wil
UNeyeR1
When we realize all are divine...all is Divine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Clearing the ground ...
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
When we realize all are divine...all is Divine.
Thought I'd post on the back of this comment on the Zen thread.
It's a sentiment we call all reference, but the how of it is all important – is it pandeism, deism, pantheism, panentheism, monism, non-dualism ... a variety of theological 'isms' that can affirm the sentiment, but each in a way distinct from the other.
The question at the heart of the declaration is whether 'all is Divine' is according to whether that which we call 'divine' is inherent to all nature, or is it utterly extrinsic to it, or is it something else, something relational and participatory.
I would argue from the outset that 'divine according to its own inherent nature' is logically indefensible – if it were then every act would be a divine act, and our experience of the world, of sufferings and evils, at our own hands and at the hands of others, renders any subsequent definition of 'divine' as no different from 'human' and utterly incompatible with any classical metaphysical definition of the Divine as the Real, the Good and the True.
It's a sentiment we call all reference, but the how of it is all important – is it pandeism, deism, pantheism, panentheism, monism, non-dualism ... a variety of theological 'isms' that can affirm the sentiment, but each in a way distinct from the other.
The question at the heart of the declaration is whether 'all is Divine' is according to whether that which we call 'divine' is inherent to all nature, or is it utterly extrinsic to it, or is it something else, something relational and participatory.
I would argue from the outset that 'divine according to its own inherent nature' is logically indefensible – if it were then every act would be a divine act, and our experience of the world, of sufferings and evils, at our own hands and at the hands of others, renders any subsequent definition of 'divine' as no different from 'human' and utterly incompatible with any classical metaphysical definition of the Divine as the Real, the Good and the True.
My own position is shaping up according to Hart's 'Christological Monism', which he argues as entirely orthodox – that monotheism implies monism because creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex deo are equivalent concepts.
Creatio ex nihilo is understood to mean God brings creation into existence from nothing other than His own will, and not from some pre-existent material. He does not 'organise' the Void or Chaos into ordered existence.
Creation is an act of kenotic love (Gk: κένωσις, kénōsis, 'the act of emptying') – kenotic in the sense that God is not simply replicating Himself, nor creating some kind of divine imaginarium in which His dreams play out, but the act of emptying signifies a sense of something 'outside' or 'other than' God, an esse (the present active infinitive of the Latin verb sum 'to be'), a 'this is' which is other than God, but which can claim its origin and its end in God.
Creaturely existence is in the image and likeness of Divine existence, it is relational to it, but not the same as it.
Creatio ex nihilo is understood to mean God brings creation into existence from nothing other than His own will, and not from some pre-existent material. He does not 'organise' the Void or Chaos into ordered existence.
Creation is an act of kenotic love (Gk: κένωσις, kénōsis, 'the act of emptying') – kenotic in the sense that God is not simply replicating Himself, nor creating some kind of divine imaginarium in which His dreams play out, but the act of emptying signifies a sense of something 'outside' or 'other than' God, an esse (the present active infinitive of the Latin verb sum 'to be'), a 'this is' which is other than God, but which can claim its origin and its end in God.
Creaturely existence is in the image and likeness of Divine existence, it is relational to it, but not the same as it.
wil
UNeyeR1
Oh I have been chastised many times for having that thought...that you oppose.
Saying it is all divine... for me includes what one perceives as good and bad. Shiva is a thing. I like to meditate on the nonjudgemental, not naming it good or bad but that everything "just is"....again not easy, again I fail often, again I am not perfect...but your perception of indefensible and mine differs.
What i do know is when I am in the middle of it (ate bad food which either causes one to wretch or evacuate in a horrific and painful manner that seemingly will never end) when in the middle of it it is hard to believe your body wished to survive and had to remove the poison from it....all is Divine, even when restricted to the porcelain throne.
Do we need to discuss the farmer and son and horses "maybe good maybe bad"?
Haven't we all?
I don't know what you mean. If it includes the good and bad, what makes it 'divine' rather than 'ordinary'?
