Nietzsche was right, and God is dead… for most people

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Well Nietzsche talks about living in the "here and now", to forget otherworldly dreams. If you seek heaven then you should help build it here in this reality we KNOW. I still think Buddha and Jesus try to fool people(with very good intentions) to behave themselves. Buddha and Jesus have these perfect lives and no one can really emulate to even relate to. Nietzsche teaches we should do this for our "own" interests, he gives something a little more within the collective grap of humankind(but still pretty fuckin far off), Jesus and Buddhas are pretty far off for the vast majority of people to even come close to achiving. Many people are fooling themselves and wasting time trying to achive impossible ideals and due over time messages being corrupted may be even following something Jesus or the Buddhas would be disgusted with.

I´d rather end up like Jesus or Gautama than to end up like Nietzsche man.

Althought Nietzsche was right about his thoughts, there is something he was missing, and that is more love & compassion and less rationality.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Besides, there are thousands of people who have achieved the level of consciousness that Jesus and Gautama experienced. But the vast majority are unable to express their feelings in common languaje, some of them even remain silent for the rest of their lifes (siddhas); therefore, we will probably never hear from them.
There are only a few Buddhas who have achieved the level of Masters, and that is to teach others to experience the same.

I would say, with 200 Buddhas in the present, the whole world can be enlightened.

 

[nietzschefan]

How do you know he was missing love and compassion, I really have no idea, but how do you know?

Well you want to end up like Jesus...you want to die horribly and have millions die in your name? You seek Nirvana, looking far far away at someone waving happily, without looking at what is right in front of you, methinks. You have a Goal certainly, but do you have a path there?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

How do you know he was missing love and compassion, I really have no idea, but how do you know?

Well you want to end up like Jesus...you want to die horribly and have millions die in your name? You seek Nirvana, looking far far away at someone waving happily, without looking at what is right in front of you, methinks. You have a Goal certainly, but do you have a path there?

I only say this, because I have seen the teachings of enlightened people, and I have seen Nietzsche’s work. Nietzsche is too much rational, not leaving space for the "uncertain".

I have a path, to understand my self. I do have a goal, but I’m aware that enlightment is a goal of many lifetimes, and not necessarily this one. So I’m not afraid of this path, I’m going somewhere and nowhere at the same time, it doesn’t bother me at all that I have no goal.

The path is that of understanding, I can honestly tell you that I’m not in the same level of consciousness to that which I was 2 years ago. Maybe I was in a better path 2 years ago, I can’t tell right now. All I can say is that I am endlessly happier now than I was in that time and that is good enough for me.

I’m not saying I’ll stop seeking right now; maybe that is the reason I post in this website; to view the opinions of the most possible people, and put myself in their situation.

 

[nietzschefan]

Ok fair enough - I misread you.

I get bothered with people pointing to Jesus and Buddha and saying "Seee!! Seee!??"

Personally, I have resolved to deal with this life as I see fit, to the best of my ability. I am open-minded and I hope I am brave enough to face any and all consequences of death (to the point of accepting an "evil"-persepective core, if it is my way). I cannot do anything about that now, I deal with the here and now. Thus my facination with Nietzsche. Too bad, I started reading him in my 20s rather than my teens.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Ok fair enough - I misread you.

I get bothered with people pointing to Jesus and Buddha and saying "Seee!! Seee!??"

lol, I used to be bothered by that as well, but I´m trying to put myself in their situation, most of them are just victims of a long-lasting tradition.

Personally, I have resolved to deal with this life as I see fit, to the best of my ability. I am open-minded and I hope I am brave enough to face any and all consequences of death (to the point of accepting an "evil"-persepective core, if it is my way). I cannot do anything about that now, I deal with the here and now.

I think you spoke the truth there, and that is always good to hear

Thus my facination with Nietzsche. Too bad, I started reading him in my 20s rather than my teens.

Hehe, you shouldn´t look at it that way. If you would have read it in your teens, you probably would have understand it differently, and form different ideas and judgements about Nietzche than of those you have right now.

