|
|
Post by clouddust on Aug 14, 2015 13:02:33 GMT
hopefully a mere example will help: If you duplicate someone else's style of dressing, wear the same shoes, same haircut, similar style of walking and language use; you are still yourself and not the other person you are imitating. In this way we can strive to become more like Jesus, who is perfect, but we are not him. You are duplicating an image, but you are still you. Created in God's image; but not God.
Yes we have the ability to strive, not because of who we are but because of who he is and who we have in us. But we are still human.
The words I used are some of the gifts we have. We are very real and our free-will is very free. So free in fact we can choose to reject the one who gave us the gift(s). What good is a gift if it's never accepted?
A child would understand the simple basics of free-will in making simple choices, ( ie: don't eat the cookies before supper time), a child knows the difference in making choices sometimes hoping to avoid consequences.
Define your personal interpretation of perfection. This may be the root of some confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Aug 23, 2015 15:09:18 GMT
I appreciate your comments CD and admire you questioning but if I may interject a short comment with respect to this conversation– Personally, I have never felt there was or is such a thing as free will. Even on the most practical, objective level it is obvious (to me) that I did not will myself into existence. And I have no independent volition. There are an infinite amount of factors that influence every move of this phenomenal self. Perhaps, there is freedom in allowing things just to be- unattached. When someone commits a murder, who is at fault; the gun, a nervous system that can pull a trigger, the genetic pool, the greater context of society, an abusive upbringing, emotional processing area of the brain, a subatomic quantum wave, a star from a distant galaxy? To my way of seeing things we arbitrarily assign blame and guilt in ‘criminal’ proceedings. For obvious reasons I never get selected for jury duty. Also, one last thing - If we are not God, then who are we? Isn't it a mere judgment that causes this separation? Hi Kolomo,
I just re-read and want to respond: If that someone, (committing a murder), is us, then we are to blame. The motive can vary but we are responsible. We've made a choice and that choice results in murder. That's free-will. Every choice we make demonstrates free-will. Lastly, - who are we? Individuals with a free-will, to accept or reject, to extend a hand in help, or a hand to hurt. We are the creation, not the creator.
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Aug 29, 2015 16:27:49 GMT
Hi Tony:
I think you have returned from your trip and I wanted to comment further on your question to me, from scripture, about being perfect. I have already answered but wanted to add more: Perfection does not imply sinless perfection because that's impossible in this life, as I have already said, but it's something to strive for... the word strive is key here. The word perfection, in this context, indicates completeness and maturity as a child of God... this is what I wanted to add. That's why I asked what your definition of perfection was.
Jesus' words instruct us to strive for perfection; a completeness and maturity in learning to become the person God wants us to become.
In no way does this instruction suggest or imply that we are God.
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172 
|
Post by tony on Aug 31, 2015 4:23:55 GMT
Hello Clouddust
yes, I have been back a couple of days now, catching up with things and also with discussions on this Forum. I have noticed that the topics of 'suffering' and 'free-will' came up again in various posts. Both very meaty subjects! I'll post something in due course.
On your further comments regarding 'perfection', it's useful to point out that how we see, understand and make sense of things (e.g. what the scriptures say) depends on where we come from, what level of 'body, mind and spirit' we are at.
As you would recall, I used the analogy of the young child (a 5 year old) as a level of consciousness where curiosity and openness to new ways hasn't yet turned into fixed belief (dogma). In later years, most of us lose our childhood's innocence, and we tend to attach ourselves to a certain way of thinking and believing in order to make sense of this world. What our parents, teachers, friends, etc. tell us will affect the way we understand and respond to life's events. It's that certain way of thinking, running in the background of our minds, that leads us to interpret what we hear and see in our particular, personal way.
In the case of the scriptures, there is usually one set of the officially accepted text, but there are hundreds of variations on how they are read and interpreted, either by individuals (like you and me) or by large groups (Churches, denominations, sects, etc.). This happens with the scriptures of all major religions.
All this to say that how I understand the meaning of 'perfect' [in "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect"] would differ from your understanding because of that certain way of thinking we each have. So, in all ways does this instruction imply that What I Really Am is God, because there is nothing which is not God (Perfection, the Manifest, the Whole, What Is, Consciousness, Christ-consciousness, the Source, the Absolute, etc.). There is only One Thing going on, not two.
That statement can be easily misunderstood (people have been excommunicated or forced to recant for implying anything like that in days past). Clearly, it is not 'I' (Tony, the bag of bones) but Life itself which is divine and thoroughly part of me (I would not be alive otherwise). It points to the same as Paul's "My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me."
