The Winding Path – 220

To open the current disqus.com comment history from which this blog is assembled, click here. (it should load the page in a new tab)

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

2016-06-26 10:04

[Responding to a post by Julius Swerving on the Religion channel at Disqus.com: Proving “A” God Before Proving “My” God?]

The “personal God” is an individuals relationship to the process. The intention of seeking, serving, and understanding God.

Being limited by the finite, and relative nature of our experience, this will look completely different for everybody. It is also a process that continually evolves. Just like nature, because nature is the canvas upon which it appears.

The process is not the BIG PICTURE, but rather a personal song about, and with IT.

And, since there is nothing that is not THIS ONE REALITY, the song is also not different from IT.

Those NOT INCLINED to this quest, will INSTEAD orbit around the question; “Where is the proof?”.

2016-07-02 09:08

[From the commentary on a post by Shem the Penman on the Religion channel at Disqus.com: New Atheism and The War on Terror]

charlesburchfield responding to brmckay responding to valkyrie101 – “the compartmentalization imposed by strict materialism leaves his sense of self, un-integrated with the holistic reality. So there is no sharing an intuitive sense of the Whole. No weight given to the obviously seamless connectivity.”

aren’t there some advantages to doing it this way?

Interesting question.

Like ostriches probably don’t miss the full potential of having wings, and things still work out for them.

But, there are issues around suffering and death, war and peace, fear and terror that benefit from access to the complete spectrum of human potential.

Driven by the desire to ease the suffering of children, the materialist will seek cures for inherited diseases through genetic engineering.

Or, try to extend life and conquer death by tweaking DNA or cloning spare parts.

Like the ostrich, things will still seem to work out for them.

Though death was never real anyway and suffering always optional.

——-

The Winding Path – 219

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

2016-07-22 19:14

valkyrie101 – “You need to tackle the subject of defining the notion of what constitutes “existence”. By normal definition, nothing ‘exists’ before the big bang. No time and space, no matter or energy, no elements… Theorizing about such a place is fairy dust land. If you want to change the normal definition of ‘existence’ [here is one definition: ‘the fact or state of living or having objective reality.’] and expand that, then you can say that the pre-big bang Universe is just the Universe in its eternally existing dot faze if you want.^

We tend to think in terms of relativity.

Is the Big Bang something that happend in the past?

“The past”, having nothing to do with it, except from the relative point of view.

What does this mean, before and after?

“If you want to change the normal definition of ‘existence’ [here is one definition: ‘the fact or state of living or having objective reality.’] and expand that, then you can say that the pre-big bang Universe is just the Universe in its eternally existing dot faze if you want.“

Out of politeness I want to be satisfied with your framing of this, but would like to interject something about objective existence requiring a subjective witness.

Also there is the question about whether existence can be said itself to exist?

And the potential to exist?

This issue of the subjective, is very interesting and my understanding would have it that the witness co-arises with objective existence. The Sanskrit terms Purusha and Prakriti come to mind.

Singularity, as the infinite potential of “nothing”, becoming Self Aware, and from that, the complexity of infinite relationship.

The underlying nature of the foundation, permeating all aspects as the Entirety.

We might better ask, do dreams exist?

2016-07-23 08:16

valkyrie101 -“How does an atheist, who claims to only believe in material stuff, posit ‘eternal existence’ outside of space and time and matter, while regularly ripping religious folks for positing stuff like an invisible spirit world? All your argument does is take the religious view of an eternal creator, something science has zero evidence for, and say no it was not created by an eternal creator (take my word for it), it eternally self existed, another supernatural theory that science has zero evidence for. Too ironic.“

I don’t identify as an atheist. So,.. not sure how important that is to your interpretation of what I said.

Basically it boils down to whether you agree that there is a difference between the finite version of infinity found in mathematical modeling, and the infinite infinity of Singularity.

Of course, my attempts to spark an intuitive insight about this, are crude and overly dependent on a generous reading by you.

If you have been able to entertain the distinction, then it should be clear that the infinitude of Singularity is a better understanding of Eternity than the conventional one of “an unending amount of time”.

As for science’s role in confirming this, my personal opinion is that it should be obvious. Though, expanding on it with references to Self Awareness, does indeed venture onto theological ground.

That being something I have no problem with, as it represents the missing discipline required, to pick up where science runs to the end of it’s leash.

2016-07-23 17:07

valkyrie101 – “I know you are thoughtful, brm, but you are also a little cryptic (if not dry).* Yea, I frequently make the argument that being nothing is the correct state of mind.. Being ‘atheist’ as a default state of mind, is exactly like being religious. Both are god centered states of mind. A mind free of ‘God’, is free of concepts about god. Such a person is not fretting a god. He has no definition of god. He makes no blanket condemnation of ‘god’ because who denies what they have not heard? To be ‘atheist’ he relies on other folks definition. Indeed, one day he may hear one he agrees with.^“

I like this statement quite a bit. It is clear and illustrates the difference between us, as imagined by you.

