thormas

Burl, in Christian speak, do you agree that all is of God (Source) and returns to God (Destiny) and that as Jesus and the Father are one, so too, we sons and daughters, are called to be 'one or united' with the Father? In my understanding, sin/selfishness causes separation from God and between men but this is not the Truth - i.e., this is not the way it was meant to be or will be, this is not the Way of man. So, (although it is not my language of choice), I get if someone wants to call this separation an illusion - it is not as it seems, it is not our true Reality. If I follow you, I agree that we, man and woman, are not illusions and not temporary, we are real. However, it could be said there is a bit of illusion here: we are not as it seems - we are More. We are the co-creators who are needed to 'take up/incarnate Love' and 'create' Unity (the Kingdom). Love overcomes duality/separateness/division and create Unity.

"We are of the cosmos." Man is indeed of the cosmos but at the same time it does seem that man transcends the cosmos. Regardless, returning to monism (the 'many' are of the one reality and this one is (ontologically) prior to all), it seems to me that, by definition, the 'one' cannot be the cosmos, because the cosmos is the many, so it (the many) is not the one that is ontologically prior to the many. Not can the Big Bang be the 'one' because in its 'first' moment, there are the many - or at least a 'few' of the many. We could say that the 'one' prior to the BB, prior to the cosmos, was nothing...however, nothing could not be ontologically prior to anything, because it is nothing - and nothing is not (sounds like the beginning of an Abbott and Costello routine). So I go back to being as that 'one' which is ontologically prior in time (so to speak), ontologically prior as the possibility that anything can be: if something is, it has being, or conversely, if there is being, then something is (if there is not first being, there is nothing) : "we are all of being." Of course this is, more or less, a logical argument and I do not believe that being or, at least, being as Holy can be arrived at logically, plus it's all so circular, I feel like eddy. Regarding the sun, I think we have some time and the stars await for man to transcend his environment:}

"We are only separate in that we are by and large completely unaware of our connection to our environment" meaning, if I follow you, we are all of the same 'stuff' of the Big Bang (and everything else) and interdependent with our environment. We live in a world - a world/environment that impacts us and us, it. So the illusion is that we are independent and separate. If this is what you mean, I get it - if not, please clarify further. Whereas, it seems to me at least, you are concerned with the cause and effect environment - I believe that there is more to cause and effect than you consider. You (seem to) only 'tie' man to his environment but there seems to be no recognition that man 'transcends' his environment or, conversely, there is something transcendent in man's 'environment.' You ask, "how I am independent ... of the food I eat, education, experiences, evolution, genetics." Not independent - more. I think we're 'more' than and I think our mothers knew it. And maybe you do too, since you said we might be magical. And Rom it is!

I think we are not meant to be 'separate' but we are: some (not all) might say we wake to a world of separation and division; it is the world we are born to and the world we perpetuate. In Christianity, it is sin (understood as self-centeredness) by which we remain in and continue division. And it is love (compassionate concern or other-centeredness) that empowers us to overcome division and to break through the illusion of separation. To paraphrase, 'only in love is separateness overcome.' In Christian speak, this is becoming one in Christ/Love: 'only in love is there unity.' If we go with Rom's definition of illusion - not as it seems - then I am comfortable with saying that our 'separateness' can be referred to as illusion: it is not as it seems, it is not what it seems, it is not (our true) Reality. Rather, we are, in Truth, in Reality, one: "interdependent and part of (the summation) 'all that is.' " So, on one hand, I understand Burl's statement that we are seperate, individual sentient beings. This for me, and I believe for Christianity, is not the illusion. However, it is more that sophism to acknowledge that self-centeredness and the consequent separate/division does not reflect or reveal (our true) reality. This is not as it seems, this is not the way It Is, this is not what the many sentient beings come from, are or are meant for. Rather, they are Love - in which there is no duality, no separateness. This is merely a first attempt to piece this together from the different comments, so don't attack but do comment and offer clarifications or disagreements.