Well ... Shiva is a Deity ... 'The Auspicious One' ... the Supreme Lord who creates, protects and transforms the universe. Shiva is multi-aspected, benevolent as well as fearsome. In benevolent aspects, He is depicted as an omniscient yogi who lives an ascetic life in 'heaven'. The slayer of demons, the Destroyer of Worlds ... not too far removed from certain Christian readings of the Deity, really (Apart from Shiva having a wife and two children.)
It depends on what you mean by 'a thing'.
I don't disagree with any of this – who would? If you think that's the ground of our difference, you're quite wrong.
(With the corollary, if you allow bad on the basis that it 'just is', and say nothing, do nothing, then you are complicit in it ... and thus there are grounds for disagreement.)
I smile at this Wil-ism ... but honestly I have no idea what you're going on about here ...
... Nor here ?
Just to clarify 1: I believe all is Divine, I believe Creation is Incarnation, a theophany.
I find the following viewpoints problematic:
Pantheism, that the universe "is a self-organizing unity" and is itself Deity.
Panentheism, that the Deity is an entity other than the universe, and out of the substance of such the universe arises.
Pandeism, that the Deity became the universe and ceased to exist as a separate entity.
Deism, that the Deity created the universe and has been 'hands off' ever since.
None of which (other than deism) adequately answer the question of theodicy.
Just to clarify 2: I am not a dualist.
I do not accept that there is 'the Absolute', 'the Infinite', and that this particular 'finitude' exists outside of that. Rather, this finite is an aspect of the Infinite.
The next step is to argue that this finite existence – my individual being – is a conditional mode of Infinite Being.
Then, or perhaps, against normative Christianity, but, there is an ontological continuity between Infinite Being and my being.
If there is Infinite and Unconditioned Being, and Infinite and Unconditioned Consciousness, then my being, my consciousness, participates in that, but that participation is finite and conditional and subject to contingency.
The goal, then, is to seek and attain the infinite and unconditional state. Enlightenment, Beatitude, what-have-you.
One common theme is the idea of dissolving the conditional into the Unconditioned, in such a manner that the conditional simply ceases. This is the analogy of the wave or the droplet and the ocean. It seems to me this too often accepts annihilationism as the goal, whereas I do not think the traditions actually teaches that – rather, they refer to a mode of being which, in the case of Buddhism, is beyond words.
The Christian theme, however, is one of participation. Somewhat different, but equally beyond words.
I find the following viewpoints problematic:
Pantheism, that the universe "is a self-organizing unity" and is itself Deity.
Panentheism, that the Deity is an entity other than the universe, and out of the substance of such the universe arises.
Pandeism, that the Deity became the universe and ceased to exist as a separate entity.
Deism, that the Deity created the universe and has been 'hands off' ever since.
None of which (other than deism) adequately answer the question of theodicy.
Just to clarify 2: I am not a dualist.
I do not accept that there is 'the Absolute', 'the Infinite', and that this particular 'finitude' exists outside of that. Rather, this finite is an aspect of the Infinite.
The next step is to argue that this finite existence – my individual being – is a conditional mode of Infinite Being.
Then, or perhaps, against normative Christianity, but, there is an ontological continuity between Infinite Being and my being.
If there is Infinite and Unconditioned Being, and Infinite and Unconditioned Consciousness, then my being, my consciousness, participates in that, but that participation is finite and conditional and subject to contingency.
The goal, then, is to seek and attain the infinite and unconditional state. Enlightenment, Beatitude, what-have-you.
One common theme is the idea of dissolving the conditional into the Unconditioned, in such a manner that the conditional simply ceases. This is the analogy of the wave or the droplet and the ocean. It seems to me this too often accepts annihilationism as the goal, whereas I do not think the traditions actually teaches that – rather, they refer to a mode of being which, in the case of Buddhism, is beyond words.
The Christian theme, however, is one of participation. Somewhat different, but equally beyond words.
I think this is the nub of it, between us.
A non-theist who talks about divinity?
