Monistic Panentheism
-
Hi, Layth! I hope you are well.
Heheh, I can't really see why everyone is so homophobic. God can't hate me for being queer if I had a kundalini awakening, now.
I do believe in laws, I do believe in an Absolute Reality. But I don't believe the source of the Absolute is in any one scripture, especially not a scripture revealed centuries ago in a particular time and context. As the Mu'tazilites say the only thing that is uncreated and perfect is the Absolute. I equate the Godhead with the Absolute Reality, and to know the Absolute, one must know one's Self. For me self-discovery is the highest understanding of God, higher than any scripture, even. I look to my Inner Light as my guide, my source of Gnosis. This is the basic esoteric teaching. So coming out as bisexual has been very much part of my spiritual journey.
I can't accept the dictates of patriarchal scriptures -- and the condemnation of homosexuality is wholly irrational and does not make any sense. Nor does the condemnation of third genders make any sense. (Mysticism is not irrational, it is transrational.) Moreover esoteric teachings like the yogi Sri Aurobindo's are far more sophisticated, modern and relevant (pick up a copy of his Life Divine) than the Quran or Bible (I'm sorry if I've offended anyone but this is my opinion).
I think our relationship with the Divine has to evolve with the times, it cannot be rooted in any one scripture from any one time or place. And moreover I think humankind is going to enter an era when it will be possible for each individual to experience the Absolute for themselves. We have the option of manifesting the Divine . . . this is far more powerful than worshipping some external supernatural Creator-deity.
Just my $0.02.
-
It is very intellectually challenging, but extremely well-written. It is based on a philosophy known as Integral philosophy which aims to integrate all human knowledge together, including science and spirituality.
Science = proof by disassociation
Spirituality = anathema to proofAnyone who tries to combine them is not worth my time.
-
Science = proof by disassociation
Spirituality = anathema to proofAnyone who tries to combine them is not worth my time.
Neo, try telling that to some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, such as
Albert Einstein
Erwin Schrodinger
Werner Heisenberg
Louis de Broglie
James Jeans
Max Planck
Wolfgang Pauli
Arthur EddingtonThey were all mystics in a very strict sense, and also the founders of modern physics.
Science is beautiful, but it is limited. Science is an agnostic enterprise, it can neither prove nor disprove transcendental realities. When scientists say they have absolute knowledge of the universe, you know they are no better than the religionists.
As for mysticism, it comes with its own experiments and proofs. Take up yoga or meditation with a good guide! Or spend time with shamans in Africa -- that is what I plan to do some day. My belief in God is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of empiricism.
-
Neo, try telling that to some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, such as
Albert Einstein
Erwin Schrodinger
Werner Heisenberg
Louis de Broglie
James Jeans
Max Planck
Wolfgang Pauli
Arthur EddingtonThey were all mystics in a very strict sense, and also the founders of modern physics.
Science is beautiful, but it is limited. Science is an agnostic enterprise, it can neither prove nor disprove transcendental realities. When scientists say they have absolute knowledge of the universe, you know they are no better than the religionists.
As for mysticism, it comes with its own experiments and proofs. Take up yoga or meditation with a good guide! Or spend time with shamans in Africa -- that is what I plan to do some day. My belief in God is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of empiricism.
-
The scientists you quoted never tried to reconcile their faith with their practice. Where they did, they apologised. I didn't say one can't be spiritual and a scientist - but the nature of science and spirituality are contradictory and thus cannot be conciled. Anyone who attempts to do so clearly does not understand the scientific approach.
-
I never said science was not limited.
-
For someone who provides the name of scientists as support of mentioned claims, you really don't know much about the discipline of science itself. Science never makes any claims of absolute certainty, in fact if you ever did any science at all you'd know that science is based around inherent uncertainty. This is why science and spirituality are mutually exclusive. Spirituality and by extension spiritual idealism lay a monopoly on truth. Science on the other hand, does not in any shape or form. Science merely renders a number of theories irrational and by the rules of logical disjunction appoints another theory as 'more right'.
