11 Jan 09
Originally posted by kirksey957gnos⋅tic   /ˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nos-tik] Show IPA Pronunciation
You sound like a Gnostic.
–adjective Also, gnos⋅ti⋅cal. 1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.
–noun 4. (initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.
I don't know about all that!
Don't you believe that the knowledge of God is foremost?
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwI can't help if you don't know the difference between a Universalist and a non-dualist. Try googling.
You sound like a universalised.
Romans 11:36
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
There is only Christ. The self is a hindrance.
"There is only Christ" doesn't sound like any type of Christianity I'm aware of. Romans 11:36 is referring to God the Father, not Christ BTW.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderOne and the same. btw
I can't help if you don't know the difference between a Universalist and a non-dualist. Try googling.
"There is only Christ" doesn't sound like any type of Christianity I'm aware of. Romans 11:36 is referring to God the Father, not Christ BTW.
Nondualism
Nondualism implies that things appear distinct while not being separate. The word's origin is the Latin duo meaning "two" and is used as the English translation of the Sanskrit term advaita. The term can refer to a belief, condition, theory, practice, or quality.
Various usages
Nondualism may be viewed as the understanding or belief that dualism or dichotomy are illusory phenomena. Examples of dualisms include self/other, mind/body, male/female, good/evil, active/passive, dualism/nondualism and many others. It is accessible as a belief, theory, condition, as part of a tradition, as a practice, or as the quality of union with reality.
A nondual philosophical or religious perspective or theory maintains that there is no fundamental distinction between mind and matter, or that the entire phenomenological world is an illusion (with reality being described variously as the Void, the Is, Emptiness, the mind of God, Atman or Brahman). Nontheism provides related conceptual and philosophical information.
Many traditions (generally originating in Asia) state that the true condition or nature of reality is nondualistic, and that these dichotomies are either unreal or (at best) inaccurate conveniences. While attitudes towards the experience of duality and self may vary, nondual traditions converge on the view that the ego, or sense of personal being, doer-ship and control, is ultimately said to be an illusion. As such many nondual traditions have significant overlap with mysticism.
Nondualism may also be viewed as a practice, namely the practice of self-inquiry into one's own being as set forth by Ramana Maharshi, which is intended to lead a person to realize the nondual nature of existence.
Nondualism can refer to one of two types of quality. One is the quality of union with reality, God, the Absolute. This quality is knowable and can be gained spontaneously and via practice of inquiry. A second quality is absolute by nature, or to put it in words, "conceptual absence of 'neither Yes nor No'," as Wei Wu Wei wrote. This latter quality is beyond the quality of union. It may be viewed as unknowable.
Accessibility is not relevant to the second quality mentioned in the paragraph above, since, according to that quality, an essential part of its gaining includes the realisation that the entire apparent existence of the individual who would gain access to understanding nondualism is in fact merely illusional. Achieving the second of these qualities therefore implies the extinguishing of the ego-sense that was seeking it:
"What is the significance of the statement 'No one can get enlightenment"? ... Enlightenment is the annihilation of the 'one' who 'wants' enlightenment. If there is enlightenment ... it means that the 'one' [ie individual ego] who had earlier wanted enlightenment has been annihilated. So no 'one' can achieve enlightenment, and therefore no 'one' can enjoy enlightenment. [...] if you get [a] million dollars then there will be someone [an ego-sense] to enjoy that million dollars. But if you go after enlightenment and enlightenment happens, there will be no 'one' [ie, no individual ego-sense] to enjoy enlightenment."
Universalism
Universalism can be classified as a religion, theology and philosophy that generally holds all persons and creatures are related to God or the Divine and will be reconciled to God. A church or community that calls itself Universalist may emphasize the universal principles of most religions and accept other religions in an inclusive manner, believing in a universal reconciliation between humanity and the divine. Many religions may have a degree of Universalist theology in their tenets and principles, including Christianity, Hinduism, New Thought spirituality. A common principle is that love is a universal binding force.
A belief in one common truth is also another important tenet. The living truth is seen as more far-reaching than national, cultural, or religious boundaries.
They look similar to me.
It's all about Christ only. No self.
Without Christ there is no life!
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwThen you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
One and the same. btw
Nondualism
Nondualism implies that things appear distinct while not being separate. The word's origin is the Latin duo meaning "two" and is used as the English translation of the Sanskrit term advaita. The term can refer to a belief, condition, theory, practice, or quality.
