, will fall its own trap as tries to facilitate itself with more things after achieving self realization.

Having said this, it can be controlled too. But, to control will, one must have the will to control it. This is a paradox but can be solved too. The only remedy is that one should use will to eliminate unrequited other wills and keep doing it, till the moment when only one will remains; will to exist. That is enlightenment or the state of the God. This last will, which is to exist, cannot be eliminated, because there is no existence possible without that.

The last issue is about the so called nihilism and pessimism in Buddhism. For that, we have to go through the concept of Karma. When a soul comes here for the first time to incarnate from any spiritual realm, it does not have any credit or debit balances with regard to this human zone. This is to say as it has not done anything right or wrong with any other creature of this zone, thus, it does not have any obligation to repay for its deeds.

But when the soul, in the form of a human, engages here with different acts and persons, it bounds to be earn some credit and debit points for its right and wrong intentions and doings. These acts are written to its accout either in credit or debit side. And, these accounts would have to settle before the soul goes back permanently for its native realm. So, this settlement of accounts also runs parallel with the education of the soul during human life. A soul cannot leave this zone with either credit or debit balance.

The important thing to understand here is that even the credit balance, earned by good intentions and deeds, also a bondage for the soul, in the same way as of the debit balance. This is to say that even if a soul has been passed the test successfully and earned only credit points so far in the process, it cannot go back. It has to go through the reward for its good deeds. It other words, it has to spent his earned credit points here to bring its account balance to zero.

But, here lies the danger too. it is quite possible that during the tenure of settling its credit balance, it may provoke any further deeds, either good or bad, which again would stand unsettled in it account. Thus, it becomes a very long cycle (if not eternal) and the soul finds itself trapped here.

So, this is to say that evil is bad but, in a sense, even good is bad too. This is precisely the reason why Sufism and Hinduism keep stressing on neutralistic notions like being witness, detachment, emptiness, selflessness etc. It is not nihilism but more realistic approach than it looks prima-facie.

Here one can easily ask a counter question that if we are in total control then why these credit and debit points are given?

The answer is that there are two reasons. First is that we are governed only at macro level, not micro level. A general broad outline is decided for every human and he/she is kept within that. Having said that, there is still some room vacant for individual discretion and humans keep doing exercising that. This keeps adding to tally throughout the life and becomes quite considerable in the end and demands a settlement.

The second and bigger reason is the intentions and deeds shown by a particular human during the test, when humans are given relatively much freedom. Humans score a lot of points during this period hence again demand settlement.

That is precisely why we found ourselves in different conditions. Some are born with silver spoons while other in very miserable conditions or even born with disabilities. It is nothing but the settlement of old scores.

So, in general, it is either reward or test in the case of powerful and elite class. And, in the opposite way, it is either punishment or training in the case of strugglers. But, it is thumb rule only and there may be exceptions.

I would like you give you two examples; Saddam Husain and Ghandhi.

Both were powerful people and have a lot of control on their respective countries and citizen. Ghandhi tried to his best with his given power and refused to take any reward for his efforts when India became independent as he could easily be the first prime minister of India.

On the other hand, given the chance, Saddam became an autocrat and did whatever he could have been done for himself and even killed his many countrymen for his own benefit.

Ghandhi passed the test of destiny but Saddam failed, so he would have to incarnate and study again somewhere in this very world and give the test again. That is how it works.

Felix,
Whatever i said above, is the essence of all that i come to know either by personal experiences or by reading others in last 25 years or so. Thus, it is the amalgamation of reality and assumption. I am not an ostentatious type of person who wants to show his knowledge. Even though, i can safely say that the ratio of assumption is far less than the reality. There is some assumption in what i said about The God and TSW. But, whatever i said about humans is nothing but truth. You can take my word for that.

Having said that, still i will neither ask nor expect you to believe me. Just keep it as theory and try to judge whether it answers all metaphysical questions or not.

I will also welcome for any further clarifications or questions, if you or anyone else is interested.

with love,
sanjay

Yes … can’t agree with all of it (some of your assumptions) but I think if you print this post out and put a title and cover to it you’ve got yourself the start of a great book.

In general I really enjoyed your post sanjay. But to question or clarify would require a lot of time and work. So I say let it all stand. Your paradigm works, or at least is a good model to seriously consider.

