earl

Thanks for the additional Wilber thoughts re kids' spirituality & place of the intellect in it. I've seen folks @ this forum use Borg's use of the term "thin places" to get at a mystical connection. Essentially what I've been pointing at is that to have a more intuitive connection to the spirit we have to "thin out" our minds to allow intuition to do its thing & interpretive intellect tends to muck that up. Perhaps the best role for the intellect is to follow the intuitive faculties not lead them-why so many Christian mystics & other mystics, including wilber would say that the way to fuller spiritual awareness is a kenotic process of emptying out all that stand between us & God, which would include belief/expectational systems. Kids haven't been around long enough to have built up a thick "sedimentary" layer of that. All founders of religion have been visionaries whose inspiration has come via more intuitive routes & while I love conceptual discussions (& so does Wilber obviously) I don't believe we will ever think our way to God only. We will also have to feel our way & intuit our way. Thanks for your thoughts, Earl

Actually what triggered my latest string of posts re to this was the apparent association by some posters of spirituality/fuller experience of God with intellectual acumen, when I have grave doubts re that. The one thing "pre-peronal" & "transpersonal" have in common is the first phase of development precedes fuller development of the rational intellect & the latter phase moves on beyond it, i.e., neither is attached to rational thought for good or bad. Sure, one can make the mistake of confusing pre-personal & transpersonal but, frankly, I often wonder of intellect & reason can actually become a hindrance to greater spiritual understanding. When you consider the growing wealth of anecdotal study of the apparent transpersonal experiences of young children, you begin to wonder if we all are relatively more able to tune into those awareness better as kids before we've "developed" operational thought, etc., (my now 6yo grandson displayed a wealth of psychic abilities between 2&3 that we do not see anymore). Similarly, there is fairly recent research that even infants are more capable of displaying empathy than we had previously thought & I daresay empathy would be the ground for the development of morality. This may be one area where "New Age" thinking may be on to something. New Agers wouls say when we first come into this world "trailing clouds of glory" as Wordswoth would say from "the other side" we still retain some of the functional level of the "more spiritual" plane, which, as we begin to unfold our corporeal Earthly existence, taking root in our Earthly body, that awareness get buried away & we spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in touch with them. This actually seems to be a point of view embraced by one of Wilber's chief theoretical opponents, Michael Washburn. Kinda turned this thread into a wider discussion particularly re Wilber, didn't I? sorry re that, but for those that wanted a little variety in this thread beyond where it had been, maybe that's OK with them. Take care, Earl

I agree, but I think Wilber DOES say that higher stages (not states) are dependent upon cognitive development. Just recently in an interview he pointed out that unless a person had reached a certain level of cognition, they could not develop higher levels of morality. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually 1 of the most compelling arguments made against his model is that some folks believe it's too linear, though in response to that over the years, he's attempted to make it somewhat less so. 1 of the interesting bits of study to emerge lately re how "spiritual" experiences don't necessarily track with cognitive development is in relationship to the spiritual experiences of children. Tobin Hart has done alot of study in this area and had recently published a book re this, (material that ended up in that book can be found at his website: http://www.childspirit.net) He would not necessarily counter that except to say as implied above that those would be experiences, (often sounding remarkably like the accounts of adult mystics), states, not stages-by the latter, he would mean a stage is reaching a level where you have basically stabily established an ability to function, as opposed to states, etc. which might be intermittent &/or fleeting. Nevertheless tends to call into question his initial view that all "mystical" experiences obtained prior to the establishment of certain cognitive development levels were automatically "prepersonal" as opposed to "transpersonal." It also raises interesting questions such as are the spiritual experiences of children "less true" than for "rational" adults or are they merely another facet of God experience? What about the spiritual life of mentally retarded adults? I was too bored in high school to read him in English class, but what was that line from Shakespear? "There are more things in heaven and earth than dreamed of in your philosophies." Ah the wonder & mystery of God. Keeps us guessing & dialoguing though doesn't it? Have a good one, Earl

