What is your dream of heaven?

What will happen when you see Jesus?


You will see unblemished purity and unbending strength. You will feel his unending presence and know his unbridled protection. And--all that he is, you will be, for you will be like Jesus. Wasn't that the promise of John? "We know that when Christ comes again, we will be like him, because we will see him as he really is" (1 John 3:2).

Since you'll be pure as snow, you will never sin again;...you will never stumble again;...you will never feel lonely again;...you will never doubt again.

When Christ comes, you will dwell in the light of God. And you will see him as he really is.

When Christ Comes by Max Lucado


can't wait

Frank wrote:
"Religion is always guesswork whether created with a dualistic or nondualistic substructure. It is always going to be ideology, mythology, and/or doctrine."
I do not see how one can make a nondualistic guess. To my mind a guess is always between two options, otherwise, we deal with the unknown by constructing speculations or models of possibilities. This is much more than simple guessing. Perhaps you should find a better word if you are including speculations and model building. I do think, Frank, that your rather rigid emphasis on Guesswork and agnosticism as quasi-sacred obligations and solutions for facing the unknown, while vastly superior to the beliefs of organized religions, verges on ideology or doctrine.

Sozmac wrote:
"... if true religion or spirituality is nondualistic. Traditional religion is then dualistic reflecting our nature as humans, BUT how do we incorporate this nonduality in our lives and in a way that is not flavourless?


I respond:
It would seem that religions at the level of their most fundamentalist interpretation are dualistic, but at their mystical cores (for those who have cores) it is nondualistic. I give the examples of Vedanta for Hinduism, Zen for Buddhism, Sufism for Islam and the many Christian mystics (e.g., Meister Ekhart and Teresa de Avila and St. John of the Cross). I don't think the mystical experiences of religious mystics can be described as flavorless; they are generally described as ecstatic.

Sozmac asks:
"And if this is so, why is there such a division between us and the divine? Are we not all a piece of or the whole of, (depending on your beliefs) god or divinity?
And if then, to nondualistic belief, we are both divinity and humanity, how do we in actuality find balance and peace."

I respond:
Who says there is such a division? We THINK there is a division between us and the Cosmos, God, Brahma, Ultimate Reality (whatever you call it), and whatever we are looking at this moment, and that is our problem. We are not, as you put it "both divinity and humanity". I try to ignore such dualistic distinctions. At bottom we are just what we are, which is neither of divinity nor humanity. We are beyond those concepts which merely serve to organize our minds ABOUT the world. True religion must forgo or transcend such distinctions.

Sozmac asks:
"jlnobody, you said the unity of all things is profoundly exciting. How do YOU incorporate this in your daily existence?"

I respond:
Well, that's a real challenge. The best I can say is that after 30 or more years of meditating (zen style), my achievements have been very modest. I am able to enjoy moments of nondualism, i.e., of seeing my immediate experience as consisting not of "me" (subject) standing against non-me objects, but of just pure pre-reflective sensation (something everyone has but does not notice because of their domination by the illusion of ego). This experience of nondualism is very pleasant, but if one can call it enlightenment, it is enlightenment at a very preliminary level. I obviously do not have the natural mystical ability or "talent" of people who achieve a clearer realization of their one-ness with all things in far less than thirty years. But I do have a strong sense, because of those regularly enjoyed moments, that dualism is not the only reality. I see myself, as I said before, as a kind of amphibian living simultaneously in two worlds, a world of unity and a world of plurality, without any sense of contradiction. I would not want to live without the benefits of either dualism or nondualism. But I CERTAINLY prefer not to live with only dualism, as I have done most of my life. This, of course, reflects my dualistic attachment to the distinction between enlightenment (nondualism) and non-enlightenment (dualism). I think this is what Zen Buddhists mean when they say "If you encounter the Buddha, kill him."

Sozmac asks: "And do you mean 'unity', as in the 'the whole contained within the single cell'? Or unity as in nonduality? "

I respond: I guess the answer is both, the mustard seed parable would apply as well as the many zen paradoxes in which all is seen simulaneously in as unity (at least not two) and multiplicity, same and different.

Okay.

But what is your point?

Are you suggesting that non-dualism is a religion?

In any case, assertions of a non-dualistic universe are, by every standard of measurement, guesswork...which really is my point.

So if it is, as you are suggesting, impossible to make a non-dualistic guess...and since obviouosly assertions of a non-dualistic universe IS a guess...it appears as though the notion of non-dualism is a non-starter.




Often a guess is among many, rather than just two options. Try making a guess about who is going to be in the Super Bowl next February choosing between only two options.



As I have mentioned in many threads...obviously words like speculaltion, model building, estimating, supposing....are all excellent notions...and many times, when a person is expressing a belief...they are preferable to "guessing."

But in matters dealing with the Ultimate REALITY of existence...I think guessing makes much, much, much, much, much, much, much,much, much, much, much, much, much, much more sense than any of those words.

And as for contentions that the universe is non-dualistic...I would add a few more much's to that list.





