|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 23, 2019 10:22:16 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. I got sidetracked yesterday.... I've tried to explain panentheism previously, don't really know how to make it clearer. In pantheism, everything is God and God is everything. That's ND. But panentheism expresses something different. Everything is IN God, but there is an aspect-"part" of God, that is wholly inaccessible to the manifest everything, ~All This~. This hidden "Godness"-notaccessibleness-unapproachableness, is the en in panentheism. This is the distinction between pantheism and panentheism. Saying again, Everything is IN "God", but the Whole of "God" is not-in-Everything. This "en" "part" negates ND in an ultimate sense, by definition. It does not negate what NDist think of or "recognize" as ND. I accept that that is accurate, that's why I've said I am not a NDist without qualification, IOW, I am a ND, but with qualification. IOW, I accept everything you (NDist) say, write, realize, "experience"/nonexperience, ________. So if you (NDist) understand the definition of panentheism, you can only say, I disagree. It basically boils down to definition (really on both sides). What is in fact the TRUTH about this, is, for human consciousness, unknowable. As I've said before, it's a predilection. Basically, (Gurdjieff said-taught) man's being does not "reach" the Absolute (the Originating Whole). {I don't know why the Idea of levels of being (cake layers) Is difficult to understand. The level of being of a tadpole Is different from the level of being of a human being. Another example, Seth, exists on a different level of being. You (anybody) cannot accept who/what Seth is without accepting there are higher dimensions ("cake layers")}. Again, you (NDist) can only say, I just disagree. But my main point, there is NO WAY NDist can say they know there is nothing outside (their view of) ND. That is, if you understand the definition of panentheism. By definition there is no such thing as nondual (In an ultimate sense) panentheism.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2019 21:58:29 GMT -5
I got sidetracked yesterday.... I've tried to explain panentheism previously, don't really know how to make it clearer. In pantheism, everything is God and God is everything. That's ND. But panentheism expresses something different. Everything is IN God, but there is an aspect-"part" of God, that is wholly inaccessible to the manifest everything, ~All This~. This hidden "Godness"-notaccessibleness-unapproachableness, is the en in panentheism. This is the distinction between pantheism and panentheism. Saying again, Everything is IN "God", but the Whole of "God" is not-in-Everything. This "en" "part" negates ND in an ultimate sense, by definition. It does not negate what NDist think of or "recognize" as ND. I accept that that is accurate, that's why I've said I am not a NDist without qualification, IOW, I am a ND, but with qualification. IOW, I accept everything you (NDist) say, write, realize, "experience"/nonexperience, ________. So if you (NDist) understand the definition of panentheism, you can only say, I disagree. It basically boils down to definition (really on both sides). What is in fact the TRUTH about this, is, for human consciousness, unknowable. As I've said before, it's a predilection. Basically, (Gurdjieff said-taught) man's being does not "reach" the Absolute (the Originating Whole). {I don't know why the Idea of levels of being (cake layers) Is difficult to understand. The level of being of a tadpole Is different from the level of being of a human being. Another example, Seth, exists on a different level of being. You (anybody) cannot accept who/what Seth is without accepting there are higher dimensions ("cake layers")}. Again, you (NDist) can only say, I just disagree. But my main point, there is NO WAY NDist can say they know there is nothing outside (their view of) ND. That is, if you understand the definition of panentheism. By definition there is no such thing as nondual (In an ultimate sense) panentheism. I don't really know what ND says about what is at the core of what we're calling God. (I don't claim to be a nondualist or follow any teaching) There is a...mystery that is not subject to mind's conceptualization process, and so there is nothing to be said. Did G claim to have reached this unreachable absolute such that he knows stuff about it?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2019 4:26:04 GMT -5
I got sidetracked yesterday.... I've tried to explain panentheism previously, don't really know how to make it clearer. In pantheism, everything is God and God is everything. That's ND. But panentheism expresses something different. Everything is IN God, but there is an aspect-"part" of God, that is wholly inaccessible to the manifest everything, ~All This~. This hidden "Godness"-notaccessibleness-unapproachableness, is the en in panentheism. This is the distinction between pantheism and panentheism. Saying again, Everything is IN "God", but the Whole of "God" is not-in-Everything. This "en" "part" negates ND in an ultimate sense, by definition. It does not negate what NDist think of or "recognize" as ND. I accept that that is accurate, that's why I've said I am not a NDist without qualification, IOW, I am a ND, but with qualification. IOW, I accept everything you (NDist) say, write, realize, "experience"/nonexperience, ________. So