Sounds kind've elitist, doesn't it? I do not believe that a person will be spiritually deprived if they are uneducated or lack intelligence (the two are not the same). At the same time, there has been a current of anti-intellectualism in fundamentalism, and anti-rationalism in the New Age movement which I think is spiritually unhealthy. I think a person can be extremely intelligent and have a doctorate degree and yet be spiritually bankrupt. I think Ken Wilber is on the right track with his ideas about lines of development. We can develop spiritually, morally, socially, and intellectually. If development doesn't occur in all the levels, we won't be able to reach the next stage of development. So, spirituality and rationality are not mutually dependent but neither are they independent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wilber does indeed talk re lines of development and points out that individuals can be at various "levels" for each line of development and certainly the lines aren't mutually contradictory. But, Wilber would also say that obtaining so-called higher states of mystical consciousness is not dependent on the faculty of the intellect as he, like many spiritual writers point out that it is contemplation/meditation which spurs that developmental line along. So, then, it would depend on how you define "spiritual" as to the degree that intellectual knowledge & "figuring it out conceptually" would even apply. but, certainly Wilber has rightfully said that alot of what is referred to as "New Age" thinking is "fuzzy" thinking. Gettin' spiritual, of course, isn't synonymous with losing/dulling your intellectual abilities, but he'd also say it ain't the whole game. Take care, Earl

Right. And by the way, the experience of God is ineffable for Wilber, but a hermeneutic can still develop, because I can still recognize your faltering words and recognize that they describe the same experience as my faltering words do. No explanation of redness is RED, but if I've experienced RED, I can tell by your description of it that you have too. No description of God is GOD -- that includes substance ones, process ones, and panentheistic ones -- but if I've experienced GOD, I can tell by your description of that experience that you have too. This is Wilber's sociology of religion in a nutshell, and it's one that allows for both ineffability and the possibility of dialogue. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quite true. In fact you could probably say that all of transpersonal psychology and Wilber's efforts have been in part developing a language by which folks experiencing these phenomena can dialogue with one another. While it might not be entirely true, have always thought that the old adage "all mystic speak the same language" was largely true as was the other adage that mystics of various religions often feel closer to mystics of other religions than non-mystics of their own-gets at the differences between esoteric & exoteric religious views. On the level of dogma-many differences; on the level of mystical experiences of the Divine-many similarities: hmm, might that not in part be a reflection of that dynamic of multiplicity & unity; apophatic & kataphatic, etc.? Like lolly, I'm fairly new to the discussion og formal theology & philospohy having spent my learning in other related fields. So, perhaps I, too, am not using language which adequately clarifies what I'm attempting to say. But, that's OK-diversity enlarges and stimulates. Take care, Earl

Now that's a creed I can get behind! It's great that this thread was started. Frankly, there have always been 2 reasons I've never found a "church home:" 1 the "credo-" can't accept most traditionally presented Christian beliefs & format of worship which to me is too external. I'm more of a meditative/contemplative bent- in fact I only hang out @ 2 other forums, 1 dedicated to Christian mysticism & the other buddhist. While both those sites can & do have their doctrinaire squabbles as the nature of Christian mysticism is on contemplative practice & its results & as buddhism likewise emphasizes practice as being as central or more (depending on the branch) than doctrine, I come here used to that more than philosophical debate. I do like to engage in that myself though from time to time. The hesychasts & the Buddhists, though, would be in agreement that the "passions" or the 3 "poisons" of greed, anger, & delusion, (buddhists mean deluded as to the true essence of who we are), are what impede our growing awareness of God or Buddha Nature. Both of course emphasized meditative techniques as a way of dealing with that to make space within ourselves for greater spiritual awareness. That said, I practice vipassana & zen & occasionally throw in practices that more closely resemble contemplative prayer; even my hybridized meditative forms that take essentially tibetan buddhist fromats but substitute Christianized images in their place. To me it doesn't matter what package a practice originated in, but rather, what will it achieve-of course, all kinds of books out these days re incorporating buddhist meditative techniques into christian practice. Best practice (for me at least) though is to attempt to maintain as much awareness throughout the day as I can so that in those moments when my head & heart have shut down & shut another out, I can catch myself to realize that when I'm doing that I'm not attuning to the "God" frequency. Have a good one, Earl

