Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Who Represents God?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    RealityLand
    Posts
    164
    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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    88
    I like the way Jung sums it... he's also one of my favorite representatives of God, and a helpful Sherlock Holmes.


  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2

    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,568
    Blog Entries
    4
    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.
    http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/

    "To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and understand what it is." - Paracelsus

    "Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? The answer is you don't see... seeing is acting." J. Krishnamurti

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,568
    Blog Entries
    4
    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?
    http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/

    "To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and understand what it is." - Paracelsus

    "Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? The answer is you don't see... seeing is acting." J. Krishnamurti

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    125
    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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    88
    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.

    Last edited by Orbital; 05-02-2013 at 06:59 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,568
    Blog Entries
    4
    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.
    http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/

    "To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and understand what it is." - Paracelsus

    "Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? The answer is you don't see... seeing is acting." J. Krishnamurti

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    88
    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Southern Africa
    Posts
    53
    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.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts