PDA

View Full Version : Who Represents God?



solomon levi
05-01-2013, 09:09 AM
"God cannot become manifested in man as long as there exists in him the delusion of "self," because that "self" is a limited thing, which cannot grasp the infinite indivisible reality. For this reason "love" -- that is to say, the abandonment of "self" -- is the beginning of wisdom. This doctrine, however, is generally misunderstood. It does not teach that I should merely desire nothing for myself; but it teaches that there should be no conception of "I" in my mind that loves or desires anything. Only when that illusion of "self" has disappeared from my Heart and mind, and my consciousness arisen to that state in which there will be no "I," then will not I* be the doer of works, but the spirit of wisdom will perform its wonders through my instrumentality." - Paracelsus

solomon levi
05-01-2013, 09:10 AM
"In this also exists the difference between divine love and 'altruism.' Altruistically inclined persons are usually not selfish, but possessed by the idea of 'self.' Not from God, but from their own illusion of selfhood, are their works emanating. They are themselves the doers of their works, and are proud of their own goodness and wisdom; but their good works, being the product of an illusion, are illusive, and therefore impermanent. The altruistic humanitarian sees in other human beings his brothers and sisters; but God, dwelling in the soul of the wise, sees in every vehicle of life and in every creature His own divine self."

"That which a man writes is not created by him, but it existed before him, and will exist after him; he only gives it a form. Therefore that which he writes is not his but another's; he is only the instrument through which truth or error expresses itself." - Paracelsus

solomon levi
05-01-2013, 09:28 AM
I'm writing this as an argument... something to consider before claiming to represent God or his will/plan. It's silly to argue it but i have to... it's an old argument already presented several times in different places on the forum. Why argue it again? I can't think of anything more "important" to convey...
Perhaps instead of arguing our own positions, let me ask...
why did Paracelsus think it significant to say?

solomon levi
05-01-2013, 09:30 AM
"Man is a materialised thought; he is what he wills. To change his nature from the mortal to the immortal state he must change his material mode of thinking, and even rise above the sphere of thought. He must cease to hold fast in his thoughts to that which is illusory and perishing, and hold on to that which is eternal. The visible universe is a thought of the eternal mind thrown into objectivity by its will, and crystallised into matter by its power. Look at the everlasting stars; look at the indestructible mountain-peaks. They are the thoughts of the universal mind, and they will remain as long as the thoughts of that mind do not change. If we could hold on to a thought we would be able to create. But who but the enlightened, who live above the region of mentality in the kingdom of spirit, can hold on to a thought? Are not the illusions of the senses continually destroying that which we attempt to create? Men do not think what they choose, but that which comes into their mind. If they could control ...

solomon levi
05-01-2013, 09:33 AM
If they could control the action of their mind by rising above it, they would be able to control their own nature and the nature by which their forms are surrounded." - Paracelsus

So how do we REPRESENT what is beyond the sphere of thought?
I think it cannot be re-presented. We all fail in that effort because God is the eternal present... it is the sphere of thinking that must always re-present. To me, this is what i know about the sphere of thinking... all thinking is the past/re-present... we can only think about what we know, the known. The present is an unknown, but for those who have an I, they can't see the unknown because they are looking through a known, through thinking.
"The Ineffable" is ineffable... we can't say anything about it without immediately misrepresenting it.

solomon levi
05-01-2013, 10:10 AM
So what 'good' is a God we can't think about? What use?
Exactly... God is not for your use... only gods that men/"I"s create are for man's use. Man is for God's use when he goes beyond the sphere of thinking/I.
I hope you do not translate me as saying 'right' or 'wrong'... I am saying what thinking can and can't do. That's all. Thinking can't grasp God or the unknown. Thinking is defined/part... God, in the most encompassing definition, is the undefinable whole.
A partial thinking "god" is capable of judgement, punishment, commandments, etc. I don't say that doesn't exist... i just don't call it 'god'. But many do.

Lunsola
05-01-2013, 08:57 PM
why did Paracelsus think it significant to say?

I would say most likely because alchemy practice/success and life works(like so many other things) sometimes propels people to inflate their self significance. Even if someone did represent the will of God or God's plan they are still a tiny somewhat insignificant piece of the entire universe roaming around on a tiny mud ball. I'm not saying we're all individually worthless, I'm saying it's not entirely about us as an individual even if we're on the right path. Even if we did refuse our purpose in life there are many humans in life and many of which can take over a purpose. So yes we count but considering the size of the universe not as much and many of us are most likely replaceable. The standard illusion tells humans this planet and our lives are the only significance and when we accept it's not we may have attained a closer understanding of reality.

In essence I believe Paracelsus said it to help those who would read and consider it. If one did say have a purpose from God they would be better served not to indulge only in themselves while they miss giving proper time to their cause.