There are elements expressed in it that I practice myself, but against a background of a purposeful inquiry.

The intention and integrity of the inquiry, being a work in progress, can be called contemplation of the religious sort. I don’t mind.

I know for certain that there is a Big Picture and that my life, as well as your’s, is integral to it.

2016-07-23 22:18

valkyrie101 – “Welll sure, dude, you got your amazing randy hat on, that’s cool. A good state of mind. That is why it is perplexing you would go with the theory that mimics the religious folks. Its like your killing your father and replacing him with yourself. As opposed to stepping back and being objective. I suspect we are just meeting at a chicken or egg impasse. ^ Nice chatting with you. Your last word.“

“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of all things” – Lao Tsu

Thank you for the practice, and good night.

2016-07-24 09:10

valkyrie101 – “How cool that you quoted one of my favorite passages from an ancient writing of the highest order that I love.^ However, when I put on my science hat, when I discipline my mind to be totally objective, I can not posit notions of eternity, or self creation, or self existence because science has not found any of that in existence.

Fun seeing you make a religious argument.“

You are right about chickens and eggs. And I am reminded of the Zen adage: “Before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water. After enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water.”

I play the hand I am dealt, and as long as there is a sense of other, then an awareness of the other as God is appropriate.

However, the intentional inquiry I mentioned earlier, does have its effect. It is pretty much akin to “disciplining the mind to objectivity”. But is centered around the nature of Self. “Who am I”? “Who is asking this question”? If you know Lao Tsu you probably know Ramana Maharshi, to whom I’ll give credit for my use of the technique.

But back to the “effect” of the inquiry, or of any authentic meditation, or successful dissolution of “Ego trance”.

The revelation and eventual abidance in the Prime Truth: There is “No Separation“. Self is a seamless identity clear to the foundation. Fractalized awareness. No God, because there is only God.

2016-07-24 09:32

valkyrie101 – “You are one cool and complex dude. Nice, my friend.^^^“

Your appreciation is appreciated. And I’m glad we got it over the hump.

Hope you have and excellent day.

——-

The Winding Path – 218

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

2016-06-30 14:50

God Hates Faith responding to valkyrie101 – “Fairies created a god, which created these things ; )“

valkyrie101 – “No, the atheist argues that our 14 billion year Universe created itself, for sure, because he is certain that it was not created, as a matter of religious faith.“

[responding to valkyrie101]

The atheist simply is not of a mind to give credit where credit is due.

The Universe’s self creation from infinite potential does not stir the juices of reverence and loving awe. At least in a any empathic resonance with his theist brother.

And, the compartmentalization imposed by strict materialism leaves his sense of self, un-integrated with the holistic reality. So there is no sharing an intuitive sense of the Whole. No weight given to the obviously seamless connectivity.

2016-07-01 07:16

valkyrie101 – “No, its not just not giving credit, he denies the possibility of a Creator because he considers belief in God, that is, belief that our Universe is a function, to be tantamount to studying ‘big foot’. A notion too far fetched to even properly consider. Thus, at the point of the big bang, at the point of the beginning of the Universe’s existence, the atheist exclaims, none of that was created by anything, I am sure of that to a ‘big foot’ certainty.^“

[Valkyrie101 addressing Beekeeper – “In that way, you are painting all religious people with the same brush.“]

It took me a while to find this. (You are admirably prolific.)

But, are you not doing the same thing here by focusing on the more reactionary element? The ones who obscure their own lack of comprehension with absurd comparisons.

I was only trying to paint a picture of a possible root psychology. My guess is that the majority of atheists simply do not look up from the distractions of existence, to ponder the Big Picture. At least with much regularity.

2016-07-01 09:05

valkyrie101 – “Anyone who declares himself an ‘atheist’ is merely announcing that he is religious, like a Baptist or something. Because an atheist concludes in advance that our 14 billion year Universe is certainly not a function, because he does not believe in creators, as a matter of religious faith, and considers that notion too far fetched to justify consideration of it, like being asked to weigh in on ‘big foot’ or something. By default, therefore, the atheist believes that the Universe self created. And given that scientists have found not a single thing in existence that does that, that notion requires some strong faith.“

Just so we don’t misunderstand each other, I am enjoying your presentation while experimenting with the juxtaposition of my own understanding next to it.

I consider that the Universe actually does self create constantly. It being the emergent characteristic of infinite potential. The eternal Now.

That being said, I have absolute certainty that this is worthy of the designation God.

The nature of infinitude propagating as self awareness, is both foundation and totality. You and I are not something different, or isolated in anyway. Our condition, being a transitory, and unnecessary identification with relative existence.

