|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2014 9:30:16 GMT -5
Oh, I thought that was a typo. Hehe. I still don't see any conflict. Niz said something like 'The world is my body'. Checked out the wiki on panenthiesim and I understand the distinction ... but there's this question: "does the distinction raise an actual difference from panthiesm?" ... to answer the question by "it's arguable", is a bit of an understatement. From Wikki: "In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the concept of Tzimtzum." All sorts of distinctions there, but not much in the way of difference. If we're a little bit flexible, we could say it's all different ways to talk about the same thing, and I don't really have an issue with any of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 9:32:54 GMT -5
Has Sharon gone for a facial?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2014 9:38:44 GMT -5
Checked out the wiki on panenthiesim and I understand the distinction ... but there's this question: "does the distinction raise an actual difference from panthiesm?" ... to answer the question by "it's arguable", is a bit of an understatement. This addresses E above also. Pantheism says that the whole of God equals the whole of the universe, both are made of the same ~substance~. Panentheism says that God exists outside the universe, is not confined to the universe. IOW, there is part of God that does not touch the universe. This negates non-duality. More in next post. sdp Nonduality points to that which transcends the physical universe. That which is never born.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 9:40:37 GMT -5
This addresses E above also. Pantheism says that the whole of God equals the whole of the universe, both are made of the same ~substance~. Panentheism says that God exists outside the universe, is not confined to the universe. IOW, there is part of God that does not touch the universe. This negates non-duality. More in next post. sdp Nonduality points to that which transcends the physical universe. That which is never born. like a soul? like someone who makes up nothing as they don't exist so have no fingers to text? lol goodnite
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2014 9:55:30 GMT -5
Checked out the wiki on panenthiesim and I understand the distinction ... but there's this question: "does the distinction raise an actual difference from panthiesm?" ... to answer the question by "it's arguable", is a bit of an understatement. From Wikki: "In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the concept of Tzimtzum." All sorts of distinctions there, but not much in the way of difference. If we're a little bit flexible, we could say it's all different ways to talk about the same thing, and I don't really have an issue with any of them. The difference for me collapses on the first sentence of the wiki: "Panentheism is a belief system which posits that the divine interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it." This "interpenetration" is essentially pantheism, while what "extends beyond" sounds alot like what is pointed to by "the void" or when Niz goes all indeterministic, so it sounds just like the heart sutra to me. I'm starting to recognize a pattern of what might be termed a "social minefield" that involves intertwining the intellect/objectivity with emotion/subjectivity in the context of a spiritual belief system. Say someone considers themselves to be on some sort of devotional path or has some sort of God-image that evokes a feeling of worship for them. Now, other than suggesting that the belief system and the image are superfluous, but that there is something underlying the feeling that's worthy of notice, arguing with them about "the devine" is obviously counterproductive. What's the point of throwing eggs at someone's God? It's just gonna piss'em off. Now on the other hand, say someone has some refined intellectual model of the way things are and they're interested in corresponding about it and even interested in debating it. Q and his Qualia Model are a good example. That's another matter altogether. The image in question has no direct association with any sense of sacredness, so there's no perception of defilement involved in tearing it down. The minefield lies in between these two clear alternatives (devotion and insight), when someone has spun up a conceptual structure that weaves logic and analysis around the notion of the devine, and thinks that they're interested in discussing it frankly.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2014 9:57:45 GMT -5
Has Sharon gone for a facial? How 'bout I give you one? You want one?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2014 9:58:44 GMT -5
My signature says Panentheist, not pantheist. I agree, no conflict between pantheism and nonduality. SOI permeates the whole universe but is not confined to the universe. SOI is transcendent. The whole of the universe does not equal the whole of SOI (IMvhO). It is in this sense that I am not a non-dualist. As far as the whole of the universe is concerned, I am a non-dualist. SOI is the Source of life, life on loan. Our purpose is to unite with Source, but never as identity. sdp Darrel, I've never addressed this although I've inferred your opinion from your writing in the past, but if you think of me as a "nondualist", then you're not thinking of me the way that I think of myself. I've never claimed to be God, and most of the others here you likely think of as "nondualists" haven't either. First of all, not a big deal, but I don't think I have ever used my name publicly nor has anyone else I have ever PM'ed, so, please fire yourself (or at least have yourself take