Romansh, aka Rom, aka Roman ?? Christmas was great, thanks, Hope it was for all. Not sure what majority statement you are referring to or on which post?? First, not apocryphal person(s) of faith at all, I am one - and not the only one. One needs no imagination for people who would be very comfortable with the statement we discussed. Eckhart has already been mentioned numerous times on this site and there are other mystics plus theologians, many whom I have been reading for decades. And, again there is Spong and probably many in the PC org who would be comfortable with the universe/God statement. Next, as for Lisa, it seems that when some people say real (and add 'effectively zero' that it is not real) - they mean...... real. She doesn't strike me, nor did I find in the article that she would be a real but illusory, "not as it seems," type. I like Campbell: he states there is "no god, no you" - yet he still talks of being united and the mind dissolving with the 'ground of your own being.' As it take two to tango, it takes more than one to unite:) Seriously, I don't think we are far apart (perhaps but maybe not). Monism is the belief that the 'many' are of the one reality and that the many (different or diverse things) go back to the one (Campbell's mystical union); and this one is (ontologically) prior to all. Not only do I agree but I have (for some time) been making monistic statements: beings within Being; multiplicity of persons in being; the many in the one; with the 'mystical goal' of unity is diversity. I have agreed (see Soma exchange above) that separateness or divide-ness is, although I typically don't use the word, the illusion: that it is not the real 'situation,' however, because we have forgotten being and focused on beings, it is our 'present' reality (it is a debate whether this separateness is inevitable or even necessary) that must be transcended (Campbell: duality is transcended). Where some of us might disagree is that while I allow for the 'illusion - (not as it seems or should be)' of separateness - I do not believe that the diversity, that the multiplicity of persons, is an 'illusion.' I think that the many are as they seem and are 'real.' The responsibility is for the many to become one. The image that sticks with me, read 40 years ago: a field of the same flowers is beautiful, but a field filled with a variety of flowers is even more beautiful. Unity in diversity/variety is a high form of Beauty that unity in unity. Monism does rule when the many become one.

Rom, This is the Progressive Christianity site - so I am referring to a more 'progressive' understanding of that faith. Such a view mirrors the 'reformation' of Christianity so popular with Spong (his followers and their progressive communities) and the insights of many 20th and 21st C Christian theologians (and believers). In addition, it is found in the mystic expressions of Christianity down through the ages, 1st / 2nd C CE to Present. Also, it was not all persons of faith, it was not a majority of persons of faith, it was 'a' person of faith - the phrase fits. And, just one minor point, if the majority believe God is somehow separate from us - separate and in the sky, separate and in us, or separate and all around us - one could make the case that 'in us' and perhaps even 'all around us' are not necessarily or completely dualistic understandings. Finally, there is no confounding in my last post. I merely repeated Randall's comment that the universe is real: from this, 'a person' would be on solid ground to suggest, therefore, that Lisa doesn't consider the universe to be an illusion. However, could 'a person' suggest that: if deGrasse says the universe is a simulation; and, if it followed that the universe, as we experience it, is an illusion (certainly not as it seems - i.e. not real); and, if he actually believed it - then might he is delusional by definition? I, of course am not saying this, he seems like a nice guy and this is his belief system I guess. Regardless, this 2nd part of the post was done for a bit of fun because it played into some of our discussions:} Steve, It didn't seem that the scientists were dealing with the apparent (i.e. that which is clear and/or obvious). Rather, it seems the status of the universe is not 'obvious:' one thought one thing and the other thought something completely different. Or, although the article didn't get into it, maybe the status of the universe was apparent or obvious and each thought the other an idiot for not seeing the obvious:} It seems that deGrasse's position is that if existence is a simulation, it is not real. A person could say that something (the game we are placed in by a higher intelligence) is apparent but deGrasse's point seems to be that, regardless, it is a sham, i.e. not real! It seems for these two scientists that the designation is real, it is a 'statement of fact' with Randall, stating in no uncertain terms, that the universe is real and it is 'effectively zero' that it is not real. Seems she thinks it can't get more real than that. Finally, to whom it may concern: Don't shoot the messenger, I just read an article and was reporting the news

That is exactly what a person of faith would say, just substituting God for the universe, but at least in both examples, there is a me. Or is there? And then there is this story: Physicist Lisa Randall said the odds that the universe isn't "real" are so low as to be "effectively zero." So this is not an illusion ........but before the realists celebrate, there is the other side: Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high." I had not heard the simulation theory before but it is entertaining.