——-

The Winding Path – 217

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

2016-06-07 10:17

[thehumanist.com : Why Science Is Not in Conflict with Religion]

Conceiving of God as requiring “supernatural” characteristics in order to qualify as God, is a shared folly of both science and theism.

Get rid of the Gaps and nothing changes. The ultimate condition remains. Eternal and untouched by knowledge. Knowledge, being change; which is the primary characteristic of relativity.

The Entirety of relativity, and its ground state as absolute infinity, i.e. the all inclusive singularity; this is God. Existence and the potential to exist; expressing infinitely.

No supernatural. Only a deep understanding of nature required. What’s to prove or disprove? It’s a matter of where we place our attention.

——-

The Winding Path – 216

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

2016-06-03 15:50

[Responding to an imaginary last sermon that Mason Lane would have liked to deliver to his congregation before leaving the ministry because of his atheism.

This is from the Patheos.com blog for atheist clergy, Rational Doubt: The Final Sermon: The Torment of Irrational Belief.]

Mason Lane – “Everything happens for a reason.” [He is refuting this common religious sentiment.]

What constitutes a reason in your new scheme of things, that is any different than in your previous incarnation?

Most likely, still thinking in terms of a universal traffic director, you do not see that Existence is teaming with inter-connectivity. Nothing happens WITHOUT an unbroken flow of causality. Infinite in its scope. All phenomena to all phenomena.

By its very nature. Holographic. Our brains, breaking it up into storylines and songs, but still made of the whole cloth.

2016-06-04 09:30

[Responding to a different Rational Doubt essay by Jim Mulholland called: Why People Hate Evolution.]

The rote recitation of the “randomness”, “meaninglessness”, and “insignificance” of man and his world, is an equivalent form of blindness.

Of course evolution is the nature of change, but random, it is not. I’ve said recently in another post, but will risk repeating it, the chain of causality is unbroken and can only remain so.

The mistake that purveyors of “randomness” make, is in not understanding that the essence of our evolving existence, is in its absolute interconnectedness to all phenomena. Not in terms of linear time, but holographically. Not in terms of finite form, but in the common ground of shared infinitude. i.e. eternity.

Blowing up asteroids as another rational for nuclear weapons, creating chimeras from humans and pigs, or assembling variations on human DNA from scratch; these are the fruit of humans gaining more and more power to control their own destiny.

The handiwork of a meaningless, blind, and unconnected species.

——-

The Winding Path – 215

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

[In memoriam of Little Bear who disappeared lock stock and barrel.]

2016-05-09 11:58

William Grave misrepresenting Little Bear – “How is ‘self’ artificial? Cognito ergo sum…I think, therefore I am. You do not think for me, therefore the self is as real as real gets.

Also, I am not god nor are you. Proof? Easy, create something, anything, from scratch. No, no using materials on Earth, no using the electron, or the proton, or any other particle. Ah right, you can’t…you must be a weak god…“

Did Jesus’s ego go around saying “I am God”?

Rather it came out “I and the Father are One.” What is the nature of that “I” he refers to?

William Grave responding to Little Bear – “By creating your own language that no one else understands, …“

That is not true. As Little Bear has been saying, it is about the frame of reference. Understanding her frame of reference, the language makes perfect sense.

How are you doing with that? Understanding God as All, vs. God and Creation as different things.

William Grave – “I’ll wager that you don’t understand what little bear is saying, but so long as she uses ‘nice’ words, you will nod your head in approval…

Language is responsible for human progress…if the plebians refuse to speak correctly, fine, but the elites will just revert to Latin, keeping all of technology and knowledge out of the hands of the public.

As for understanding our place in the universe, why we are here, where we are going…yea, I have a fantastic grasp of it based upon historical, scientific, and personal evidence.“

I haven’t said I always track what gets said, there is much experimentation and unfamiliar conceptual patterns. However, I recognize and respect the authority that her experience brings. There are many times when she represents the Truth of One Self perfectly to my ears. It is the genius of that Truth that guides me in my own life.

William Grave – “Have you read it in Greek or in Aramaic? Before you start trying to pin new meanings to old phrases, you should be sure that you are standing on firm ground.”

My point is not new, just new to you. Why not wrestle with it for at least a minute. Then explain it back to me so I can tell if I’ve communicated something of my viewpoint.

After that, we can argue its merits or lack thereof.

I’ll provide a hint and say that my understanding is that Jesus was pointing to the primordial “I am”, and KNEW that his true self was not different than that. This would be the meaning of “made in God’s image”.

2016-05-11 11:13

Your reality is fine. But it is yours. Nothing about my understanding of “God as All” has anything to do your different orientation.

I simply understand something about God that works best for me. It is a lifetime’s devotion that brought me to it.

