|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2018 10:21:05 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). So then 99% of what is posted here is out of unknowing, ignorance, unconsciousness? Words are representations. By definitions words are at least once removed from the actual.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 30, 2018 11:38:04 GMT -5
So then 99% of what is posted here is out of unknowing, ignorance, unconsciousness? Words are representations. By definitions words are at least once removed from the actual. Yes, words are symbols (representations) that represent ideas, images, and other symbols (also representations), but words can also be used as pointers, as instigators of shock capable of stopping the mind, and to describe experiences and realizations that may have educational value to others. As people share their thoughts on this forum, much can be learned, and it helps to keep an open mind. Over the years I've learned all kinds of interesting things from reading what people have written here, and although this kind of forum often leads to a lot of quibbling and food fights over relatively trivial issues (and expressions of ESA), it has also, judging from PM's I've received, been of great benefit to many people. I recently received an email from someone who has meditated for 35 years, and he wrote that recently he read something that he had read in the past, but now those same words had affected him in a new and dramatically-different way. Sometimes people have to be ready to hear something in order for certain words to penetrate. I'm sure that many people here have had the same kind of experience. In short, the forum includes a lot of fluff, but it also includes some good pointers for those who're willing to look where the pointers are pointing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 30, 2018 17:58:59 GMT -5
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? A God who decides, reflects and plans is a personal God, or God person. A mental/emotional projection of man into the source of man. I also have an issue with layer cake approaches (ie the Trinity), mostly because I often see layer cakes used to repair holes in ontologies.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 30, 2018 18:00:51 GMT -5
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? No, my signature is from a poem.
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 30, 2018 18:35:42 GMT -5
Words are representations. By definitions words are at least once removed from the actual. Yes, words are symbols (representations) that represent ideas, images, and other symbols (also representations), but words can also be used as pointers, as instigators of shock capable of stopping the mind, and to describe experiences and realizations that may have educational value to others. As people share their thoughts on this forum, much can be learned, and it helps to keep an open mind. Over the years I've learned all kinds of interesting things from reading what people have written here, and although this kind of forum often leads to a lot of quibbling and food fights over relatively trivial issues (and expressions of ESA), it has also, judging from PM's I've received, been of great benefit to many people. I recently received an email from someone who has meditated for 35 years, and he wrote that recently he read something that he had read in the past, but now those same words had affected him in a new and dramatically-different way. Sometimes people have to be ready to hear something in order for certain words to penetrate. I'm sure that many people here have had the same kind of experience. In short, the forum includes a lot of fluff, but it also includes some good pointers for those who're willing to look where the pointers are pointing. very true zen.. I can also look back on somethin I wrote yesterday and say WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT ALL ABOUT?..lol..as tolle says,i can see ego in you but not so much in me. this board is more helpful than any book because of the feedback.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 30, 2018 18:51:46 GMT -5
Words are representations. By definitions words are at least once removed from the actual. Yes, words are symbols (representations) that represent ideas, images, and other symbols (also representations), but words can also be used as pointers Yes. There are words of the mind, and words of the heart. A mind may not know the difference, but a heart knows.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 30, 2018 19:09:20 GMT -5
What do you mean by personal god? A God who decides, reflects and plans is a personal God, or God person. A mental/emotional projection of man into the source of man. I also have an issue with layer cake approaches (ie the Trinity), mostly because I often see layer cakes used to repair holes in ontologies. Just curious. Would you have a problem with a macro-cosmic version of self-awareness in which billions and billions of micro-cosmic versions of self-awareness arise?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 31, 2018 19:02:30 GMT -5
A God who decides, reflects and plans is a personal God, or God person. A mental/emotional projection of man into the source of man. I also have an issue with layer cake approaches (ie the Trinity), mostly because I often see layer cakes used to repair holes in ontologies. Just curious. Would you have a problem with a macro-cosmic version of self-awareness in which billions and billions of micro-cosmic versions of self-awareness arise? I don't really know what that means.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2018 21:02:45 GMT -5
Just curious. Would you have a problem with a macro-cosmic version of self-awareness in which billions and billions of micro-cosmic versions of self-awareness arise? I don't really know what that means. Maybe he means people?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 1, 2019 11:19:56 GMT -5
I don't really know what that means. Maybe he means people? He might. If that means whole bunches of awarenesseses, I'm not down with that either. There is awareness.
|
|
roy
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by roy on Jan 3, 2019 17:07:11 GMT -5
0 (Father, Brahman, Tao, potential, Absolute) became 1 (Christ, Atman, Yin/Yang, manifest, relative). 1 lost connection with 0 and believed it was a part of 1, and that misinterpretation became 2. Further unrecognition of Reality being the unmanifest 0, continues the infinite redundancy of the number system.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2019 18:16:38 GMT -5
0 (Father, Brahman, Tao, potential, Absolute) became 1 (Christ, Atman, Yin/Yang, manifest, relative). 1 lost connection with 0 and believed it was a part of 1, and that misinterpretation became 2. Further unrecognition of Reality being the unmanifest 0, continues the infinite redundancy of the number system. Originally, Father, Brahman, Potential, Absolute, WAS 1 (active force). For me 2 (passive force) was a deliberate manifestation/manifesting on the part of 1. From this we now have duality, active-yang and passive-yin. And between the movement of yin and yang there is a pivotal point (of turning), 3 (The I Ching shows the movement of yin becoming yang and yang becoming yin, the trigrams and the hexagrams, The Tao. 3 is what tips the balance between either 1 or 2). One becomes two and two becomes three and the three become the 10,000 things (via a series of multiplying triads), that is, everything in the manifest universe. 3 is difficult to see, but neutrons in the nucleus of an atom are an example, neutron = neutral, that is, no electrical polarity. The ~number system~ is necessary for operation in the manifest world.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 22, 2019 6:31:25 GMT -5
.......bump..... 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 zendancer on Feb 22, 2019 10:40:20 GMT -5
.......bump..... 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. I don;t have any problem with the idea of panentheism, but I don't see why that idea in any way contradicts ND. If there is no twoness, then there's no room for distinctions of any kind, except in the most superficial sense. That which is infinite has no inside, outside, above, below, or any other attributable distinction. Anyone who apprehends THAT will understand why language can never capture any aspect of THAT via distinctions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2019 12:28:09 GMT -5
I don;t have any problem with the idea of panentheism, but I don't see why that idea in any way contradicts ND. If there is no twoness, then there's no room for distinctions of any kind, except in the most superficial sense. That which is infinite has no inside, outside, above, below, or any other attributable distinction. Anyone who apprehends THAT will understand why language can never capture any aspect of THAT via distinctions. I don't either.
|
|