Thank you for sharing that, JL.

As you probably have guessed, I disagree with you.

JLNobody says: "I do think, Frank, that your rather rigid emphasis on Guesswork and agnosticism as quasi-sacred obligations and solutions for facing the unknown, while vastly superior to the beliefs of organized religions, verges on ideology or doctrine".

Frank answers"
"Thank you for sharing that, JL.
As you probably have guessed, I disagree with you."

What! I can't believe my eyes. You don't agree that your agnosticism is "vastly superior to the beliefs of organized religions?

Is there such a term as agnostic fundamentalism?

I started this threay by improperly phrasing it. I meant heavenly dream, a fantasy, not imagining what a life after death is like.

At any rate, JL, I always appreciate your discourses. You're always worth while reading.

I sort of remember there are two schools of Zen. One follows the slow route of enlightenment through mediation, and the other one is the instant route through the koan. If I were an adherent of either school, it would be the latter, not by choice; that's just the way it worked out. The koan sort of leads you down a dead end trap and doesn't let you out. It's either die or make the leap to non-duality.

Frank, I think you're too smart to get in that trap.

Do any of you ever have one of those dreams where you say? "Wow! I want to get back there."

Frank, not all "religions" are nondualistic, but true religion is nondualistic, among other things. And nondualism is at the core of religion. I do not know if it exhausts the nature of religion, but I think it is the central feature of religion in that it transcends "worldly" dualisms.

You say that a guess can be the selection between more than two options. Point well taken, but it is still a selection between options. The "realization" of nondualism is not a selection and, therefore, not an act of guesswork.

The only thing I have ever said about Ultimate Reality is that it is not two. Of course I cannot demonstrate its unitary nature, but it does SEEM that the notion that Reality has a plural nature is very counter-intuitive. But I agree that I have no scientific or even intellectual grounds for that position. It is my apropri assumption, and to me it is as axiomatic as is any axiom of geometry--even more so.
Let me make a concession. If I had to make an intellectual choice between Ultimate Reality being unitary or multiple I would select the former. That's a conceptual guess I would make in an instant. But a mystical first-hand and intimate sense of Reality is much more than an intellectual guess: no selection or choice is involved. Indeed, the immediate (mystical) experience of Reality excludes the dualism of unity vs. multiplicity.

No, JL, I do not agree that what I write "...verges on ideology or doctrine."

One virgin?

Yes it is...but since my remark was in response to your comment...

...it was necessary for me to mention it.




I hate to be indelicate...but it is called for here. My response to that is: BULLSHYT!




Every indication is that the moment you say anything about the Ultimate REALITY...you are guessing.

Making a concession that you have only guessed one thing about the Ultimate REALITY...especially since the one thing is at the core of damn near everything you post...is absurd, self-serving, and beneath you.



Only to someone with a closed mind.

It is no more counterintuitive to me than its opposite. I have absolutely no idea of which is the REALITY...and I have no real evidence in either direction.

But then again...I do not have a closed mind.




Well...if you feel more comfortable with "apropri assumption" than with "guess"...use it. I will, of course, interpret that to mean guess whenever I hear you use it.





Please re-read my comments about closed minds.




Ditto my "indelicate" BULLSHYT remark here.

Well, Frank, if you think "Bullshyt" is an argument what more can I say? But I do not see that, regarding this issue at least, you are blessed with an open mind.

I understand, JL, but that has more to do with your inability (or unwillingness) to see...than with what actually is out here to be seen.

'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good.' Socrates

Paulaj, a very appropriate statement. Regarding my exchange with Frank, I agree that the more we can see of the point of other paradigms the better off we are. I know Frank's position very well. It was mine most of my life, and to some extent--depending on the issue--it still is. I have, therefore, the benefit of his orientation and that of mine. He has only the benefit of his. A Freudian who is so committed to the Freudian model that he cannot, or will not, consider the possible gains to be had from Jungian, Gestalt, or cognitive theory/therapy, is to that extent disadvantaged. And the same can be said for those who do not appreciate the genius of Freudian theory. It is rarely the case that philosophical systems are ENTIRELY wrong, that they have NOTHING to offer. Ergo, we should try all things, and hold fast to that which USEFUL.

Jl

I found that quote on an agnostic website, it was the first line (I'm not agnostic, I needed to refresh my memory).

I don't have enough knowledge to join here, just watching.

Better to sit in silence and be thought of as dumb, than to open my mouth and remove all doubt :-)

My idea of heaven would be a place where God gave me a pure and loving heart.

It has been my contention always that a pure and loving heart would cure everything.

BPB
My concept of heaven is similar, everything is pure, including me.

psstt....paulaj...meanwhile.... :wink:

pssst..back at you....<looks to the left and right>

I think JL and Frank burnt themselves out.

I'm not burned out in general, only on religion with Frank. I enjoy siding with him on many other issues. And I very much enjoy working out my religio-philosophical inclinations with like-minded like Coluber, Twyvel, Asherman, Fresco and others.