If the statement “There is only God”, does not work for you, then don’t go there. But, your lack of attendance does not make it un-True.

2016-05-11 11:20

William Grave – “When you base your entire life off a notion that is unprovable and has no logical basis, it leaves the arena of ‘you do as you wish and I will do as I wish’. Why? Because we breathe the same air and we share the same planet. If you want to believe that you are ‘god’, you will have to put up with people like me constantly telling you otherwise.“

You still have not clarified if you are an atheist or a theist of some sort.

As for logic, there is absolutely nothing illogical about attributing the Entirety of existence and the potential to exist to God. Sorry, but the causeless cause is infinity. No way you can refute that.

William Grave – ” ‘Sorry, but the causeless cause is infinity. No way you can refute that.‘ Sure I can…you believe that by throwing around the word infinity that you have proven something, but you have not. Anyone who has taken a few undergraduate math courses is perhaps more versed in infinity than you are.

I would go into a scientific rant about how the universe came to be and how it does not logically follow that, if a god existed, that it would be a part of this universe…indeed, the opposite is what logically follows. Sentience is not mystical nor is anything else in our universe. You use superstitious speech when it is not required to explain the universe in which we live.

You have been seduced by a strange ideology that discards logic and reason…“

We are running out of time for this charade.

The infinity of singularity is the absolute, your mathematical infinities are the relative versions. There is much to understand from this. But I can’t do it for you. It is what you have been avoiding.

2016-05-13 07:24

William Grave – “I am clearly not avoiding anything, and it is clear that you are avoiding reality. You are pulling words out of thin air and stringing them together…

How much have you studied about the universe? You do understand that the universe is mathematical, right?“

Thanks for the chuckles.

Math doesn’t work without zero and and one.

Zero and one doesn’t work without the infinity of singularity.

2016-05-13 11:38

William Grave – ” ‘infinity of singularity‘ please define this term and give credible sources on the mountains of research that must surely be associated with that term, considering you continuously harp on it.

Common sense and honest intent are my credible sources.

The Entirety of existence and potential to exist. This is the primal Singularity. There is nothing other than it. No boundaries.

It is absolute infinitude.

Śūnyatā, neither empty or full. Nothing, because there is nothing to compare to.

Everything, because nothing is missing.

The Tao.

Are you not clear on the relativity of the mathematical infinities? This is the absolute condition that sustains them.

But why worry yourself over this? It is easy enough to ignore. And most people do.

2016-05-14 09:00

William Grave – “Easy to ignore? Yea, just like ignoring Santa Claus is pretty easy too. You are just cherry-picking every feel-good bit of nonsense that you can. Try science someday, it will change your life.“

Ah, finally some evidence.

As for science, no problem there, it is a subset of the whole.

You are a strange bird William Grave.

Fare thee well.
——-

The Winding Path – 214

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

[I’m resuming after a hiatus from editing and re-posting here. Much was said but it got left where it was.]

2016-03-01 14:10

[I’ve quoted the last paragraph but my comment was addressed to the entire comment in general. It is well worth reading. Epiphileon’s comment history is also well worth reviewing. He is quite sincere and balanced.]

Epiphileon – “There is another criticism I have heard. Naturalists, which is what those who hold to the notions I’ve described are sometimes called, have robbed themselves of wonder. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have been on many other sides of this issue, and I can assure you I have experienced more profound levels of wonder than I ever did as any kind of super-naturalist.“

The coherence of nature is first and foremost the result of origination via the perfection of infinitude.

Be sure to give credit where credit is due.

2016-03-02 09:27

Epiphileon – “Sorry but I have no idea what that means.“

[From Epiphileon’s original comment]
“How is this system doing what it is? (at one level, being conscious)

How did this system come to be configured in this manner?”

I’m not arguing with your understanding that these questions can be answered without going outside of nature.

There is nothing supernatural to be accounted for.

But…unless the underlying infinity is recognized, first and foremost, we just weave more webs of entanglement. Postponing enlightenment.

Simplicity before and within Complexity.

Infinite potential is absolutely perfect. This quality cascades throughout all expression of that potential as Existence/Experience.

Acknowledging this, we understand our relationship to it.

2016-03-03 11:40

Epiphileon – “Sorry Brmckay but I am still not getting what you are saying.
I get that you are not arguing against naturalism, even that you apparently accept it, but that is all I understood from your reply.

I would like to understand you position. I do not know what you mean by ‘underlying infinity’, something without beginning nor end I assume. So are you speaking of something outside of this universe, or something that this universe exists within, and is somehow sensible to us?

What do you mean by webs of entanglement, and how is it that we weave these?

I understand potential to be possibility, not to be an actual thing, as you seem to indicate. If that is so, what is it.

