The Winding Path – 164

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

2015-08-14 07:40

Write4U – “Infinite potential is a property of the universe and hierarchically exist as the Implicate order before it is expressed (Explicated) in reality.

Finally somebody zeros in on the essential elemental; Infinitude.

There has been such a clutter of confusion about ideas of God misconstrued as God.

God’s image being the undefined potential resulting from unbounded no-thing.

The point of religion being to draw us up close to that. To focus our attention. Regain the image.

The Word is the first THING. Endless iterations later, here we are.

Yet the infinitude of the foundation permeates entirely.

2015-08-11 09:21

Write4U – “I am always amazed at the philosophical approaches to enlightenment through meditation.

Theism tells you to fill your mind with God in order to ‘connect’ and experience enlightenment.
Deism tells you to empty your mind completely in order to ‘connect’ and experience enlightenment.

IMO, as a meditation discipline, Deism is preferable as it seeks to ‘clear the mind’ of all subjective notions in order to allow for objective thought, whereas Theism seeks to replace all objectivite thought by ‘filling the mind’ with subjective notions.

At least one must be the wrong approach.

I like your analysis of these seemingly antithetical exercises, though the presumption that, “At least one must be the wrong approach”, doesn’t seem obvious to me. Considering the inscrutable nature of that which is under scrutiny.

Utter fullness not being different than utter emptiness, when it comes to infinitude. Or am I wrong?

2015-08-12 08:14

Write4U – “I would not presume to say you are wrong, but to compare subjective human thought process with an objective infinitude is a false equivalence, IMO.

We are not even sure of what we observe without the aid of mathematics. Optical illusions is but one example of the limitations of the human brain (mind).

But, the Infinitude we are referring to includes the subjective viewpoint. Subjective and Objective are not in play. (per the meditative exercise or whatever)

Generally this is where the conversation spins-out, degrading into projections and accusations. I have grown reluctant to do much more of that. The statement of yours above, that I initially responded to, encouraged me to try again. (younger versions of ourselves ran through this a year or two ago).

The exercise is good for me, but only as it moves forward into fuller comprehension.

Your statement:

Write4U – “Infinite potential is a property of the universe and hierarchically exist as the Implicate order before it is expressed (Explicated) in reality.

Is just inches from the understanding that I look for. I’m only encouraging you to put more emphasis on “infinitude”. As I understand your use of language, one could say that absolute infinitude stands in relation to infinite potential as infinite potential stands in relation to reality.

To me this is common sense, and if I lack the discipline of your training, perhaps you could apply some of it to the above scenario. Unless of course you already have, in which case I could use some explanation as to why it doesn’t change the conversation.

As for our dependence on mathematics for confirmation of our observations, I would think that that form of confirmation is an arbitrary and overly narrow restriction. It unnaturally limits our potential as human beings and I don’t understand, for lack of a better term, the psychology of trying to limit experience in that way.

2015-08-14 08:31

MikeYohe – “This is the main point. Religion has been around for a long time. But religion does not need a god. And it does not need a hell. Religion is about after life.

Unless, like me you find it to be about enlightenment. The intuition of the inherently eternal foundation of existence.

You are right, it does not need a god, or hell. These things arise along with ourselves in the confusion of seeming otherness.

Our situation, this experience of existence, has the potential to teach us by what it is not; undivided and entire.

A conscious co-operation with this process is the essence of religion.

It does not require “death”. Death not being real once the confusion of identity is removed.

2015-08-11 09:01

MikeYohe – “On my timeline of religion. If I was to put the start of the “infinitude” of god in religion. I would have a range of 600 BC to 200 Ad, is that correct?

I don’t know about that kind of thing. But, I figure it has always been the foundation for any adept, shaman, mystic, rishi or saint.

References to immortality, eternality, beginning-less-ness, end-less-ness, oneness, singularity or omni anything, satisfy me as pointers to infinitude.

The Vedic and Sanskrit literature for instance, rests on an ocean of oral tradition, evolved over millennia, steadily clarifying the undivided and timeless nature of Brahman.

2015-08-11 12:19

MikeYohe – “Yeah, the reason I stated that, the older religions show no proven signs of having a god. But they did have a heaven. And it is still that way in some religions today that we don’t know how far back in history those religions go.

Ah! I possibly get your point. I’ll try to remember this in future replies.

I think the emphasis on God or on heaven may be a matter of personal inclination, or an indication of ones stage of development.

If there is a sense of otherness remaining, I find it is reasonable to think in terms of God and creation. Otherwise I can imagine it becoming a mere formality.

2015-08-12 11:30

Lausten quoting me – “
//God’s image being the undefined potential resulting from unbounded no-thing.//

I really should have stopped there. When they start splitting up words to make a nothing a thing, you know it’s bad.

//The point of religion being to draw us up close to that. To focus our attention. Regain the image.//

Regain the no-thing? Focus on nothing? Draw us into a conversation where you didn’t define the important terms?

//The Word is the first THING. Endless iterations later, here we are.//

And now you know what the thing is? Not bad, just two sentences away from saying it’s not defined.

Can you describe any more precisely what it is that is “bad” for you?

“unbounded no-thing”, preceding language, as it were,

it would not ultimately be through language that it is known.

That is pretty obvious. Though some would have difficulty even considering it.

It’s not unlike deciding at what point an acorn becomes a tree.

One could just as well say it never does.


Alms and Patronage

This entry was posted in logs. Bookmark the permalink.