Leo, what is your opinion of pantheism?

[SpiritualAwakening]

This may be interesting: http://www.gnosis.org/search_form.html

[Nak Khid]

Please stay on topic. The topic is pantheism not Gnosticism.

[Forestluv]

17 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

P A N T H E I S M

Pantheism is the view that everything is God

I think a better definition of Pantheism is that every thing is god. This is distinct, yet included within, Everything is God. 

Everything is God = Nothing is God. . . I don't think that is what Pantheism means. This involves the realization of Everything. If one assumes an understanding of Everything and focuses on God, the deeper realization will not be revealed. 

[Nak Khid]

10 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

If one assumes an understanding of Everything and focuses on God, the deeper realization will not be revealed. 

what's the deeper realization?

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

what's the deeper realization?

The realization of Everything. 

[Nak Khid]

 

50 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I think a better definition of Pantheism is that every thing is god. This is distinct, yet included within, Everything is God. 

Everything is God = Nothing is God. . . I don't think that is what Pantheism means. This involves the realization of Everything. If one assumes an understanding of Everything and focuses on God, the deeper realization will not be revealed. 

If every thing is included in everything  are there things included in everything that are not things?

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

If every thing is included in everything what is included in everything that is not every thing?

Nothing. There is no thing in Everything. Yet each thing of Everything is also Everything. No things and all things are both Everything. This is the mindboggling nature of Everything. It cannot be captured. 

Everything = Nothing. 

Yet that is not pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that every single thing is god. This is both true and false.

For any statement about Everything/God, the opposite statement would also be god. Yet that's not what pantheism is about.

For example, a pantheist would state that every thing is god. Would they also accept that no thing is also god? I doubt it.

Pantheism is using a common colloquial form of "everything". Yet, they haven't gone the full monty. If they did, their whole ideology of god would collapse, since the opposite of their ideology would also be god. They aren't willing to enter that abyss.

Yet this isn't to say that pantheism has no value. Pantheism has some cool constructs and insights. And it can have practical value. I don't have anything against pantheism. It's just contracted - like all other constructs and dualities. 

 

[Nak Khid]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Everything = Nothing. 

 

why do you say this? (also I added to may last remark)

Edited November 6, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

why do you say this?

Are you asking about the underlying motivation to say this? Or are you asking about the underlying truth of the saying?

[Nak Khid]

the later

[Nak Khid]

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

 No things and all things are both Everything.

do you have proof that the term "no things" is meaningful beyond an abstract idea?

 

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

 No things and all things are both Everything. This is the mindboggling nature of Everything. It cannot be captured. 

Everything = Nothing. 

Yet that is not pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that every single thing is god. This is both true and false.

For any statement about Everything/God, the opposite statement would also be god. Yet that's not what pantheism is about.

For example, a pantheist would state that every thing is god. Would they also accept that no thing is also god? I doubt it.

 

Your claim seems to be  that everything is god and nothing is god.   If you believe this to be true that this could another variant of pantheism or is there another name for it?

[Nak Khid]

John Toland first used the word pantheist in 1705, In 1710, in a letter to Leibniz, he provided some content to the word when he referred to
"the pantheistic opinion of those who believe in no other eternal being but the universe."

 

 

Albert Einstein in an interview published in George Sylvester Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great (1930),
responded to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist. He explained:

Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no.
I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.
May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.
We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues.
The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God.
We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly.
Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism.
I admire even more his contributions to modern thought.
Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one,
not as two separate things.

Einstein stated, "My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

 

[Inliytened1]

35 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

do you have proof that the term "no things" is meaningful beyond an abstract idea?

 

Your claim seems to be  that everything is god and nothing is god.   If you believe this to be true that this could another variant of pantheism or is there another name for it?

I think what @Serotoninluv is pointing to when he says Everything is Infinity.   And one can become directly conscious that reality = Infinity.  Infinity = God.  God = Being = Absolute Love and Absolute Divinity. 

 All form (every thing) is both within God, part of God, but also identical or = to God/Infinity.  In order to take a form, Infinity/God must be formless (nothing).  Thus formless = form.   The finger is part of the hand but simultaneously is the hand.   

There is no such thing as not a thing because not a thing is in your mind as a concept.  Thats why one can't grasp Infinity with the mind.

So relative to what you take Pantheism to truly mean would answer as to how accurate it is in describing the nature of reality.   It is relative or course as all language is.  As Einsten points out language cannot capture Being.   Form must collapse into Formlessness or Being to grasp it because it is Being itself.  Requires an awakening.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Inliytened1

[Bill W]

Leo, what is your opinion of mental masturbation? 

[Forestluv]

@Nak Khid Look around the room you are in. See it as One Everything. Point to a thing that isn't One Everything. There is no-thing that isn't Everything. There is Nothing to contrast Everything with.