-
God is not empirically provable. This defies the very nature of god itself. One of the fundemental attributes of godhood is infinite and eternity, both of which are beyond the grasps of empirical measurement. Do you really think we'd still be here discussing godhood if god was empirically provable? No. We'd be grovelling in god's transcendental feet.
Question what is transcendental reality? Reality, by its very definition is transcendent, so why the redundancy?
-
-
- The scientists you quoted never tried to reconcile their faith with their practice. Where they did, they apologised. I didn't say one can't be spiritual and a scientist - but the nature of science and spirituality are contradictory and thus cannot be conciled.
This is not true. Science and spirituality are not contradictory. And I do not mean exoteric religion here, I mean mysticism. Mysticism merely says that Consciousness (capital C) is transcendent -- that mind creates matter, not the other way around. And Consciousness is the Absolute or the Godhead, which emanates the cosmos. This experience of cosmic consciousness is grounded in phenomenological empiricism -- the universal mystical experience of unity. Science can neither prove nor disprove this. You may be aware of the controversies surrounding consciousness in the scientific world these days. You can read "The Conscious Mind In Search of a Fundamental Theory" by David J. Chalmers, who is a steely rationalist and has created a minor sensation by pointing out that materialism does not explain why we have conscious experience at all. He argues that consciousness has to be seen as a fundamental property of reality rather than an illusion created by our neurons. Here is a paper that summarizes these views
http//www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.htmlThere is a dialogue going on between science and spirituality and it has been going on for at least the last 30 or 40 years.
As for whether these scientists tried to reconcile their faith with their practice -- they were very clear that science did not prove mysticism. But they were equally clear that science did not contradict mysticism. They understood that while science deals with the world of form, mysticism deals with the formless. Mysticism involves a psychological transformation, it requires one to alter their consciousness. There are numerous practices for this such as meditation and many types of yoga, and there is also shamanism in Africa. Again, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of this ineffable realm. But one can try to experience it for oneself.
I do not mean we should mix science and mysticism necessarily in the way you are assuming. One of the greatest challenges is to combine the data from science (the third-person approach, objective experiment) with the data from mysticism (the first-person approach, subjective experience or phenomenology), without abusing either genuine science or genuine mysticism. I say demarcate the boundaries between science and mysticism clearly -- but why should there be a ban on combining the data obtained from these two approaches to understanding reality? Why dogmatically stick to just one way of understanding reality? There are so many ways, and science is just one of them.
Science never makes any claims of absolute certainty, in fact if you ever did any science at all you'd know that science is based around inherent uncertainty.
I did not say that, please don't mince my words. There have been and continue to be scientists who believe in scientism. Scientism is also a religion. As opposed as I am to pseudoscience, I am equally opposed to scientism. Science does not claim to have absolute knowledge of the universe but scientism claims that anything apart from the scientific method is inadequate for understanding reality, and lumps the huge body of data from cultural studies, phenomenology, mysticism and so forth into the garbage. As I keep saying, science neither proves nor disproves the Godhead. It is forced to remain agnostic.
- God is not empirically provable.
Every mystic would disagree with you. My faith in God comes from a kundalini awakening -- that's as empirical as it gets for me. It depends on what you mean by empiricism. If you mean third-person experimentation, then, no, it can't prove God. But if you mean altering one's consciousness, experiencing higher levels of the mind, then yes you can experience God -- this is phenomenology and it is the method used in mysticism, and moreover also in psychology.
You cannot prove the existence of the unconscious mind in the same way as you can prove that air contains oxygen, but so many people report phenomena or exhibit symptoms that force us to assume the existence of an unconscious mind.
There is the within and the without. The inner realities and the outer realities. Science works great with the outer realities. But the more we go inward, the more we try to find the "I", the less experiment works, and the more we are forced to turn to experience. This is why science does not work too well with things like anthropology, sociology and psychology.
One of the fundemental attributes of godhood is infinite and eternity, both of which are beyond the grasps of empirical measurement.