if you (NDist) understand the definition of panentheism, you can only say, I disagree. It basically boils down to definition (really on both sides). What is in fact the TRUTH about this, is, for human consciousness, unknowable. As I've said before, it's a predilection. Basically, (Gurdjieff said-taught) man's being does not "reach" the Absolute (the Originating Whole). {I don't know why the Idea of levels of being (cake layers) Is difficult to understand. The level of being of a tadpole Is different from the level of being of a human being. Another example, Seth, exists on a different level of being. You (anybody) cannot accept who/what Seth is without accepting there are higher dimensions ("cake layers")}. Again, you (NDist) can only say, I just disagree. But my main point, there is NO WAY NDist can say they know there is nothing outside (their view of) ND. That is, if you understand the definition of panentheism. By definition there is no such thing as nondual (In an ultimate sense) panentheism. I don't really know what ND says about what is at the core of what we're calling God. (I don't claim to be a nondualist or follow any teaching) There is a...mystery that is not subject to mind's conceptualization process, and so there is nothing to be said. Did G claim to have reached this unreachable absolute such that he knows stuff about it? OK, thanks for that, I think that's very honest and very healthy. No, Gurdjieff did not claim to have reached the unreachable Absolute. He did not claim to have originated the teaching. He in fact said it was passed to him from others, a very long chain into the past. And it did not originate from this ordinary level (of reality) and from ordinary man. It originated from a higher order, and those who fully realized the teaching came to be called the inner circle of humanity. (So the idea of the Absolute, that it is beyond the reach of a human being, came from/originated from this higher order). He did claim to have reached the full potential of a human being. He said: I can write check with seven zeros. This meant he claimed to be a man #7, the highest fullment of potential for a human being. (Ordinary men or women are either man #1, whose life is oriented around the body (the athlete for example, the builder, and the subs), #2 whose life is oriented from the emotional center {the artist for example, the interior decorator}, #3 whose life is centered from intellectual pursuit, {the academic for example, the architect who teaches architecture }).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 24, 2019 11:16:58 GMT -5
I prefer hearing from people who've had direct experience. Youtube has an interesting video titled "Enlightenment Stories" in which people like Eckhart, Adya, Mooji, etc. tell what happened to them when they woke up from the dream of selfhood. I don't think any of them mention levels.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2019 11:44:06 GMT -5
I prefer hearing from people who've had direct experience. Youtube has an interesting video titled "Enlightenment Stories" in which people like Eckhart, Adya, Mooji, etc. tell what happened to them when they woke up from the dream of selfhood. I don't think any of them mention levels. Would you agree that the unmanifest indeed exists? So what IS that? WHERE is that?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 24, 2019 13:16:24 GMT -5
I prefer hearing from people who've had direct experience. Youtube has an interesting video titled "Enlightenment Stories" in which people like Eckhart, Adya, Mooji, etc. tell what happened to them when they woke up from the dream of selfhood. I don't think any of them mention levels. Would you agree that the unmanifest indeed exists? So what IS that? WHERE is that? What we call "reality" is exceedingly mysterious, and all kinds of experiences and realizations are possible. People who seek the truth often encounter a lot of strange stuff, but much of it is beyond language or comprehension.Fortunately, one can non-conceptually know what can't be conceptually known. From my POV the key is becoming psychologically unified with "what is," and everything else takes care of itself. It's truly a matter of non-abidance (escaping the dominance of the intellect). It's the intellect which conjures up levels, states, causation, volition, and all other distinctions. As Papaji told Mooji, "To find the truth, you must disappear." How is that done? ZM Seung Sahn used to have two admonitions that pointed the way: "Don;t make anything," and "Put it all down."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2019 19:48:33 GMT -5
I prefer hearing from people who've had direct experience. Youtube has an interesting video titled "Enlightenment Stories" in which people like Eckhart, Adya, Mooji, etc. tell what happened to them when they woke up from the dream of selfhood. I don't think any of them mention levels. Would you agree that the unmanifest indeed exists? So what IS that? WHERE is that? The unmanifest, by definition, would not be a something existing somewhere, yes?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2019 19:51:31 GMT -5