So expression of that potential, which I am temporarily assuming is some sort of uber-force, which creates existence which coexists with experience, and that perfection (really reaching here), proceeds from the infinitude, through all of the natural world, at successive levels from simplicity to complexity, with each level causing the next, and perhaps reflecting the original perfection, perhaps to varying degrees?

I am genuinely curious what you position is, not sure those questions help much, but I’m pretty sure they reflect the state of ignorance in my mind of what you are saying.“

Thanks for the questions. (a rare thing really)

What I’m trying to point out is represented in the literature of the classical monist schools. Vedanta, Zen, Tao, Yoga etc. Just in case you have familiarity there, and got thrown off by my improvisations.

“I do not know what you mean by ‘underlying infinity’, something without beginning nor end I assume.“

There are the infinite sets we find in mathematics. These are the relative infinities. They have the quality of endlessness and possibly beginninglessness, but are unique and distinct from other infinite sets.

This represents the world of forces, phenomena, things, relationship, Change, This and That, I and Thou, Duality.

There is also the absolute infinitude of the Entirety. Or as I sometimes prefer, the Singularity. Everything and nothing. One without another.

This represents the un-carved block, the Source. Undifferentiated and Whole.

It is the absolute potential of nothing. Because there is no distinction between parts. This is the common ground. Everything; every phenomena, every thought and feeling is an emergent characteristic of this absolute infinity.

Just as the phenomena of “Space/Time” is an emergent characteristic of the dimensionless, eternal “Now”.

“So are you speaking of something outside of this universe, or something that this universe exists within, and is somehow sensible to us?“

Inside and Outside are terms from the relative viewpoint. In the more fundamental Truth of the absolute viewpoint, there is no distinction. The integrity is seamless. The parts are not different from the whole.

“What do you mean by webs of entanglement, and how is it that we weave these?“

Loosing sight of the bigger picture. Trapped in anthropomorphic and ultimately egocentric world view. The sense of ownership and realness of a separate self.

From that constricted viewpoint, we slice and dice, and mix and match, without the conscious benefit of the uninterrupted integrity.

“I understand potential to be possibility, not to be an actual thing, as you seem to indicate. If that is so, what is it.“

“Potential” is not a “thing” among other “things”, it is the source, and the foundation, and the thing itself.

Potential is the utter unlimitedness of infinity.

“So expression of that potential, which I am temporarily assuming is some sort of uber-force, which creates existence which coexists with experience, and that perfection (really reaching here), proceeds from the infinitude, through all of the natural world, at successive levels from simplicity to complexity, with each level causing the next, and perhaps reflecting the original perfection, perhaps to varying degrees?“

I’m hoping that the flatlandian aspects of this part of your comment are now apparent.

Language reaches its limit when trying to describe the unlimited.

Existence and Experience arise simultaneously. The complementarity of this pair is demonstrated in all relative phenomena.

Complementarity is the perfection of the undivided and ever-present Source, expressing as relationship.

2016-03-04 14:49

Epiphileon – “Wow, thank you so much, this is a view I was entirely unfamiliar with.
It almost seems like a mysticism without supernaturalism. That is just my immediate impression though. I need to spend more time digesting it though. I know I will have more questions.“

Thank you. I am glad for this meeting and have read through a lot of your comment history.

I really like the integrity and balance to be found there. Others might benefit from doing so as well.

——-

The Winding Path – 213

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

[From Disqus Blog: Discussion on Faith & Religion: Karmic Debt: Lynn Cunningham.]

2016-01-19 13:54

[Responding to blog post in general.]

The Sanskrit term karma means “work”, or “action”.

I like to think of it in terms of inertia.

The cartoon version makes it about “good” and “bad”, but really it is no different that the universal law of “cause and effect” applied to subjective experience.

It makes no sense to even consider it without also looking at the effect of “ahamkara” the “I maker” or Ego.

The personal and therefore relative sense of self that blinds the “individual” to its True nature. The absolute and therefore Singlular Self that is God. The undivided.

This confusion of identity results in the maze of relationships and opposites. This is “maya”. The illusion of “self and other”. The deeper into that maze, the more karma defines “reality”. Christians should equate this to “sin” or “The fall from Grace”.

Redemption from this situation is “moksha”, or liberation from the the entanglements of karma. It is the realization of, and subsequent actualization in ones experience, that God and I are One. Christians should equate this to “The Father and I are One”.

It’s not rocket science but does require attention to, and appreciation of the process.

Reincarnation, which is often associated with this understanding, is the acknowledgement that once a body, in this case the field of personal effect, is set in motion it tends to stay in motion. The mature understanding is that all experience is perfectly complementary to existence. If intention is on enlightenment then that is the fruition of the “work”.

Birth and Death is no more representative of ETERNITY than Birth, Death and Rebirth.

