This site is supported by Nobility Studios.

Da Fire

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Fair

About Da Fire

  • Rank
    lowly monk

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender: Not Telling
  • Interests: Spirituality, history, and lots of science; and the three big ideas of philosophy: epistemology, cosmology/metaphysics, ontology. At least they are the big three for me. Morals come from the Transcendent Heart of Consciousness.
  • About me: Spiritual master, and published author (6 books - with more on the way).

    Here is my main page.

Da Fire's Activity

  1. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    Don't even bother answering Heretic. I'm done with my participation in this forum.
    • 1
  2. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    So, here are quotes from my post on the absurdity of atheism that does not talk about positivism:

    Heretic, I read your comments on absurdity, and I am not discarding reason for faith here or absurdity. Maybe that is how you feel about my post. But, I feel I have given enough (reasoning) on consciousness to back up the number 3 in the series. So, can we move forward, or are you just done because you can't undermine the OP or that my OP is just more of the same old spiritual bs I have talked about before? Or maybe I'm a crackpot and do not deserve the time of day from this prestigious forum - that has been most of my experience here. ??My ideas and comments appear so out of touch with reason or logic that it is clear I'm a fool, and I'm not noticing this?
    • 0
  3. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    Atheism is still absurd. Thanks for the clarification. My comments on absurdity were not in line with your question earlier.

    Oh, what I was really saying is that any atheist(s) that claim positivism is double absurdity. Not that All atheist make that claim.
    • 0
  4. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    Here is another way to think about consciousness. Consciousness is communication/relationship in the realm of space/time. This would explain why everything is both appearing in one reality/existence/universe and able to interact. All matter and energy can be defined as something in reality that has the ability to communicate with other matter and energy directly. IOW, electrons can interact/relate/communicate with other electrons, and more importantly, electrons can, so to speak, communicate/relate/interact with other things in the universe (such as protons and humans, or with the things that make up a human). As we see more and more complex edit: gatherings of matter and energy, not necessarily bigger gatherings, we notice more and more complex forms of consciousness (communication/interaction/relationship). Why do we see this? Because existence itself, the very substance of reality itself, is consciousness, and existence communicates it's existence everywhere existence exists edit: and because existence is fundamentally consciousness we would expect to see all kinds of consciousness appearing in existence, with the expectancy of seeing variations of simple to very complex forms of consciousness.

    • 0
  5. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    Atheism?: a person who lacks belief in God or gods. Is this correct? It seems unnecessary to formulate one's world-view on the basis that one lacks a belief (seem absurd?), but that does not mean one has to be open to something that has already been proven absurd. Instead, all that is necessary is a simple rejection of such and such belief(s). However, to adhere to atheism as an end to one's philosophical openness (edit: or spiritual openness) to the chance that God is Real is absurd. Furthermore, atheism leans on the crutch of science to disprove certain claims by religions and so on, and so would any reasonable person, however, it does not justify atheism itself. For atheists to point to science to justify their position is absurd. The absurdity with atheism takes on many forms, not to exclude theism (as if it gets a free ride from me), and another form of this absurdity is the seeking of all knowledge from science only (positivism), which is absurd in itself.

    (popular) Atheism claims its position is true because science has proven that most of the claims about God or gods from history have turned out to be false, if not at least really questionable. Now, after spending time here and doing my own research on atheism, it is clear that there are smart atheists that do not get caught up in every absurdity I mentioned above, yet, there is still this air of arrogance to being open to being vulnerable to discarding atheism as something of antiquity, and something that was born out of a pressure to be religious. And, atheism lacks a belief in truth or even reality itself, atheist seem to believe in that which is objective, something that can be measured in a lab. But, even science cannot remove itself from every measurement. Instead, the atheist continues to say hand over the evidence or you are delusional. But, a lack of evidence for one idea does not mean all ideas concerning it (God) are wrong. Just because one has only experienced brown horses in their life does not mean all horses are brown. My main objection to atheism is that it seems to be treated as an end to one's philosophical consideration of God, atheism holds to the arrogance that they are going to be right somehow in the future, and that anyone devoted to God or in some kind of relationship with God, whether that relationship is genuine or delusional, is somehow practicing some ridiculous ideology that does not even deserve consideration and is something that was born from a history that no longer has a right to be practiced today (because it is absurd - like stoning 'sinners').