The majority of humans live their lives concerned mostly from a single point, that being their view and the relation of the world to them. They do so because it's the most natural and obvious thing to do. Of course when philosophy enters the realm and other views are considered this can change greatly. The view can expand greatly depending on the person. Some view existence and how they react to it. But really it goes both ways. There's everything else and one. They're linked together and yet separate enough to interact and change each other.

Of course I don't profess to be in the know about these things. I just offer up what I can see from my view and welcome the addition of others.

Krisztian
05-01-2013, 09:25 PM
". . . is the beginning of wisdom. . . . Only when that illusion of "self" has disappeared from my Heart and mind, and my consciousness arisen to that state in which there will be no "I," then will not I* be the doer of works, but the spirit of wisdom will perform its wonders through my instrumentality." - Paracelsus

That's an excellent quote!

I believe what's being said here by Paracelsus has been stated by many before and after him. Namely, one is the instrument and servant of God, the human identifications must be cleaned, be done away with.

Orbital
05-01-2013, 11:26 PM
Who represents God?

I do, and so do you.

Orbital
05-01-2013, 11:38 PM
It's like saying, "who represents consciousness?"

I do, and so do you.

There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in a God or Gods. Perhaps these Gods and God are simply archetypes of the sub conscious and man deals with these things outside of himself by creating as many gods as he needs to fulfill something he does not understand (innerstand?). As above so below.. or something. The Hindu religion has an infinite amount of gods, which is reasonable considering the infinite capability of man's imagination. Modern day christianity has seemingly reduced it down to two deities with which man deals with yahweh and satan.. I think. This is how people deal with things they can't comprehend, and some find it easier to put that which they can't comprehend or not wish to contemplate outside of themselves. This is how the profits, er I mean prophets keep us divided from ourselves.

When you have a God that is outside of you, then you are broken. If any of that made sense to any of you..

Donna Matrix
05-01-2013, 11:46 PM
Orbital, I totally agree.

I recently freaked out a bunch of christians by asking a very pointed question- can the sum totality of God be put into one book? All these people stated walking around saying "I beleive in Jesus" . Like even asking the question was dangerous. They were all brain washed little automatons.

To ask who represents God- ALL OF CREATION represents God, and we are the Sherlock Holmeses who ferret out the clues. But in fact even all the uckiness in ourselves is God too. And the homeless people, and the wild animals, and the suffering earth, etc. That's why I love the art so much, because it can take a lump of shit and perfect it, and then even we can see God in a lump of shit.

Orbital
05-02-2013, 01:18 AM
I like the way Jung sums it... he's also one of my favorite representatives of God, and a helpful Sherlock Holmes. ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ25Ai__FYU&feature=player_detailpage

BasedZyzz
05-02-2013, 04:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pyops3UGr4
Not sure how this forum works, but I guess I should warn you language is rather vulgar.

John 10:34-35: “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?

John 14:12: “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.”

I view all consciousness as "God" and within that consciousness is the possibility of the ultimate representation as far as individual talents go.

However within every consciousness there also exists the free will, so if it chooses to not act on that potential, that's fine too....ultimately it's all the same.

The universe/God is just possibilities and acting in any way that you feel is truth should be what the real responsibility is, I believe it all leads to the same thing.

solomon levi
05-02-2013, 10:15 AM
okay all, but what i thought was pertinent was Paracelsus saying to go beyond the sphere of thinking and not be an 'I'... he says God cannot be manifested in man as long as there is this delusion of self.
God is all, but the 'reason' i KNOW that is because i saw it when i was beyond thinking and self. My thinking doesn't know this... even if it should arrive at that conclusion, that wouldn't "manifest God in man" as Paracelsus is saying.
Thinking is the re-presenter which utterly fails to represent the wholeness of God because thinking will always be partial... we can only think about what we already know, and this thinker/knower/knowledge is the very same "delusion of self".

To my understanding, God cannot be re-presented... the Present is not the Present when thinking re-presents it. God is present(ed)/manifest but not represented.
Anyway. :)

solomon levi
05-02-2013, 10:22 AM
But yeah, as delusional individuals, :) we each represent a unique portion of the whole... God is both parts and whole. But i gather that Paracelsus wasn't referring to God as parts. Did anyone else get that or is it my personal twist?

Lunsola
05-02-2013, 10:58 AM
I get that. It's kind of like being in the zone. It's called other things too like being in the flow or the movement. When in the zone you aren't thinking about yourself or the universe. You just kind of have a closer connection to the feel of reality and can manifest results without trying as if the universe is backing you. A lot of times while in this state I really don't feel like I'm in complete control. As a gamer I play fps a lot and it's very fun to get into this state but doesn't happen as often as I'd like. It's not something you can really comprehend by thinking about it but by experiencing it.

