thormas

Joseph, if absolute reality alone is, what is 'each-self' that is in a state of self-ignorance and needs self-enlightment? To me to seems like this suggest, in spite of the first line, that there is more to absolute reality. If only the absolute alone is, why is there any delusion in that which is? For lack of a better way to say it, who is or what is deluded? Why or how is there multiple fabricated viewpoints in absolute changeless reality that alone is (suggesting that nothing else is)? This seems contradictory and I am trying to get a handle on it - especially is there is no-self. If reality is absolute, changeless and permanent - an evolutionary process suggests incomplete, change and impermanence??

Exactly what I expected and I just won $50 bucks, so dinner in on you :+} I'll let you pour back over the posts but................again, as expected!!! This too is as expected. This is your opinion and what we have gone over is your belief and, from your own words, not Joseph's. I was asking 'possibility' about her present opinion/belief and ....elaboration. So, my questions stand...........for 'possibility.'

Of course you do - but since we have been over this, I will wait on 'possibility' to whom I directed my inquiry. And also wait while you read Hart as you said you would.

possibility, A couple of questions based on your recent writings and I understand the answers might be elusive at this point - which is fine. if the self searches for self but it actually doesn't exist ("beyond the fear of its non-existence and coming to terms with 'not self'") what or who is doing the search? if self is illusion, what is the reality (at least in your present understanding)? why is there the illusion of self in the first place? why (in your understanding at present) is there anything? If whatever is beyond the illusion, manifests (or creates) in or through illusion, why? And, how do you see yourself, which 'philosophy' speaks most powerfully to you: Christian, Buddhist, a combination or other? Just some questions over morning tea.

This is a really good one Burl!

what's the difference, for you? they are indeed and he continues - a great read. enjoy

I give you Hart: "the difference in kind between the material structure of the brain and the subjective structure of consciousness remains fixed and inviolable, and so the precise relation between them cannot be defined, or even isolated as an object of scientific scrutiny." And, "in the end, there will always remain that essential part of the conscious self that seems simply to stand apart from the spectacle of material causality." The brain does not construct what we call consciousness. It is not reified, it is not deified, it is acknowledged as different and cannot be defined by science. Hart adds: "consciousness as we commonly conceive of it is quite real." The 'more' by definition means 'more' than the universe - ontologically prior and logically necessary for the universe to be. Just wanted to offer the non-materialistic position - even though on vacation ;+)

Actually I don't like or typically use the word substrate as it suggests an underlying 'material' and that is not how I see Being. I also rarely use ground of being but am more use to this one. I have used both to try to accommodate the use by others. So, we have been over this, but Being is not a thing among other things, not an object among objects it is not a supreme being among other beings - rather it is the very possibility of all that is: it is absolute and necessary whereas creation is contingent and dependent. Again, this has been discussed previously but if you follow through on your book review of one of the books you asked me to suggest (Macquarie or Hart) and I think Hart, being more contemporary, is the best choice, you will see.

Praise God ;=] that we are not blind men and women and 'see' that there 'Is' - in all the things that are.

Great point on assuming that the 3 in our analogy have an elephant in their experience.

I agree, thus the ' ' around the word vulnerable. Also this is from the human perspective in that Being shares itSelf and their is a risk because man can say, No! - again from our perspective. The value of the human characteristics is an argument from the negative, what God is not: for example, contingent, limited, dependent, moving from potentiality to actuality, etc. Also and therefore, not two separate beings, although at times the limitation of language lends itself to that, but being 'in relation' to Being. I agree God is 'the very core' but, my experience is that there is a 'transcendent' element to man in that he reaches beyond himself 'to' the Other who is immanent. However whereas I agree that it is 'a manifestation of God' it cannot be for God's sake for that would suggest need, therefore I opt that it is 'creation' or a 'letting be' of that which is 'other.'

I think we have been over that and others have shared their experiences. I recognize the negative in religion (which like all institutions are man made) as we do in everything else. It could be said and has been said that science has negatives aspects but, I think, instead, that science, the chid of man, is sometimes misused or abused by men. But not always and its proper use is glorious. So too religion, or for me, theology.

I took a quick look but it wasn't worth the time. Anyone can discuss negatives of religion (or anything else) and many of those who value (aspects of) religion are typically the biggest and best critics because we know what we're talking about - being or having been insiders.

a figment could also be something, so it wouldn't be nothing to imagine nothing does not exist is to suggest there is a nothing to consider ............and there is not or, perhaps something is 'not as it seems' and it appears to be nothing - but in reality, it is something - so no nothing In my house there is I and i and the latter is sleeping but the i and the I ........are. I don't imagine nothing because if I did , it would be something: this has been clearly stated above. I feel we are getting nowhere which I assume is appropriate when we are talking about nothing :+}

Agreed!