That is quite natural because some of my premises are quite unconventional.

Thanks for appreciation.

But, let me tell you that i am already working on that since last five years. And, much of it is ready too. And, that includes not my cogitations but those experiences also, which helped me deriving those cogitations. All i have to do it is to put all that into a shape of a book. That is merely a matter of some days for me now and i am just standing at this very threshold since last three years waited, and still waiting.

I hesitated taking the last call to publish the book for some reasons.

The first reason is the circumstances. My circumstances have been continuously telling me in those last five years that the trigger point has not come yet. Because, i know how destiny works and also know that when that time will be round the corner, i will start getting feelers in advance. Thus, i am waiting for that to happen.

Second reason is that i had a very serious doubt my writing skill. I was not sure whether i was able to present myself in proper way or not. So, i decided to judge myself and that is only reason why i started participating in philosophical discussions otherwise i never studied it in my life. I want to see where i and my reasoning capability really stands in comparison with intellectuals because those will be my future readers too. So, i am getting some sort of feedback of their intellectual requirement, which may help me a lot in presenting myself.

The third reason is that there are still some unconnected dots or unfilled gaps in my perception and i am still working on that. I am not a regular writer and my first book will be the last one too. So, i want to be as complete and perfect as i could be. I do not want my work to be seen in theological context, but in philosophical or rather scientific way, if possible.

Yes, that is true. Because, that previous post was not written in some minutes but it took me almost 25 years to write that.

Yes, it works and i know that too.

But, it does not work because either it is well written or logically correct. The only reason is that it is either entirely true or very close to that, at least.

with love,
sanjay

Go for it sanjay. Be confident. There’s a market out there for what you have to say.

Sanjay–

You expounded your theory at length, but you didn’t respond to my comments on your previous post. How is that not hijacking the thread?

Felix,

I do not have any intention to hijack your thread. I was merely trying to answer your questions, but in a different way. And i mentioned that already in the starting of the reply too.

Felix, in general, what happens in explaining metaphysical issues that first answer leads to second question and this process goes on.

In mathematics, one needs not to explain other how to divide or multiply becuse everyone follows the same and established ontology, so, things can be explained concisely.

But, in metaphysics, there is no single established ontology as everyone use to have his own and different version. So, i cannot take for granted that you understood my basic premises. That is the only reason why i put my complete perception forth.

I would have been easily created a new thread to present that short essay in my name. But, i was trying to answer you only. That is why that long post is here in your thread.

Nevertheless, i apologize if you see this as hijacking. Perhaps, my very previous post addressed to V gave you that impression.

I would again take up those particular questions which you asked in the next reply.

with love,
sanjay

Thank you, Sanjay.

Actually, it is not God that is beyond good and evil, but consciousness only. There is a difference of one stage between the two.

And, what you are saying is true in the context of Christianity only, not all religions.

In Sufism and majority of Hinduism (including Buddhism, Jainism, Vedanta and Sikhism) both stages are defined very clearly. Though, these schools do not negate the existence of a similar Christian God, but see him merely an administrator rather than ultimate reality.

On the other hand, it is also true that some single deity based Hindu religions also use to have the same perception of God as Christianity has. Their God is also beyond good and evil.

Not exactly.

We have only two way of knowing things; either by experience or by example. There is no third way.
And, the same is applicable in the case of knowing the consciousness too.

As it has no counterpart thus it is unexplainable by example. The only way to know it to experience it in person. But again, the problem is that even after experiencing and knowing this, one cannot explain it to a non-experiencer.

You cannot explain a blind man by birth how blue color looks like. You may explain its all scientific explanation like its wavelength and frequency, yet he would never understand how it looks.

Omniscience was certainly living in harmony as a one possibility of omnipotence with consciousness at the time of It is what it is. Because, omnipotence includes omniscience too. But, that harmony disturbed for some reasons and both became separated and things started happening.

Let me put it differently.

Let us assume that -
it is what it is = 1
Now, 1 = 2-1
or, 1 = 3-2
or, 1 = 101- 100
or, 1 = 100000000001-100000000000

So, as soon as the consciousness exercises omnipotence, endless entities come into existence.

