Your religious/spiritual journey

[TheLightWithin]

I see Unity getting mentioned, are they similar?

Unity is different from the UU in the sense that Unity is more focused on matters of the spirit and UU not so much. They attract a lot of agnostics or atheists. Both attract people who are "in full flight" from negative experiences with more conservative churches. (I remember my Unity minister and my UU minister using that term.)

 

[TheLightWithin]

My very first day at school I asked a question, and was told to be quiet.

Told my mum I wouldn't be going back ... I left as soon as I could, at 16.

However, despite my own experience, I am not against he school system.

Did you return to high school or get a GED (what we would call a GED in the US) Or were you able to pass tests and go straight to college?
It takes confidence and diligence and determination to chart your own course and develop your own educational path. Good for you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What school believe that?
Well it may be the sum total of all, but then it is conditional, subject to various contingencies ...
Not your Brahman, I'm not.
OK, so if Brahman is limited, I'll strike it from the list offered at #335.

Can I believe only what some school says? It is not like that in Hinduism. We have greater independence. Views are personal.
Sure, it has its set ways. They are termed as 'the four fundamental forces of nature'.
That is better. My Brahman is not a mystique. It is a question of science, the answers for which have to be sought.
Thanks. Sankara's Brahman may remain there, but not mine.

 

[Thomas]

Did you return to high school or get a GED (what we would call a GED in the US) ...

I got the minimum exam requirements to go to art college to do graphics.

Or were you able to pass tests and go straight to college?

I did a 'Distance Learning' degree in Catholic Theology in my 50s.

It takes confidence and diligence and determination to chart your own course and develop your own educational path. Good for you.

Sadly it takes good teachers, too ... and there are a dearth of them!

Not until I was around 50 that I realised what great opportunities for learning schools should offer ... and how they fail.

 

[Thomas]

Can I believe only what some school says?

No, just wondered if there were any texts on the idea.

My Brahman is not a mystique. It is a question of science, the answers for which have to be sought.
Thanks. Sankara's Brahman may remain there, but not mine.

OK ... that it's your belief, that's cool.

 

[otherbrother]

If there is no separation, then we exist and not God. God becomes superficial.
Adivista: Advaita (Dwaita is duality, Advaita is non-duality), Hindis: Hindus.
Does ocean have a mind? It depends on temperatures in its various regions.
Universe too does not need a mind. It works according to conditions developing in its various regions.

Is there room in an interfaith community and/or marketplace of thoughts for “trans-theism”? In which God is both real and not real, exists and not exists?
I dreamed last night that I was philosophizing that singular things aren’t real unless relative to other things. It was a yen/yang kind of concept. I think it might be similar to Whitehead’s denial of “simple location,” but I have not dug into that yet.
I wrote done some notes upon waking up:

A real thing can’t be ultimate

And an ultimate thing can’t be real



Trans theism



Things can only be real in relation to other things
Ultimate Reality is a myth (or oxymoron—perhaps no real “thing” can be ultimate, and no ultimate reality can be real)



Is God real or not real?

Yes!

Then got to thinking about the function of neutrons. Are they mere shadows of the relationship of protons and electrons? Or a base for them (they are thought to stabilize protons also residing in an atom’s nucleus).

Could neutrons be analogous to Father? Protons to Son? Electrons to Holy Spirit?

All interesting speculations. I’m not committed to any of these ideas but am interested in them.
Trans-theism?!!!!!

 

[wil]

I have heard that in decades or maybe centuries past, Catholics were discouraged by the Church from reading the Bible.
Is that true?

Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

By Msgr. Daniel Kutys Average Catholics asked today how often they read the Bible likely would say that they do not read the Bible regularly. However, if a...

www.usccb.org

 

[Thomas]

Is there room in an interfaith community and/or marketplace of thoughts for “trans-theism”? In which God is both real and not real, exists and not exists?

Well the metaphysical systems and Religions generally agree on an Uncaused Cause of All – and that that alone is real, but is not a thing as other things are.

I wrote done some notes upon waking up:
A real thing can’t be ultimate
And an ultimate thing can’t be real

I'd agree, from our point of view.

