A Powerful Lesson

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I really enjoyed this response to JASG. Pantheism goes perfectly together with Panpsychism (of quantum physics?), which Is the belief that the singularity, universe, god etc Is Conscious of Itself. Which means there must be duality for the singularity, universe, god to be conscious of itself.

Hi Mike

Thanks. Yes, Panpsychism is the belief that there is only one ultimate reality and that consciousness is an essential, ubiquitous and inseparable quality of this reality. I see no reason why that wouldn’t fit with Pantheism. In all these forms of non-dualism/monism, relative difference/duality persists - even when it is seen for what it is. But ultimately there is only One ‘essence’ underlying these apparent dualities.

Originally Posted by Moondance

But ultimately there is only One ‘essence’ underlying these apparent dualities.

I'll even relate it to the pursuit in physics of a Theory of Everything, unifying all four fundamental forces into one underlying unifying force. They've already unified electromagnetism and the nuclear weak force, and two Nobel prizes have been awarded for that work.

Some physicists, though certainly in the extreme minority, are willing to contemplate the possibility Consciousness = Unified Field. John Hagelin is probably the most recognizable and he's truly brilliant and was a research physicist at CERN and SLAC, though very 'quirky'. He ran for president under the Natural Law Party and is also associated at the highest levels with the TM movement.

I've always believed there's no inherent conflict between religion and science and in fact both purse the exact same truth. It's dogma and on both sides that stirs the pot of conflict and mutual exclusivity.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Aspersion? Perhaps you should go back through your replies.

Perhaps you should. I have expressed my opinions and criticed others (yours among them) and supported said opinions and criticisms with logical reasons. You are the one who (falsely, IMO) 'casts' that as presenting myself as an 'arbiter' of 'truth'. That is what a reference as being an 'aspersion'.

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aspersion :

Definition of aspersion -
1a : a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation casting aspersions on her integrity
b : the act of making such a charge : defamation

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The difference between us is you directly attack and demean some belief systems you seem to dislike or hold a grudge against, including their proponents. I do no such thing and in actuality one of the reasons I do like Advaita Vedanta, and particularly the Ramakrishna order, is its recognition all religious paths are valid and worthwhile and not to be disparaged. That has always resonated with me from a very young age.

I have already called into question and disagreed with your regarding and verbally charactering my challenging questions and expressions of disagreement as being an 'attack' - which is another one of your 'aspersions', IMO.

While I consider all choices by anyone in any regard (even anti-Life ones!) to ipso facto be 'valid', I do not agree with your claim that all 'religious' paths are equally 'worthwhile' - you must know of 'ignorant' and 'cultish' ones, for example (human history is replete with many 'such religious' choices) which have been grossly Life-diminishing.

That something resonated with someone (in this case you) "from a very young age" in no way provides a logical 'rationalization' for supporting or maintianing choices in said regard, IMO.

[zorkchop]

JASG . . .

davidsun actually offers valuable experience to the various individuals here in that they can directly observe hard-core narcissism / ego / vanity / etc. It is rare that someone is so totally enamored with oneself that they constantly quote their own treatises . . . and put themselves above all else.

He is a fascinating individual to watch and he is a great example of what NOT to develop into.

I would assume that you personally know a good working definition of narcissism but just in case . . . and for those who do not . . . inordinate fascination with oneself . . . excessive self-love . . . vanity . . . (psychoanalysis) erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes . . . Excessive preoccupation with or admiration of oneself. synonym: conceit . . . personality disorder characterized by self-preoccupation, need for admiration, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

It’s a phase we all go through at one time / lifetime or another . . . and it can be tweaked any number of ways and last for lifetime after lifetime.

Most people however will not realize that they are so fortified while in that state of consciousness. He is quite proud of where he is . . . and his perceived superiority over everyone else. LIFE will be the only teacher to lead him down a LONG path to correction . . . whenever that is. It won’t be pleasant. Until then . . . he will neither listen to nor consider much of anything we underlings have to say. He has clearly stated that he loves word bouquets . . . especially his own.

On we go.

Originally Posted by zorkchop

JASG . . .

davidsun actually offers valuable experience to the various individuals here in that they can directly observe hard-core narcissism / ego / vanity / etc. It is rare that someone is so totally enamored with oneself that they constantly quote their own treatises . . . and put themselves above all else.

He is a fascinating individual to watch and he is a great example of what NOT to develop into.

I would assume that you personally know a good working definition of narcissism but just in case . . . and for those who do not . . . inordinate fascination with oneself . . . excessive self-love . . . vanity . . . (psychoanalysis) erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes . . . Excessive preoccupation with or admiration of oneself. synonym: conceit . . . personality disorder characterized by self-preoccupation, need for admiration, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

It’s a phase we all go through at one time / lifetime or another . . . and it can be tweaked any number of ways and last for lifetime after lifetime.