2016-01-21 15:32

Lynne Cunningham – “What about when, even though reluctantly, one does a deed that benefits someone else at one’s own expense, but one’s underlying intent was to ‘practice’ the principle of unselfishness? There are Bible scriptures alluding to this, (i.e., the parable of the widow’s mite, and others)…yet, isn’t there attachment/desire present even when attempting to raise one’s level of consciousness?“

This world that we live in is best seen as an opportunity to practice.

Since “Awakening” cannot be mistaken for any”thing” else, what does it matter to what degree “we” are falling short.

By Grace we learn to recognize “gaining ideas”. The karma of that is instant and subtle.

If God is all, who bestows Grace? Who receives it?

2016-01-22 12:45

Lynne Cunningham – “That’s an interesting question! It might take awhile to formulate an answer.But meanwhile…why are there the artificial separations? Why are there many people? Why are there people at all? (though this might be going outside the scope of the original discussion) Still, one question brings on another. Why even ask questions when they, and the answers to them, would be in a way irrelevant?“

Primordial infinitude of nothing, is infinite potential.

The emergent characteristic of infinite potential is Existence/Experience.

It’s own nature compounding upon itself.

In other words God, experiencing nature as limitation.

2016-01-19 14:08

Natalie D. – “Karma is Hindu, not Christian.“

Karma is a fundamental quality underlying Creation.

Hinduism and Christianity are religions.

2016-01-21 15:49

Lynne Cunningham responding to the above – “That’s just why it’s easy to incorporate religions other than Christianity into one’s personal philosophy.“

If we are interested in knowing God, then that is what will happen.

Attachment to a particular religion or philosophy will eventually give way to “enlightenment”. All distinction of this and that, good and bad, no longer needed.

2016-01-19 16:40

Natalie D. – “Christians don’t believe in karma, and definitely not in this world. We believe in grace.“

For me Grace is the perfect complementary matching of my actions and intentions to outcomes.

When it comes down to it, everything that happens is custom made for each of us. We are guided constantly.

It is the nature of the great Truth that God is All.

2016-01-21 16:45

Lynne Cunningham responding to the above. – “My heart leaps with happiness to contemplate those things you’ve mentioned…but is ‘happiness’ a step in the right direction, or is it just one more face of ‘desire’? (I’m very attached to happiness! lol)“

I’m happy that you are happy. But am well aware that tomorrow I may be sad.

That is the name of the game here, but the perfect complementarity of the pair is a clue.

2016-01-22 11:01

Lynne Cunningham – “The fact that sadness inevitably comes isn’t a daunting prospect, and actually brings happiness into sharper relief…one puzzling issue, though, in regards to the Christian idea of heaven is that people will ‘always be happy.’ How happy, or in what sense? I would imagine that the happiness then would be based in having only good people around and in not ever going through the wrenching experience of losing loved ones, and in not getting sick ever again. The thing is, we don’t KNOW. It’s all just speculation. That’s frustrating.“

The Christian theology is dualistic and therefore can not come up with a different conception than you described.

I prefer a non-dualist or monist theology whenever I can find it,

God is not outside of creation. Therefore the absolute and the relative are interdependent.

This requires an ability to be comfortable “not knowing”. To accept fundamental paradox.

As for happiness and sadness; In the relative state of Creation, each is dependent on the other.

But in the absolute state as Creator, there is no division. No other.

For instance in the Hindu theology, or at least in schools like advaita-vedanta, the subjective experience of the nature of God is referred to as SatChidAnanda (Being, Consciousness, Bliss).

It is Ananda or Bliss which gets parsed into Happiness and Pain when filtered through the prism of relativity.

2016-01-22 15:31

Lynne Cunningham – “But wouldn’t it be boring to simply ‘be’ eternally, if awareness remains an element? To my mind, boredom = hell. (This demonstrates my present inability to extricate from dualistic mentality…can there actually be those for whom it’s possible?) Shades of Sisyphus!! lol“

There is no should-or-shouldn’t attached to this. It is just what is possible.

The connection to the source being seamless. Ever present.

Part of the problem envisioning that, is the baggage of time. Which is a product of body and mind.

Eternity is a dimensionless and timeless state. As in just NOW.

It’s not an endlessly long time. That would indeed be difficult to fill with projects, and come up with rent for.

This is all beside the point anyway. Can’t think our way to heaven. It’s not a product of Mind.

2016-01-22 11:22

Lynne Cunningham – “We never know from what quarter the next round of unhappiness will come, and so can live happily (or at any rate, peacefully) in a sense of ‘suspended animation’ until it does.“

The Yogis would guide us to a mastery of a non-reactive acceptance of “what is”.

Neither for or against. A non-grasping mind. Not This – Not This. etc.

But that requires an intuition of “enlightenment”. A readiness for “seeing” beyond the world of attraction and aversion. The love of the NOW.