There are over 7.5 billion people on this planet. Each, from believers to atheists, has a different view of what God is and does. It's a matter of perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Sept 6, 2015 16:50:24 GMT
Hi and welcome home:
You see, that's the whole thing with the statement, "It's a matter of perspective," because, as you point out, perspective varies and is determined by personal experience, circumstances and situations. In other words; things outside of ourselves.
So our joy, spiritual growth, peace, contentment, etc is determined by and dependent upon ourselves and our experiences. Very, very variable. Yes?
God is unchanging.
Therefore our joy, spiritual growth, peace, contentment, etc is determined by God. Not some event or person which may be passing by.
Solid and reliable. You can hope on it!
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Sept 8, 2015 12:02:34 GMT
Clouddust, I enjoy these discussions and ongoing exchange of views, as I recognize in both of us a passion for realizing the Truth, and also because we are so far apart in our perspectives!
For example, your "God is unchanging", might imply that you have actually known 'God' and found Him/Her/It in that state. It also implies (does it?) that anything which is variable, is not 'God'. If that is the case, fair enough. In my case, I haven't met 'God' ever in my life, not yet anyway.
So I'll have another go at expressing my perspective (for the sake of it, to be heard but not to be believed):
The only unchanging 'no-thing' I know is an intrinsic part of me, which I describe as 'What I Am, Always, Already' or 'Me'. I Am That and I am this, at the same time. 'That' is the Infinite, Timeless, Changeless part and 'this' is the finite part, ever-changing in time and space. 'This' means all forms that are born and die. No words are sufficient to give the full meaning to 'That', because It just Is, I-AM-ness, Being-Experiencing, Now. 'This' can be easily described by language (shape, colour, changing characteristics, activity, etc.). Without thinking about it, it is clear that That is this, and this is That. No duality. So in one sense, there is no 'God' (other than a thought I have); in another sense, there is only God (What Is, irrespective of what I think).
If that is too airy-fairy, then an expression that I find both simple and powerful is "What's wrong with This Moment, if you don't think about it".
When I don't think about it, This Moment is What I AM.
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Sept 8, 2015 15:25:20 GMT
Hi Tony,
Yes, though at opposite ends our passion for the truth is equal in strength. I agree.
I would have to say in my response the timless, changeless part of you is God in you. Your very breath, life itself, but you are not God.
But, you don't recognize this because you see a seamless existence.
My non-duality perspective is this: When we recognize God in us, but not us, (In other words, the creator/creation relationship), then this awareness makes us one. And, this is something you can continually experience.
CD
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Sept 10, 2015 6:11:28 GMT
Clouddust, as I said previously, there is a kind of enjoyment in exchanging these perspectives, partly because it's like a game (I take it very lightly) and partly because it highlights the paradox of the One Truth, Reality, seen differently through different eyes. Language is also a factor in the paradox, and the difficulty in communicating clearly and unambiguously about matters that transcend words. It's a real tower of Babel! The word non-duality is usually taken to mean 'not two'. So, it stretches that meaning if it's implied that there is a relationship between two (e.g. Creator and Created), where one is recognized to be 'in us, but not us'.
The following could help to clarify our perspectives.
Using the analogy of the TV screen and the pictures that appear on it: the moving pictures (us) could not be alive/perceived unless the screen (creator) is there (somehow in the pictures but not being them at the same time). Your non-duality interpretation would say that the moving pictures recognize that the screen is 'in them' and by that awareness become one with it. The Non-dual perspective (that we often talk about here), says that there is only One No-Thing happening, the screen (One) and the pictures (Many) being two aspects of that One No-Thing. Pushing the analogy a bit more, one could say that there is a third aspect, the energy by which the screen continuously creates the pictures. In other words, there are not three different 'things', there is only One manifesting as three. That is effectively the metaphor for the Christian Trinity, the Hindu Trimurti, and the Buddhist three Bodies of Buddha.
A last paradox, (the mind, as in discriminating thought, cannot work it out): all the events that happen on the screen are both independent of and thoroughly at one with the screen. God is both Transcendent from and Immanent in the Manifest.
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Sept 13, 2015 22:05:15 GMT
I see Truth as solid, real and worth seeking. If it is dependent on one's own perception, how can it be truth? It is the one truism; one. Nondual? I think so. I think your description could be categorized as relativism? Because that is dependent on perception. Yes, the tower of Babel, a good analogy for confusion, but it was a differing of languages not ideas or Truth. The idea of the tower depicting a varied truth that is both unknown and ambiguous, is incorrect. I agree God is transcendent and immanent, but I would add, also knowable. Q - In the movie analogy, which aspect is god? Or is there no-god present?
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Sept 14, 2015 1:29:02 GMT
God is EVERYTHING!
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Sept 14, 2015 9:25:10 GMT
Clouddust, we are speaking/using one language (English) but we are poles apart in how we interpret and understand the very same words! That's why people like us talk so much, and it feels at times like we go round in circles. That's not a problem as long as we enjoy doing it.
