The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

Plus the assertion of God is not actually a finalistic answer. There remains wanderings like why did God do it? Or why did God do anything in this particular way rather than another? In the case of acceptance of God it would seem the questions can continue at least for those who think asking a question doesn’t mean “doubt” it just means a search for more…

Although it is similar in that one might lend to thinking further understanding of the matter isn’t possible…although i imagine further understanding is always possible, it just takes thinking and questioning…just as in science…i don’t think there is really an end to what might be discovered by science, I don’t think it will lead to an end of knowing all things…

Interestingly, I never actually had an interest in answering that question.
Honestly.

I was never looking to answer that at all.
Other people forced me into conversations on the issue, and I never really had much to say regarding it.
It seemed implausible to answer with any quality of certainty considering how vast of an expanse the question covers, and also seemed, to me at least, to be the least of anything that does occur as requiring an answer in life.

I grew up in a Christian upbringing, but when others were focusing on what they got out of Jesus, I was more focusing on what the told actions of Jesus meant if I removed what everyone said we got from him.
Meaning, I was more interested in his motive to compassion when among people, and the weight that was said to be upon his shoulders as it would occur emotionally to him more than I was interested in what I got out of the deal in the sense of some divine salvation.

Likewise, in life, I’ve never been interested in the grand metaphysical questions, but instead the pragmatic questions that allow for an increase in understanding our own self and the world in which we find ourselves.

To me…gods just seemed to be far off in the distance and doing their own thing so much so, that even if they did exist, there would be no direct result to assuming that one has been able to discern anything about them.

I edited the last post a little right before you posted this…

But i would say that you arrived at a solution to the problem so asserting a lack of interest seems incorrect. While you may have not had a severe interest in it especially compared to others, or your other interests, it would seem that you did have at least enough to consider recognition of the idea that it didn’t matter. otherwise you would not have had any care and would not have even pursued recognizing that any reason or lack of reason was the case.

No…not really.
I quite honestly never even considered the question until a church teacher brought it up as a rhetorical question that implied proof that evolution was incorrect since it could not answer the question of origin.

And as soon as he asked that question, the only thing that popped into my head was, “What? That firstly makes no sense at all, and secondly…who cares? That is just so far into the abyss and unrelated to right now.”

The only other thing that has ever come about from that question to me is to reflect that people are far too hung up on the wrong portion of life.

i didn’t say you began to consider it or not on your own…Although, how can anyone know they wouldn’t have if they were told it in the first place, and what of any question comes but of our environment’s impact anyways…and i don’t know you could be certain it was unrelated to the right now unless you really new for certain what the answer was…unless perhaps you knew with certainty that there was no meaning, and i don’t see that your example suggests that but rather that you simply didn’t care. It would have taken some interest to consider it enough to arrive at the conclusion that there was no meaning…

If you ask why enough you come to such a question, different people seem to think that different extents of why’s are better…different people become satisfied with different amounts or levels of explanation…
It would seem there isn’t a final answer that can be achieved, at least by humankind alone…that doesn’t mean that questing for it is bad, it may be that questing as such keeps away boredom. what happens when one finds all the whys associated to a specific thing that they can see…they move on to another thing…and another…and another…it might be quite boring to find an end to what one could question…could be hellaciouslly boring.

We value based on emotion; that’s how humans work.
That’s basic neurology.
Pure rationality can only tell you what is better of some options in regards to a form of logic or another.
But it doesn’t place a value on anything.

With that in mind, I’ll try to explain as best as I can.
Short version: I had no emotional pull that there was a value with a return in greater volume than the investment one puts into the question of origin of all of existence ever.

Or to be more precise (as emotion doesn’t work that articulately to arrive at an actual argument like that): I never had an emotional push to move towards that direction.

It should be probably explained that from what I have gathered from others through life, I’m a bit odd in that regard.
Right now is easily contained for me.
For instance, the Zen practice of not thinking…that takes very little effort for me. I don’t think about a single thing quite often naturally.
Akin to this, when I was about 5 years old I was told to be home at 12.
I came home at 12:40 something and was in trouble.
I didn’t understand why fully until about two years later. To me, “12” meant anything prior to “1”.
It never occurred to me that 12 meant 12:00 and not 12:01-12:59.

You could say that was due to being a kid, but on the other hand; that kind of “missing the point” still exists with me today.
There is just something in the way in which I process on the acumen side that simply does not grasp the same things as other people appear to regularly.

So when I mean that it simply doesn’t strike me…it simply doesn’t.
Instead, I am more struck by what everyone else is doing in response to that question; always have been.