 

[ashura]

Well kinda, yeah you can say that. But I had this understanding before I even read Lao-Tzu´s Tao-Te-Ching, when I read it, it just made sense for me.

On the other hand, you cannot limit the concept of God to just that one book; I didn´t even learn it from there, its just easier to explain the concept based on the words of Lao-Tzu.

Would you mind if I asked you not to call it (a) god then? That word, while still very broad as to what it covers, does have a set definition that doesn't seem to agree with your views of "God". Like I mentioned in before, it's like me talking to you, and saying oranges but meaning plastic bottles.

I believe that's why I had such a difficult time understanding your views.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wisdom_Seeker

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so why doesn't he have the faculty independent from humans (after all, it is commonly accepted that humans emanate from him)

thats okay, but its still doesn't necessitate that god be blind, deaf and dumb in order to fulfill this ability in enlightened people
”
God has the faculty of independent from humans man, but God do not speak in common language.

what prevents him?
Do you think he doesn't understand the language?
Do you think he has no power of speech or some other handicap?

Do you think a force or being with inconceivable wisdom will speak "human"?

for an omnipotent personality, it shouldn't be a problem

I think yes, but not through the clouds in a loud voice like in the movies man. God speaks through mountains, through air, through water, through our emotions...

He can do all this - he could also speak in a personal form

BS 5.32: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental form is full of bliss, truth, substantiality and is thus full of the most dazzling splendor. Each of the limbs of that transcendental figure possesses in Himself, the full-fledged functions of all the organs, and eternally sees, maintains and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.

Haven’t you seen that the water alone nourish us all living creatures, and do not ask for anything in return, except compassion to all living creatures? This is just one of the infinite voices of God.

it is the indirect energy of god that sustains all living entities, from the bacteria to the whale. (like the water)
it is the direct energy of god which sustains a self realized soul

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
thats okay, but its still doesn't necessitate that god be blind, deaf and dumb in order to fulfill this ability in enlightened people
”
Are you saying that enlightened people are blind, deaf and dumb?

Of course not.

But you are giving, perhaps unknowingly by default, god the status of a blind, deaf and dumb person by determining that he is dependent on the seeing, hearing and speaking powers of self realized souls (actually it is the opposite - the sensory activities of self realized souls are dependent on the sensory activities of god - hence a distinction between god and even self realized souls is that god is fully independent (svarat)

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

what prevents him?
Do you think he doesn't understand the language?
Do you think he has no power of speech or some other handicap?

for an omnipotent personality, it shouldn't be a problem.

He can do all this - he could also speak in a personal form

You ask me these questions about God, and it is like asking a fish about the ocean. I could answer your questions from my perspective, and yet, it would be so limited that it would hardly contain the whole truth.

We are like neurons of a higher brain, and the ways God speaks to us are what we know in this reality. Why isn’t it otherwise? You can ask God for that, but I can only tell you that it is a reachable experience.

BS 5.32: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental form is full of bliss, truth, substantiality and is thus full of the most dazzling splendor. Each of the limbs of that transcendental figure possesses in Himself, the full-fledged functions of all the organs, and eternally sees, maintains and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.

it is the indirect energy of god that sustains all living entities, from the bacteria to the whale. (like the water)
it is the direct energy of god which sustains a self realized soul

Of course not.

But you are giving, perhaps unknowingly by default, god the status of a blind, deaf and dumb person by determining that he is dependent on the seeing, hearing and speaking powers of self realized souls (actually it is the opposite - the sensory activities of self realized souls are dependent on the sensory activities of god - hence a distinction between god and even self realized souls is that god is fully independent (svarat)

Ahh, the words of the Buddha; always refreshing to one’s soul.

Yes, you talk about energy, and aren’t our voices and our language just another form of that same energy, emanated from God?

Isn’t God the unification of everything (both spiritual and mundane), and our reality is just part of the imagination of God?