Again this depends on what you mean by empiricism. The mystical position is that there is a level of mind beyond the rational mind and if one can achieve that level of growth, one can experience a cosmic consciousness which is the direct experience of the Absolute. The rational mind cannot grasp this but the transrational mind can.
Question what is transcendental reality? Reality, by its very definition is transcendent, so why the redundancy?
I meant with reference to materialism or physicalism, the dominant orthodox paradigm in science. Materialism denies the existence of any levels of reality or realms beyond the material (such as subtle energies like kundalini, psychic and spiritual realities).
I should mention that I would appreciate some more courtesy from you. What exactly are you doing on this forum anyway? Everyone here believes in God.
-
This is not true. Science and spirituality are not contradictory. And I do not mean exoteric religion here, I mean mysticism. Mysticism merely says that Consciousness (capital C) is transcendent -- that mind creates matter, not the other way around.
No. Mind does not 'create' matter for that would imply reality is subjective and reality is anything but. Also, if mind created matter then it would also imply that the universe is only bound by the limits of the mind which has the ability to be both rational and irrational, thus by extension it would imply that the mind can cause irrational events to take place, such as something coming from nothing.
You may be aware of the controversies surrounding consciousness in the scientific world these days. You can read "The Conscious Mind In Search of a Fundamental Theory" by David J. Chalmers, who is a steely rationalist and has created a minor sensation by pointing out that materialism does not explain why we have conscious experience at all. He argues that consciousness has to be seen as a fundamental property of reality rather than an illusion created by our neurons. Here is a paper that summarizes these views
http//www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.htmlNo one argues concsiousness to be an 'illusion', to argue that would be asinine. However, consciousness can't be measured - not by the tools we have today, which is why science doesn't dabble in it.
As for whether these scientists tried to reconcile their faith with their practice -- they were very clear that science did not prove mysticism. But they were equally clear that science did not contradict mysticism.
Please. This is the same argument religous appeasers use to 'rationalise' the notion of god, that is "science can't prove it wrong". Incorrect. The answer is science doesn't care. The domain of god/spirituality/religion has nothing to do with science. If you want to argue mysticism on a metaphysical level then that is fine, but please let's not pull the pretentious "OMG ITS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE" stuff okay?
They understood that while science deals with the world of form, mysticism deals with the formless. Mysticism involves a psychological transformation, it requires one to alter their consciousness.
Yeah, I can 'alter my consciousness' with a good ol joint too.
I do not mean we should mix science and mysticism necessarily in the way you are assuming. One of the greatest challenges is to combine the data from science (the third-person approach, objective experiment) with the data from mysticism (the first-person approach, subjective experience or phenomenology), without abusing either genuine science or genuine mysticism.
I hope you can see that what you're saying is inherently contradicting. You're attempting to mix the objective with the subjective.
I say demarcate the boundaries between science and mysticism clearly -- but why should there be a ban on combining the data obtained from these two approaches to understanding reality? Why dogmatically stick to just one way of understanding reality? There are so many ways, and science is just one of them.
Because you're either a proponent of empirical thought and procedure or you are not. You can't combine the ideas of science, which is objective by nature, with the dieas of spirituality which is subjective by nature. It's like oil and water. It's like infinite and form. It's like 1 and 0. They do not and will not superimpose each other to reveal some kind of hidden truth; leave that to science fiction.
I did not say that, please don't mince my words. There have been and continue to be scientists who believe in scientism. Scientism is also a religion. As opposed as I am to pseudoscience, I am equally opposed to scientism. Science does not claim to have absolute knowledge of the universe but scientism claims that anything apart from the scientific method is inadequate for understanding reality, and lumps the huge body of data from cultural studies, phenomenology, mysticism and so forth into the garbage. As I keep saying, science neither proves nor disproves the Godhead. It is forced to remain agnostic.
I've already addressed this.
Every mystic would disagree with you.
Awesome. I don't want people whom I take to be incorrect to agree with me.