    If anything, the agnostic has not believed in the absurdity of atheism, but still is open to the chance that God is Real, and/or that the way to understand or realize God has either sneaked by without notice, or that that knowledge/realization may be understood or known at some time in the future. But, an outright assertion/claim that God is not real and then saying prove it through science is absurd. Atheism is caught in this delusion, and both atheism and theism are to be overcome or transcended with the practice of self honesty, which is simply allowing oneself to be open to God or the opportunity to realize God edit: (for the theist the opportunity to realize one's self As God).

    Finally, one could use this same argument for theist, and I do, but when a person has discovered Real evidence, subjectively verified God in their own way or through a way that has been passed down through a lineage then there is no turning back from saying God is not Real. Belief in God for those with personal evidence or evidence that has been passed down like shaktipat:

    is undeniable, edit: and now something more than simple belief, rather Realization Is the knowledge of God (As God ItSelf) beyond belief. Thus, when such a person Realizes God there is an end to the consideration of theism or atheism, both are transcended with Realization.
    • 0
  6. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    I did not critique them. Nor do I plan on it. The way I'm going to work out the kinks is by letting my TGL friends have at it. I don't plan on taking the 24 steps into every corner of philosophy and doing the grind work to work out ALL the issues. If the OP turns out to be so nonsensical that it makes no sense, then I will toss it and move along. No sweat off my back. Philosophy is not my primary focus, rather, I see philosophy for its limitations and use some of the practices to help clarify my spiritual message or teachings (however one wants to term it). My OP is one of those attempts, and I feel confident that I can work out enough issues here to publish this later, with many of the philosophical questions addressed, but probably not all, nor do I feel that is necessary anyways.

    The emotion quality is there, but the emotions are not properly understood until there is self realization. Thus, beyond number 24 one can begin to see that emotions are not far off in consideration.

    Meaning for what? Meaning of life? Self realization opens these doors and makes them clear. Nihilism is an emotional response to one's assertions of life, or one's emotional reaction to their own (apparently dismal) world-view. Death? Realize Real self and then one will clearly see death for what it is. The absurd? Well, nihilism is absurd, atheism is absurd, thinking that individual existence precedes existence itself is absurd, which is what I got from


    I think the word essence needs clarification. But, ultimately, if Heretic does not feel this is the place for the thread, please move it, and lets get on with the smiting of the OP.

    p.s. I am sure my comment that 'atheism is absurd' will draw some return fire. But, I think that can be addressed in another topic, although I am totally prepared to clarify that comment (with some participation from my atheist friends).
    • 0
  7. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    "The Heretic" remember this?

    How does my OP not fall in line with this?
    • 0
  8. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    Basically yes, but without the use of the word God. Awareness is not abstract, awareness is point of view based and requires a body/mind in order to manifest. A point of view is aware of such and such. Consciousness is simply existence, That which is Real; and while all sorts of things come and go within the context of existence, existence (primordial bodiless consciousness) itself remains. You can't remove existence from a vacuum. Consciousness is that which is Real about existence, it is that which outlasts everything, and from which all is formed. What does it mean to exist? It means to be that which is Real, that which is tangible, and that which is lasting (not vanishing in the blink of an eye). Consider virtual particles, they come and go faster than the blink of an eye, science considers them Real. But, what are they made of? In the two slit experiment observing the electron(s) literally changes their physics. Are electrons separate from consciousness? If we say reality is made of consciousness, if we say existence is made of consciousness we answer more questions than asking. Furthermore, in relation to Ockham's Razor this is a very parsimonious way to describe reality or existence.

    Consciousness does not require a body of any form to exist. Consciousness is the material that a body/mind is made from and not the other way around. Just for a side example - [people that have died and came back to life somehow continue to experience consciousness even though the doctors have found all signs of life to be extinct.] Consciousness exists prior to the existence or appearance of the individual body/mind, thus, the Very Reason or source that makes the appearance of a conscious body/mind possible. The body/mind is not responsible for the appearance consciousness, it is made from consciousness in a universe of consciousness, like whirlpools in water. Whirlpools are not responsible for the appearance or existence of water (and energy/motion) they are made from. Consciousness is what existence is made from, more precisely, the universe is simply a modification of the consciousness of existence, like a whirlpool is a modification of water.