We blame God for our problems, and yet, we are victims of this reactionary reality, on which cause and effect rule over us. We can only witness such phenomena and be aware of our insignificance and arrogance.

How can a “skin cell” complain to you that you don’t speak “cell” to it? Your brain sends the necessary information to that cell, so it reacts towards the specific function that it has in our body. The cell could say: “If the body rules over us, why does it let us die? And why doesn’t it speak to us in order for us to understand our function better?” But the body is not concerned about what that cell is thinking, the body is concerned about more important functions and structures of cells. Like the brain or the heart.

So we, being “skin cells”, can possibly understand such a complicated organism?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Would you mind if I asked you not to call it (a) god then? That word, while still very broad as to what it covers, does have a set definition that doesn't seem to agree with your views of "God". Like I mentioned in before, it's like me talking to you, and saying oranges but meaning plastic bottles.

I believe that's why I had such a difficult time understanding your views.

Ok, I will continue saying "God", but you know what I´m talking about now. The "Dao", the existence, the "all".

 

[ashura]

Ok, I will continue saying "God", but you know what I´m talking about now. The "Dao", the existence, the "all".

As I said earlier, that makes as much sense as me saying "oranges" in place of "plastic bottles".

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

As I said earlier, that makes as much sense as me saying "oranges" in place of "plastic bottles".

But that is your interpretation, why should that affect my speak? I have no differences between my concept of God, that described in the Bible, in the Upanishads, Dharmapada and Tao-Te-Ching... It is the same God, but different names, interpretations and manifestations.

 

[ashura]

But that is your interpretation, why should that affect my speak? I have no differences between my concept of God, that described in the Bible, in the Upanishads, Dharmapada and Tao-Te-Ching... It is the same God, but different names, interpretations and manifestations.

Because the word "god" has a definition, as broad as it may be, and your interpretation simply doesn't fit it.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Because the word "god" has a definition, as broad as it may be, and your interpretation simply doesn't fit it.

There are interpretations of the word God, as there are religions in this planet. I come talking of a God that is the same ammong all humans and living creature, and you say is not God because of a dictionary definition?

Don´t narrow it down so much man, even wikipedia can do better than obsolete definitions:

"The term God is used to designate a Supreme Being; however, there are other definitions of God. For example: *Many religious and philosophic systems consider a God to be the creator of the universe. *Some traditions hold that the creator of the universe is also the sustainer of the universe (as in theism), while others argue that their God is no longer involved in the world after creation (as in deism).*The common definition of a God assumes omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. ..."

And even then, is not a bit close to put God into a concrete concept.

 

[ashura]

There are interpretations of the word God, as there are religions in this planet. I come talking of a God that is the same ammong all humans and living creature, and you say is not God because of a dictionary definition?

Don´t narrow it down so much man, even wikipedia can do better than obsolete definitions:

"The term God is used to designate a Supreme Being; however, there are other definitions of God. For example: *Many religious and philosophic systems consider a God to be the creator of the universe. *Some traditions hold that the creator of the universe is also the sustainer of the universe (as in theism), while others argue that their God is no longer involved in the world after creation (as in deism).*The common definition of a God assumes omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. ..."

And even then, is not a bit close to put God into a concrete concept.

Funny Wisdom_Seeker, I went to the link in your post and did a search for each of those statements you quoted and found not one. :shrug:

And even then, none of those statements contradict my point. They match the definition(s) I pasted for the word god earlier just fine.

And wait a minute, obsolete? Since when was the commonly accepted definition of the word god obsolete?

 

[lightgigantic]

Wisdom seeker

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what prevents him?
Do you think he doesn't understand the language?
Do you think he has no power of speech or some other handicap?

for an omnipotent personality, it shouldn't be a problem.