A beginning is a boundary for what was not. If nothing is something, then it is not nothing (in spite of one calling it nothing). It is something and we are back to some-thing that is the cause of some-thing else. Which is fine, for now. I imagine .........nothing, because it is not. To see or imagine nothing as blackness is to imagine .......something.

Now or not, if the Bang is the beginning, the universe has a boundary. As I said, I was allowing that the idea put forth above (however, pedestrian it might have been phrased) might be what another person might say. I'm simply talking about the physical universe and the idea of the Big Bang. Seems there was nothing and then something or there was something, teeny, tiny that Banged and here we are. I'm good either way. If the latter though, then we can asked what was the cause of the Bang. But this is really not important to me in this thread.

Sounds like the Beatific Vision. I touched on this in the Original Sin thread: if, as is clear, we are saying there is illusion, then there are only two possibilities: 1. Absolute Reality does not see/know itself as it is (i.e. Reality) but only as illusion. If this is so, then the Absolute is not Reality because it admits to illusion in itself and Reality is not Absolute because it admits to knowing what is not Real. Or 2. There must be that which is not Absolute Reality, yet is and, as such, is limited (not Absolute) in its knowing as it is capable of only seeing/knowing what seems to be rather than what is (Beatific Vision). We are admitting that there is the' illusion of duality' that collapses or passes away. But, again, it cannot be the illusion of Reality itself, so it must be the illusion of that which is not reality itself but which is, nonetheless, real. So, man (even though his vision of reality and of himself might not be as it seems) is real. I agree there is no object and even that there is no subject: there is IS, and knowing is not of a thing but doing which is being or IS (for example, running is not something to be known, the only knowing of running is (doing) running and in the doing, one is (the) running: there is no separation; 'it' is self-evident, self aware and self-revealing, simply, 'I AM' the running). As with running, it is with Reality. I never expect to fully understand (conceptually) but I 'press' you because I press myself. I know that it is not the contemplation of Reality but the doing of Reality that is Be All and End All. Perhaps it is the limitation of language, but where we differ (at least I think, at this time) is that if Reality is the 'substrate,' it is the substrate of form or mode of being. There is nothing else and Absolute Reality need not be a substrate to itself, so it is the substrate of 'other.' But 'other' is being (since there is nothing else). To borrow from the poetry of John's gospel: this is indeed light of light, being of being, begotten/created not made; the multiplicity of persons in Being. I think there is, for lack of a better way to phrase it, a graciousness in Absolute Reality or what in religion is God in himSelf and there is creation (different in kind from making because with the former, the creator is in the creation). And as to why: is it the very essence of Absolute Reality that it not hoard being but that it go out (figuratively speaking) of Itself as the creative and sustaining mode of all that is? Again, perhaps it is language but ' the formless / Unmanifest' seems to be the the same as nothing(ness). Yet we are: #1 (above) is not, so it is the 2nd option and we are it. Reality/Being is the substrate, the ground of form, the ground of the modes of reality, of being that is man (and all). Again, I too, accept the idea of the 'illusion of duality' collapsing with only the Self/theAbsolute/Being remaining. But illusion, 'seeing as it seems,' is our way of knowing (through a glass darkly); it is also our way by which we might glimpse 'What Is,' have moments of insight 'into' Reality - not as object or subject - and, just like running, give ourselves to it and know Reality/God. In the knowing (it is experiential) that is doing, there is no separation: 'I AM' what Absolute Reality IS.