Wilber's model is probably the best metatheory of transperonal development we're likely to have for some time, but Panta, unless I've misconstrued your earlier concerns since it was a few posts ago, thought 1 of your biggest concerns was related to how do things come into being? As intellectually satisfying & stimulating as his theory is, Wilber still cannot answer that question, nor do I expect him to-1 of those Big Mystery issues I mentioned. We know when you put together a ###### & an egg you (might) get life-but does that really tell you anything useful beyond the materialistic realm? What is the "breath of God" in each "bit of sod" we call life? I suspect even as re to consciousness, you wouldn't reduce it down to the material of synapses firing away only. What is the essence of Life? What is the essence of "me?" etc. These are some ultimate existential koans that can be fruitfully mulled over in a contemplative way but for which the intellect is poorly equipped to deal with all by its own-thus the eye of flesh must work with the eye of the heart & the eye of the Spirit. To give 1 mundane metaphorical example: 1 can verbally describe an orange, draw an orange, but 1 cannot know "orangeness" without tasting the orange-we engage with it with parts of our being beyond the intellectual. Transpersonal theorists would all basically be in agreement that whatever constitutes the Spirit will only be truly understood/revealed by "tasting" it; by engaging with it with faculties other than/in addition to the intellect. And even with that, I'm sure "God" will allow some answers to go unanswered just to continue to give us something to ponder. Have a good one, Earl

He rejected that term some time ago in favor of his term "integral" but not because his model had "research" & others didn't-in fact "transpersonal psychology" being the term for an entire discipline of study contains numerous models within it, with his being perhaps the leading one. Of course, can't actually "research" his model as like all his models his are transtheoretical integrative ones wherein he builds logical philospohical/hypothetical constructs to weave together multiple strands of research & can't see how one could effectively research a metamodel. I believe he made the switch according to his public claim because he thought his model went beyond those typically associated with the term "transpersonal psychology." Personally, I think he did it for less personally evolved reasons. For years he's tended to rather bitterly, sarcastically attack other transpersonal theorists in public who disagreed with him & has recently gone so far that on a website devoted to him he speaks of how he has cautioned potential students away from attending California Institute of Integral Studies supposedly because they don't "properly teach" his model not because their are some folks there who disagree with him. however, if you follow the whole sordid affair, I tend to think it was just plain old megalo-ego! My aforementioned quote of his was from a 1999 piece of his in the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology on his integral model-right before he quit the journal as an editor too! As far as I know, Wilber has long been a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism and some of the terminology used in that quote come from the Dzogchen tradition of T.B. & I know he still subscribes to a nondual orientation as his model implies. Of course, Buddhism overtly rejects the notion of a "creator God," but from all the study I've done in buddhism seems to me they simply do not feel the need to grapple with some of the metaphysical issues you've raised. I certainly am not aware Wilber has ever attempted to theorize how anything comes into being-only how people come into greater awareness of Being themselves. As re to one of your other posted replies, curious as to how you see his model re to holons as relating to some of the issues you raised here recently. Take care, Earl <{POST_SNAPBACK}> hey, if you want to know where Ken Wilber's at most recently, here you go: http://www.wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/wheres-wilber.pdf Take care, Earl

He rejected that term some time ago in favor of his term "integral" but not because his model had "research" & others didn't-in fact "transpersonal psychology" being the term for an entire discipline of study contains numerous models within it, with his being perhaps the leading one. Of course, can't actually "research" his model as like all his models his are transtheoretical integrative ones wherein he builds logical philospohical/hypothetical constructs to weave together multiple strands of research & can't see how one could effectively research a metamodel. I believe he made the switch according to his public claim because he thought his model went beyond those typically associated with the term "transpersonal psychology." Personally, I think he did it for less personally evolved reasons. For years he's tended to rather bitterly, sarcastically attack other transpersonal theorists in public who disagreed with him & has recently gone so far that on a website devoted to him he speaks of how he has cautioned potential students away from attending California Institute of Integral Studies supposedly because they don't "properly teach" his model not because their are some folks there who disagree with him. however, if you follow the whole sordid affair, I tend to think it was just plain old megalo-ego! My aforementioned quote of his was from a 1999 piece of his in the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology on his integral model-right before he quit the journal as an editor too! As far as I know, Wilber has long been a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism and some of the terminology used in that quote come from the Dzogchen tradition of T.B. & I know he still subscribes to a nondual orientation as his model implies. Of course, Buddhism overtly rejects the notion of a "creator God," but from all the study I've done in buddhism seems to me they simply do not feel the need to grapple with some of the metaphysical issues you've raised. I certainly am not aware Wilber has ever attempted to theorize how anything comes into being-only how people come into greater awareness of Being themselves. As re to one of your other posted replies, curious as to how you see his model re to holons as relating to some of the issues you raised here recently. Take care, Earl