I liken it to being the guy standing at a football game.
There’s two teams worth of fans cheering and everyone is looking at the game between the two sides; barking for their favorite to win with grand emotion.

On the other hand, to me, the game going on never drew my eye. It was as if I had been looking at grass on the side of the road while riding in a car.
What stuck out as the spectacle to me has always been the fans cheering; watching how they move, act, react to and back to what takes place on that grass field.

So to me, I stand around just saying, to those that ask, that the real beauty and magic is being missed by most as they go into the big 'ol heat of everything.
The true beauty isn’t the game taking place, at least not to me, but the grand array that takes place in response to what is hoped for and believed to be the case.

The first thing I read that clicked in value wasn’t the Bible, or anything like it.
The first thing that clicked was a little fictional novel called Siddhartha.
Because in that book was a character that focused on now and drove himself endlessly to find the meaning of now.

That was the first time I had a light bulb click on and felt that I understood exactly what was meant by the ideas therein.

In the question of whether gods exist, my first answer is always, I don’t care; the more important question is what it does for you if they do or don’t.
That is what I see.

But when pushed, my answer is secondly, I don’t think it’s likely that gods do exist.
But I don’t mean that answer as anything that should affect anyone else’s belief that they do or don’t.
I would rather leave the world just as confused and torn about that question as it was before I showed up.
And I would because I like what it does and what it produces in humans with that question being something that they struggle with.

While I think there are far more readily tangible things to focus on, and encourage many to focus on the other aspects of life relating directly to their relationship from their self back to their self; I don’t mind for one moment that many are focused on gods.

I only wish that the many that focus on gods would allow for a bit more than just gods than they commonly do.
At some point, I believe people should be able to find rest in what their relationship is with the gods; either way; and move on to other relationships in life. Not stick on gods and stay there until they die.

So my interest in the matter of gods has always been an interest in the fans of gods.

Strangely…I relate to these words from a silly kids cartoon called Jungle Book:

I would think we are quite alike in at least our manner to be more focused on the fans of the game rather than the game itself…I was like this most of my life, and am still quite like that…Although I can remember as far back as about 4 asking the question, “why am I me, as i am now, where i am now, when I am now, and not in some other form of existence with the same perception of I?” I can’t say i found the answer or that there is or isn’t one, or that it can or can’t be found…I don’t think I accept finalities very often, if at all. yet it is possible some influence of another human lead to this thought…though I would think any thought is a result of compoundings of the entire environment rather than any single instance…

I believe I have read Siddhartha at least twice…Buddhism is something I was attracted to for a long time…and seems for the most part a good thing…though I weary of too much emptiness as such might lead to an emptiness of the self or even a loss nonreturnable…but that depends on the perception of the meanings…In terms of loss of “pointless” desires, i find that very important and more widely needed. (loss of all desires is pointless though, and a desire itself…) Closing the mind to distractions is good too…though paying attention to what distractions are there can be interesting…And one might find that should they fade far enough away from what they consider “distractions” they become jaded…bored…and wish for a return to things that many say are “distractions”…but i see you seeing this anyways…(for example i think we have already agreed that sadness or crying is not always a distraction…loss of it can be quite boring…without less what seeming is more…)

My shot at that has always been:
For an object to exist, it must also then therefore not exist.
Meaning, a roll of toilet paper only exists as you see it because it does not exist anywhere else; just precisely there.

Why does something exist precisely there instead of anywhere else?
Water. That’s why.
And that last part…I can’t explain unfortunately. That’s one of those that just has to click if it does or has.

Buddhism isn’t really what grabbed me in there.
He wasn’t a Buddhist.
He actually denied Buddha; walked away on the reason that he had to find his way and that one could not find their way through another’s way. Buddha’s way was good for Buddha, not for Siddhartha; Siddhartha had to find Siddhartha’s way.
He found that he had found his way all along once he was an old man.

Mmmm, yeah, no…I never say to turn off distractions. Ever.
Instead, I implore people to bury more deeply rather than remove.
Rather than take away, add upon.
The more you have around you, the more you can learn yourself by feeling and seeing what you do in response to everything else.
And the more you know yourself, the more you can articulate your movement in life accurately rather than marginally.

I plopped this up a while back ago for other reasons, but that was a bit ago before you came 'round.
If you want, you can check some of my ideas and thinking out on this site where I store a portion of my work.
Others are still being compiled.
sites.google.com/site/bomanism/

perhaps what you are saying is that one simply is all that it is due to where, when, how…etc…

Maybe it has been a while or maybe i am thinking of another book…but I know I at least read one with “Siddhartha” in the title…been a long time though…

it would seem to me that the point in “feeling and seeing what you do in response to everything else” can lend to recognition of reducing specific reactions, that would be of the forms of distractions in one of the ways I was using the word…in other words to learn that anger is a distraction as to be more in control of it, or at least rid of it in so far as it is detrimental.