I think, in a real way, sin was inevitable. I too agree that there is (what we have referred to as) absolute reality (what some call God). However, while man may not be all he seems, and reality may be more than it seems to him - nonetheless, this is how he functions, how he comes to know reality. And this includes the recognition and naming of that which is experienced as separate or other. In his beginning, man was self-centered, it was about him, it was about survival. And, as he 'matured' he created laws so he could live in community and 'survival' extended in organized ways to his community and beyond. The judging of others, the setting of boundaries was both inevitable and necessary: for survival (at minimum) and for life, to be alive in the spirit (at maximum). In Reality there is no separation but it seems to us (which is our reality), that there is separation; and, there is the need to navigate and survive and then thrive. And some believe this thriving is when man begins to understand Reality as it is, and overcome separation, or better, seeks to bring unity (Oneness) to diversity. If there is Absolute Reality and it is changeless, it is by definition, all that is. What would be the reason for 'It' to to create or manifest itself; what would be the reason for It to even 'throw itself out from itself" to know itself (for such would suggest becoming and, therefore, change)? And if the Absolute (the big I) does not know itself, but sees itself only as it seems but not is - how can this be considered Reality? If Reality is Absolute, changeless, without separation and 'knows' itself - then what is absolute and changeless cannot change and is Real; Absolute Reality is, in itself, not illusory. However, Reality creates what is not absolute in itself: we have allowed that the (small) i is, even though it understands/sees reality only as it seems because that is the only way it can. If there is illusion or delusion, it cannot be the Absolute Reality's illusion (above): if it were then the Absolute is not Absolute but only seems to be - even in Itself??. Therefore, any illusion, that is, any understanding of Reality only 'as it seems' must on the part of that which is not Absolute Reality (in itself) but, nonetheless is, and is 'other' than Reality or God. It 'seems' -paradoxically - that there is that which is not absolute (in itself), that which is changing (as it moves from potentiality to actuality) and which "sees' Reality only as it is capable of seeing, as it 'makes its way.' I still like the poetry of 'waking to the wonder of Being' in our first moments, then, of necessity, being on our way to 'know'' Reality as it is, so that all becomes One. The paradox: that in the One there is multiplicity, that in changelessness there is change, that in 'as it is' there is 'as it seems' and that in diversity there is Unity. And, in this there is setback (sin) to be overcome. For the Christian, for the person, who 'understands' or who 'is on the way,' the law falls away (it is dead) because we live the spirit that is Reality. This is freedom from sin (self-centeredness) which is the only thing that brings 'death' to being Human: If the only thing we can be is Human, and the only way this is done is by being self-less, if it is not accomplished, there is nothing else to be; there is nothing, i.e. death. Just some thoughts, prompted by Joseph's comments here and in other threads, which I have been thinking about.

I'm not sure there is such a fundamentalist argument??

I get the boundlessness of God but the universe seems to be bound on one side by the Big Bang and on the other side it expands, yet that which came 'earlier' is said to not exist (example stars whose light we see but that are no longer) and the expected end of the earth and the sun, etc. I assume one might argue that this is illusion or the matter, the energy is repurposed but there is still the Bang? There was nothing, no universe: if there was a beginning - the universe is bound. Is the life, which is its own meaning, that you speak of content or context? But, self-evident or not and it is not to all - what is life's own meaning?

Not merely illusion but delusion? Yet, whether illusion or delusion, there is the one to whom it is not as it seems, the one to who all is delusions. If not, then the illusion/delusion belongs to the I, to the absolute changeless reality - which is a contradiction and cannot be. There is the context - absolute changeless reality. And there is content: as you said "(small) i presents itself as an individual with a name and story." The I (God. absolute reality) does not present itself for that would be a change in changelessness. Joseph, I am not trying to be difficult, actually the opposite: I am trying to get what you are saying but the terms change or are just repeated.

So, I think you said that the i, the ego, that which imagines itself as thinker and does, that although this imagining is illusion, still the i is. The i or the I present itself? Yet there appear to be many in the one or rather than one. To me this is a paradox - and it can be true (many in one, yet still one). "Content is not consciousness." I have no idea what you mean by this, can you try again? It seems to me you allow for the paradox (above) with statements like " The i cannot know the I / God / Reality." You seem to speak of the many in the One at the same time asserting there is One, not many. I agree that "God" is absolute subjectivity but seems to me there is a why. There is part of me that agrees with the idea that man can say nothing about God (Spong and others hold to this) yet, if man is of God, then I suspect that we can say something about God as we reflect on ourselves. After all, we are subject (not absolute) also .... and object. Life has its own meaning - which is what for you? "Context is not subject to content." Again, can you rephrase? I appreciate the effort and the conversation.