My faith in God comes from a kundalini awakening -- that's as empirical as it gets for me.
|
Do you know what 'empiricism' means? It is a measure of reality, and as such, it is highly objective. What you just described is a subjective phenomenon.
It depends on what you mean by empiricism. If you mean third-person experimentation, then, no, it can't prove God. But if you mean altering one's consciousness, experiencing higher levels of the mind, then yes you can experience God -- this is phenomenology and it is the method used in mysticism, and moreover also in psychology.
Great. But there's nothing 'scientific' about it.
You cannot prove the existence of the unconscious mind in the same way as you can prove that air contains oxygen, but so many people report phenomena or exhibit symptoms that force us to assume the existence of an unconscious mind.
The existence of an unconscious mind is accepted in most neurological circles.
There is the within and the without. The inner realities and the outer realities. Science works great with the outer realities. But the more we go inward, the more we try to find the "I", the less experiment works, and the more we are forced to turn to experience. This is why science does not work too well with things like anthropology, sociology and psychology.
And mysticism, which attempts to, in your words, answer questions of one's self.
Again this depends on what you mean by empiricism. The mystical position is that there is a level of mind beyond the rational mind and if one can achieve that level of growth, one can experience a cosmic consciousness which is the direct experience of the Absolute. The rational mind cannot grasp this but the transrational mind can.
Again, there's absolutely nothing scientific about that.
I meant with reference to materialism or physicalism, the dominant orthodox paradigm in science. Materialism denies the existence of any levels of reality or realms beyond the material (such as subtle energies like kundalini, psychic and spiritual realities).
It doesn't really deny it, it says it's irrelevant.
I should mention that I would appreciate some more courtesy from you. What exactly are you doing on this forum anyway? Everyone here believes in God.
I'm not rude, I'm just 'to the point'; it's how I post in serious discussions. And please, let's not character assasinate, you know nothing of my beliefs.
-
I can see there is no point in arguing with you.
Namaste.
See, here I would say "of course not, it's because I'm right" to which you'll accuse me of arrogance which I would riposte by quoting you here
I was respectful toward exoteric religion but did not place much intellectual value on it.
But I won't do that.
-
god's in the house, people!
- Did the news come to you of the person who debated with Abraham regarding his Lord, while God had given him a kingship? Abraham said ?My Lord is the One who gives life and death,? he said ?I bring life and death.? Abraham said ?God brings the sun from the east, so you bring it from the west.? The one who disbelieved was confounded! And God does not guide the wicked people.
-
Peace Nadia,
Thank you for sharing your story and position. Your post is certainly thought-provoking and I find myself agreeing with you on many points. Rather than harp on the discord, I would appreciate some further insight on a few points which I'm currently fascinated with.
You stated
Information was emerging from my unconscious mind at an incredibly fast rate. This experience culminated in some genuine psychic effects (I experienced heighted empathy) as well as in what is called a kundalini awakening the rising of an etheric energy reservoir at the base of the spine. It was accompanied by the "I am God" realization of the mystics.
I've experienced glimpses of something similar but only from a "thought" perspective. In other words, my mind was chattering from a resource unbeknownst to me at the time. I was imparted information that I did not posess. I've also experienced similitudes in my deeper states of artistic expression, when I let the soul speak without the filter of the mind. This, of course, has always been wordless, leaving the mind with nothing to hold onto.
What I'm learning is that the mind and the soul are not 2 sides of the same coin, as I once understood, but that the soul is the Infinite, and the mind is the finite thought processing machine, the vehicle through which we experience physical reality, which, if left unchecked, can bury the soul with often useless information.
All that being said, I'm to the point now where I understand what needs to be done. I'm just refining the technique that will work best for me. I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding how you maintain a spiritual perspective without getting swept away in the current of mind-activity.
Thanks,
Tay -
Peace Tay,
What I'm learning is that the mind and the soul are not 2 sides of the same coin, as I once understood, but that the soul is the Infinite,
I would like to know more about the soul being infinite as infinity as a rule has no limits...because a soul is created it has a starting point. This beginning/starting is a limit. You could call it indefinite but not infinite...Is there a difference between 'the soul being the Infinite' and 'the soul being infinite'?