If the best we can do is to remain silent about God, and Meister Eckart and St. Augustine knew this, why didn't they do so? Would you deny that these men had a worldview from which they interpreted their experiences of God? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, those old dead church guys did speak plenty re God, albeit with prose poetry and frankly, when Wilber discusses the final stage in his grand theory of psychospiritual development, that's about all he tends to do as in "through the eye of spirit, the Kosmos shines forth brightly, a thing of beauty and wonder in every gesture, ornaments of one's own deepest being, testaments to one's own primordial purity. And in the eye of spirit, we all will meet, in the simple endless outflowing of this and every moment...in the vast expanse of all space and the radical freedom of what is, and all the waves and streams become finally irrelevant in the radiance of just this." Only kind of words i think that can be used to attempt to describe the Ultimate, the Absolute, the Uncreated, is poetry. I'd say Eckhart & Wilber in discussing this level of realization sound pretty similar. take care, Earl

I think this "ineffability" stuff is a cop-out. The Church has been using it for years to prop up incoherent and irrational ideas - such as God's omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Another quote from Harteshorne: "Here countless theologians long ago made an initial mistake for which the full price has yet to be paid: they began the idolatrous worship of 'the infinite'. I asked a few questions about the concept of 'emanation' - or the idea that creation is an outflow of a primordial unchanging substance. You offered this idea as a coherent explanation from the Perennialist perspective. And now God is "ineffable"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, haven't run into anyone dead or alive (philosopher, theologian, or curbside bum) that can explain how you get something from nothing. But, you know, just as I don't expect physicists to ever really understand the material origins of the universe, don't expect anyone to figure out the Big Mystery/God, (if Jesus knew, seems like he kept it to himself ) I used to think that what would quell my existential angst would be if I had the opportunity that the character in 1 of my favorite TV programs, Joan of Arcadia, has-God showing up all the time to chat with her. However, if you've ever seen the show, you know that all she gets from god are little nudges in her moment-to-moment activities. However, I realize that it isn't my head that gets in the way of resolving my angst, (my intellectual insights into life), but rather it's my self-the emotional way of suffering in my daily encounters with life-what the early desert hesychasts would call the passions, (which they noted as the chief impediment to leading a fruitful path to God); more of a "heart thing" than a head trip. Knowing the big picture I doubt would resolve that but I wouldn't mind hearing from the Big Guy/Gal from time-to-time. Take care, Earl