Well, let me preface this by saying I am not a theist, I don't take the bible literally, so that includes a literal understanding of A&E and the sin brought into the world by their specific action. Also, I believe in the theory of evolution and do not believe we were created perfect and then fell. Nor do I believe we are 'separate' from God, theistically understood (ala A&E and sin) or that in the same vein, we need saving from sin - again understood theistically - which, to me, it seems, you are referring. Let me add, I am (non formal religious) Christian, believe “God”Is (again not a supreme being in his heaven, judging actions and keeping score, etc.,) and, to your point, I believe we can speak intelligibly about ‘sin.’ Some contemporary theologians use the conception of the Greek Fathers, such as Irenaeus (200 years before Augustine), concerning the gradual movement of the human being from an 'initial site of immaturity" which contrasts with Augustine's fall from the original state of righteousness (perfection). So, there were different views early on. Sadly, the Western, Roman expression and Augustine prevailed. Many define sin as self-centeredness or selfishness (also depicted in the Eden story) and further that the original, actually the only sin is self-centeredness. And it shows itself in numerous ways: simply, I lie for me, I lust for me, I kill for me, I dishonor another for me, I am envious of another for me and on and on. And, it seems evident that selfishness is the act of man and so it can be said that selfishness ‘enters’the world when 'man' steps forward in the process of evolution (which could dovetail with ‘possibility’stake). Now, Spong, among others, notes that early man, of necessity was self-centered: it was survival and he had to look out for and protect #1. Makes sense! However, as man progressed, it can be asked if the circumstances have changed and looking out for # 1 has taken on a life beyond survival (difficult subjects include slavery, colonization, western expansion, re-settling native populations, Nazism, Henry VIII, Trump, or simply Cain and Abel). Others speak of individual and communal self-centeredness (both are witnessed in the examples cited) that all newborns are born into. Leaving religion to the side for a moment, there is something to the idea that we are born into self-centeredness: it ‘marks' all men and women. And, at its worst, it destroys life, community and is devoid of ‘humanity.’There seems to be an awareness of this reality: of a killer, a terrorist, or someone who rapes a child, we say, "what a monster" or "he's inhuman" or she is an animal”or "he is evil incarnate." And of the cop or fireman on 911 or a soldier who saved his buddy, a woman who dies giving birth, knowing the risk, we often hear: "the finest human being I've ever known" or “the best of us”or “what an incredible person" or "this guy is someone to live up to." The truly self-centered, the most selfish among us, who care nothing for others, we strip of humanity (the monster) and those who give to others, who have concern for others, the most loving among us, we heap humanity on then (the best of us). One definition of sin is 'missing the mark' and the mark is to become (truly) human, understood/defined as self-less, compassionate or loving. And to the degree we are selfish, to that degree we miss the mark, we 'fail' to (self-) actualize, we fail to become (truly) human. Obviously, the term human here connotes more than species. So, can self-centeredness be called sin? From the Christian perspective, the answer is yes! And if we talk of being saved from sin, we start with Baptism: properly understood, is an orientation away from self-centered behavior and toward self-less-ness. There is no magic washing of sin; it is symbol and the human community (parents, godparents, community) is the essential element in the nurturing of a child away from self-centeredness and toward selflessness (compassionate concern or, apologies, love). This locus of love is essential for a truly human life. Is sin separation from God? Well, self-centeredness or sin is seen as separation from the possibility of our best self: we are off the mark. Then, before we get to God, the question is how can this separation be overcome? Simple, as shown, by becoming less and less selfish - or to put it in a positive light: by becoming more and more self-less, by becoming more loving. Finally, Christianity believes that God is Love. So, are we separated from God and is God necessary for salvation; do we need to be saved? If God is Love and if love or loving is what enables us to be truly human, then until we love, it could be said that self-centeredness is the textbook opposite of and separation from love. From the Christian perspective, self-centeredness (sin) is separation from love (God). It can be said we need to be saved from sin, which, in this scenario simply means, we need to be healed of selfishness, and, thereby, made whole, i.e. human. What is a whole human being? The fireman on 911, the mother who gives here all on a daily basis, the man who tries to be compassionate and concerned for those in his life, even the stranger, the kid who decides not to be a bully: all are on the way to wholeness (in the Christian understanding). BTW, it is not a consistent process and sometimes we simply do a lousy job of being human: two steps forward, one back, one step forward, four back and on and on. So, is God necessary for salvation? To become whole or human, one becomes selfless, one loves (and, thereby, selfishness, the only sin, is overcome). One must 'embody' love, one must 'become love;' one must allow love to become flesh, which simply means to reside, to be expressed in their flesh, in their lives. This is the 'incarnation' of Love; this is the incarnation of God. Man cannot be human without love; man cannot be human without God. God/Love is necessary for man to be whole (i.e. salvation although I actually never use this terminology anymore because it gets in the way, given its historical baggage). In Christianity, even if there were no sin, God would still be one with man (and this too is captured in the story of Eden). The Lover always wants to be one with the Beloved: even when man was not ‘separated’from God in Eden, God is with/for man: it is what love is; it is what love does. I always thought the very best reason to have a child is simply love. It is pure gift, so another, yet to be, might be and have life. We, hopefully, or the best of humanity, do not create life so it worships us, to obey us, to be a little us, so we can bask in our glory; we love, we create so the beloved may have life and the desire is always to be with/for the beloved as it moves to and lives fully. In the Christian perspective, properly understood, this is the reason for creation. It is Letting Be (which is God). Please note, you asked for a Christian explanation and what I have tried to do is give you an explanation based on a more contemporary take on Christianity.