Having Answers?

[romansh]

Hi Thormas (aka Thomas )

 

Hope Father Christmas was kind too you and you left him a glass of milk and some cookies (biscuits) for those on the other side of the pond.

 

While I will let those on this site argue as to what their faith is or is not ... my majority statement still stands. As to your apocryphal "a person of faith" that person is whatever you imagine that being to be. Not terribly helpful in discussions, but there we go,

 

 

As to illusion ... that Lisa believes this universe is real (as I do) does not mean she believes it is not illusory. I still sense some confounding in the discussion.

 

I must admit I like Joseph Campbell's quote:

... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

 

To me this describes in a religious way what science (for me) describes as reality. Monism rules ...

Edited December 26, 2016 by romansh

[soma]

I must admit I like Joseph Campbell's quote:

Quote

... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

romansh, thank you for the quote I really like it.

[tariki]

Reading further on Mr Batchelor ( as a contrast with our dear Queen's Christmas message ), he delves into Nagarguna's text (quoted previously)

 

He contrasted the Buddha's teaching with the "neti neti" ( not this!, not this! ) of the Upanishads. The Buddha not only states that our experienced self is not to be identified with "mind and matter", it is also not to be considered as different ( other than them )

 

Ken Wilber speaks of Nagarguna and "emptiness", also using the phrase "the unqualifiability of ultimate reality" which, Wilber then says, could be said "neither to be, nor not to be, nor both, nor neither - the idea being to clear the mind of any and all concepts of reality so that reality itself can be directly experienced"

 

I think Stephen B, in his more existential fashion, would object to any idea of "directly experiencing reality" and speak rather of just living unencumbered by the dictates of craving and egotism, of reactivity, so as to "cultivate a way of life in which human beings can flourish" and becoming a free self-creating person.

 

To "respond" rather than to "react".

[thormas]

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.

Edited December 27, 2016 by thormas

[Burl]

We are seperate, individual sentient beings and life is not an illusion.

 

There are beaucoup connections and there are perceptions which differ from reality, but it is silly to simply dump everything into one giant pot of sophist's stew.

 

Birth and death are sufficient evidence.

[soma]

If we enjoy the finite dimensions, we enjoy them the experiences are okay in duality, fight the undesirable side. The finite is in the infinite just like we are in the infinite, which demonstrates duality in unity. If we need two people two love that is okay, we don’t have to feel threatened by the word illusion, but if we view or experience love without duality that is okay too. Rabindranath Tagore said, “Only in love are unity and duality not in conflict. The finite has a beginning and an end, but the infinite has no end, without limitation. A person experiencing the boundlessness might describe the limitations as an illusion to people in duality, which either sparks something or makes them want to defend those limitations either way is okay.

[JosephM]

We are seperate, individual sentient beings and life is not an illusion.

There are beaucoup connections and there are perceptions which differ from reality, but it is silly to simply dump everything into one giant pot of sophist's stew.

Birth and death are sufficient evidence.

On the contrary Burl, to me, birth and death are evidence of the illusion of separateness. How could anything exist without being interdependent and part of the summation of 'all that is' regardless of its material form?

[romansh]

We are seperate, individual sentient beings and life is not an illusion.

There are beaucoup connections and there are perceptions which differ from reality, but it is silly to simply dump everything into one giant pot of sophist's stew.

Birth and death are sufficient evidence.

 

Burl ... you are like the eddy that thinks it is independent of the water it finds itself.

Edited December 28, 2016 by romansh

[Burl]

On the contrary Burl, to me, birth and death are evidence of the illusion of separateness. How could anything exist without being interdependent and part of the summation of 'all that is' regardless of its material form?

Interdependence and "part of the summation" both honor seperateness. The concept of illusion vs reality honors seperateness.

 

Our seperateness is obvious.

[Burl]

Burl ... you are like the eddy that thinks it is independent of the water it finds itself.

A slightly poetic but silly and irrelevant analogy. Water is not a sentient being. This concept has no logical basis, and everything in the world argues against it.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Burl

[romansh]

A slightly poetic but silly and irrelevant analogy. Water is not a sentient being. This concept has no logical basis, and everything in the world argues against it.

 

So your supposed sentience makes you independent?

 

No the world does argue against it. Our lack of (or at least very incomplete sentience) just reinforces it.

[Burl]

So your supposed sentience makes you independent?

 

No the world does argue against it. Our lack of (or at least very incomplete sentience) just reinforces it.

Supporting logic or evidence? How many fingers am I holding up?

[romansh]

Supporting logic or evidence? How many fingers am I holding up?

 

Don't know ... but then again your does the number fingers have no effect on the environment?

 

try entering into the discourse Burl ... you may have an effect.

[thormas]

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.

Edited December 28, 2016 by thormas

[Burl]

Don't know ... but then again your does the number fingers have no effect on the environment?

 

try entering into the discourse Burl ... you may have an effect.

This idea of non-uniqueness is your own version is of seeing Jesus in a tortilla. You are simply imposing a mental pattern on randomicity.