So, there is only one Truth (God, Consciousness, or all other names mankind has used) and That is the only Real thing there is (Non-duality), but there are as many interpretations of what It is as there are people. Why? because Truth simply Is As It Is, irrespective of what you and I think and cannot be understood through concepts and beliefs. That is why all the great teachers and sages used parables, stories, metaphors and myth to point to It.
More realistically the differences are about what It actually means in our lives. For example, because you describe it as 'solid and real' my 5 year old will ask you to please get It and show me so I can know what you mean. Maybe that's not what you meant...
I have to call you on "God is...also knowable". If so, have you known Him or if not, do you know first hand anyone who has?
Lastly, in the TV screen analogy 'God' describes both aspects at once, not one or the other or one relative to the other. Like in the Yin and Yang symbol, 'God' refers to both of those at the same time. There are 'not two'. We humans, using our minds and reason and language, make up names and words only to talk about it!!
Only when we stop doing that (Be Still) can we know what that word God means (I AM).
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Sept 20, 2015 11:28:33 GMT
Hi,
Yes, understood and agreed - God is Everything.
There is one truth - once accepted,for all - regardless of individual perception. Seeking is over, peace is attained and the soul can rest.
God is knowable through recognition of how he works in the world and through the history book of the covenant relationship.
It's all about relationship.
Truth is worth seeking because it can be known - God can be known and wants to be known.
Focus on self becomes focus on God.
One truth, many applications - I would tell the 5 yo to open their heart like they do when they show love to their mother or father.
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Sept 23, 2015 4:57:28 GMT
Clouddust, just to make sure we are on the same page: if God is Everything, then Everything [the Manifest, whether known or unknown] is God. Clearly they are not two. It then follows that It is also the man who has no interest in knowing about God or the man who believes there is no God. It is also the 'sinner' and the 'innocent'. They are also an expression of God.
It can be the languaging we use, but it seems to me that your perspective of 'God' still implies that there is some 'thing', an entity (one that can be known or that wants to be known). It sounds as if there is a higher authority that wants this or that from us, e.g. surrender, recognition or love. In that sense, in my experience, there is no such a 'thing'. It is just imagined from a reading of certain books and a certain tradition that believes in the existence of 'God'.
'God is Everything' means the same as 'there is only Everything', therefore there is no separate Creator of All There Is.
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Sept 25, 2015 0:11:31 GMT
Yes, that's true but with one exception; One acknowledges and the other does not.
Individual perception changes but God doesn't change.
My experience is that there is such a 'thing.'
It probably is language but it seems in your perspective on non-duality, thing/no-thing, there are many sources of information, definition and teaching.
Many is not one.
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Sept 28, 2015 0:26:50 GMT
Clouddust, it looks like we are the ones most engaged in this discussion! Despite our differences in perspective and how we express what we know, I think it's a worthwhile endeavour to keep exploring.
It's worth repeating that we are not going on about who is right and who is wrong. I consider what I say as an expression of 'where I am at' as I go through this life, making statements about my current 'understanding'. That's how I see everyone else's expressions. In this very small group of human beings that somehow found each other sharing a common interest on this Forum, there are marked differences in both expression and 'where we are coming from'. It's a demonstration of the spectrum of consciousness, of the diversity that Life takes. Once again, neither right nor wrong.
I might have mentioned St Dionysius's metaphor before, but it's worth repeating it. According to him, there are three eyes: the eye of the flesh, the eye of the mind and the eye of the spirit. With the first we see forms and objects (the words on this page), with the second we make sense of the words (meaning, references, etc.) and with the third we understand the context and place of the first two and go beyond them. Obviously, he said, there is a place for each eye, but 'error' arises when we use the wrong eye. The eye of the flesh does not understand the meaning of words, and the eye of the mind cannot see the words themselves; and clearly we cannot use the eye of the flesh or the mind to understand what is beyond their capacity to see. The eye of the spirit is no good at seeing words on a page nor know their meaning in the dictionary, but it is the eye that sees beyond form and logic, into the realm called 'spiritual'.
All this to say that "Many is not one" may be true enough when seen through the eye of the flesh and the mind, but the eye of the spirit 'knows' that Many is One and One is Many, in the same way it 'knows' that it is possible to walk on water, resurrect dead people and say 'Before Abraham, I am'. With the eye of the spirit it is obvious that the One No-thing (Transcendent) is also the many things (Immanent). They are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely the same. Conceptual logic (eye of the mind) has to give up trying to understand, and perception (eye of the flesh) can only see either the one or the many (either the forest or the trees). The eye of the spirit opens in Stillness.
|
|