Don't misunderstand my frustration. It's not a frustration in trying to understand it all - I know I'll never be able to understand fully - but when there is a basic failure (from my perspective) to rethink basic assumptions (like the assumption that "God" is infinite) when they lead to logical deadends... I've been in a discussion group for some time which had been monopolized for some time by atheists. Any expression of spirituality was derided - and very, very, very often for good reason. There has been a subtle change in the group over the last year. A little dose of Wilber and Process philosophy has the atheists on the defense. What has really been exciting though, is that many have mentioned how their life has been changed because of the discussions. Some who had lost their faith have regained it in a new and more meaningful way. There are some who have been coming to the discussion though (now that it is an environment more open to spirituality) who aren't interested in the world of ideas. They simply want to feel that the world is a nice cuddly place to be in. They are narcisstic and magical in their thinking. They seem to share different versions of New Age crap. They're into tarot, and UFO's, and books "channeled by Jesus". They substitute meditation for thinking, gnosis for philosophy. They're not into transforming the world through love and dialog, they're into "personal evolution" with the ultimate goal of arriving at Nirvana (deep sleep where there is no suffering, no desiring, just emptiness). I feel caught between these two (what I feel are) extremes. I believe science and spirituality can be - MUST be integrated. But it will require new ways of looking at reality, of examining our cultural presuppositions. I'm convinced that gnosticism and buddhism, etc., have a lot to add to our overall picture of reality - but those forms of thought must be integrated with science and not simply adopted wholescale. This means, that we acknowledge that the ancient mystics were influenced by their culture. Some of what they believed were ineffable experiences (experiences which couldn't be expressed in the thought forms of their day) can be interpreted in the light of current knowlege. If there is another philosophy out there which is as inclusive as process thought then I want to become familiar with it. I will not be convinced though, that all concepts are equally valid, and/or that ultimately life is meaningless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> PantaRhea-I believe nearly everyone at various points asks some version of the "what's it all mean" question. You mentioned Wilber and integrating science and spirituality. I've long been involved in transpersonal psychology of which I'd guess you'd say Wilber is 1 of the "founding fathers." Certainly, that discipline has contributed much to our understanding of how to develop a positive or healthy psychology and some meaningful insights into the psychology of mysticism. However, most of these same individuals will tell you that the experiential boundaries they explore are not amenable to science if by that you mean the scientistic/materialistic worldviews and methods of scientific research. In fact, though you seem skeptical of meditative approaches to understanding/gnosis, most of the "research methods" developed to address these areas of interest have more in common in their methodology with meditation than formal philosophical or scientific inquiry. Wilber, for eg, has long spoken of how one cannot clearly grasp the transrational understandings of advanced contemplative states with the "eye of the flesh," but rather the "eye of spirit," what he might refer to as transrational, vision-logic. I doubt though that any of them will tell you that they themselves have come to fully comprehend God, regardless of their methods, nor that their methods of hypothesizing and inquiry are necessarily likely to unlock all the metaphysical mysteries of Life (& beyond). I don't believe we have to have life completely figured out for us to see/believe it has meaning, though each of us must individually work out how we find that meaning in our lives. I do believe the intellect, (the eye of the flesh) can take only so far in our journey-the rest of the way depends on the eye of the heart, (including love and compassion) & the eye of the spirit. I hope your journey will be a fruitful one, Earl

I'm not ready to concede this - if it means that the universe is essentially irrational. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No longer remember who coined the phrase, though one Ken wilber liked to repeat that we have "three eyes" with which we see Reality: the eye of the flesh, the eye of the heart, and the eye of the spirit. "tis the latter cateofry that apples: "irrational?" No. "Transrational?" Yes. Again to quote my favorite Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart: "God is nameless, for no man can either say or understand aught about Him. If I say, God is good, it is not true; nay more;I am good, God is not good. I may even say, I am better than God; for whatever is good may become better, may become best. Now God is not good, for He cannot become better, He cannot become best, for these three things, good, better, and best are far from God, since He is above all. If I also say God is wise, it is not true; I am wiser than He. If I also say God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness. Concerning this St. Augustine says: the best thing that man can say about God is to be silent about Him." Gotta love the heretic! Take care, Earl <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sheesh, sorry re all the typos! Too bad there isn't spell check here as you can see I have typing dylexia-fingers don't find the keys my mind tells them to. Guess gonna have to take the time to start proof-reading every post before i post it! See ya, Earl

I'm not ready to concede this - if it means that the universe is essentially irrational. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No longer remember who coined the phrase, though one Ken wilber liked to repeat that we have "three eyes" with which we see Reality: the eye of the flesh, the eye of the heart, and the eye of the spirit. "tis the latter cateofry that apples: "irrational?" No. "Transrational?" Yes. Again to quote my favorite Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart: "God is nameless, for no man can either say or understand aught about Him. If I say, God is good, it is not true; nay more;I am good, God is not good. I may even say, I am better than God; for whatever is good may become better, may become best. Now God is not good, for He cannot become better, He cannot become best, for these three things, good, better, and best are far from God, since He is above all. If I also say God is wise, it is not true; I am wiser than He. If I also say God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness. Concerning this St. Augustine says: the best thing that man can say about God is to be silent about Him." Gotta love the heretic! Take care, Earl