58 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

do you have proof that the term "no things" is meaningful beyond an abstract idea?

I could give many examples of meaningful practical applications. Yet any example of meaning would be relative.  Thus, there is no proof of objective universal meaning. Yet, there is truth prior to "proof". . . Have you ever searched for proof that now is now? Of course not, because the truth of now is prior to any evidence/proof of now. 

58 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Your claim seems to be  that everything is god and nothing is god.   If you believe this to be true that this could another variant of pantheism or is there another name for it?

It would be more accurately categorized as "nonduality"

The Einstein quote is an insight in a certain context, yet it goes much more radical. The Einstein quote asserts that there are so many things in existence that the human mind cannot comprehend it all. This is true. Yet it isn't what is being pointed to as Everything. This is more radical and goes beyond logic. This is intuitive since logic must be within it. One cannot transcend logic with logic. . . Direct experience becomes key. 

[Nak Khid]

 

42 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

It would be more accurately categorized as "nonduality"

 

 

42 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Everything = Nothing

 

1) what is the logic or proof behind the statement Everything = Nothing ?  How do you know it makes sense? 

2) Does non duality mean everything = nothing?

3) Do most adherents of nonduality consider themselves theists or atheists?

4) Is the term "God" appropriate for someone who is a nondualist?

 

thanks

 

 

[Michael Paul]

On 11/5/2019 at 2:09 PM, Nak Khid said:

Leo, what is your opinion of pantheism?

Check out Spinoza’s Ethics.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Nak Khid said:

1) what is the logic or proof behind the statement Everything = Nothing ?  How do you know it makes sense? 

Logic is not transcended through logic. Sense is not transcended by making sense. This is the challenge for a logical, sensible mind. 

I'm trying to think logically here. . . Rather than imagining Everything as a collection of all individual things, imagine One Everything. There is no thing separate from One Everything. We cannot say "All those things over there is Everything, yet this thing is separate from Everything". . . . The is no thing that is not Everything. No thing = One Everything. 

There is truth and knowing prior to proof. For example, imagine there was a murder. Is there truth to that murder prior to proof? What if there was no evidence/proof of the murder. Which comes first, the truth of the murder or evidence/proof of the murder? Truth is first order and evidence/proof is second order. Similarly with knowing. There is knowing that comes prior to evidence/proof. . . Imagine you have a headache. How do you know you are experiencing pain in your head? Do you need to undergo brain scans to show neural activity as evidence of your pain? Do you need a neurologist to prove to you that you are experiencing pain in your head? What if the neurologist couldn't find  evidence/proof of that you have head pain? . . . The knowing of that head pain is prior to evidence/proof of that head pain. 

1 hour ago, Nak Khid said:

Does non duality mean everything = nothing?

Do most adherents of nonduality consider themselves theists or atheists?

Is the term "God" appropriate for someone who is a nondualist?

That's hard to answer because nonduality isn't really a thing.  If I were to try and answer those questions, I would keep saying that the opposite is also true and that there is an infinite number of partial truths. 

It would be like asking "Is what is, is?" , "Is ISness theism or atheism?", "Is the term 'God' the term 'God''?". It doesn't make sense, yet that is part of the beauty and magic of it. . . 

For nondual understanding, direct experience and awakening is much much more profound than analysis and conceptualization. If you want nondual exposure, there are many great speakers, youtube videos and practices. Yet ime, the fastest most certain way for direct nondual experience would be to take a psychedelic. 

[Inliytened1]

4 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

 

 

1) what is the logic or proof behind the statement Everything = Nothing ?  How do you know it makes sense?  

This was covered earlier i think.

2) Does non duality mean everything = nothing?

It means "Not Two" or Oneness.  So yes.

3) Do most adherents of nonduality consider themselves theists or atheists?

You are God.

4) Is the term "God" appropriate for someone who is a nondualist?

You ARE God!

 

 

 

 

[Nak Khid]

18 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

1) what is the logic or proof behind the statement Everything = Nothing ?  How do you know it makes sense?  

This was covered earlier i think.

2) Does non duality mean everything = nothing?

It means "Not Two" or Oneness.  So yes.

3) Do most adherents of nonduality consider themselves theists or atheists?

You are God.

4) Is the term "God" appropriate for someone who is a nondualist?

You ARE God!

 

 

1) please  quote of there is a quote

2) The statement everything = nothing is similar to
duality = nonduality
Devil = God
oness = duality
one = all
big = small
hate = love

3) Given the fact that I am God and everybody else is do the most well known people  who speak on and consider themselves nondualists consider themselves theists or atheists? Do most do the most well known people  who speak on and consider themselves nondualists use the word God?
This is not a rhetorical question I don't know and am not saying that whatever the majority of them do is the correct thing