He can do all this - he could also speak in a personal form
”
You ask me these questions about God, and it is like asking a fish about the ocean. I could answer your questions from my perspective, and yet, it would be so limited that it would hardly contain the whole truth.

therefore all descriptions of god or god's potencies should be qualified by scriptural reference

We are like neurons of a higher brain, and the ways God speaks to us are what we know in this reality. Why isn’t it otherwise? You can ask God for that, but I can only tell you that it is a reachable experience.

you have a scriptural reference for this, or are you speaking like a fish about the ocean?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
BS 5.32: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental form is full of bliss, truth, substantiality and is thus full of the most dazzling splendor. Each of the limbs of that transcendental figure possesses in Himself, the full-fledged functions of all the organs, and eternally sees, maintains and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.

it is the indirect energy of god that sustains all living entities, from the bacteria to the whale. (like the water)
it is the direct energy of god which sustains a self realized soul

Of course not.

But you are giving, perhaps unknowingly by default, god the status of a blind, deaf and dumb person by determining that he is dependent on the seeing, hearing and speaking powers of self realized souls (actually it is the opposite - the sensory activities of self realized souls are dependent on the sensory activities of god - hence a distinction between god and even self realized souls is that god is fully independent (svarat)
”
Ahh, the words of the Buddha; always refreshing to one’s soul.

or refreshing for the mind?

Yes, you talk about energy, and aren’t our voices and our language just another form of that same energy, emanated from God?

certainly - but then further introspection is required to determine whether they are direct or indirect energies of god (given the common short comings of our voice and language, it should be clear which is the right option ....)

Isn’t God the unification of everything (both spiritual and mundane), and our reality is just part of the imagination of God?

A scriptural quote could help you here

We blame God for our problems, and yet, we are victims of this reactionary reality, on which cause and effect rule over us. We can only witness such phenomena and be aware of our insignificance and arrogance.

hence, indirect

How can a “skin cell” complain to you that you don’t speak “cell” to it?

to begin with, we are not directly conscious of our body (not even medical practitioners know exactly how it works), hence the analogy doesn't hold up

Your brain sends the necessary information to that cell, so it reacts towards the specific function that it has in our body.

this all happens indirectly

The cell could say: “If the body rules over us, why does it let us die? And why doesn’t it speak to us in order for us to understand our function better?” But the body is not concerned about what that cell is thinking, the body is concerned about more important functions and structures of cells. Like the brain or the heart.

the functions of the brain and heart are also indirect

So we, being “skin cells”, can possibly understand such a complicated organism?

if you want to you use our conditioned existence as a yard stick for determining the potencies and obligational duties of god, you will always wind up with a conclusion distant from scriptural conclusions

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Funny Wisdom_Seeker, I went to the link in your post and did a search for each of those statements you quoted and found not one. :shrug:

And even then, none of those statements contradict my point. They match the definition(s) I pasted for the word god earlier just fine.

And wait a minute, obsolete? Since when was the commonly accepted definition of the word god obsolete?

weird, look at the definition I posted here:
http://www.google.co.cr/search?q=define:god&hl=es&oi=definel&defl=en

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Wisdom seeker
therefore all descriptions of god or god's potencies should be qualified by scriptural reference

you have a scriptural reference for this, or are you speaking like a fish about the ocean?

I could give you some scriptural references (not necesarily from the Bible), but that is not my point on this post, look: all people who believe in the God of a written word are believers of a dead God.

And yes, I´m speaking like a fish in the ocean, just like everybody else, and just like the people of your scriptures...

certainly - but then further introspection is required to determine whether they are direct or indirect energies of god (given the common short comings of our voice and language, it should be clear which is the right option ....)

you are assuming from your personal conclusions, and that is fine by me

A scriptural quote could help you here

hence, indirect

to begin with, we are not directly conscious of our body (not even medical practitioners know exactly how it works), hence the analogy doesn't hold up

again, I can give you a scriptural reference, but that is not the point. And if the analogy doesn´t hold up for you, then its ok.

the functions of the brain and heart are also indirect

if you want to you use our conditioned existence as a yard stick for determining the potencies and obligational duties of god, you will always wind up with a conclusion distant from scriptural conclusions

not distant from scriptural conclusions, not at all, but complementary.