Joseph, I just saw your post after writing, with numerous interruptions, my post. It strikes me that there are different way that people learn best, so too I think there are different ways that people 'worship' best. For some, myself included, it is not in a traditional worshipping community but rather with reading, thinking, discussing and writing. But as in all worship, the point is to live the answer or as you say to live life in the Grace present. This is summed up nicely at the end of the Catholic mass, 'go love and serve..........'. Thanks. Merry Christmas to you and yours also!

And to you too Steve. Soma, thanks, your latest is very helpful. I recognize that many of those here, who have written and tried to explain Buddhism, have made a 'faith' decision: this way speaks to them, so they, in turn, and in some real way, give themselves over in trust and commitment in this way. So for them, also for me: my interest in not mere intellectual gymnastics, but rather looking to other explanations or 'ways' to add light to what resonates for me: Christianity. Agreeing with Soma, in Christianity, the Father is one, permanent, changeless, absolute. And, in the 'all encompassing' Father, there is change; there is the many. The different seems to be that in the Christian way, the change is not temporary. The changes give the 'illusion' that there is duality, separateness, division - but, that is an illusion (false belief), the many (changes) are 'within' the Absolute, the one. For Christianity, the many 'suffer' under this 'illusion' that they are separate and divided. But - it is the separateness that is the illusion - not the changes! In Christianity, the absurdity is that absolute, changeless, permanent reality 'lets' be:' the absolute shares being. Absolute reality is changeless and it is one - and, 'within' it, there is change and there are many. How is this paradox possible? Who knows. Why is this? That one is easy: Love - has no why! In Christianity, the one, the absolute (Father) - moves to expressive (creative) being - moves to unitive being to break through the 'illusion of separateness' by enabling the many to be one. Christianity (seemingly) differs from Buddhism mainly in its belief that the changes are not temporary and the many are not the illusion. Rather, it is the separateness, the divided-ness of the many within the one that is the illusion. Therefore, in the Christian way, one utters, 'thank you' - the only prayer of Eckhart, calls absolute changeless permanent reality - Abba and, trustingly, commits as a son and a daughter. At least, I suspect as of this writing.

Yet Steve, the issue remains in that if all is illusion then there is not truth for it would be given by illusion and received by illusion, so it is not. Also, not a lie, not truth, not conventional truth - no beyond, no attempt, no understanding, no ineffable - for all is illusion. However, if it is a 'like' - like 'a flash of lightening, like early morning dew' - we have moved to simile, closing in on metaphor, symbol, image and analogy.

I truly appreciate the attempts at an answer because I am very curious and interested in the insights or ways of other traditions. However, the explanations still appear to counter Absolute Changeless permanent reality: even temporary changes or created impermanence are changes in changelessness and impermanence in the permanent; seemingly, there is no way around this. And, even as we try to understand this contradiction - we are told that we, that the seeming changes, that all - never was as it 'was' only ever illusion - so it doesn't count? But how could it, if it is not? What is Buddhism's (any school, either high or low buddhism) answer or insight: why the fiction, why illusion, why does the permanent reality make believe? It can't be to share being/itself because only it is (nothing else is real), it can't be to 'see' itself or 'experience' because whatever is seen or experienced is illusion and will not change the changeless anyway. And then we have a further contradiction that the 'One' creates the illusion but then that there is 'no One' or 'no thing' creating the illusions. And there is no drama of life to be welcomed to - all, according to this view, is not. And, in this understanding, there is nothing for Jesus to introduce us to: any introduction or the object of that introduction is mere fiction. And, if the Father, in this scenario, is the Permanent reality who creates illusion - then there is no mind and thus no experience beyond the mind or otherwise. Even Steve's comments lead to more questions: if all is illusion, then the Buddha (who must also be an illusion) has no point: suffering, death and impermanence, and contingent existence have no truth because all are illusion. Further, not only words and intellectualization but everything else, all else is illusion. And how can there be a cycle of ignorance when there is not but fiction? And Steve, if you are illusion-ating, are you the Absolute changeless reality who was said to be 'behind' the illusions? If not, how could 'I am' create illusion when it is illusion? The comment on Christianity is interesting, however - while the early followers of Jesus did call it 'the way' and indeed the one commandment (of Love) could take one the entire journey - there seems to be a difference stance/belief: it (the way, the commandment, Jesus, the journey, the destiny, all) was/is no illusion, no fiction - it is real. In Christianity there is still paradox: One and many; changeless and changing; One/no one who creates, however, it is real. Oh, well time to run for last minute shopping.