Orbital
05-02-2013, 06:51 PM
but what i thought was pertinent was Paracelsus saying to go beyond the sphere of thinking and not be an 'I'... he says God cannot be manifested in man as long as there is this delusion of self.
... My thinking doesn't know this... even if it should arrive at that conclusion, that wouldn't "manifest God in man" as Paracelsus is saying. To my understanding, God cannot be re-presented... the Present is not the Present when thinking re-presents it. God is present(ed)/manifest but not represented.


I agree with you for the most part Solomon. The universe will open itself up to everyone in different ways though. We're all pieces to the grand puzzle whether most of us are dillusional or not. Re-present and represent have two different meanings. If you want to break up the word represent, it goes like this, rep-re-sent. Not re-present. So what are we arguing now? Who rep-re-sents God, or who re-presents God? C'mon...


"God cannot become manifested in man as long as there exists in him the delusion of "self," because that "self" is a limited thing, which cannot grasp the infinite indivisible reality. For this reason "love" -- that is to say, the abandonment of "self" -- is the beginning of wisdom. This doctrine, however, is generally misunderstood. It does not teach that I should merely desire nothing for myself; but it teaches that there should be no conception of "I" in my mind that loves or desires anything. Only when that illusion of "self" has disappeared from my Heart and mind, and my consciousness arisen to that state in which there will be no "I," then will not I* be the doer of works, but the spirit of wisdom will perform its wonders through my instrumentality." - Paracelsus


To hold to your first post, I would say that Paracelsus is wrong, and those thoughts are delusional in and of themself. Is Paracelsus re-presenting a theory on what it means to be God? Or is he saying what it means to represent God and what one has to go through in order to be God's representative? If it's the latter, he's delusional.

Is it like this video then? When Neo gets it right, will god 're-present' itself or rep-re-sent itself? If you ask me, Neo was a doing a good job at representing himself the whole time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKpFFD7aX3c

solomon levi
05-04-2013, 01:16 AM
Hi Orbital. You'll have to enlighten me on rep-re-sent. What's rep mean?

"Is Paracelsus re-presenting a theory on what it means to be God?"

Is that what it looks like to you? My answer is 'no', but I can see the 'yes' too.
I am choosing to emphasize the 'no'. I don't imagine he spoke about going beyond self and thinking without knowing what that was.
Words make hypocrites of us all. And each reads between the lines according to their consciousness.
I don't know with any certainty what Paracelsus means for himself... but I would have said the same words... I have said them, before
reading that Paracelsus said them. So naturally I relate through what it means to me. And to me, it is not a theory... of course it will
sound like a theory to anyone who hasn't yet verified it through action.

Anyway, that's what the thread is about... I asked people "why would Paracelsus say that?"

The "representing God" thing is the other part of what the threads about. It is my seeing that God cannot be represented.
There have been people here who claim to represent God, tell you his plan for mankind, etc... I too think that is delusional.
I don't think that is what Paracelsus is saying... I think he's pointing at what can't be said by telling us it's beyond thinking
and the self can't go there.

Orbital
05-04-2013, 06:04 AM
I wrote a nice post, and it's gone now cause I got auto logged out. :(
I'm all bummered out.

+1 rep to you solomon

Change the title of the thread. Paracelsus was just describing his thoughts on what it takes to get closer to the ghost in the machine... that's my take.
Paracelsus is a badass, that's why he would say whatever he said.

Dragonsblood
01-14-2014, 08:42 AM
Just throwing two cents into a dead thread with no view to debate the matter, just sharing the wisdom of a more knowlegable source who used limited words used to describe the conundrum, whic is akin to four blind men each having hold of and describing one part of the "Elephant"

Most traditions report from one of four viewpoints (all being equally true): transcendent (impersonal and unknowable), impersonal and knowable, also personal and unknowable, and then also immanent (personal and knowable);

The immanent aspect can be tricky in the sense that identification of the still seperate ego with the approaching personal and knowable side of Life can occur and then "delusions" run rampant = ego gets plugged into Source.
When the seperate I has given way - or has never been there as in the case of an Avatar... let's just say the most beautiful longing and joy occurs in one who is near such a Being (who is markedly/infinitely different from ego and delusion).

Mybe then only G*d represents G*d, and Paracelsus was graced with experiencing union with the immanent aspect. Trancendent union is also potent but the seperate mind has no way of relating to that, apart maybe from twitching and drooling ;-). The closest feeling maybe would be the sense of awe of standing on the beach with a km high tsunami approaching - no room for terror / just awe (apologies for destructive imagery but we have lost much of our sense of awe). Sure it is nice being in awe of "Dad", but a more personal relationship can be very fulfilling and is more sustainable in the long term.