I have never tried to determine the "potencies and obligations duties of god", but our preconceived judgement of what God is, and the ego & arrogance to think we can understand him.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wisdom seeker

therefore all descriptions of god or god's potencies should be qualified by scriptural reference

you have a scriptural reference for this, or are you speaking like a fish about the ocean?
”
I could give you some scriptural references (not necesarily from the Bible), but that is not my point on this post, look: all people who believe in the God of a written word are believers of a dead God.

any scriptural reference would be a beginning - as for the god of a written word, it certainly has more solid foundation than the god of a fertile imagination

And yes, I´m speaking like a fish in the ocean, just like everybody else, and just like the people of your scriptures...

so you are on par with personalities like jesus, buddha, etc???
:m:

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
certainly - but then further introspection is required to determine whether they are direct or indirect energies of god (given the common short comings of our voice and language, it should be clear which is the right option ....)
”
you are assuming from your personal conclusions, and that is fine by me

you have personal conclusions that our language and voice is not subject to shortcomings?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
A scriptural quote could help you here

hence, indirect

to begin with, we are not directly conscious of our body (not even medical practitioners know exactly how it works), hence the analogy doesn't hold up
”
again, I can give you a scriptural reference, but that is not the point.

then what exactly is the point, unless its about presenting accurate descriptions of the absolute

And if the analogy doesn´t hold up for you, then its ok.

actually the analogy doesn't standard up to the general principles that analogies operate from, outside of issues of "you" or "me"

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the functions of the brain and heart are also indirect

if you want to you use our conditioned existence as a yard stick for determining the potencies and obligational duties of god, you will always wind up with a conclusion distant from scriptural conclusions
”
not distant from scriptural conclusions, not at all, but complementary.

I have never tried to determine the "potencies and obligations duties of god", but our preconceived judgement of what God is, and the ego & arrogance to think we can understand him.

you have determined that god can not speak for himself (or hear or see) so it appears that you have made a judgment on god's potencies (a judgment far from complementary with scriptural conclusions)

eg

bg 10.1 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Listen again, O mighty-armed Arjuna. Because you are My dear friend, for your benefit I shall speak to you further, giving knowledge that is better than what I have already explained.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Wisdom seeker

any scriptural reference would be a beginning - as for the god of a written word, it certainly has more solid foundation than the god of a fertile imagination

so you are on par with personalities like jesus, buddha, etc???
:m:

The god of a written word is what Jesus and Gautama came to speak against. Ironically, people did the same to their teachings as they did with past prophets. That is the reason why they never wrote anything down, language is inadequate for this kinds of matters.

I never claimed to be on par with enlightened people, I only have my own interpretations.

you have personal conclusions that our language and voice is not subject to shortcomings?
then what exactly is the point, unless its about presenting accurate descriptions of the absolute

actually the analogy doesn't standard up to the general principles that analogies operate from, outside of issues of "you" or "me

Nobody can present an accurate description of the absolute, not even Gautama or Jesus could. Their purpose here was to teach people to experience the same thing they did, not to found new religions or dogmas.

It is like Buddha said, that to try to follow the steps of an enlightened person, it is like trying to follow the steps of a bird in flight. You cannot try to act like Jesus or try to act like Gautama and expect to live their experiences; each person is different, and has to find his own way.

you have determined that god can not speak for himself (or hear or see) so it appears that you have made a judgment on god's potencies (a judgment far from complementary with scriptural conclusions)

eg

bg 10.1 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Listen again, O mighty-armed Arjuna. Because you are My dear friend, for your benefit I shall speak to you further, giving knowledge that is better than what I have already explained.

I never said that god can not speak for himself, he is perfecly capable, but he choose not to. Who are we to judge his ways?
I only said that God speaks (hear or see) through us, our feelings and our experiences. God does not speak through a written word, he spoke before, and some people tried to translate it to our language, a lack of understanding that is.