It seems to reduce the divine to some meaningless, anodyne state.
+++
As discussed elsewhere, I think your 'atheism' etc., is all in relation to your rejection of received dogmas – you want to be 'in it', but on your own terms.
wil
UNeyeR1
All is Divine, that includes the ordinary...or what we from our human perspective consider ordinary...nothing is a miracle and it is all a miracle my brother!
I was proud of that composition, describing events which we all have experienced that are gross and painful without vulgar or chastisable language.
But maybe this will help...Mt. Saint Helen's blew it's top off and ash covered the area, people, animals, flora and fauna died...forests demolished...as that horrific scene was going on the ash cloud went over our head driving across country...headline news across the states of the destructive yet captivating videos.
20 years later the whole area is transformed with new growth...the ash is fertile soil.
Our half a dozen decades on this planet are but a blip in time what we consider beneficial to us may not be considered to the cow, pig, or fish that we take for nutrients for our survival...but what we excrete may be gross or waste which stinks up and makes a mess of our reality will provide nutrients to the soil for new growth, as will our decaying bodies...
It is all divine and ordinary.
Your G!d my TOE my brother!
wil
UNeyeR1
1. The Classic Folk Tale (Sāi Wēng Shī Mǎ)
A poor farmer lived on the border with his son and a single horse. One day, the horse ran away.
The neighbors gathered and said, "What terrible luck! Now you have no horse to plow your fields."
The farmer replied, "Maybe."
A few weeks later, the horse returned, leading a herd of wild horses back to the farm.
The neighbors celebrated, "What incredible luck! Now you are a rich man!"
The farmer replied, "Maybe."
While trying to tame one of the wild horses, the farmer's son was thrown and broke his leg badly.
The neighbors came to offer sympathy, "What terrible luck! Your only son is crippled."
The farmer replied, "Maybe."
Shortly after, war broke out, and military officers swept through the village, drafting every able-bodied young man. Most died in battle, but the farmer's son was spared because of his broken leg.
The neighbors marveled, "What great luck!"
The farmer simply replied, "Maybe."
2. The Alan Watts Version (Modern Retelling)
"Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer who lost a horse. All the neighbors came around that evening and said, 'That's too bad.' And the farmer said, 'Maybe.'
The next day the horse came back and brought seven wild horses with it. All the neighbors came around and said, 'Why, that's great, isn't it?' And he said, 'Maybe.'
The next day his son, who was attempting to tame one of the horses, was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors came around and said, 'Oh, dear, that's too bad.' And the farmer responded, 'Maybe.'
The next day the conscription officers came around to draft young men into the army, and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. All the neighbors came around and said, 'Isn't that wonderful!' And the farmer said, 'Maybe.'
The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity, and it is really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad—because you never know what will be the consequences of the misfortune, or what will be the consequences of good fortune."
............
My thoughts or comments definitely include my interpretation or misinterpretation depending on perspectives of the above...along with other accumulated interpretations or misinterpretations for others perusal to use or discard.
A poor farmer lived on the border with his son and a single horse. One day, the horse ran away.
The neighbors gathered and said, "What terrible luck! Now you have no horse to plow your fields."
The farmer replied, "Maybe."
A few weeks later, the horse returned, leading a herd of wild horses back to the farm.
The neighbors celebrated, "What incredible luck! Now you are a rich man!"
The farmer replied, "Maybe."
While trying to tame one of the wild horses, the farmer's son was thrown and broke his leg badly.
The neighbors came to offer sympathy, "What terrible luck! Your only son is crippled."
The farmer replied, "Maybe."
Shortly after, war broke out, and military officers swept through the village, drafting every able-bodied young man. Most died in battle, but the farmer's son was spared because of his broken leg.
The neighbors marveled, "What great luck!"
The farmer simply replied, "Maybe."
2. The Alan Watts Version (Modern Retelling)
"Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer who lost a horse. All the neighbors came around that evening and said, 'That's too bad.' And the farmer said, 'Maybe.'