Tariki, I never knew which words were being called master words but, more importantly, for me, 'master words' cuts the dialogue as if a particular word or words are verboten. And I have your book selection arriving soon and just found 'The Gospel According to Zen' on my bookshelf.

Tariki, Without rereading everything, let's assume we are in agreement. I am saying that realized eschatology 'begins' in the here and now. What is given now is not inadequate: it is, I believe (and should be apparent looking at history and the present), yet to be fully realized and I allow the way to that realization continues after death, after, the so-called here and now. This recognition is the reason why Jewish expectation of eschatology evolved or change especially, if I remember correctly, around the 1st C BCE and CE. For me , it is not a 'must have more' scenario, it is that there is more (yet, it has begun) - a 'fullness,' an abundance to/of what is, that is never taken back and that more than 5, 12, 54, 68, 74, 95 or 100 years, here and now, can accomplish or realize. As for master words, I have never heard that phrase before you used it and still have no idea what it means. And I am still waiting for you to tell me about emptiness. I am of the low-Christology clan. And, high and low Buddhism and its various schools is interesting. And, I believe you did mention both the 'Love, that has no why' and the idea of the 'empathic moment.' Thanks for the words and enjoy your family!

This was actually tongue in cheek for me (note the smile). I didn't think you were trying to convince anyone, I was just looking at the posts and trying to wrap my arms around causality as an illusion, illusion as a simile, existence as a dream or mirage and retirement planning. I did see Joseph's note about an unfolding life, planning and lots to do (with no blame in the details), which I get and respect, yet, if I follow him: it's still an illusion - even those he loves, an illusion. But who is illusion-ating? It can't be the changeless reality because illusion, any illusion, any make-believe fiction, any delusion would be something 'new:' it would be a change; it wouldn't be permanent; it wouldn't be absolute; and, it wouldn't be reality. So, it can't be Absolute changeless permanent reality! And, it can't be anything else, because there is nothing else. Yet, it must be Absolute changeless permanent reality, but, if so, why does 'it' engage in make-believe fiction? Why would absolute unchanging permanent reality create, permit or need such illusions? And, again, the very illusions would be a change from total changelessness. If illusions are, then Absolute changeless permanent reality cannot be Absolute changeless permanent reality. I am curious if this is Buddhism and, if so, how it dovetails with Tariki's Buddhism and the comments on Love and empathy. If all is illusion and love goes out from itself to the other, then the 'Love that has no why' cannot be Love - because it comes from the Absolute Alone and goes back to the Absolute Alone: there is nowhere else to go because all else is illusion and is not. What does the Alone empathize with, what does Love, love?

You sure this isn't just 'hedging a bet?' :}

Tariki, A realized eschatology suggests 'this life' and I merely meant that as long as one is alive in the 'here and now' it is not yet done, i.e. realized. I do recognize that one could suggest that every moment is (potentially) realized, but there are many moments in a life and true realization takes time (time is not an illusion) . As for where did 'hope' come from for a 'future' eschatology, that comes from the belief that once given, Life/being (is not taken back but) continues. For me this ties into the other Buddhist saying, ""the only extension to the present is intensity". And, for the man of faith, such Intensity knows no bounds. In this, there is no betrayal. Even when brought up in Roman Catholicism of the 50s/60s, and even more so now, I (and everybody I knew) never lived as though "our 'present' involved knowing it only as the preliminary to a better world." Further, I have no idea when such a future eschatology comes to be or what it is, but as for the how: we awaken to life, the grace of being (the Love that has no why), and it is the response to and 'taking' that gift into oneself that is the Way of Realization, Actualization, Fullness, Abundance, Intensity. 'How does the better come to be?' The same answer you gave: 'by pure acceptance - the catalyst for transformation.' Like all relationships when the lover gives self, the only response is faith - which is the giving and commitment of self to the other. This is acceptance which leads to transformation; diversity (the two) becoming one (in some very real way). Isn't this the truth in love relationships (married or otherwise), with true friends and with beloved children? This is incarnation: the Love, that one wakes to, The Love that has no why is 'taken in, made flesh' in a human life and there is transformation: humanity actually becomes this Love. You asked about Emptiness but didn't I ask first? So what is emptiness for you? Empty of what? Empty of an intrinsic self. Empty of a particular state of "being", thus able to be all things? In Jesus (and not necessarily limited to this one human being in one religious expression), I believe we see an individual who gives self (He is Love, he is the empathetic moment) and we can become what he is and 'the present is intensified.' For me, in Christian speak, what died on the cross, what died throughout the life of Jesus, was self-centeredness or selfishness. Throughout his life, Love, that has no why - was accepted, transformation takes place and (resurrection which I don't understand in theistic terms) Intensity follows. 'This is the Way, it only has to be taken up.' Has it really been accepted? Doesn't appear so and that is the risk and vulnerability of Love but apparently only such Love has the 'power' of transformation.