Would you agree that the unmanifest indeed exists? So what IS that? WHERE is that? What we call "reality" is exceedingly mysterious, and all kinds of experiences and realizations are possible. People who seek the truth often encounter a lot of strange stuff, but much of it is beyond language or comprehension.Fortunately, one can non-conceptually know what can't be conceptually known. From my POV the key is becoming psychologically unified with "what is," and everything else takes care of itself. It's truly a matter of non-abidance (escaping the dominance of the intellect). It's the intellect which conjures up levels, states, causation, volition, and all other distinctions. As Papaji told Mooji, "To find the truth, you must disappear." How is that done? ZM Seung Sahn used to have two admonitions that pointed the way: "Don;t make anything," and "Put it all down."What does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2019 20:28:06 GMT -5
Would you agree that the unmanifest indeed exists? So what IS that? WHERE is that? The unmanifest, by definition, would not be a something existing somewhere, yes? Some_____. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Feb 25, 2019 7:05:21 GMT -5
Does the Unmanifest really form what you're seeing in front of you, continually throughout your day? The unmanifest can manifest when you win the lottery, when you get an Ace and a Jack in a card game Black Jack, the number you bet on Roulette manifests, baby manifests after 10 months from a newly wed couple.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 25, 2019 8:38:02 GMT -5
What we call "reality" is exceedingly mysterious, and all kinds of experiences and realizations are possible. People who seek the truth often encounter a lot of strange stuff, but much of it is beyond language or comprehension.Fortunately, one can non-conceptually know what can't be conceptually known. From my POV the key is becoming psychologically unified with "what is," and everything else takes care of itself. It's truly a matter of non-abidance (escaping the dominance of the intellect). It's the intellect which conjures up levels, states, causation, volition, and all other distinctions. As Papaji told Mooji, "To find the truth, you must disappear." How is that done? ZM Seung Sahn used to have two admonitions that pointed the way: "Don;t make anything," and "Put it all down."What does that mean? 1. Don't conjure up ideas that you'll get attached to. (Don;t make states, distinctions, etc) 2. Drop all of your ideas and become comfortable with direct perception and not-knowing, intellectually. (Adya's rephrasing of this is "Relax and be as you are.)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 25, 2019 8:43:50 GMT -5
Does the Unmanifest really form what you're seeing in front of you, continually throughout your day? No, that's not the way I look at it. But the unmanifest forms the base, like you can't have a second floor without a first floor, and if the first floor should disappear the second floor would collapse. But I don't see the world being formed anew every second, like E does.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 25, 2019 9:44:23 GMT -5
I prefer hearing from people who've had direct experience. Youtube has an interesting video titled "Enlightenment Stories" in which people like Eckhart, Adya, Mooji, etc. tell what happened to them when they woke up from the dream of selfhood. I don't think any of them mention levels. So you completely disregard the Reefs references to Jane Roberts-Seth and Abraham-Hicks?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 25, 2019 10:13:57 GMT -5
I prefer hearing from people who've had direct experience. Youtube has an interesting video titled "Enlightenment Stories" in which people like Eckhart, Adya, Mooji, etc. tell what happened to them when they woke up from the dream of selfhood. I don't think any of them mention levels. So you completely disregard the Reefs references to Jane Roberts-Seth and Abraham-Hicks? Correct; I simply have no interest in them. The body/mind sees what's happening here and now, and it responds. No questions, not much thinking, and usually happy as a clam. haha At one time I had lots of existential questions, all of which were based on cognitive misconceptions. After seeing through the misconceptions (illusions), I could relax and be an ordinary person. This body/mind has lots of interests, and it pursues those interests pretty much like the brick mason who exhibited brick-laying samadhi. The only difference is that at the end of the day I don't reflect about anything that's been accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 25, 2019 10:23:50 GMT -5
So you completely disregard the Reefs references to Jane Roberts-Seth and Abraham-Hicks? Correct; I simply have no interest in them. The body/mind sees what's happening here and now, and it responds. No questions, not much thinking, and usually happy as a clam. haha At one time I had lots of existential questions, all of which were based on cognitive misconceptions. After seeing through the misconceptions (illusions), I could relax and be an ordinary person. This body/mind has lots of interests, and it pursues those interests pretty much like the brick mason who exhibited brick-laying samadhi. The only difference is that at the end of the day I don't reflect about anything that's been accomplished. Then you do admit that ignoring Seth info and A-H info is a completely subjective-ZD decision?, not objective. (ZD chooses to appreciate Mooji etc but not Seth/A-H). ZD is choosing what to listen-to and what to ignore. So ZD is the "yardstick". (If Seth and A-H are completely imaginary then any evidence for higher dimensions is eliminated. Your nice neat paradigm/life is maintained).
|
|