Interesting response in lieu of answering a few fundamental questions... So, what are you really saying Earl? That there is nothing about God which can be "grasped"? Does "God" have any meaning then? Is this any different than nihilism? To say that God cannot be grasped is to already grasp something about God. It is to disagree, for instance, with the concept that God is not an exception to all metaphysical categories. Process Theology claims that God can be prehended. In fact, it is not possible to exist and NOT prehend God. This means that God is in every experience. Every experience is of an integrated universe. Harteshorne defines worship as the "consciously unitary response to life." It is the conscious awareness of the integrety of all that is, the inclusive wholeness of the world. Either God is the "Inclusive Wholeness of the World" or God is "Wholly Other". You imply that the concepts are only to be "played" with. And yet you haven't simply played with all concepts, you've made a choice from among them. Is your "play" simply a way of avoiding the critical examination of your assumptions? But, maybe you don't feel that there are any serious repercussions in making assumptions about that which is inevitably our ultimate concern (Tillich)? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First, I don't believe we can ever truly understand the deepest/highest metaphysical truths with our intellect. If, the many mystics and other theological thinkers are right in asserting that God is beyond any human conceptualizing (& therefore the via negativa, apophatic way as getting at that), than how can one prehend God conceptually? More spcifically, what I was getting at is our innate inability to know (again at least in the intellectual sense) God, the Father, the uncreated one. We may know the effects of God-Holy Spirit, Word made flesh etc. We can know the revelations of God. We can, in a sense, become an echo chamber for God and in doing so we can enter into such a Divine communion that there is no real separation, (again I see most psychospiritual practice forms as ways to clear out enough personal crap to allow us to be an "empty echo chamber"-a bell can't ring if it isn't empty). Perhaps you can know is the sense of gnosis the Uncreated, the Godhead, to use Eckart's term but you can never decsribe as it would be ineffable. Words & concepts are innately finite descriptors-to assert one thing is to imply the non-assertion of something else. Perhaps why in the end Buddha simply help up a flower to illustrate all of his teachings. As to my statement re playing with concepts-what I mean is that given the foregoing "play" makes the most sense in that we're better off therefore neither taking our theories nor ourselves too seriously Take care, Earl

Hi Earl, I wasn't able to make your link work for some reason. However, if you go to the site I linked to, you will see that Nolan mentions emanationism as one of the proposed solutions to the problem of "becoming" for the Perennialist. However, it doesn't really solve the problem (that I am aware of). If the universe is a "flowing out of" a primal undifferentiated substance, why doesn't it share the same ontological properties as its source? Other ways of putting it is, how is the particular derived from the universal? Or the contingent derived from the necessary? How does Being become? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Personally, I think that all psychospiritual approaches are about proposed solutions to understanding & transcending self to stand "naked before God," not systems to truly grasp "God." God is always more than we can realize. you can only grasp a "thing;" grasping, be it concpetual or physical is a finite action carried out on a finite object. I do like to play with the concepts myself, though. Take care, Earl

Just ran across this wonderful piece by the late Bede Griffiths, the Catholic monk that spent decades in India & was an early proponent of what I call interreligious practice. in it he speaks of applying eastern notions to Christian doctrine & specifically speaks of panentheism. Could just have easily posted this link on the "Christian hybrids" thread. In fact, would love to see a subforum here permaently dedicated to that-but that's my personal interest! I'm just that kinda guy: i hang out at a buddhist forum too & often there talk Christianity & when I hang out @ Christian sites, talk buddhism-frankly, find that the meeting of East & West gives me a richer appreciation of spirituality, (though probably neither camp is that happy with me ) http://www.monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=83 This site is also one of the better ones re interreligious dialogue. have a good one, earl

