Is It Just Wordplay?

[Ouroboros]

Could you elaborate? I've noted the two camps George noted or at least similar.

It was some book about pantheism that listed a couple of variations. I would have to look for it.

But the two camps George mentioned are most definitely the two major groups. One that consider the spirit or consciousness or similar to be the underlying foundation for existence, while the other camp hold the material, physical, energy, etc as the underlying foundation for existence and that consciousness emerges from it. I'm personally somewhere in between. I can't explain it but I think both camps are making arbitrary divisions, and it's probably because of language itself. Language forces us to divide, categorize, define, etc. Someone said that religion is a language game, and perhaps that's what all of our thought really is.

Oh, yeah, I think I read somewhere that there's this idea that consciousness emerges from language. Not sure if I agree or not, but it shows yet another view.

 

[Ouroboros]

Let me ask you this. What do you believe happens to our consciousness at physical death?

Honestly. I don't know. I used to think it would go to Heaven. Then I thought it will just disappear. Now, I have a problem to really define what consciousness is. Is it awareness of myself and my being, or is it just the "force" of being able to being aware? Either way, I really don't know which way it will go. And I have belief in neither. Agnostic about it, really.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh, I found an article (website) with a list of variations: Varieties of Pantheism, by Paul Harrison

It's by Paul Harrison, I think he wrote a few books on it. Not sure how accurate he is about it, but there it is to study at least.

 

[George-ananda]

Honestly. I don't know. I used to think it would go to Heaven. Then I thought it will just disappear. Now, I have a problem to really define what consciousness is. Is it awareness of myself and my being, or is it just the "force" of being able to being aware? Either way, I really don't know which way it will go. And I have belief in neither. Agnostic about it, really.

I honestly believe in afterlife for objective reasons (evidence from the paranormal and the teachings of those I have come to respect most). But to me; THIS is the most important question here. It is unmotivating and depressing to me to think we can make such limited and temporary growth in one lifetime and knowing the future for us and all the people we know is decrepitude and death. Many I respect say we are Brahman at our core so we have this drive to be pure eternal being-bliss-awareness (sat-chit-ananda). It is our truest nature and the source of our drive. All living things have a drive to survive and be happy (this is the finite form of the eternal being-bliss-awareness; sat-chit-ananda). Brahman is the inner-motivator of our lives.

My preach; but that is why I choose my side of the fence.

 

[Iti oj]

It was some book about pantheism that listed a couple of variations. I would have to look for it.

But the two camps George mentioned are most definitely the two major groups. One that consider the spirit or consciousness or similar to be the underlying foundation for existence, while the other camp hold the material, physical, energy, etc as the underlying foundation for existence and that consciousness emerges from it. I'm personally somewhere in between. I can't explain it but I think both camps are making arbitrary divisions, and it's probably because of language itself. Language forces us to divide, categorize, define, etc. Someone said that religion is a language game, and perhaps that's what all of our thought really is.

Oh, yeah, I think I read somewhere that there's this idea that consciousness emerges from language. Not sure if I agree or not, but it shows yet another view.

as in does it matter if it was physical or consciousness first because all is one. I get that. Some what. IMO consciousness is a property of the physical and as such is physical. That being said I would find to say the inverse factually wrong. I don't see how the two are the same even if they both say all is one.
am I missing your point?

 

[Iti oj]

I would call it non-dual (God and creation are not-two) theism. Traditional Christianity would be dualistic theism.

Right but the materialist are also none dual. What exactly does consciousness is primary actually mean to you also what are the implications?.

 

[Baladas]

I like that.


Yes, the cause behind the physical.

Now, do you think we continue to expand our consciousness through learning experiences beyond death until we Realize our Oneness with God/Brahman and realize that the physical which we struggled with was just a relative illusion?

Agreed, the cause.


Well, I certainly count that as a possibility. Many wise sages have said so.

Although I do not doubt their wisdom, I am less certain of how they could see beyond the death of the body (that's not to say that I think it's completely impossible).
I very much like, respect and am interested in the path of Advaita Vedanta, but I am very reluctant to take some of these ideas on faith.

I am open to them, but I just don't understand how we can know what happens after death beforehand...

I was once certain about my Christian faith beyond the shadow of a doubt. My faith in Jesus as Christ, and the new life to come was very strong, strong enough to send me to seminary, mission trips and to work with a few different ministries.
Now I tend to limit my belief in things of this nature to things I have personally experienced in some way...

Who knows? As Heraclitus said: "The only constant is change" (more or less). I have little doubt that I am changing all the time, I am unsure of exactly what my spiritual path will look like in the future.
I only know what I have experienced, perceived and reasoned.

 

[George-ananda]

Right but the materialist are also none dual.

Actually in this discussion let's call materialists; singualarists:

Singularists: Physical Alone exists
Dualists: God and the Physical exist
Non-Dualist: God and the Physical exist and are not-two.

What exactly does consciousness is primary actually mean to you also what are the implications.

It means Brahman/God is the only reality. The physical is the props of His play/drama in which Brahman appears to separate Himself into finite forms and then returns Himself to One. At the end of the play, the props go away; all consciousness that appeared finite merged into the infinite. Time to write a new play.