Things can only be real in relation to other things
Ultimate Reality is a myth (or oxymoron—perhaps no real “thing” can be ultimate, and no ultimate reality can be real)

Or a 'myth' in the sense that it transcends the capacity of human reason?

Then got to thinking about the function of neutrons. Are they mere shadows of the relationship of protons and electrons? Or a base for them (they are thought to stabilize protons also residing in an atom’s nucleus).
Could neutrons be analogous to Father? Protons to Son? Electrons to Holy Spirit?

Do protons and electrons emerge from neutrons?

Trans-theism?!!!!!

I think meta-theism is closer to what you're aiming at?

But have a chew on this:

Johannes Scottus Eriugena: The Five Modes of Being and Non-Being (Periphyseon, I.443c–446a).
Eriugena lists “five ways of interpreting” the manner in which things may be said to be or not to be.

The first mode, things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to be, whereas anything which, “through the excellence of its nature”, transcends our faculties are said not to be. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be. He is “nothingness through excellence.”

The second mode of being and non-being is seen in the “orders and differences of created natures”, whereby, if one level of nature is said to be, those orders above or below it, are said not to be, "For an affirmation concerning the lower (order) is a negation concerning the higher, and so too a negation concerning the lower (order) is an affirmation concerning the higher."

In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way. If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way.

The third mode contrasts the being of actual things with the “non-being” of potential or possible things still contained, in Eriugena’s memorable phrase, “in the most secret folds of nature.” This mode contrasts things which have come into effect with those things which are still contained in their causes. According to this mode, actual things, which are the effects of the causes, have being, whereas those things which are still virtual in the Primary Causes (e.g., the souls of those as yet unborn) are said not to be.

The fourth mode offers a roughly Platonic criterion for being: those things contemplated by the intellect alone may be considered to be, whereas things caught up in generation and corruption, viz. matter, place and time, do not truly exist. The assumption is that things graspable by intellect alone belong to a realm above the material, corporeal world and hence are timeless.

The fifth mode is essentially theological and applies solely to humans: those sanctified by grace are said to be, whereas sinners who have renounced the divine image are said not to be.

One of the striking features of this is that being and non-being are treated as correlative categories: something may be said to be under one mode and not to be under another. Attribution of being is subject to the dialectic of affirmation and negation.

When Eriugena calls God “nothing”, he means that God transcends all created being, God is nihil per excellentiam (nothingness on account of excellence) or, as he puts it, nihil per infinitatem (nothingness on account of infinity).

Matter, on the other hand, is also called “nothing” but it is “nothing through privation” (nihil per privationem). Similarly, created things are called “nothing” because they do not contain in themselves their principles of subsistence (Eriugena repeats St. Augustine’s view that the creature, considered apart from God, is mere nothing).
(from the Standford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy)

 

[wil]

Is there room in an interfaith community and/or marketplace of thoughts for “trans-theism”?

The religion of Schrodinger's?

 

[TheLightWithin]

In which God is both real and not real, exists and not exists?

The phrasing reminds me of Buddhism.

I suppose if God transcends existence somehow so that the concept of existence doesn't quite apply, then you might be on to something.
As YHWH is said to mean "I Am" or "I Am Who I Am" or "I will Be What I will Be" or "He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists" existence is called attention to.

Interesting things I stumbled across looking up the above to verify wording

What does Yahweh mean? | Cru

Yahweh means “To be” or "I AM WHO I AM." Here’s what it can teach us about God.

www.cru.org

YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name - TheTorah.com

God reveals his name to Moses as "I am," from the Hebrew root ה.ו.י, “being." The name YHWH, however, originates in Midian, and derives from the Arabic term for "love, desire, or passion." | Prof. Israel Knohl

www.thetorah.com

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, just wondered if there were any texts on the idea.


OK ... that it's your belief, that's cool.

Yeah, sure there are. Mandukya Upanishad says "Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman).
RigVeda famously says "The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], full text etext at sacred-texts.com

sacred-texts.com

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is God real or not real?
Could neutrons be analogous to Father? Protons to Son? Electrons to Holy Spirit?

So you mean God is imaginary?

"In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle that is not composed of other particles."

Elementary particle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The world is polytheistic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The world is polytheistic.

Maybe in your 'neck of the woods'.