In this analogy, 1 represents It is what it is, = represents omnipotence and numbers at the right sight of the equation represent creations. But, everything else is still living with harmony with pure consciousness as in the right sight. In broader sense, harmony is still there because all are still part of total equation.

Bible is not wrong when it talks about the light. Actually, it is not mere Bible but almost all religions talk about some sort of light.

And, the reason is when consciousness came into some sort of physical existence for the first time, it was in the form of light. That light, carrying a very faint hint of blueness, still exists in that same form and an essential part of each living entity, whether animal, human or even Deities.

This fact can be verified too by experience, if one is competent enough.

[u]Again, you are taking only Christian context into account.

Unlike west, there is no difference between Eastern religion and philosophy. There were no exclusive philosophers in the east, but only religious scholars. Their ultimate aim was not philosophy but enlightenment only. Their philosophical cogitations were merely the byproducts of their spiritual journey. That is precisely why they differ from their counterparts on the issues like mind and consciousness.

So, in the east, theological and philosophical Gods are the same because philosophy was considered merely a subset of religion, nor the other way around [/u]

So felix, what you consider evil is merely a process of knowing. If you do not step in the pool, there is no way you can learn swimming. It cannot done by sitting alongside the pool merely and fearing about being drowned.

Saitan is not a evil but the capacity and process of knowing the difference between good and evil. And, it may be turn out anyone of these two in the end. Saitan is the desire to change in either way; unstability, entropy

That is precisely why Adam and Eve opted for eating the fruit offered by the serpant. And remember, even Bible said that particular fruit was grown on the Tree of Knowledge. So, i am not the only culprit of saying that.

So, if you are thinking about throwing me out of your city, you would have to throw the Bible as well. The choice is all yours.

That is true.

with love,
sanjay

How can we possibly understand God this way when we don’t understand human this way?

Whether God is or is not beyond good and evil is an unsettled and possibly unsettle-able issue. I’ve seen problems with it when people claim that God is beyond good and evil. Then, since they are people of God [by their own lights] they also are beyond good and evil. I’ve seen it go wrong when they use it as licence to do evil. I haven’t seen positive result from the doctrine. So, from an ethical standpoint it is questionable to me. It isn’t a logical necessity is it?

So, what’s your point? That we can’t know if it is beautiful for everyone so therefore we can’t conclude that it is beautiful?

Nicely done!

Although I can’t confirm your hypothesis, the identification of light with intelligence or reason was your most profound point.

The OP is from a revelation to Moses recorded in the Bible. According to the revelation God is personal conscious and personally willing god’s self into being. This has to be revealed because it is neither a logical necessity nor a empirically observable fact. Does eastern religion or philosophy say otherwise?

So felix, what you consider evil is merely a process of knowing. If you do not step in the pool, there is no way you can learn swimming. It cannot done by sitting alongside the pool merely and fearing about being drowned. Saitan is not a evil but the capacity and process of knowing the difference between good and evil. And, it may be turn out anyone of these two in the end. Saitan is the desire to change in either way; unstability, entropy
That is precisely why Adam and Eve opted for eating the fruit offered by the serpant. And remember, even Bible said that particular fruit was grown on the Tree of Knowledge. So, i am not the only culprit of saying that. So, if you are thinking about throwing me out of your city, you would have to throw the Bible as well. The choice is all yours.
[/quote]
You have answered wisely in the manner much like of a process theologian. we are in a process on the way to a better end. It is similar to the free will and greater good theodicy. To me it is compatible with the way of hope and faith. It’s good. I won’t throw you out of my city!

Seems like divine justice in the image of human bureaucracy. I was referring to your “God-heads, Deities and other higher spiritual entities.” The Judeo-christian tradition tried to purify itself of polytheism without complete success as we still have a Trinity and a heavenly host.

Who said that we cannot understand human this way?

Actually, only because humans can be understood this way, that is why the God also can be understood this way.
God is a deductive form of humans. Or, humans are the inductive form of the God.
That is why all religons say that humans are the children of the God.

Contrary to general perception, thelogy does not start from God but from Humans. Then, thelogicians reach up to the God and consciousness by deduction.

If one wants to get to the bottom of the issues, it is a logical necessity for sure. On the other hand, it one wants to look at the religions to answer the moral issues only, it is not.

