|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 29, 2018 11:25:45 GMT -5
So...What do you think about it? I think that it is an interesting theory. And you?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2018 11:35:06 GMT -5
So...What do you think about it? I think that it is an interesting theory. And you? I think it's reminiscent of New Age beliefs, and the implied personal God is a non-starter for me.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 29, 2018 11:44:01 GMT -5
I think that it is an interesting theory. And you? I think it's reminiscent of New Age beliefs, and the implied personal God is a non-starter for me. What do you mean by personal god?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2018 11:58:42 GMT -5
I think that it is an interesting theory. And you? I think it's reminiscent of New Age beliefs, and the implied personal God is a non-starter for me. But isn't 'personal Gods' exactly what your signature refers to?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 29, 2018 12:57:42 GMT -5
Are you telling me you know directly your OP is the truth? (I really don't think so...really, really don't think so.. {saying that (now) saves at least one posting}). There's authority behind very few words, period. And then they have to be proved out by the other (the hearer). You asked, I answered... SDP: You seem to be saying that the OP is as theoretical as your own theory, so it's just as valid or invalid as the OP. Is that correct? In the OP it states that "the one Formless God" wanted to know itself, but that this presented a problem because it was One. The OP goes on to say that God "reflected upon this problem." My question applies to both the OP and to your own theory. How can Oneness reflect or divide Itself into imaginary states without making Itself false to Itself? IOW, I don;t have any problem with the story being presented mythologically, but myths can no more capture the truth of the situation than any other dualistic theory. The bottom line is that if THIS/God/Source is whole and infinite--something that THIS can directly apprehend and/or realize--, how can there be anything separate from that wholeness and infiniteness?If we simply look, we can't talk about what we see without imaginatively dividing what we see into states, and all such states must be imaginary (imagined by THIS as independently-existing states/things). I thought I had deleted (snipped) all my objections in my reply. I agree, Oneness didn't/doesn't need to reflect, that slipped by my edit. (sdp likes twice) I addressed this question recently in reply to you. In that post I thought I had found a loophole in that illusion, isn't. But you said that no, Imaginary things are also a part of All That Is. I said OK and moved on. So is that question relevant to what I've said here? Where have I maintained in my reply to justlikeme that there is something outside All That Is? (I didn't address this earlier, just liked your post, but etolle has copied your question). Edit: OK, just looked at it again. I suppose you consider an Other to mean something outside All That Is. I didn't read it that way, but if I were writing I wouldn't have put it that way. Previouly I've said I'm a panentheist (not a pantheist). Panentheist means "God" (SOCI) permeates and is the Ground/Source of All That Is, that is, without Source nothing could be, that is, nothing can exist apart from Source, that is, all things are~in Source. However, there is an aspect of Source which is WHolly un~reachable by man, or anyone or anything. In Judaism this is called Ein Sof. All of everything is in Source, but all of Source is not in everything. That's panentheism. And that's why I've said in the past that I am not a NDist.
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 29, 2018 15:11:23 GMT -5
Are you telling me you know directly your OP is the truth? (I really don't think so...really, really don't think so.. {saying that (now) saves at least one posting}). There's authority behind very few words, period. And then they have to be proved out by the other (the hearer). You asked, I answered... SDP: You seem to be saying that the OP is as theoretical as your own theory, so it's just as valid or invalid as the OP. Is that correct? In the OP it states that "the one Formless God" wanted to know itself, but that this presented a problem because it was One. The OP goes on to say that God "reflected upon this problem." My question applies to both the OP and to your own theory. How can Oneness reflect or divide Itself into imaginary states without making Itself false to Itself? IOW, I don;t have any problem with the story being presented mythologically, but myths can no more capture the truth of the situation than any other dualistic theory. The bottom line is that if THIS/God/Source is whole and infinite--something that THIS can directly apprehend and/or realize--, how can there be anything separate from that wholeness and infiniteness? If we simply look, we can't talk about what we see without imaginatively dividing what we see into states, and all such states must be imaginary (imagined by THIS as independently-existing states/things). yes. how can there be more other than in the imagination?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 29, 2018 17:25:47 GMT -5
SDP: You seem to be saying that the OP is as theoretical as your own theory, so it's just as valid or invalid as the OP. Is that correct? In the OP it states that "the one Formless God" wanted to know itself, but that this presented a problem because it was One. The OP goes on to say that God "reflected upon this problem." My question applies to both the OP and to your own theory. How can Oneness reflect or divide Itself into imaginary states without making Itself false to Itself? IOW, I don;t have any problem with the story being presented mythologically, but myths can no more capture the truth of the situation than any other dualistic theory. The bottom line is that if THIS/God/Source is whole and infinite--something that THIS can directly apprehend and/or realize--, how can there be anything separate from that wholeness and infiniteness? If we simply look, we can't talk about what we see without imaginatively dividing what we see into states, and all such states must be imaginary (imagined by THIS as independently-existing states/things). yes. how can there be more other than in the imagination? I edited my reply to ZD. That should answer your question.