Various usages
Nondualism may be viewed as the understan ...[text shortened]... It's all about Christ only. No self.
Without Christ there is no life!
If there is "no self" in your theology, what exactly continues to live because of Christ?
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwNondualists tend to be non-exclusivists as well, but that does not mean that all nondualists agree on all points.
One and the same. btw
Nondualism
Nondualism implies that things appear distinct while not being separate. The word's origin is the Latin duo meaning "two" and is used as the English translation of the Sanskrit term advaita. The term can refer to a belief, condition, theory, practice, or quality.
Various usages
Nondualism may be viewed as the understan ...[text shortened]... It's all about Christ only. No self.
Without Christ there is no life!
For example, some nondualists seem to think that illusion means not actual or not real. But I reject that (and I suspect a majority do as well): the distinct figures/forms/manifestations are as real as the ground from which, in which and of which they arise. To assert that only the ground is real would also be illusion. But because they are all interwoven from, in and of the ground, there is no real, ultimate separateness (even though they are each distinct in expression)—just as a wave, or the gulfstream, is not separable from the ocean. Each wave is distinctly identifiable, but is also transient. To assert non-transience would also be illusion.
Nondualists are atheists (nontheists) in that they do not believe in a supernatural god-being (dualistic theism). But universalists may also be theists. And some nondualists—such as Kashmiri Shaivites and nondualist Jews— use theistic terminology (Shiva, Yah, even God) symbolically, and have from the beginning; others avoid such language.
Some nondualists are formalists, in the sense that they stick with one expression/form (such as Zen Buddhism)—but they are not exclusivists in the sense of thinking that their form is the one and only right one; they just think it is the best, at least for them, but perhaps generally as well. I am not a formalist—by which I mean that I am comfortable moving among several forms, and freely use one to inform my understanding of another. Recently, I have returned to the stream of nondualism that is expressed in Judaism. But I am no less a nondualist there than I am as a Zennist.
I personally do not prefer the term “enlightenment”; I prefer “realization”. When one realizes that one is an expression of the ground of being and inseparable from it, that informs how one lives. That does not mean that one no longer “has” a personality-self-construct (sometimes called the ego-self); it means that one does not falsely identify with it—one simply uses it as a means of expression. And it no longer has (the illusion of) rigidity.
Nor does it mean any kind of rank determinism. I am an expression of ein sof (Brahman, Tao, etc.), but I am also expressive; the particular form of expression that I am (e.g., reflective consciousness) is that of one who is also creatively expressive. Tao/Brahman/Shiva/YHVH* is creatively expressive, which our creative expressiveness reflects.
And, since I am an expression/manifestation of that, death is no problem. Like the wave, I fall back into the ocean of which I am and always was. Some nondualists believe that there is a cycle of re-births, or re-manifestations, first (reincarnation or transmigration of some essential self/soul)—but these too are ultimately transient: the same essential wave arising again before its final return. I don’t concern myself with such questions.
__________________________________________
* My use here of these alternative names does not mean that they do not represent different understandings of the One; they are different names that different nondualist expressions use.
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by Conrau KI never heard the story of St. Cyril in Sunday School--I think I know why. When was it supposed to have happened and was the organized church involved? Just which denomination(s) gets the black eye here?
This story has been largely discredited -- not surpising since Bertrand Russell is not a historian. There is no evidence that St. Cyril commissioned the lectern, Peter the Reader, to attack her. And St. Cyril himself was a philosopher and has since been recognised as a Doctor of the Church.
19 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderColossians 1:27
Then you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
If there is "no self" in your theology, what exactly continues to live because of Christ?
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Of course it would be absurd to suggest that the individual ceases to exist. The point being, it is not about me or you or anyone else but the life of Christ in you.
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by vistesdVery interesting. Seriously.
Nondualists tend to be non-exclusivists as well, but that does not mean that all nondualists agree on all points.
For example, some nondualists seem to think that illusion means not actual or not real. But I reject that (and I suspect a majority do as well): the distinct figures/forms/manifestations are as real as the ground from which, in whic ...[text shortened]... understandings of the One; they are different names that different nondualist expressions use.
After reading this I thought of a question. I hope you see this as I am curious to know at what point did you "realized" that there was no "god-being"; if it is possible to explain.