2016-01-22 12:57

Lynne Cunningham – “Isn’t ‘love’ one big all-encompassing attraction zone? Would achieving enlightenment make irrelevant love as it’s commonly known? (That prospect seems un-desirable!)“

How is love commonly known? Is it the turmoil finding and loosing it that we are attached to? Or, loving some and not loving others?

If it is a steady state, imperishable and constant, then I’d say that that is “enlightenment”.

Lynne Cunningham – “Perhaps we all find ourselves somewhere on the continuum… hopefully the tumultuous ‘drama’ version is outgrown as soon as hormones stabilize, at which time mature adults have the opportunity to experience love in ever-widening rings and formats. Altruistic love in particular has always intrigued me, the fact that people can and often do step far beyond their comfort zone for those they have never met. This, I would say, comes closest to my understanding of what would be a primary element of enlightenment.“

2016-01-22 21:24

Lynne Cunningham – “We’re so programmed into reactive mode that it would surely require a great deal of practice to achieve an acceptance mentality…one hindrance would be those who interpret non-reactivity as weakness, and would prey upon it; survival pokes its nose above-ground! Dealing with one’s internal state of affairs seems challenge enough, but are there auxiliary techniques for dealing with external forces?“

I only know from my own life. Not sure what your’s would be like.

This is just something one does with ones days. Like practicing music. There are stages. All happening at once sometimes.

An appreciation of synchronicity and significance. The feedback from events. The challenge of being honest. The challenge of catching yourself interpreting from a bias.

Road rage. And the layers of ego that arise as you try to distance yourself from it. Authentic mindfulness practice. …. eventually.

This is enough for now. Thanks again.

2016-01-19 15:37

Brian Le Blanc – “Christians are told that they have dominion over the land and the animals within it. Animals were put on this earth specifically for whatever we might need them for.“

Never heard this before!!

In pre-Christian terms, aren’t you you talking about before the the big boondoggle? Surely that was a game changer. These days it’s just the prevailing attitude.

In Ecosystem terms, where we all live, we are food for each other.

The ideal of compassion and respect, would be due out of Love for fellow life forms. For all Creation. God’s proxy in this sometimes beautiful exile.

2016-01-22 10:42

Brian Le Blanc – “This is in your bible, Genesis 1:26-29 to be exact. Not to mention that prevailing theme that everything that we see and discover is ultimately created with our specific species in mind.“

That was somebody in antiquity using their intuition to describe how things work. Having become aware as a human being.

My more contemporary take on this, i.e. “in God’s image”, means our sense of awareness is rooted in the Infinitude of God.

The “I am”.

Since that Infinitude is undivided. Our self awareness is God’s.

Any dominion over creation ought to flow from that understanding and be therefore harmless.

But, there is a glitch. You may have noticed this.

2016-01-23 10:13

Brian Le Blanc – “I actually agree with your view on the bible. It is the product of ignorant farmers with no clue about how the universe works.“

And we now know how the universe works?

“I do find it strange how you can still consider this book reliable in any way.“

Not sure what “reliable” means but since I see God as All. I was able to find inspiration there. The red letter editions were helpful. A background in Yoga and other monist schools, even more so.

It is not that difficult to filter out the misleading interpretations that one encounters. They are quite predictable.

“I do find it strange how you can still consider this book reliable in any way.“

Reliable for what? I don’t need it to be anything. It is a powerful tale, and metaphor, but daily life is no less potent.

The value that a monist puts on equanimity comes in handy. It helps us to not add anything extra.

As for:

“If you accept that thousands of other God’s have been created from uneducated opinions of ancient civilizations, why is this one any different for you?“

There is evolution at work here. When Jesus says that “I and the Father are One” he’s bringing those bronze and iron age farmers and fisher folk closer to the REAL. It misses the point to make him a deity. That is just backsliding.

But why linger over any this? What’s next?

——-

The Winding Path – 212

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

2016-01-24 17:33

[Responding to Almostcertain2 who was responding to Little Bear. The disqus channel – Discussion on God, Spirituality and Religion – “God Explained”.]

Where does Time happen?

Depending on that answer, what about Mass? … Gravity? … Light?

2016-01-25 09:09

[Responding to Almostcertain2]

If a seed falls on rocky ground. Is it the seeds fault?

2016-01-25 09:58

Kevin Osborne – “…understanding requires context …“

“As to now there is only now IMO. “

And NOW is the mother of all context. Though we wander far and wide.

Thanks.

2016-01-25 10:45

Try and reason here. – “Since we make things with purpose, I believe in some one who made everything around with purpose as well. It is consistent as with what is observable.“

Little Bear – “Truth is experienced. That’s how you recognize untruth – which is the state we all currently occupy (as long as we perceive ourselves as separate).“

[Responding to Try and reason here.]

The difference I observe here, is the difference between riding on the surface of the sea, and diving to its depth.