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 29, 2018 17:39:37 GMT -5
SDP: You seem to be saying that the OP is as theoretical as your own theory, so it's just as valid or invalid as the OP. Is that correct? In the OP it states that "the one Formless God" wanted to know itself, but that this presented a problem because it was One. The OP goes on to say that God "reflected upon this problem." My question applies to both the OP and to your own theory. How can Oneness reflect or divide Itself into imaginary states without making Itself false to Itself? IOW, I don;t have any problem with the story being presented mythologically, but myths can no more capture the truth of the situation than any other dualistic theory. The bottom line is that if THIS/God/Source is whole and infinite--something that THIS can directly apprehend and/or realize--, how can there be anything separate from that wholeness and infiniteness?If we simply look, we can't talk about what we see without imaginatively dividing what we see into states, and all such states must be imaginary (imagined by THIS as independently-existing states/things). I thought I had deleted (snipped) all my objections in my reply. I agree, Oneness didn't/doesn't need to reflect, that slipped by my edit. (sdp likes twice) I addressed this question recently in reply to you. In that post I thought I had found a loophole in that illusion, isn't. But you said that no, Imaginary things are also a part of All That Is. I said OK and moved on. So is that question relevant to what I've said here? Where have I maintained in my reply to justlikeme that there is something outside All That Is? (I didn't address this earlier, just liked your post, but etolle has copied your question). Edit: OK, just looked at it again. I suppose you consider an Other to mean something outside All That Is. I didn't read it that way, but if I were writing I wouldn't have put it that way. Previouly I've said I'm a panentheist (not a pantheist). Panentheist means "God" (SOCI) permeates and is the Ground/Source of All That Is, that is, without Source nothing could be, that is, nothing can exist apart from Source, that is, all things are~in Source. However, there is an aspect of Source which is WHolly un~reachable by man, or anyone or anything. In Judaism this is called Ein Sof. All of everything is in Source, but all of Source is not in everything. That's panentheism. And that's why I've said in the past that I am not a NDist. if it is unreachable by man or anyone or anything why even talk about it?..i'm missing the point
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 29, 2018 18:46:39 GMT -5
I thought I had deleted (snipped) all my objections in my reply. I agree, Oneness didn't/doesn't need to reflect, that slipped by my edit. (sdp likes twice) I addressed this question recently in reply to you. In that post I thought I had found a loophole in that illusion, isn't. But you said that no, Imaginary things are also a part of All That Is. I said OK and moved on. So is that question relevant to what I've said here? Where have I maintained in my reply to justlikeme that there is something outside All That Is? (I didn't address this earlier, just liked your post, but etolle has copied your question). Edit: OK, just looked at it again. I suppose you consider an Other to mean something outside All That Is. I didn't read it that way, but if I were writing I wouldn't have put it that way. Previouly I've said I'm a panentheist (not a pantheist). Panentheist means "God" (SOCI) permeates and is the Ground/Source of All That Is, that is, without Source nothing could be, that is, nothing can exist apart from Source, that is, all things are~in Source. However, there is an aspect of Source which is WHolly un~reachable by man, or anyone or anything. In Judaism this is called Ein Sof. All of everything is in Source, but all of Source is not in everything. That's panentheism. And that's why I've said in the past that I am not a NDist. if it is unreachable by man or anyone or anything why even talk about it?..i'm missing the point Silence is good too....