Joseph and Rom, I have to ask if any of your recent statements are tongue in cheek and in asking that I intend no disrespect, I am just left smiling at the notion that although you recognize that causality in this world is an illusion you still plan for retirement. I guess I can intellectually toy with the illusion part but if truly believed, why plan for retirement, why do anything? And then there is this: not only are we not responsible for what we appear to do .... we don't cause it either. Isn't that like someone else saying, the devil made me do it: I I am not responsible and I did not cause it? Also, is it just causality that is the illusion or must (seemingly) time be a an illusion and supposedly everything and everybody, including those dearest to you? Including you?

In Christianity there is a realized and a yet to be eschatology: the Kingdom at Hand, the Kingdom still to be (in fullness). And I would have to add, although not a Merton expert, not all Christians accept as 'literal' that "the one 'Son of God' will transfigure the cosmos and offer it resplendent to the Father." Also, this seems like classic theism. But I do like and agree with your closing statement: ".... if we do live in the "empathic moment" (a realised eschatology) there is nothing to stop us getting anywhere eventually, while one who has their eye on the future is missing something somewhere.........I have no idea just where I am going." The hope that there is 'a getting anywhere eventually' is the future eschatology to which Merton points. However, even Suzuki must see that the eschatology is not fully realized in 'realized eschatology.' ​This idea of emptiness is one I have to think on because my idea, born of faith, is Fullness. Perhaps they are the same in that one could look at, for example, Jesus and see emptiness and another would see fullness of life.

Thanks Tariki, got it on Amazon, will be reading it Christmas Day.

Tariki, First, thanks. I have yet to read your later post and thought I'd look at one at a time. First I totally respect that, as you say, some of this is not your cup of tea. But just to clarify, in the past for many Christians, the emphasis seemed indeed to be on 'the other world,' however, even with such a focus, and in part the one I grew up with in the 50s and 60s, we still actually lived - very much lived - in this world. So too, in a newer understanding for more 'progressive' Christians, there is only life, we wake to it 'here and now'(for where else is there?) and the focus is on now but the belief/hope is that once given (and accepted), it 'continues' into.........different people have different names but I leave any details to 'God.' However, for me, 'the Love that has no why' also has no expiration date ("all is given, not attained" and not taken back). For such a person there is no betrayal of this life and not enough time in the day for imaging another world (although I might do it late at night). As for dualistic logic, I don't see it as a conscious effort to impose such 'logic' on understanding, rather in trying to understand, we use our language with its limitations, which is dualistic and try to stretch it to capture what we suspect is one (yet many - again the damn paradox). And I will read what you suggested. Then again, I will wait as it is $300 on Amazon!!!!!

Rom, I do love humor. One hopes it is, at least, some moments. With the use of being (which I sometimes capitalize for emphasis), I mean the very possibility that enables all to be. But so as not to mislead you, I also use the uppercase to denote 'something more' or what some have called Holy Being. So, if I read you right, we perhaps part ways here, but that is fine, I enjoy and learn from the discussions.