a few days off) . I don't take notes on anybody, I usually just reply to posts, but some stick out as "died in the wool" non-dualists. I'll try to remember that laughter does not think of himself as a nondualist, thanks. I understand that most here do not think of themselves as God, as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent etc. When I think of non-duality and God I think of both being ~composed of~ the same ~substance~. A drop of the sea cannot be the whole sea but a drop of the sea is of the same substance as the whole sea. IMO man is not made of God-stuff, this is why I am not a non-dualist. I have never called myself a Panentheist before. I've studied it and thought through it for a long time. I did so yesterday because the words of the signature are limited, that was the only ay to be able to get everything necessary, in it. I do not deny anybody's experience, anybody's nondual experience, I consider the wholeness of everything, minus the totality of God, to be a fact. I can't even verify what I've written as my view, it's just a predilection. But for me it's the only view that makes sense. That any part of God has lost consciousness of Itself or is hiding from Itself, just playing hide-and-seek, just doesn't make sense to me. sdp
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2014 10:07:49 GMT -5
Darrel, I've never addressed this although I've inferred your opinion from your writing in the past, but if you think of me as a "nondualist", then you're not thinking of me the way that I think of myself. I've never claimed to be God, and most of the others here you likely think of as "nondualists" haven't either. First of all, not a big deal, but I don't think I have ever used my name publicly nor has anyone else I have ever PM'ed, so, please fire yourself (or at least have yourself take a few days off) . I don't take notes on anybody, I usually just reply to posts, but some stick out as "died in the wool" non-dualists. I'll try to remember that laughter does not think of himself as a nondualist, thanks. I understand that most here do not think of themselves as God, as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent etc. When I think of non-duality and God I think of both being ~composed of~ the same ~substance~. A drop of the sea cannot be the whole sea but a drop of the sea is of the same substance as the whole sea. IMO man is not made of God-stuff, this is why I am not a non-dualist. I have never called myself a Panentheist before. I've studied it and thought through it for a long time. I did so yesterday because the words of the signature are limited, that was the only ay to be able to get everything necessary, in it. I do not deny anybody's experience, anybody's nondual experience, I consider the wholeness of everything, minus the totality of God, to be a fact. I can't even verify what I've written as my view, it's just a predilection. But for me it's the only view that makes sense. That any part of God has lost consciousness of Itself or is hiding from Itself, just playing hide-and-seek, just doesn't make sense to me. sdp Well, first names are harmless enough, aren't they? Underneath the labels are models - nondualist, diest, etc. - and those are all composed of various ideas and abstractions that ultimately lead back to our primary perceptions and our secondary thoughts about those perceptions. None of these are important, although they might seem so at one time or another. None of them offer any sort of absolute or ultimate truth, and all of them get in the way of what it is that we are.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2014 10:10:40 GMT -5
This addresses E above also. Pantheism says that the whole of God equals the whole of the universe, both are made of the same ~substance~. Panentheism says that God exists outside the universe, is not confined to the universe. IOW, there is part of God that does not touch the universe. This negates non-duality. More in next post. sdp Nonduality points to that which transcends the physical universe. That which is never born. I have zero problem with that. But if I pressed you, you'd expand on that. Pointing and Ising, two different things. sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2014 10:21:18 GMT -5
Darrel, I've never addressed this although I've inferred your opinion from your writing in the past, but if you think of me as a "nondualist", then you're not thinking of me the way that I think of myself. I've never claimed to be God, and most of the others here you likely think of as "nondualists" haven't either. First of all, not a big deal, but I don't think I have ever used my name publicly nor has anyone else I have ever PM'ed, so, please fire yourself (or at least have yourself take a few days off) . I don't take notes on anybody, I usually just reply to posts, but some stick out as "died in the wool" non-dualists. I'll try to remember that laughter does not think of himself as a nondualist, thanks. I understand that most here do not think of themselves as God, as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent etc. When I think of non-duality and God I think of both being ~composed of~ the same ~substance~. A drop of the sea cannot be the whole sea but a drop of the sea is of the same substance as the whole sea. IMO man is not made of God-stuff, this is why I am not a non-dualist. Does nonduality say that man is made out of God stuff? Well, at least here's something we can disagree on, though I suspect most nondualists would disagree too. (not sure)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2014 10:23:23 GMT -5