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 29, 2018 19:28:21 GMT -5
if it is unreachable by man or anyone or anything why even talk about it?..i'm missing the point Silence is good too.... that's my point. why mention it?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2018 3:54:25 GMT -5
that's my point. why mention it? If people posted only what they know, 99% of what gets posted here would go away. I mention it because it's part of my tradition, the being of a person does not reach the level of being of the Absolute. This is ~at odds~ with the discussion of CC here. How can anyone know their CC experience is an apprehension (In some manner) of All That Is? And yet, this is written here often. I'm not saying what's called CC isn't whatever it is. I'm just saying a human being doesn't have the capacity to ~encompass~ the WHOLE of Being. I've experienced a part of the cosmology, so I trust the map/model of that which I have not yet experienced, and will not experience. I trust, even know, others have traveled further than me. Any further reasons why I post...._______ (will not get an answer).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 30, 2018 5:31:17 GMT -5
that's my point. why mention it? If people posted only what they know, 99% of what gets posted here would go away. I mention it because it's part of my tradition, the being of a person does not reach the level of being of the Absolute. This is ~at odds~ with the discussion of CC here. How can anyone know their CC experience is an apprehension (In some manner) of All That Is? And yet, this is written here often. I'm not saying what's called CC isn't whatever it is. I'm just saying a human being doesn't have the capacity to ~encompass~ the WHOLE of Being. I've experienced a part of the cosmology, so I trust the map/model of that which I have not yet experienced, and will not experience. I trust, even know, others have traveled further than me. Any further reasons why I post...._______ (will not get an answer). I had an interesting dream the other night (they are normally very mundane). In the dream I was experience God's Love. Now, this isn't new to me, I have had many intense experiences of this before. But what I was shown in the dream is that what I have previously experienced, and what I can only ever experience, is a 'bit' off that. And then I was given a glimpse or a taste for how deep and vast it goes. It was a level of exquisite bliss, love and ecstasy that was off the scale (and I say this as someone that has taken ecstasy). The intensity made me dissolve into tears. I'm saying this as a way of agreeing. Direct experience of 'God' or 'God's Love' is of course possible, but as an individuation, I believe we don't experience the 'totality' of that, though as we evolve we can experience more of it, our capacity expands. In higher dimensions perhaps, there is increased capacity. But I think the whole point of experience is that we DON'T get to experience the absolute wholeness. We experience ourselves in relation to that absolute wholeness. That doesn't mean that I think there has to be struggle, suffering, misery, unhappiness etc. It means that even if we abide in goodness, it's still a goodness that is relative to the absolute wholeness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2018 5:42:38 GMT -5
If people posted only what they know, 99% of what gets posted here would go away. I mention it because it's part of my tradition, the being of a person does not reach the level of being of the Absolute. This is ~at odds~ with the discussion of CC here. How can anyone know their CC experience is an apprehension (In some manner) of All That Is? And yet, this is written here often. I'm not saying what's called CC isn't whatever it is. I'm just saying a human being doesn't have the capacity to ~encompass~ the WHOLE of Being. I've experienced a part of the cosmology, so I trust the map/model of that which I have not yet experienced, and will not experience. I trust, even know, others have traveled further than me. Any further reasons why I post...._______ (will not get an answer). I had an interesting dream the other night (they are normally very mundane). In the dream I was experience God's Love. Now, this isn't new to me, I have had many intense experiences of this before. But what I was shown in the dream is that what I have previously experienced, and what I can only ever experience, is a 'bit' off that. And then I was given a glimpse or a taste for how deep and vast it goes. It was a level of exquisite bliss, love and ecstasy that was off the scale ( and I say this as someone that has taken ecstasy). The intensity made me dissolve into tears. I'm saying this as a way of agreeing. Direct experience of 'God' or 'God's Love' is of course possible, but as an individuation, I believe we don't experience the 'totality' of that, though as we evolve we can experience more of it, our capacity expands. In higher dimensions perhaps, there is increased capacity. But I think the whole point of experience is that we DON'T get to experience the absolute wholeness. We experience ourselves in relation to that absolute wholeness. That doesn't mean that I think there has to be struggle, suffering, misery, unhappiness etc. It means that even if we abide in goodness, it's still a goodness that is relative to the absolute wholeness.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 30, 2018 7:01:13 GMT -5
I had an interesting dream the other night (they are normally very mundane). In the dream I was experience God's Love. Now, this isn't new to me, I have had many intense experiences of this before. But what I was shown in the dream is that what I have previously experienced, and what I can only ever experience, is a 'bit' off that. And then I was given a glimpse or a taste for how deep and vast it goes. It was a level of exquisite bliss, love and ecstasy that was off the scale ( and I say this as someone that has taken ecstasy). The intensity made me dissolve into tears. I'm saying this as a way of agreeing. Direct experience of 'God' or 'God's Love' is of course possible, but as an individuation, I believe we don't experience the 'totality' of that, though as we evolve we can experience more of it, our capacity expands. In higher dimensions perhaps, there is increased capacity. But I think the whole point of experience is that we DON'T get to experience the absolute wholeness. We experience ourselves in relation to that absolute wholeness. That doesn't mean that I think there has to be struggle, suffering, misery, unhappiness etc. It means that even if we abide in goodness, it's still a goodness that is relative to the absolute wholeness. Good choice!
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 30, 2018 9:41:10 GMT -5
that's my point. why mention it? If people posted only what they know, 99% of what gets posted here would go away. I mention it because it's part of my tradition, the being of a person does not reach the level of being of the Absolute. This is ~at odds~ with the discussion of CC here. How can anyone know their CC experience is an apprehension (In some manner) of All That Is? And yet, this is written here often. I'm not saying what's called CC isn't whatever it is. I'm just saying a human being doesn't have the capacity to ~encompass~ the WHOLE of Being. I've experienced a part of the cosmology, so I trust the map/model of that which I have not yet experienced, and will not experience. I trust, even know, others have traveled further than me. Any further reasons why I post...._______ (will not get an answer). So then 99% of what is posted here is out of unknowing, ignorance, unconsciousness?
|
|