Detail of Sistine Chapel fresco Creation of the Sun and Moon by Michelangelo (c. 1512), a well known example of the depiction of God the Father in Western art
.
I provided a couple of examples of inconsistencies in General Inconsistencies on the subject of God as follows:
It is believed by many that, “God created the universe” and that “God is good.” An inconsistency comes about when one observes that there is evil in this world, and God cannot be the source of evil. One then rationalizes that Satan, who is created by God, is the source of evil. Satan is evil because, having a mind of his own, he disobeys God. One then wonders if it is bad to have a mind of one’s own. The inconsistency then falls apart when one looks more closely without rationalization.
It is believed by many that, “Man is created in the image of god.” Thus, God is believed to have a beingness with a form. Since beingness with form must exist in space, God must exist in space too. We then observe that space is part of this universe, and it must have been created when the universe was created. This means that, God did not have location in space, when he first created this universe. And so, God did not have beingness with form in the beginning. The inconsistency also falls apart when looked at more closely.
I find that looking at the inconsistencies on the subject of God can be very helpful as it may bring to view The Basic Inconsistency.
Attempt to look at the inconsistencies on the subject of God does not mean that one is denying God. I believe that there is God, but I also believe that as long as inconsistencies exist, a complete understanding of God is not there, and a complete understanding of “self” is also missing.
Saying, “I see no inconsistencies on the subject of God,” may simply point to an outright rejection of other views on God. This may mean that one is resisting looking at the inconsistencies on the subject of God. That would be a weakness.
A person, who can think for oneself, should be willing to look at all different views on God, and discuss them intelligently.
The Comment Section below is reserved for bringing into view all inconsistencies that have existed on God and look at them closely.
I hope this exercise would be worthwhile.
.
Comments
Check this out:
The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda
.
LikeLike
God says in the bible: ” I am who is “, this is my spanish translation. Describes a being existing without adjectives, just the purity of being. And the creation of man is similar to him in potential to be without temporary adjectives, as I see it, so there is spiritual evolution. About the perception of layers of inconsistencies on God, I see this process as peeling off layers of an onion but when you reach the center you will not find the creator of this reality ( which is a seed ), so, may be not all the reality on God will ever be available for us to know, here comes the divine revelation to know the unavailable data on him and leading to spiritual growing. Revelation ocurrs when there is faith on the existence of this reality called God as the communication bridge.imho.
LikeLike
Unknowable, hmmm…
.
LikeLike
Vinay, yes, a being existing without adjectives is something Unknowable, may be my God is not very different from your Unknowable.
LikeLike
If God is unknowable, how can you tell it is a being? How can you tell it is existing (being)?
.
LikeLike
Vinay, it is a matter of extrapolation. If you see shadows, then there needs to be a source of light, if you see effects then you know there are causes, if you see bad …… this is the dichotomy of existence and living things at work. So if there are persons known, like you and me, there are unknown persons; if there are weak persons then, there are powerful persons in a gradient scale up to the infinite……. 🙂 . Dichotomies, Vinay, this is the key to solve any problem, and the use of extrapolation. I will give you an example of extrapolation more practical: a person dives in the ocean and each milimeter he dives deeper the water presure is more and more; ok, this is a sequence where you can make a prediction with certainty. The existence and nature of God is discovered that way. And even more, you will eventually find that the so called ” faith in God ” is an advance over this process. So if you and me exist, then an upper gradient of persons should exist.
LikeLike
The method of extrapolation keeps one within the universe, and one simply sees another aspect of the universe.
One cannot arrive at God this way, IMHO. One may believe it is God, but one may simply be looking at some other aspect of the physical universe.
.
LikeLike
Vinay, you say “The method of extrapolation keeps one within the universe, and one simply sees another aspect of the universe. ” It seems to me like an assumption from you. To me, extrapolation is another way to look at the existence and discover and predict new things. If this method don´t get me out of the universe or lets me arrive at God is something I am currently investigating. But in the process, I am confident this will bring a better social enviroment 🙂 .
LikeLike
When you say two plus two is four, you are still operating in the dimension of numbers.
So when you take a bunch of considerations and extrapolate from those to come up with a new consideration, you are still operating in the dimension of considerations. And that is the dimension of the MEST universe.
The creator of this universe has to be beyond consideration because it cannot be part of this universe.
The idea, “God is BEING” is inconsistent because any being, or anything being, has to be part of this universe per the simple fact that it is existing.
“God is being” or “God is a BEING” is an inconsistency in my opinion.
.
LikeLike
Vinay, ok, I am interested in knowing from you what is your description of the nirvana dimension, just to have a kind of goal towards to work. In the other side if there are no existing beings outside this universe, I guess it would be very lonesome any experience of such condition
LikeLike
Rafael: “I guess it would be very lonesome any experience of such condition.”
What you are doing here is visualizing and not looking. So, what you’ll see is your visualization and not what is actually there.
The KHTK approach is to simply look at inconsistencies more and more closely until they dissolve. You keep on doing this without expecting anything. That is all. You’ll know the destination when you’ll get there. Otherwise, all you have is just a visualization of the destination.
So the goal in KHTK is looking at inconsistencies as they come up until they dissolve.
I can give you my description of the Nirvana dimension, but it may not necessarily be true for you. You have to discover it for yourself. Anyway, here it goes.
WHAT IS NIRVANA?
I hope you like it. If you see any inconsistencies, then please let me know.
.