Nonduality points to that which transcends the physical universe. That which is never born. I have zero problem with that. But if I pressed you, you'd expand on that. Pointing and Ising, two different things. sdp If you say so.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2014 10:36:10 GMT -5
First of all, not a big deal, but I don't think I have ever used my name publicly nor has anyone else I have ever PM'ed, so, please fire yourself (or at least have yourself take a few days off) . I don't take notes on anybody, I usually just reply to posts, but some stick out as "died in the wool" non-dualists. I'll try to remember that laughter does not think of himself as a nondualist, thanks. I understand that most here do not think of themselves as God, as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent etc. When I think of non-duality and God I think of both being ~composed of~ the same ~substance~. A drop of the sea cannot be the whole sea but a drop of the sea is of the same substance as the whole sea. IMO man is not made of God-stuff, this is why I am not a non-dualist. I have never called myself a Panentheist before. I've studied it and thought through it for a long time. I did so yesterday because the words of the signature are limited, that was the only ay to be able to get everything necessary, in it. I do not deny anybody's experience, anybody's nondual experience, I consider the wholeness of everything, minus the totality of God, to be a fact. I can't even verify what I've written as my view, it's just a predilection. But for me it's the only view that makes sense. That any part of God has lost consciousness of Itself or is hiding from Itself, just playing hide-and-seek, just doesn't make sense to me. sdp Well, first names are harmless enough, aren't they? Underneath the labels are models - nondualist, diest, etc. - and those are all composed of various ideas and abstractions that ultimately lead back to our primary perceptions and our secondary thoughts about those perceptions. None of these are important, although they might seem so at one time or another. None of them offer any sort of absolute or ultimate truth, and all of them get in the way of what it is that we are. I've seen the film A Man for all Seasons a couple of times, very good film. Thomas More knows the law through and through, backwards and forwards, upside down and right-side up. The King decides he wants a divorce but needs an annulment of the present marriage, England still under the Roman Catholic Church. By this time Thomas More has been appointed Lord Chancellor by the King, probably in the hope he will support the King's request for an annulment. Well, the sh*t pretty-much hits the fan, the King wants his annulment, but Thomas More realizes the only way to remain true to his faith and simultaneously true to his public office, is to remain silent on the matter, remain silent, period, IOW in public and in private. At one point he is talking to his adult daughter, she asks his opinion on the matter. It is here we know how serious the matter is. He says sorry, I will not express any view on the matter. She says, surely you can tell me, I won't tell anybody. Then he says, what if they come for you and asked what I told you? What if they torture you to force you to tell what opinion I gave, would you tell them? If I tell you that I have an opinion on the matter, they can cut my head off. ~Spoiler Alert~! Very good film. Eventually a friend of Thomas More's, a young dude in the justice system was bribed to lie about More expressing his opinion on the matter (played by a young John Hurt). (Earlier in the film someone tried to bribe Thomas More in the presence of the young dude. He let a silver chalice sink in the river not taking the bribe, and warned the young dude about corruption). The lie allowed them to cut off Thomas More's head. This incident resulted in England separating from the Catholic Church and the beginning of the Church of England. The point of the story, one's being always trumps words, but in some instances, words matter. sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2014 10:45:10 GMT -5
First of all, not a big deal, but I don't think I have ever used my name publicly nor has anyone else I have ever PM'ed, so, please fire yourself (or at least have yourself take a few days off) . I don't take notes on anybody, I usually just reply to posts, but some stick out as "died in the wool" non-dualists. I'll try to remember that laughter does not think of himself as a nondualist, thanks. I understand that most here do not think of themselves as God, as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent etc. When I think of non-duality and God I think of both being ~composed of~ the same ~substance~. A drop of the sea cannot be the whole sea but a drop of the sea is of the same substance as the whole sea. IMO man is not made of God-stuff, this is why I am not a non-dualist. Does nonduality say that man is made out of God stuff? Well, at least here's something we can disagree on, though I suspect most nondualists would disagree too. (not sure) Does nonduality say that man is made out of God stuff? If all is One and if God is.........what other conclusion could you reach? sdp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 12:21:00 GMT -5
Does nonduality say that man is made out of God stuff? Well, at least here's something we can disagree on, though I suspect most nondualists would disagree too. (not sure) Does nonduality say that man is made out of God stuff? If all is One and if God is.........what other conclusion could you reach? sdp Why go the God route at all? Seems complicated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 13:59:56 GMT -5
Well, first names are harmless enough, aren't they?
|
|