That is again the difference between east ans west. Abrahamic religions (except Sufism) are not enough philosophically probed. Their focus is more on theology and morality. And, there are valid reasons for that.

All three Abrahamic religions rely totally on a single person for all of their findings and premises. This is to say that whatever original work is done, is done by a singular person only, which were the founders of their respective religions; Jesus for Christianity, Mohammad for Islam, Moses for Judaism. But, if you look at the eastern religions in this context, the story is entirely different.

The followers of Buddha not only interpreted him but add to the original texts as well. The same is in the case of Vedanta as it is a collective work of hundreds of spiritual scholars, not a particular one. A religion requires a constant original input from many scholars, not merely from its founder.

That is precisely the issue with religions now. There are not much real scholars around but interpreters only and they tweak and twist the texts according to their personal requirements. Islam is the prime example of this. So, if one uses this argument as an excuse for his own evils, it is his choice. Religions do not allow that leverage.

It is merely - i will be what i will be. So, it is neither beautiful nor ugly, but beyond that. Because, like it is what it is and i am what i am, this is also unique and has no counterpart either.

There is no way of confirmation except experiencing in person.

It goes even deeper. Actually, whatever existence we see around us, is made of that light. it is the very basic ingredient of all existence, whether deal or alive. Existence is much like a software and if you will start decoding it, you will end up nothing but that light like 0 and 1. Existence is nothing but merely a amalgamation of consciousness and TSW in enumerable different ratios.

Well, there are many different versions. But, they differ mainly about the last stage only, not much otherwise.

Hinduism says that the basic premise of this world/existence is that it cannot remain the same forever but bound to change.
And, that applies to the it is what it is/consciousness too. That is the only logical necessity.

This change is collectively TSW; time, saitan and will. Though, this term (TSW) is my personal one.

Thanks for allowing me to stay in your city.

The ultimate destination of a human and other higher spiritual entities is to be the same as the God and it is inescapable too. At the end of the day, we cannot run from it. Yes, different entities may take different time for sure.

Free will does not come in abundance but in a very limited quantity only. I am not sure but it cannot be more that 25% of the total acts. Rest 75% is determined or fixed.

Actually, it is not them but us who are following them.

Just like we humans use to have a system of governance in this world, our administrators also have a system, which runs parallel to this and governs our souls directly. And, for that, they have to govern humans indirectly too. Human life is almost like a simulator type of system, in which a soul can learn required skills without going through the real process and in much shorter span of time too.

There are thousands higher spiritual realms and they differ from each other in many accounts. Just in the same way as we humans are different from each others. They are different in body structure, color, language and so on. And, each realmhas its own climate like some are hot while some are cold. That is why the earth has all different climates and different races too.

Actually, every race and a particular demography represents a different spiritual realm. This is to say that there are Hindu realms, Muslim realms and perhaps the Christians too and they all have their different life style and languages too. Though, they use to have open interaction and relations with each other.

So, when a Muslim says that the God must be a Muslim, he is right. And, the same is applicable to all other religions too. But remember, they are talking about the administrators only, not the real God. Furthermore, there are many different stages of the administrators too. A very complex labyrinth.

with love,
sanjay

Religions don’t kill. People do. Same as the claim in support of guns. It would be best if everyone laid down their guns, and their religions.

But neither is gonna happen.

Somehow I liked your shorter answers better … :wink:

Bob,

I admit of being culprit of that mistake many times but sometimes that is necessary and depends on the question and the intent behind also.

with love,
sanjay

As human beings we do not fully understand ourselves much less God.

Which may be no more than poetry.

Which may be no more than projection.

…which is what we tell ourselves in faith.

Which is true if and only if God is omnipotent as defined.

You left out Hildegard of Bingen, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Francis of Assisi, Julian of Norwich, Dante Alighieri, Meister Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa and many more. Christianity has many great scholars and mystics as well.

Amen.

I borrowed the figure from Socrates. Human ethics safeguards us from excessive spiritual claims.

The early church father Irenaeus, taught that the Divine Spirit dwells in the Church and renews the members out of what is old, into the newness in Christ. He gives them life (zoe) and light (phos) He gives them the new reality and leads them to immortality.

So they say.

Or maybe those are human limitations projected on God. God isn’t a christian, or a muslim or a hindu. Those are human terms and human categories. We want to put God in a box.