    Existence and consciousness are the same. Can you tell me what 'existence' Is? You will have the same difficulty trying to define it. I am using existence and consciousness in the same way. So, to give more here; consciousness Is the transcendent light/brightness of existence, of reality itself. This is where you will probably find some kind of issue. Albeit, my assertion that there exists an eternal light of consciousness within the context of existence has been confirmed more than any scientific experiment in history, it has given birth to all the religions, it has appeared (itself) as humans in our history, it can be indirectly pointed at for measurable changes that occur in an individual who has realized the light of existence. This is not abstract 'awareness' this is something very tangible and has manifested enormous evidence in human history of its eternal existence and humanity's inherent unity with it. But, this language belongs to the number 25 spot and beyond relative to the 24 listed above.

    another example to consider in relation to the idea of consciousness
    Consider an individual and that individual is in a coma. Would you say that person is still conscious? I do, because the body is made of consciousness itself, and even though an ego personality may not be aware, the body/mind is still alive and existing. If the person is blessed by science or prayer (yes prayer works - that is another topic) and wakes up from the coma, it is because the body/mind was still conscious, and the individual's existence returns to a fully functioning (hopefully) conscious existence.

    Then move it to proper place.
    • 0
  9. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    Consciousness, identity, and existence are one. You can't have two of the three or just one of the three, all are necessary or rather, all are inherent in mere existence or merely existing. Consciousness must first exist in the substance or nature of existence before it can exist or manifest later. I am saying that (for example) because consciousness exists today, demonstrably in humans, it must be inherent in the very substance of existence itself; that consciousness cannot just somehow begin to exist without being inherent in existence itself. The universal undifferentiated consciousness of existence is why existence exists with or without conscious beings (like us). It is the primal form of consciousness that continues to 'make' (up hold - continue to exist moment to moment) existence exist.
    • 0
  10. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    Existence exists with or without bodily conscious beings because existence itself Is consciousness, the source of all conditional/temporal forms of consciousness.


    He does not exist, existence exists. 'He' is a modification of existence.

    Material, if that ensures it is not a mental construct.

    Undifferentiated consciousness (existence itself) is not dependent upon any condition for existence, rather, existence is the (supreme) context/condition of all conditions (which are in constant flux or change).

    • 0
  11. Da Fire added a post in a topic Self Realization: 24 steps   

    1 says that existence does not have a beginning or end. Existence itself, beyond the appearances within the context of existence, is beyond beginning or end, that the ideas of beginning or end (or space and time) are not applicable in reference to the concept of existence itself. Existence is necessary for existence to exist (forever and in every possible context). This leads me to 3, which says that consciousness is existence itself, and that every where existence exists undifferentiated/unbroken (omni-present as existence is - omni-present every where existence exists) consciousness is present. It is saying that consciousness and existence are the same and inseparable.

    The reasoning here is to connect identity to existence itself, both individual and existence itself share the Same identity, and one cannot separate the individual identity from the universal/whole. That any sort of 'personal' identity is simply a fragmented appearance of the whole. But, more like "To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour." - William Blake"

    Hope this helps you see what I'm saying, but the following verses or numbers all interlock with each other, and some questions are answered later on in the sequence.
    • 0
  12. Da Fire added a topic in Explore   

    Self Realization: 24 steps
    Here is something I have worked on last year, stuck it to the side, showed it to one person @ TGL and then did nothing after that with it. It is probably not presented correctly, probably has tons of flaws, and I did not divulge through all sorts of previous philosophical theories to check and cross check the ideas. I am sure my friends here will recognize this because I have not written corresponding definitions and explanations for the words involved. Have fun, but please practice charity.

    1. Existence exists without beginning or end.

    2. Existence is eternal.

    3. Existence is undifferentiated consciousness.

    4. Undifferentiated consciousness is the identity/ontology of existence.

    5. Appearing forms of consciousness (thus, perceived only through a ‘point of view’ – such as a human, and of which the human is Also a modification) are modifications of the one and only consciousness of existence.

    6. Consciousness is the substance of existence.

    7. Existence (undifferentiated consciousness) exists transcendent/beyond of all modifications of the substance of existence.

    8. All forms (points of view) of consciousness are modifications of undifferentiated consciousness.

    9. Humans exist.

    10. Consciousness is the substance of human existence.

    11. Humans demonstrate consciousness.

    12. Human consciousness is not separate, by substance, from transcendent undifferentiated consciousness.

    13. Human consciousness is simultaneously transcendent of all modifications of existence, and human (bodily) consciousness is a modification of existence.