Well, about this, I don't know... quite literally, I mean. None of my own views are etched into stone and the moment I think I really know something, that's a cue that I'm probably in over my head . What you present here is an interesting proposition, and one I should contemplate. I'm not certain that it's far off the mark from my own thoughts about this, though in my own thoughts I tend to see God as whatever it is that might have been existing pre-creation in some state of perfect emptiness (void), and I see everything else somehow occurring from there, as a sort of momentum being set into motion which spread out and affected/called into being the entire universe (or multiplicity of universes, even). I see this as being something like a pebble being tossed into perfectly still water, with the resultant ripples stretching out as the unfolding of the material universe. This begs the question, of course, of how such a "pebble" would/could be tossed. I believe I see what you are saying about actuality... in zen we speak in terms of emptiness and form... where emptiness and form are ultimately the same thing, but form is the ever changing substantive appearance of "things"... which might be similar to what you are calling actuality here. In order for a creative process to occur, there must be form... form from emptiness (actuality from void? matter from energy?) is a creative process in itself... ah, I'm giving myself a headache now But I dunno... not being well learned in these things it's very hard to put some of these thoughts into words... they gel in my mind to some extent, but aren't easily articulated. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think this issue gets at the heart of religions-theistic and otherwise. "Big Bang-" "something from nothing." Buddhism might be famous for pondering such questions as "what was your face before your parents were born?" but generally buddhism simply starts at the point of creation & says this leads to that which leads to this, etc. How does one relate to God, the Uncreated? The Father? Creation & creativity; the Word are the echoes from an empty bell; the ripples from a clear pond. We can see its effect in the ripples, hear it in the sounds of the bell which needs the surrounding "space of nothingness" to be resonant. If at its deepest level God is looking out of each one our eyes, how can the eye see itself? Ah, such a koan. Like you said lolly, we all better get worried re whether we're reallyon the right path once we're certain we've figured it out. Take care, Earl

I've been seeing all the CNN coverage of the pope's death today. I'm not Catholic-heck not even really a church-goer, but I was touched by the coverage. It struck a universal chord for me-not because he was a "pope;" rather it was because he was a human being who, like the rest of us, was trying his best to figure out what God & Life was all about-but NOT the final arbiter of what God & Life was all about. Fortunately/unfortunately, that's up to each of us. God bless him & may he find eternal bliss. Earl

Hi, lolly- agree whole-heartedly & love TNH's term "interbeing-' in a way we are "interbeing" with God. Term & your guy-on-the-street example hints at the subtlties of Reality. We're not the Other we see on the street, nor are we otherwise. Action-reaction; response-counter-response; inner-outer: all "inter-are." The more we open our awareness & release false, limiting notions of self & other, the more this slippery, can't-pin-it-down-with-words reality dawns on us. in fact, i dare say the terms "panentheism" & "interbeing" strongly overlap. Have a good one, Earl <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More a'la Eckhart: "Neither the One, nor Being, nor God, nor rest, nor blessedness, nor satisfaction is to be found where distinctions are. Be theefore that One so that you might find God. And, of course, if you are wholly that One, you shall remain so, even where distinctions are. Different things will be parts of that One to you and will no longer stand in your way." Take care, Earl

Hi, lolly- agree whole-heartedly & love TNH's term "interbeing-' in a way we are "interbeing" with God. Term & your guy-on-the-street example hints at the subtlties of Reality. We're not the Other we see on the street, nor are we otherwise. Action-reaction; response-counter-response; inner-outer: all "inter-are." The more we open our awareness & release false, limiting notions of self & other, the more this slippery, can't-pin-it-down-with-words reality dawns on us. in fact, i dare say the terms "panentheism" & "interbeing" strongly overlap. Have a good one, Earl

Oops, sorry, didn't post it correctly: http://www.frimmin.com/faith/godinall.html Earl

A nice stattment re panentheism & its interelationship with Christian mysticism can be found at, (needless to say, also references Eckhart): http:www/frommin.com/faith/godinall.html Take care, Earl

Logic & the intellect can only foster understanding to a certain level, then more intuitive Wisdom must take us the rest of the way-though I love to play with words & concepts myself. I believe (as probably so would Jungians) that symbols attract us from this level of consciousness. To me the perfect symbol & metaphor for panentheism is the ancient Chrisitians' choice of the fish to symbolize them. If we think of "God" as water then we are swimming in God all the time. Like the fish of the sea, water is all aroung them, supports them, even links them to all other creatures. Also, just as living things are molecularly-speaking primarily water, we, too, are "God-stuff," at essence. Take care, Earl

A perennialist view described as emanationism may address some of this as in the following link: http://www.khper.net/topics/worldviews/emanationism.htm Take care, Earl