Most people however will not realize that they are so fortified while in that state of consciousness. He is quite proud of where he is . . . and his perceived superiority over everyone else. LIFE will be the only teacher to lead him down a LONG path to correction . . . whenever that is. It won’t be pleasant. Until then . . . he will neither listen to nor consider much of anything we underlings have to say. He has clearly stated that he loves word bouquets . . . especially his own.

On we go.

I am really a simple guy. Now that's not to say I'm not intelligent but just that I don't really like to play mental gymnastics. I like to keep it as plain as possible. Sometimes I can be a little blunt but sometimes that's because I feel it's just a truth that needs to be spoken and not swept under the rug, so to speak. Sometimes it feels like if I disagree and don't express it just to avoid upsetting someone that neither honors myself or the other person. I do try to keep myself aware of that and adjust if I realize I've gone over the line.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'll even relate it to the pursuit in physics of a Theory of Everything, unifying all four fundamental forces into one underlying unifying force. They've already unified electromagnetism and the nuclear weak force, and two Nobel prizes have been awarded for that work.

Some physicists, though certainly in the extreme minority, are willing to contemplate the possibility Consciousness = Unified Field. John Hagelin is probably the most recognizable and he's truly brilliant and was a research physicist at CERN and SLAC, though very 'quirky'. He ran for president under the Natural Law Party and is also associated at the highest levels with the TM movement.

I've always believed there's no inherent conflict between religion and science and in fact both purse the exact same truth. It's dogma and on both sides that stirs the pot of conflict and mutual exclusivity.

Yes, I agree that there need not be conflict between science and spirituality - as you say, both work in the pursuance of truth. But it seems clear to me that science can only take us so far. The scientific method requires the objectivisation of phenomena and in this way can only be the study of the relative. As the science writer Jim Baggott says; ‘Reality is at heart a metaphysical concept - it is, quite simply, beyond physics and therefore beyond science.’

Originally Posted by Moondance

Yes, I agree that there need not be conflict between science and spirituality - as you say, both work in the pursuance of truth. But it seems clear to me that science can only take us so far. The scientific method requires the objectivisation of phenomena and in this way can only be the study of the relative. As the science writer Jim Baggott says; ‘Reality is at heart a metaphysical concept - it is, quite simply, beyond physics and therefore beyond science.’

Yes, I do agree. Science will never reach the bottom of reality and even spirituality, if the few odd and extremely rare individuals throughout history have, in no way can its true essence be conveyed to the rest of humanity outside of analogy, metaphor, simile and parable.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yes, I do agree. Science will never reach the bottom of reality and even spirituality, if the few odd and extremely rare individuals throughout history have, in no way can its true essence be conveyed to the rest of humanity outside of analogy, metaphor, simile and parable.

Yes. And even when we awaken to our true nature of Oneness (for want of a phrase) we are waking TO the dream (to use that metaphor) we are not waking FROM the dream. We look around, and smile and gasp at the utter familiarity of this, and say, ‘of course, it was this (THIS) all along’. But this doesn’t give us insight into the deepest enigmas of reality (despite some claims.) Awakening is purely a lucid affair.

Originally Posted by Moondance

Yes. And even when we awaken to our true nature of Oneness (for want of a phrase) we are waking TO the dream (to use that metaphor) we are not waking FROM the dream. We look around, and smile and gasp at the utter familiarity of this, and say, ‘of course, it was this (THIS) all along’. But this doesn’t give us insight into the deepest enigmas of reality (despite some claims.) Awakening is purely a lucid affair.

Yes! It's like gaining lucidity within a dream!!! That is a truly unique experience too.

Of course then there are the claims of mystics like Sadhguru. I have no clue about the veracity of his claims, but I do realize if true there's absolutely no way language could even begin to convey the experience. I think about the passage from the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna reveals his true nature to Arjuna. Poor Arjuna. LOL!

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yes! It's like gaining lucidity within a dream!!! That is a truly unique experience too.

Of course then there are the claims of mystics like Sadhguru. I have no clue about the veracity of his claims, but I do realize if true there's absolutely no way language could even begin to convey the experience. I think about the passage from the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna reveals his true nature to Arjuna. Poor Arjuna. LOL!

Yes. :) Reminds me of this wonderful poem by Hafiz.

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
Who are you?

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
What is God?

If you think that the Truth can be known
From words,
If you think that the Sun and the Ocean
Can pass through that tiny opening called the mouth,

O someone should start laughing!
Someone should start wildly laughing – Now!

Hafiz