Tariki, I did not follow your question: "Does invoking the word "other" and "seeing" them as living lives without love, does this lead to the resolution of a world of "vulnerability that entails risk"? What is it that causes us to act?" However: I am not the only one who can speak of "paradox." And if I follow this, "I spoke of Buddhist non-dualism........not that "all is one" but rather that all is NOT two," then, I like it. But let me ask, what does - "not that 'all is one' but rather that all is NOT two" mean to you? Are we (you and I) not two? And if not, how not? And could we both not be two and still be one? For me, it is not that reality can get lost but that man, without Love, can lose reality. I agree with Merton: "we were already one, but did not know it, that we must become what we are." Others have said we forget Being (God) and get distracted (perhaps out of necessity??) by the world of beings. Or others that, in creation, there are more beings but not more Being. Yet, even in Merton we have a seeming duality: we are one and, as you indicted, the paradox. Still not sure what 'recoil' means and it appears to be in opposition to the Love that has no why - the opposite of recoiling, it seems. We do all speak from our own perspective but as for a set of "master words," I have always suspected that the Way (Dao), although One, can only be 'heard' and lived in the words of men where it finds them. There is one Word but one hears and responds in their words, in the particularity of their lives and in their books. And it is great fun to grapple and try to understand and see the similarities with other traditions, to try to 'translate' the insights of one into the language of another but, at the end of the day, the Word is not merely to be heard, it must be a lived.

Rom, I know it does; I believe it comes with the territory: man, using language, trying to say something about 'God.' Even here you have a duality in that 'a being' tries to say something about Being, seemingly other and therefore two but the being is 'of' Being and/or Being is manifest in the being, seemingly one (in some way). A favorite quote is from O'Henry: "Tis what I feel but can't define, Tis what I know but can't express." Tariki, I am intrigued by this idea of emptiness: what was or is being emptied and if the point is to (or be) empty, why is there something to be emptied in the first place? If there were 'nothing' or just the 'empty", the emyptying would be accomplished: no before, no behind, no middle. So why would that which is empty even have a situation (for lack of a better word) where one or something would have to "let go?" And if there is that which is empty or that is what is to be achieved and there is the need to 'let go' - we have duality!

Steve, My first thought to your comment of "being 'fully and truly human' (if there is such a thing), would, by necessity, encompass the experience of the under-belly of human nature; the experience of thieves, murderers, rapists, etc., not in action, but at least in thought," was thinking that to true and fully see, one don't have to experience or imagine being blind, rather some/most of us do 'see' and value it without ever knowing blindness and come to value it more and more. I simply believe and also know in experience that one can be (or know) something without first knowing its opposite. I never knew hate when I was first born and raise in my family but I knew love and I would debate until the cows come home and longer if someone suggested I did not truly know love. Be that as it may... As for the 'apex,' although I am sure it will be discussed and debated more on this site, I go with the answer of some ancients: the deification of man (and I do not understand this in theistic terms) and the only approach or way is the empathy of the moment or the Love that has no why. As for which parts of human experience do we carve out to become "fully human" - selfishness or self-centeredness (the emptying of self) - the opposite of love. And to rid oneself of selfishness is to be (on the way to being) "fully human."

Tariki, not having your familiarity with Buddhism but loving Eckhart, my understanding is: Love, that has no why (or is its own why), empowers us to be 'truly Human' or, as you say, to "Live truly." "We can LIVE truly" in the empathy of each moment, in Love that has no why. However it seems obvious that not all men and women "Live truly:" not all love, the empathy of each moment is not only threatened but ignored, even lost. All I'm saying is that the 'possibility' of Living truly is not (always) actualized, realized or made real. So I don't understand the recoil and I am left with a question: how is empathy, empathy if, in each moment, it know only itself? Love, in my understanding goes out from itself, empities itself, rather it knows the other, and thus becomes Itself. Anyway could just be the limitation of language. There is not a duality, there is One but if we are talking about Love, it goes out to or for ....other? It can't go out to self for then it would hoard Love and not be Love or empathy in every moment. My old college professor has said there is not a multiplicity of beings, rather there is a multiplicity of persons in Being. So One and Many but One? Seemingly a paradox but if Love and if we can live truly, then it would seem that Unity in diversity is a higher form of Beauty, than unity in sameness (which could not be Love??). As for suffering, if Being (for lack of a better 'word') remained unified in Self, I guess there would be no creation and there would be no suffering. However Love, by its very nature is vulnerable, entails risk and the possibility of suffering. Joseph, I am saying that. We have a possibility before us that a 'thing' does not and apparently 'common sense understanding' acknowledges that we are different not only in appearance but in something more important. Now, I do not know or have even thought through whether all creation (i.e. all things) 'move' to the higher being that is human and greater possibility. However, I do like what Tillich said about man reaching back and pulling all of creation along with him.