-
Hello nehdia,
This being the case, I no longer feel the need to bind myself to the dictates of any one scripture, or any scripture at all.
I am impressed with your insight into the connections between the worlds religions. I have myself being arguing on this forum that "transcendence" is the key to human spirituality, and the reality that many have called "God", "Allah", "Nirvana", "Tao", "Brahman-Atman" are derived from the human experience of "transcendence". All scripture is therefore is an interpretation in limited human language of a "transcendent" reality that lies beyond reason and language. This has also been the insight of the Great Seers, Sages, Prophets, Mystics and Meditators. But it has been hard to make others see this connection that you have made on your own.
I have also argued that "God" is not an OBJECTIVE fact but has always been a SUBJECTIVE experience of the individual. Even Prophet Muhammad did not rise up to highest heavens for the revelations but rather he descended to the very core of his soul in a "meditative-trance" to meet his "maker". Therefore "Revelation" is an event that happens in each individual soul and therefore every individual is capable of having an experience like the Prophets. This experience is had via meditation.
As for myself I have not progressed enough in my meditation to "confirm" any of this "trascendence" yet. But I have so far achieved a "sense" of "infinte space" and "unity" within myself in my meditation sessions. I would like to believe, however, I am on the right track and perhaps one day it may lead to enlightenement. I will just have to remain patient, courageous and dedicated and continue to cultivate and nurture compassion for my fellow human beings and for myself too.
I am glad that your spiritual transformation have helped you to deal with your sexuality and the abuse. My spiritual transformation has allowed me to connect with humanity regardless of their religious beliefs as opposed to connecting myself to a certain scripture or set of beliefs. I now celeberate the best of humanity and also come to terms with worst of humanity through understanding. But I have not reached the end yet. I am still learning, I am still continuing with my spiritual journey but I am glad that I have met another traveller on this lonely spiritual path -)
Regards,
-
Peace Nadia,
Good to hear from you )
You stated,
I would like to know more about the soul being infinite as infinity as a rule has no limits...because a soul is created it has a starting point. This beginning/starting is a limit. You could call it indefinite but not infinite...Is there a difference between 'the soul being the Infinite' and 'the soul being infinite'?
Here's some questions to think about that may or may not help...
Is the soul created or is this life a metamorphasis?
Can you think of any examples of something coming from nothing?
Is there any seperation between you and any atom in the universe?Peace,
Tay -
Is the soul created or is this life a metamorphasis?
Yes. By Allah.
Can you think of any examples of something coming from nothing?
No.
Is there any seperation between you and any atom in the universe?
Define seperation. If you're talking of atoms then I'd assume you don't mind going down to the quantum level and in that case quantum entanglement get's mixed up in the argument.
Oh, btw, god must be seperate from this universe.
-
Peace Tay,
Good to see you around, after your post on AP's thread, I thought thats it D
Neo has already answered the questions the way I probably would, so I'll avoid redundancy... It would be good to discuss this...
I don't know if a seperate topic should be started for this as it might be considered off topic?!?
-
Science = proof by disassociation
Spirituality = anathema to proofAnyone who tries to combine them is not worth my time.
Neo, try telling that to some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, such as
Albert Einstein
Erwin Schrodinger
Werner Heisenberg
Louis de Broglie
James Jeans
Max Planck
Wolfgang Pauli
Arthur Eddingtonpeace nehdia.
You forgot Richard Feynman and David Bohm!
Maybe "organized religion" and science are incompatible, but I would agree that physics and spirituality are quite complimentary. In quantum mechanics, there are principles that must be accepted on blind faith, as it were, yet are highly accurate and useful.
There is a function that yields a finite exterior in the shape of a cone, which has an infinite interior. My memory fails me here, since I haven't done calculus for a long time, so I can't remember the series that produces this object. However, I do remember, when I first heard of it, I thought this mathematical paradox sounded very much like a human body that contained an infinite soul. )