    14. Humans have an inherent conscious nexus/connection with modificational consciousness and undifferentiated consciousness.

    15. Eternal (without beginning or end) Existence is/has one identity.

    16. Consciousness (of transcendent existence) is identity (ontology).

    17. Humans are modifications of identity.

    18. Identity is self realization.

    19. Individual humans consciously identify as modifications of existence.

    20. Humans can realize (true) identity through the human’s inherent transcendent conscious nexus/connection with the identity of existence.

    21. Ego is the conscious manifestation of separate (false) identity.

    22. Human consciousness can accept a separate (pseudo or false) identity (of ego) or human consciousness can accept the one transcendent identity of existence and consciousness.

    23. There is a conscious, thus, bodily (because the human is made of consciousness), process involved with self realization of identity.

    24. This process purges (totally and completely) the individual of the conscious identity of ego.

    I do welcome an in depth deconstruction of this. It will help me when I add this to a future book.
    • 21 replies
  13. Da Fire added a post in a topic Time to begin and think.   

    This is a mind bending subject So, I will throw out some ideas and see what my friends here do with them. Sorry if some parts feel like I am making claims instead of offering ideas.

    What if existence or the multi-verse is made of consciousness. IOW, consciousness is not something that appears later in the universe, as some like to assert, instead, consciousness is the very substance that fills (manifests) existence itself. The universal consciousness of existence then is the source for the appearance of all. Sort of like in a video game when you roam around the environment manifests as the point of view turns to view different areas. Meaning consciousness is required to make the environment appear or it does not appear. However, on a grand scale of existence as a whole, the universal consciousness, transcendent of point of view consciousness (which only exists because there is a universal form of consciousness), is the universal viewer (viewing itself) that enables spacetime to appear simultaneously everywhere (without the need of a point of view - thus independent of point of view) because the universal consciousness is already everywhere. Meaning that all that seems to appear is actually of one consciousness (being), and therefore, it is not us (individuals) that exists (and it seems it is quite audacious to think we exist - in this context), but simply existence itself is the one existing every where. Existence is simply one being, and it is the one existing As existence. Individuals do not exist, and there aren't any 'other' consciousnesses separate or independent of the one consciousness. IOW, God Only Is.

    Existence is consciousness

    Consciousness is existence

    There is only one existence: God

    There is no space or time if there is only one consciousness in existence. There is no space in consciousness, thus, no time. The illusion/difficulty is that we imagine that individuals exist with their own consciousness that is separate from 'other' bodily consciousnesses. However, there is only God (consciousness) and it is the only thing that exists anywhere. We are simply made of consciousness, modifications of the one consciousness, and space/time does not exist in a grand description of reality. I think this is an alternative to the traditional idea of imagining the universe/existence and space/time from a point of view. This way transcends point of view and eliminates the ideas of cause, space, and time. Those ideas do not accurately describe existence if one considers the universe is made of consciousness.

    Just a few ideas for ya'll to ponder or do whatever it is ya'll do. I am going to post something I worked up, but because I don't spend enough time studying philosophy to really tear it to shreds I offer it up to ya'll to rip up. So, I will post it in a new thread for the brains of TGL to wrestle with. Nice thread.
    • 1
  14. Da Fire added a post in a topic The Problem of Reality   

    Here are a few thoughts that came up when I read your post.

    The problem is not reality, but our interpretation of it (or maybe that is what you mean), or maybe even a lack of a realization of what is real, thus, the appearance of differing world-views that contradict each other. Are you saying that (Dragons quote) "thoughts and sensations and feeling and the like" are what, so to speak, delivers - or creates reality? It makes more sense to assume reality exists such that a person (body/mind) can consider it (reality).

    Why does feeling something with my hand 'make me think or add' the idea of solidity? You are adding stuff that seems to logically follow, but it does not. Read up on Ockham's Razor. What is this solid idea you have asserted? Right? All of it is interpretation, but some interpretations are more accurate than others, as far as being practical and valuable in life.

    Dragons quote: "I mean, we have learned to take the ‘real’ world so ‘for real’ that we, for the most part, have lost sight of the fact that what IS actually ‘real’ for us is our thoughts and sensations and feeling and the like. When I touch something I have the ‘sensation’ of solidity, that is all. If I chose to believe in a real, solid world, then I am postulating that that ‘sensation’ is caused by an object in some real, solid world; I have to actually POSTULATE the existence of a ‘real’ world."

