JLNobody wrote:Finn d'Abuzz, it seems to me that given the presumed absolute power of God, if the creationists and ID'ers are correct God is the SupremeUnderAchiever.
I agree with you that our principal goal in life should be the advancement of consciousness/mind. And this includes the realization of our oneness with the Godhead. But I must add that we don't have to "return" to the Godhead; we are already there, but we must--perhaps this is what you meant--realize it. This is what I call the really Good News.
Yes, if "realization" means re-entry, re-absorbtion, repatriation. I perceive that I am a manifestation of the Godhead, the artwork formed from the piece of modelling clay plucked from his substance. This does not constitute realization. This perception does not reunite the medium with it's source: the artist. The art must "return" to the artist to make the cycle of creation complete.
FdA, by "realization" I do not refer to any kind of teleological effort such as such as suggested by your terms "re-entry", "re-absorption, or "repatriation." I refer, instead, to a passive perception of one's inherent unity with the Godhead. During "enlightment" nothing moves about or changes except one's perspective. I need not return to what I have never left--and can never leave.
Our views are very close except for this one difference. In Buddhist terms Samsara (the condition of separatness) and Nirvana (the condition of unity) are not distinct. Samsara equals Nirvana. The trick, if there is one, to "realize" their unity, and therefore liberating oneself from the delusion that drives us to merge them.
Our view of the Cosmos is severly limited (I guess it MUST be limited) to HUMAN (and culturally constituted human) notions like BEFORE, AFTER, INFINITE, UNIVERSE, etc. I would even add "truth" in my more cynical moments. We need most of these ideas to pursue our cosmological questions, but I do believe that the very nature--the possible spectrum--of questions we can ask is relative to our nature, not to some presumed absolute conditions of objective Reality.
Because of their nature, radically different ("intelligent") creatures in distant galaxies would ask radically different kinds of "questions"--assuming that they ask questions.
JLNobody wrote:FdA, by "realization" I do not refer to any kind of teleological effort such as such as suggested by your terms "re-entry", "re-absorption, or "repatriation." I refer, instead, to a passive perception of one's inherent unity with the Godhead. During "enlightment" nothing moves about or changes except one's perspective. I need not return to what I have never left--and can never leave.
Our views are very close except for this one difference. In Buddhist terms Samsara (the condition of separatness) and Nirvana (the condition of unity) are not distinct. Samsara equals Nirvana. The trick, if there is one, to "realize" their unity, and therefore liberating oneself from the delusion that drives us to merge them.
From another thread:
I'm afraid I cannot accept a plan of creation that requires sentient beings to strictly abandon their sentience. I can accept a paradox that incorporates in, equal measure, both the self and the all, but I believe it is something of a dodge to insist that enlightenment requires abandonment of the self-awareness that drives us to seek enlightenment.
The moment of enlightenment may very well be the moment that the self is absorbed by the whole, but, if it is, it is a moment achieved, not slipped into. There must be a transition point where the self recognizes the value of surrender.
FdA, I certainly do not want you to abandon a perspective that works for you, but I would like for us to at least understand our respective perspectives. First of all, my position is one of a more complete immersion in my sentience, not a passive anesthesia. I accept the EXPERIENCE but not the reality of the self; it is a perceptual and conceptual delusion, like a mirage. A mirage is a real mirage but not a source of water.
Any effort to achievement enlightenment is a false start, one that actually reinforces the delusion of the reality of selfness. The process is far more subtle**. After much "effort" one sometimes comes to realize the falseness of his start, and gives up or lets go because he sees the unity that has always existed between the Self (not ego-self)* and the ALL (a term I cannot wholly embrace). This realization may be phrased, as you do, as "absorption" except that it suggests the reality of a separate being that has become one with the All through a willful act of surrender. Surrender must imply the giving up of all striving, of all effort to change, of all effort to become "enlightened". There has always been no self and there has always been only the All. One must realize (not just believe in) the delusional, but useful, character of self, Self, enlightenment, even delusion. Obviously this process has nothing to do with the otherwise indispensible qualities of reason, logic, empiricism and all dualistic distinctions. Mysticism does not contradict or repudiate their validity for human survival and intellectual advancement, but it does go beyond them 'spiritually'.
* Here the (upper case) Self is what I understand the Hindus to mean by the Atman and the All, the Brahman. By the way: Atman = Brahman.
** mystical meditation is a most profoundly passive exercise. A non-exercise actually.
The mind is a more scientificly acceptable reference to the soul for it has no physical being and is merely a theoretical term.
Interesting, savva06. It reminds me of Jung's nondualist statement that:
"The body is merely the visibility of the soul, the psyche [mind?]; and the soul [mind] is the psychological experience of the body. So it is really one and the same thing. Therefore, a good truth must be true for the whole system, not only for half of it".
I also forgot to add that the mind in reference to the soul acts and defines a more specific aspect within said soul, it refers to the essence of who we are, who our life experiences and surroundings make us