I think i agree entirely with the forward…

The “self” to me is all that a thing is not simply the spirituality…and on “Self is seen as one’s nature” I tend to think all things are natural and thus of nature…(I’m not really judging i haven’t read enough yet…plus I have tendency to read with respect more to what was generally meant like I might continue reading as self meaning “spiritual self” however it fits into my picture…I guess)but then i recognize that agreement with all is not so important…I’ll have to read the rest tomorrow, and probably after work…it is getting late and i need to head to bed…i am glad you felt worth in sharing such with me…

One simply is all that it is due to where, when, how…etc… one isn’t.

Probably the same book.
It commonly is thought of as Buddhist because Buddha makes an appearance and “Siddhartha Gautama” was the Buddha’s real name (Buddha being the title; like Jesus vs. Christ), but in the novel, the character we follow that is named Siddhartha is not Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha; they are kept separate.

Not simply to reduce.
You don’t learn how to move combatively in a gym simply to remove detrimental actions and reactions from your personal style.
No, you also practice such with the intent to gain leverage in motion of those same actions.

Anger is highly useful, for instance. Learning how you react in anger and how you can use it is very helpful leverage.
Not only in the sense of what anger offers in and of itself when needed, but also what anger offers in telling you about yourself.
When something angers you, it should tell you something about what you value and why.
But also, anger can simply be an effective means of movement.

But more so, the idea is to learn both angles; flex and reflex. Not just one or the other.

Mr. Lee was a smart man.

You’ll find in the reading that the terminology is separating from essence, and not competing with your ideas here.
For instance:

Another way of saying Self Nature, in Bomanist context, is to say The Way In Which You Move Naturally; your Self Nature.
It is referring to nature as an action; not a title.
It is indeed all of you, and even beyond your body.
It is what I see as all the ripples that you make around you as well.

You’re in a body of water: all of the ripples that you provoke; all of the ripples that you disrupt; all of the ripples you do not either of these to; all of your body down the smallest particle; and all of these over your entire life.
All of this in motion together; that is your nature.

Are you saying no that if this is the case one doesn’t exist or something…I’m not sure that i follow what you mean here?

So you get rid of the distraction of getting rid of distractions?
I meant anger in so far as it was negative…of course it can be used for better things…at times…but then one might not call that anger but rather something else as it would seem part of the definition of the word anger is the negative conotation…In otherwords i am suggesting that “anger” is the word for a particular emotion type in so far as it is unbeneficial…at least to me…it would be more typicaly conducive to acceptance on a wider basis to refer to it with a term that did not suggest that emotion in so far as it was bad, but in so far as it could be beneficial, or simply refer to the emotion more primarily…

I would think essence is an aspect of nature. You seem to be using the term nature as it is used in the ideas around “nature vs. nurture” In reality i see nature and nurture as one…One can call all things nature, and thus say nurture is an aspect of the nature, and as such any aspect of a being including what might be called the essence is an aspect of its nature.

I would agree with this but after reading it more like this (excluding the word nature): “The Way In Which You Move [as is different than else/sets you apart from others]”
Although I tend to think that to say one is “set apart” is slightly inaccurate in that really things are merely different, and in no wholistic way apart, just distant enough to be considered different by perception…

i might call this the true person…or the soul…All that a thing is…not merely the skin and bones, but that which it produced, its affects…etc…I am beginning to understand your use of “nature” better…

Although I might add an odd thought that when one watches another so as to recognize their ripples any thought regarding that thing/person is a ripple thereof itself…

Still reading but i had a thought along with what you are saying about:
“Imagine all of your life and yourself, every emotion, every event, every person - everything that is not your awareness.
Now imagine all of these things as floating slates of stone that are constantly moving and flipping.”

And then that one often finds a place to cling and then that one can find a means to maintain balance by getting use to the flow…
What would it be with regards to the metaphor if one were to find a way to stop the “constantly moving and flipping”
I would think that such would be death…but what if one kept living…what else could it be…
yet then in going with the flow things would seem to be un-wavy if one was moving with the waves…

I like the idea of not clinging to slates but are there not slates of not-letting-go-ness…slates of addiction…that if passed over are hard and possibly impossible to leave?

A negative silhouette is the best example.
Everything that something is, if you consider it, is really a summary of everything that it is not.
Think of a whirlpool.
A whirlpool is surrounded by water, which it itself is as well.
The difference is that the whirlpool is not linear current, but twisting current.
It is essentially everything that is not any other form of water movement.
A description of what something is, is a .zip file of everything that it is not.