 

[Ouroboros]

My preach; but that is why I choose my side of the fence.

Which I totally respect. And I do understand your view, even though we're not in total agreement.

 

[Ouroboros]

as in does it matter if it was physical or consciousness first because all is one. I get that. Some what. IMO consciousness is a property of the physical and as such is physical. That being said I would find to say the inverse factually wrong. I don't see how the two are the same even if they both say all is one.
am I missing your point?

Then you perhaps are somewhat a dualistic pantheist? The physical and psyche (shorter than writing "consciousness" each time, LOL! Plus I keep on spelling concscisniouscouscouse wrong constantly) as two separate things, so to speak. Even though they belong to the same totality.

Sometimes I think of physical and psyche as two sides of the same coin. It's still one coin, even though they're eternally, infinitely always bound to each other.

 

[George-ananda]

Agreed, the cause.


Well, I certainly count that as a possibility. Many wise sages have said so.

Although I do not doubt their wisdom, I am less certain of how they could see beyond the death of the body (that's not to say that I think it's completely impossible).
I very much like, respect and am interested in the path of Advaita Vedanta, but I am very reluctant to take some of these ideas on faith.

I am open to them, but I just don't understand how we can know what happens after death beforehand...

I was once certain about my Christian faith beyond the shadow of a doubt. My faith in Jesus as Christ, and the new life to come was very strong, strong enough to send me to seminary, mission trips and to work with a few different ministries.
Now I tend to limit my belief in things of this nature to things I have personally experienced in some way...

Who knows? As Heraclitus said: "The only constant is change" (more or less). I have little doubt that I am changing all the time, I am unsure of exactly what my spiritual path will look like in the future.
I only know what I have experienced, perceived and reasoned.

I understand your reluctance. To me, the turning point was my study of the paranormal; I found the evidence supporting a belief in the afterlife was overwhelming just from an evidentiary consideration. Following that it was not a great leap to think more spiritually advanced people than myself exist and that I should give fair consideration to what they say. After studying Theosophy and a couple of well-known Indian Holy men/saint/sages I came to the belief that Advaita philosophy was the highest form of truth our rational minds can still somewhat grasp. Beyond that, the masters who claim experience of Atma-Realization say words ultimately fail.

 

[Baladas]

Well I certainly don't doubt that others are wiser or more advanced than I am, and to be fair, I have yet to delve into the paranormal.
Time will tell. And if I go to the grave, without believing it (and Advaita is the truth), then I can only hope I will advance more in my next life.

I will say this: I have a strange peace within me regarding this. I trust the process.

Peace to you.

 

[Ouroboros]

I will say this: I have a strange peace within me regarding this. I trust the process.

Exactly.

It's the path or the way, that's important. Not where you are, but your attitude towards the journey.

 

[George-ananda]

Well I certainly don't doubt that others are wiser or more advanced than I am, and to be fair, I have yet to delve into the paranormal.
Time will tell. And if I go to the grave, without believing it (and Advaita is the truth), then I can only hope I will advance more in my next life.

I will say this: I have a strange peace within me regarding this. I trust the process.

Peace to you.

Actually I just got done saying on another thread that I believe that what we believe on these difficult questions is not what is important in the end. What is important in the end is; did we lead our lives with love, compassion and unselfishness.

 

[Baladas]

Actually I just got done saying on another thread that I believe that what we believe on these difficult questions is not what is important in the end. What is important in the end is; did we lead our lives with love, compassion and unselfishness.

I couldn't agree more on that point.

 

[Quintessence]

Oh, I found an article (website) with a list of variations: Varieties of Pantheism, by Paul Harrison

It's by Paul Harrison, I think he wrote a few books on it. Not sure how accurate he is about it, but there it is to study at least.

I have his book. It's good. Somewhat limited in scope, but good. Good too, to hand people if they don't get pantheism. That website in general is also perhaps a good thing to point to people who don't get pantheism, though it is slanted towards a particular type of pantheism.

 

[Typist]

Actually I just got done saying on another thread that I believe that what we believe on these difficult questions is not what is important in the end. What is important in the end is; did we lead our lives with love, compassion and unselfishness.

My wife figured that out in her first year at college. I'm still working on it 45 years later. Apparently, I am a genius!

 

[Jumi]

Actually I just got done saying on another thread that I believe that what we believe on these difficult questions is not what is important in the end. What is important in the end is; did we lead our lives with love, compassion and unselfishness.

I agree with everything, but the unselfishness. We need to help ourselves before we can help others.

 

[Ouroboros]

I agree with everything, but the unselfishness. We need to help ourselves before we can help others.

True. It's the love others as you love thyself. How can you love others if you don't love yourself first?

 

[Iti oj]

Actually in this discussion let's call materialists; singualarists:

Singularists: Physical Alone exists
Dualists: God and the Physical exist
Non-Dualist: God and the Physical exist and are not-two.

.

sure those terms work and make sense to me.
where would a classic monist fall into that?
how do you see pantheism and panentheism