 

We are individual sentient beings.

[romansh]

This idea of non-uniqueness is your own version is of seeing Jesus in a tortilla. You are simply imposing a mental pattern on randomicity.

 

We are individual sentient beings.

 

I suggest you go reread my posts Burl ... that way you may have some idea what I am driving at.

 

As far as I can tell .. I have not argued on way or the other about uniqueness; I have not used the word unique ... other than quoting someone else. But to address your point ... I think we can be seen as unique patterns/(eddies)

 

We can be treated as individuals ... but you continue to avoid my central point ... as individuals we are not independent of the environment. there is not one piece of me that is not a function of cause and effect. (Joseph sees it slightly differently). Now if you can point to something in your sentience that is not a response to cause and effect now is the time to speak up.

Edited December 28, 2016 by romansh

[romansh]

So, on one hand, I understand Burl's statement that we are seperate, individual sentient beings.

 

Thormas ... we are only separate in that we are by and large completely unaware of our connection to our environment.

 

Perhaps you can explain to me how I am independent ... of the food I eat, education, experiences, evolution, genetics ... you name it. While an individual is a useful approximation or short hand for a pattern of energy/matter ... that is all it is. Perfectly adiabatic containers are useful metaphor for learning physics and chemistry ... Human beings are not them ... what goes into one comes out in some form another.

 

We might be magical ... but we are not magic.

[romansh]

Romansh, aka Rom, aka Roman ??

 

Actually romansh is my internet persona ...

 

It is a combinations of a typo my middle name and my last initial.

The typo ... lower case r was a fortuitous accident ...

My middle name Romans ... (pronounced closer to romance) never worked with the girls though ... Romans is my middle name.

 

rom or Rom works fine.

[thormas]

"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!

[romansh]

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.

 

Simply and it is simple ... yes

 

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.

 

Other than man and "her" environment are "one" ... I come and go from the environment. The eddy is continually sucking in carbohydrates, proteins and excreting stuff degraded in terms of "useful" energy. Am I more ... is a an eddy more than the water that is comprised off? It is a pattern of energy continually changing and eventually it will be subsumed by the environment. As I will be. Is this what you mean by more? Individuals will come and go and eventually not come ... at least not as we experience them.

 

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.

There are things my mum knew that I will never know. But we do have the accumulated learnings of mankind. But this is just another pattern made up of other patterns. Like Carl Sagan said ... we are a way for the cosmos to know itself. We are of the cosmos. At least I am ... you and Burl will no doubt decide for yourselves. The universe is winding down. Our Sun is, at least temporarily, allowing us the illusion that it is not ... at least here on Earth.

 

Tariki might approve ...

The metaphor of Indra's net

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net

Edited December 28, 2016 by romansh

[Burl]

I suggest you go reread my posts Burl ... that way you may have some idea what I am driving at.

 

As far as I can tell .. I have not argued on way or the other about uniqueness; I have not used the word unique ... other than quoting someone else. But to address your point ... I think we can be seen as unique patterns/(eddies)

 

We can be treated as individuals ... but you continue to avoid my central point ... as individuals we are not independent of the environment. there is not one piece of me that is not a function of cause and effect. (Joseph sees it slightly differently). Now if you can point to something in your sentience that is not a response to cause and effect now is the time to speak up.

Awareness of the environment is the definition of sentience.

 

We are not patterns or eddies. Life is not an illusion. We are entirely seperate puddles and ponds, rivers and streams. Everyone is a unique individual.

[thormas]

"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:}

Edited December 29, 2016 by thormas

[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.

Edited December 29, 2016 by thormas

[soma]

The finite universe is in the consciousness of the infinite a subtle energy called pure consciousness or what we Christians would call God which is the essence of life and eternal being. The finite consciousness cannot merge with the eternal consciousness without unconsciousness because the conscious mind needs to lose its finite awareness and see the bigger picture. We can say the finite awareness with its beginning and end is temporary; therefore, some will call it an illusion similar to a dream that we wake up from. There is no finite life without death, it is a fundamental fact of finite life, but that death is just a change in point of view, it is like turning off the light because the sun is rising. We die from finite life, the illusion that is temporary, put to death in the infinite and wake up to the eternal reality that is permanent. Our soul is infinite and will not die a reality of subtle energy beyond the mind, but our expression of it in the material world is finite, which is temporary; therefore, we should not be afraid to die, but afraid of not expressing our self when we are living.

[Burl]

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 called to be united in the sense of an increased presence. We never become one with God anymore than a fish becomes one with the ocean. The word for that is oblivion, or hell in Christian terms. The individual no longer exists on any level.

 

We are co-creators but without the Creator we can create nothing. All we naturally have is a formless and undifferentiated sense of the divine per Aquinas. All this talk of eddies and oneness is simply a self-generated series of reflections in the mental echo chamber that creates loopy, useless thought leading to nothing driven by this natural drive to seek and know God.