    One more quote from Dragon: "Then I give myself a problem: I know I exist, I have a mind and thoughts, but I now have to ask what they are made of, what are thoughts and how can something as disembodied as thoughts interact with the ‘real’ world. I mean, thoughts are not magnetic, they do not have mass and so on, so how can they interact with physical ‘matter’, for it is by virtue of these properties that objects in the real world interact with one another."

    Thoughts have effects that science can measure. Calling them 'disembodied' makes no sense, who can have thoughts without a body? Saying thoughts are massless, thus cannot interact with physical matter is just wrong on many levels. Ever heard of light?

    Do you suppose that dreams and waking life are the same? Consequently, when a person dreams of flying without technical assistance and wakes up and jumps from a building they won't be air born for long, and that scenario usually ends with death, which is not a game or virtual. Ever heard of dying in your sleep means actually dying? I have died plenty of times in my dreams, and consciously allowed or submitted 'myself' to dying and never truly died in the flesh. So, who died? Consider the idea of 'identity'.

    You seem to presume that consciousness is an aftermarket effect of the 'chemistry' of the universe. But, I ask you this, how can something that is not inherent in the universe from the beginning or simply inherent in the substance or presence of existence/reality spontaneously exist later?

    Baruch Spinoza HERE
    Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

    In other words, if consciousness was not inherent in reality from the start, it would not manifest at all in any form ever. What does not exist inherently as a potential of existence or reality, does not exist ever, however, through point of view (a bodily 'point of view') the appearance of reality is in constant change, and therefore, what does not seem to appear now may seem to appear later.

    Consider this, existence is consciousness (which then provides the possibility of individual bodily consciousness within the manifest universe), and if anything exists it appears through consciousness, yet, our interpretation of existence, through a bodily point of view, can have all sorts of illusions and misunderstandings associated with it, and it is all based on the individual's interpretations of bodily existence, and if a person bases their life on such and such ideas or philosophy then their life will reflect a conscious relationship with reality that correlates to the philosophy (regardless if that philosophy has any grounds with actual life experience). This brings one back to the idea of 'I think therefore I am'. It goes back to the idea of 'identity'.

    What (identity - 'me') remains the same through waking and dreaming? If you say body then I say I can fly and jump from a building and die.

    Some final humble assertions and considerations:
    That which IS real is prior and necessary for anything to appear, and any bodily form, regardless of apparent form, that starts thinking about reality is doing that thinking inherently in the midst of Reality ItSelf, or in the midst of what IS real. So, what is Real is not the abstract interpretations of reality we create or the apparent patterns of consciousness we experience, but what is Real is the existence in which beings do such things. Realness begins in the substance not in the after effects of substance, but one cannot dismiss thoughts and so on as not real.

    Consider this; in a vacuum virtual particles appear, and cosmic rays pass through the vacuum. So, can the scientist remove existence from the vacuum? Can the scientist empty space of space? We can't make non-existence in the midst of existence; thus, nothing is ever Really separate from what IS Real.

    Thoughts can even change one's disposition and conscious relationship the body/mind has with reality and what IS Real, but these things do not make existence any more Real than it already IS. What is Real IS prior to all appearances. Think of it like whirlpools in water, and it would be quite difficult for the whirlpools to realize they are water by only studying the interactions they have with whirlpools only.

    No matter how much you think about reality, Reality ItSelf will always already exist before the next thought passes through that head of yours. If you are considering Anything, it is because something Real exists in order for that to happen. Peace.
    • 1
  15. Da Fire added a post in a topic Metaphysical dark energy and matter   

    Dragon, have you noticed the section on 'history and philosophy of science'? Can you explain how and/or where science and philosophy part (maybe I missed the clarity of your comments)? Can you offer a reason, based on logic and/or rational, that says my idea is non-sensical? Just wondering because criticism without solution is just ranting, and probably not well thought out philosophy.

    I can tell you that the company of members here makes it very difficult to pass one self off as a real philosopher, especially if your armchair philosophy looks like shattered glass instead of something organized.

    Regarding the idea of truth, I am pretty sure no one here believes 'truth' is somehow contained in science or philosophy, and/or any other system of understanding reality.
    • 0