LikeLike
Vinay, I Have read your essay on nirvana which states: ” in nirvana, beingness and considerations are continually being created and dissolved “. To me it seems like an as-is of the existence in each unit of creation of it. Very interesting.
LikeLike
Great! As I see, there is complete absence of fixations in Nirvana.
.
LikeLike
Vinay, I guess it needs to be felt by someone nowadays just to get this state completely described ( almost scientifically ) so as to start the real explosion of Bhuddas and Bodhisattvas. thanks for your contribution.
LikeLike
Also, please see:
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/khtk-6a-the-fundamental-inconsistency/#comment-2241
.
LikeLike
Vinay, I liked the part of ” know for yourselves ” from the Buddha advice. Useful info !
LikeLike
God is unknowable. Anything said to describe God (that God is a being, cause, etc.) is an inconsistency, including the first statement above (if taken strictly logically).
.
LikeLike
Vinay, you say: ” The statement God is unknowable is an inconsistency, too. (if taken strictly logically).” So the way to nirvana goes along the line of feelings and not by the reasons.
LikeLike
You may be quite right. I do find logic to be inadequate.
.
LikeLike
Hammering the unknowable repeatedly creates the sense of hardening. A paradox tries to emerge around the word “know.” Maybe taking a look at this will be useful? Hints: KHTK both “Fractal” and “Reverse vector.”
LikeLike
How do you define “know”?
To me the ultimate state would be lack of inconsistencies. When there are no inconsistencies then there is nothing to know really. This state may be called “unknowable.”
.
LikeLike
I use know as in make manifest.
LikeLike
Well, one can know only what is manifested. One cannot know what is not yet manifested, though one may speculate about that. Then one would know only those speculations.
“Making manifest” would be visualizing, speculating, creating, etc. Knowing would then follow.
.
LikeLike
Round and round… this inconsistency should be a clue.
LikeLike
Hint: Look to Godel’s work. There is this paradox exploited there. The answer becomes obvious but we have to turn loose some fixed ideas if you can believe good science, genius mathematics, and dispassionate looking.
LikeLike
learn to know or learn to not know, there is the dilemma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma
LikeLike
Lack of inconsistencies does not mean that one doesn’t know. It simply means that what one knows has no inconsistencies. I don’t see any dilemma here.
Drive to know seem to come from inconsistencies. These inconsistencies, when they exist in one’s ground reality, are excited by looking. If no inconsistencies are excited then there is nothing to sort out and know.
One’s visualization may emerge from that ground reality as a creative endeavor. Here we have effortless art. New realities are created consistent with one’s ground reality. Wonderful emotions arise as a result. One is continually in a state of ecstasy. There is no need for knowing. There is simply pure creativity.
Not knowing is not the same thing as forgetting. To me, not knowing would be getting rid of inconsistencies. One looks at inconsistencies more closely until the out-of-alignment pieces start to fall into place.
So, know and not know seems to go hand in hand. New realizations blow off confusions. That is know and not know happening together.
This is how I see it. It may not be how somebody else sees it.
.
LikeLike
Vinay, so wishing to learn – let’s say- chemistry, would be a drive to grow one’s own ground reality, even if in the process new inconsistencies appear to be handled so as to be in need of level them up to a point of not know ( per your earlier definition )
LikeLike
Good point. I would say that Chemistry could be a path taken to resolve some basic inconsistency. Here we are applying the scientific method to postulate an explanation and then seeing how it pans out, and then keep on going using this method.
So, yes, the natural desire to resolve inconsistencies may lead to postulation and visualization of what may develop into different subjects. These subjects would actually be paths taken to resolve some basic inconsistency.
The wish to learn Chemistry would then be to try out the path of Chemistry to resolve some basic inconsistency. One is following up on what others have already visualized on this path until one gets to the point where one is blazing the trail oneself.
.
LikeLike
Vinay, so the scientific method applied to different sciences would actually be paths taken to resolve some basic inconsistency, a way of looking thru the mind, as I understand it. My be the inconsistency in the use of science and reason could be the acceptance by the observer of any external influence as an interpretation of his observations ( aceptance of uninspected sugestions coming from someone else)
LikeLike
That’s an interesting view. There is appearance, and one is trying to understand what underlies that appearance through science.
What you seem to be saying is that there is inconsistency in the use of science and reasoning itself, and that inconsistency is probably coming from acceptance by the observer of uninspected suggestions coming from someone else.
Well, one’s observation is always influenced by what one is taking for granted. It is also influenced by what one is assuming even knowingly. That is called a conjecture in the application of the scientific method. A conjecture is then falsified or not.
“KHTK looking” is the way to ferret out considerations that one is operating on knowingly or unknowingly.
.
LikeLike
Vinay, you say: “There is appearance, and one is trying to understand what underlies that appearance through science “. Yes, the inconsistency of such appearance is leveled not accepting false sugestions, i.e. was Louis Pasteur, a French chemist and microbiologist not accepting the spontaneous generation theory of his time and instead discovered biogenesis (Omne vivum ex vivo “all life is from life”) with medicine and industrial aplications.
LikeLike
I am reading Isaac Asimov’s ‘Forward the Foundation.’ Here is a quote from it:
“Oh, supernatural influences. Why didn’t you say so? No, I don’t believe in that sort of thing. By definition, something is supernatural if it exists outside the laws of nature and nothing exists outside the laws of nature. Are you turning into a mystic?”
I quite agree with the above.
.
LikeLike
Yes, I already had that idea.
LikeLike