——-

The Winding Path – 211

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

2015-12-26 14:13

Psychedelics – “Not recognized by the Nicean councils..there were two“

Little Bear – “Not all recognize Truth. Some only recognize the authority of Nicean councils.“

Psychedelics – “Everyone has their own truths .. meditation and prayer will lead us.“

Everyone has their own working hypotheses. Until, in the eternity of One, all approximations dissolve.

Any distinctions of this-and-that, of me-and-other, means that the fool still reigns.

2015-12-27 09:10

MADNESS – “There is only one truth. The rest are merely smoke and mirrors“

Where is the one True truth? Where is it not?

2015-12-27 10:14

Faith Reasoner responding to Dr. Stephen Falken – “Only fools treat science and religion as enemies. Science simply shows the way God rules the universe at present. Religion teaches us how to value things, how to value people, how to be morally constructive, how to be in moral harmony with our creator.“

B Mc responding to Faith Reasoner – “ ‘Only fools treat science and religion as enemies’….. They are Enemies if those In Religion Insist on Magic Tricks and as an Explanation for the Universes Mysteries….“

We are all fools, each in our own way. Imposing science on religious myth being no exception.

Inappropriate rule mongering by any other name smells as rank.

2015-12-27 10:35

Jero Jones responding to Faith Reasoner – “You do not need to be Christian or religious to be morally correct, or to be a good person, people have been good without god since time immemorial. Science shows those with knowledge the utter futility of superstitious deities, and the immorality, and deception within religion.“

What is “time”? What is “good”? What are “people”?

A knowledgeable understanding of God, shows the utter futility of the premise “without god”. Though, “without an idea of God”, might have been a plausible substitute.

Religion is optional yes, but your generalizations point more to a collection of biases, hardly discernible from “superstition”.

2015-12-28 08:19

Jero Jones – “I am not concerned with your semantics, my point was to show that man (or woman) do not need a god/deity/supernatural being or anything else to be good. A belief in a divine being that makes you “good and morally” superior over others, is a religious fallacy.“

It was clear what you were saying. It was also clear that you are talking about cartoon versions of God, religion and probably science.

Cultivation of “good” comes by raising the level of play. Just tipping over the board proves what?

You summarized by saying:

“A belief in a divine being that makes you “good and morally” superior over others, is a religious fallacy.”

The better arguments I’ve been seeing here, stress that belief in God provides motivation and guidance. Life is lived with the purpose of cultivating a goodness that goes beyond mere perpetuation of DNA.

Your ears seem deaf to this nuance.

2015-12-27 10:53

Pleasenoreligion responding to Jero Jones – “I agree. Treating those in your community with kindness or empathy is in line with an animal /scientific instinct to survive in your community or clan or however you want to put it. People in a community that are theives, murderers and wife stealers would quic[k]ly become outcast and kicked out of the group, where the perpetrator would find it difficult to survive on their own. It’s the same thing that gives teenagers the immense drive to not be the outcast.
Alot of mammals that live in social groups display what we might see as altruistic behavior when all it is, is survival.“

Avoiding religious terminology minimizes the risk of standing out in certain circles.

But what, or who “survives”?

Same questions arise and get ignored in different ways.

2015-12-28 13:18

Pleasenoreligion – “Who or what survives? I thought I made a clear, concise statement but I will try to help you understand in an even simpler way. Any living creature that survives by following social rules: wolves, monkeys, meerkats…and the most intelligent mammal – humans. Religion’s rules that require one to be altruistic is just a set of rules to ensure your survival and possible flourishing of your life. That’s all religion is about and the christian 10 commandments. (and please don’t get it in your head that I’m of another religion – attacking christianity as all religions have the same basic rules). Someone who doesn’t follow the basic ‘rules’ will become an outcast in society, and for one to flouish in life, they need connections, networking if you will, and people who give themselves a bad rep will be shunned to the outer edge of society. For example, who’s going to lend their name to a theif to get that person a good job. Or if that theif is down on his luck, would someone shelter the theif? No.
The main reason for the basic rules of any religion is to ensure one’s survival and flourishing.
It’s the same with social animals. If a female meerkat is promiscuous and breeds, it is kicked out of the clan and forced to raise the pups on their own, which isn’t a promising situation because meerkat pups need babysitting while the parent is off finding food. Only the dominant female is allowed to breed.

I hope I have cleared up any confusion for you.“

“Religion’s rules that require one to be altruistic is just a set of rules to ensure your survival and possible flourishing of your life. That’s all religion is about … ”

Yea, if exclusively looking through a microscope could actually provide a realistic perspective.

A few more laps around the block and the question of un-caused causation arises. The Real becomes interesting. Then the question; How to clear away the litter of theories and dogma once their job is done?

The beacon of Experience. The nature of Existence. Who are We?

——-