Not so much remove distractions.
Instead, stop seeing distractions as such and instead focus upon them and find how they are a part of your nature.
The currents in the water that move against you, they seem like distractions from how you may want to move.
But instead of trying to ignore them and get around them; focus upon them, see how they are a part of how you move in that water.
Then you can use them as part of your motion; not as a distraction or obstacle; but as a partner in league with the rest of the movement.
Including the distraction of distractions.

So kind of, but I do not think in such terms.

No, there’s no discussion referring to nurture vs. nature because I hold both at once personally; not one or the other.
And they so do recursively.

Essence is an idea, as I wrote.
It is a means of categorizing.
Nature, on the other hand, always implies motion; life.

The reason that I brought it up as such is because when you step into concepts of essence, spirit, soul, nature, etc… many people tend to suspend time when conceiving of the idea.
Thinking of this thing as a solid state.
The point of Self Nature is that we are not dead objects of thought on a page in a book somewhere.
We are a moving thing which is alive; we are not an essence, but a nature.

It’s not regarding nature/nurture, but moving vs. not moving.

Essence is an aspect of nature; yes; nature on the other hand is more than essence as the word essence does not refer to a living thing, but a moment of a thing; a form, a basic form, or the core concept of a thing.
It does not refer to a moving and living thing as nature does.

The nature of you is…__________

It’s not intended to create a separation.
It is intended to be as you think; holistically.

The reason I wrote, Naturally, and not “as is different than else/sets you apart from others”, is because your nature is going to inherently include other natures you move with, against, and along in life.
Your nature is partially defined by other natures all around you.
Your nature isn’t separate, but unique.

Like a wave in water.
That wave is not separate from all other water around it, but it is unique to being that specific wave.

Exactly.
This is why “soul” was brought up as to a form of concept that is implied by the term Self Nature.
I did not wish to use “soul”, however, because it has several preconceived ideas upon it that make articulation difficult; and Self Nature, once described briefly, is incredibly exact in meaning as it is used in the text.
You could say it another way, “How would Jayson describe the human soul? Jayson would describe it as the human Self Nature.”

Basically, yes.
In this perspective, it would be death.
Even if you think of things after this life, they are moving.
Not moving simply means not existing at all.

And indeed, that is exactly the idea; moving with the waves to reduce the effect of imbalance.
Eventually, your “sea legs” come about and you learn how to balance with waves as if they are perfectly level ground.
Akin to this is the idea presented.

Oh that makes more sense…

So i would think what you mean is alter the perception of the thing. Rather than thinking of things as distractions think of them as…lessons…or things to learn from…

Makes more sense…confusion as a matter of definition difference i would think…

This confuses me though:

“A person does not need to accept openness, seek emptiness, find liberation, or refrain from clinging.
A person only needs to move.”
What reason is there to move then?

i have finished reading it and i like much of it there are some things I would like to discuss but i think it best to start with the above and move slowly so distraction by any one thing doesn’t lead away too much from others…

That section is discussing common spiritual solutions. A common approach to reaching contentment of some kind, or balance as I would rather put it than contentment, is to pursue a form of removal or freedom from things seen to cause obstacle or non-contentment.
It is pointing out that this isn’t needed because all such things are part of your nature.
What you need, as a living thing, is to keep moving; not removing ways to move simply because YOU don’t like the way something moves with you.

I was just thinking that the other day how there is adifference between contentment and happiness. People seek to say, pay $50 dollars for a video game as soon as it comes out that will get boaring after its beaten…it might be better to find contentment than happiness in many ways…besides contentment resolves into happiness…I guess

“A person does not need to accept openness, seek emptiness, find liberation, or refrain from clinging.
A person only needs to move.”

but i would think that with regards to the subject one seeks to “move” in order to achieve a goodness or something beneficial…and it might be fair to say it is a liberation from another thing, the less beneficial or what have you…

“Life does not need to change to fit the person so that the person can find their nature.
The person only needs to change their perspective of how they see the world to find their nature where they already are.”

I think it is important to sometimes do either. I have meant this by saying this before: “Not only to lose weight to fit old cloths, but sometimes buy new clothes to fit better.” It depends, limiting to one path, is limiting, either way. To go directly to the opposite might be a reaction to an extreme into another.

You are correct.
Yet the perspective labels the liberation as emersion.
And this is done to maintain the perspective’s ambition; to be balanced in any life you have, not just a select ideal type of lives (such as ascetic or monastic where life is reduced to extremely simple variables to control and gain contentment).