The next day the horse came back and brought seven wild horses with it. All the neighbors came around and said, 'Why, that's great, isn't it?' And he said, 'Maybe.'
The next day his son, who was attempting to tame one of the horses, was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors came around and said, 'Oh, dear, that's too bad.' And the farmer responded, 'Maybe.'
The next day the conscription officers came around to draft young men into the army, and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. All the neighbors came around and said, 'Isn't that wonderful!' And the farmer said, 'Maybe.'
The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity, and it is really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad—because you never know what will be the consequences of the misfortune, or what will be the consequences of good fortune."
............
My thoughts or comments definitely include my interpretation or misinterpretation depending on perspectives of the above...along with other accumulated interpretations or misinterpretations for others perusal to use or discard.
Oh, that tale – I like 'The Little Bird Flies South' variant, too – but it doesn't really address the issues under discussion here.
What might seem like good fortune can turn out bad, what seems bad fortune can turn out good – so just go with the flow.
But then .... what about Martin Niemöller’s "First they came for ... "?
To choose to do nothing, think nothing, discern nothing, etc., might in certain circumstances be considered pragmatic, or wise, but in others, its clearly not, when it renders one complicit in what one knows to be morally wrong.
Jesus says, in The Sermon on the Mount:
"Whereas I tell you not to oppose the wicked man by force; rather, whosoever strikes you upon the right cheek, turn to him the other as well" (Matthew 5:39)
Harts points out that in most uses, the Greek term anthisthēmi does not mean merely 'to resist', but actively to oppose by matching force against force ("eye for an eye", in the previous verse).
The issue here is about the practical means, for the poor and the powerless, of resistance. Don't go up against (evil) people who will swear extravagant oaths to cheat you, strike you with impunity, drag you into court and take everything you have – Jesus' listeners know the system is stacked against them. Jesus is saying you can’t win by trading blow for blow.
What the verse does not say is that one should not resist at all. Had that been the case, He would never have opened His mouth.
Last edited:
Clearing the ground ... How I understand 'nature'.
In the Roman Catholic Tradition (largely in Augustine but mostly Aquinas), is an implicit dualism that sets "natural" against "supernatural". In specific terms it sets up the distinction between 'nature' and grace' in such a manner that 'grace' is a 'supernatural gift' and as such something 'super-added', an external gift.
The Ancient (and orthodox) belief is that 'nature' has no real existence apart from God, from whom all creation came, ex nihilo, in which all live and move and are (Acts 17:38) and to whom all creation, 'in the fullness of time', will return.
The supernatural, in that sense, is not something added to nature, but rather that which underwrites nature. The supernatural is the cause that gives nature its actuality. Within that, the natural, which arises in and from the supernatural, is directed towards its end, which is its source and origin.
St Maximus the Confessor (7th century) discussed this at length. The Fathers understood the relation in the same way the Greeks understood the relation between 'matter' (the natural) and 'form' (the spiritual).
In the Roman Catholic Tradition (largely in Augustine but mostly Aquinas), is an implicit dualism that sets "natural" against "supernatural". In specific terms it sets up the distinction between 'nature' and grace' in such a manner that 'grace' is a 'supernatural gift' and as such something 'super-added', an external gift.
The Ancient (and orthodox) belief is that 'nature' has no real existence apart from God, from whom all creation came, ex nihilo, in which all live and move and are (Acts 17:38) and to whom all creation, 'in the fullness of time', will return.
The supernatural, in that sense, is not something added to nature, but rather that which underwrites nature. The supernatural is the cause that gives nature its actuality. Within that, the natural, which arises in and from the supernatural, is directed towards its end, which is its source and origin.
St Maximus the Confessor (7th century) discussed this at length. The Fathers understood the relation in the same way the Greeks understood the relation between 'matter' (the natural) and 'form' (the spiritual).
wil
UNeyeR1
This is where I have gotten into even more trouble and probably will here.
Without Hitler, Israel would not exist today.
Is that good or bad? People have not only been arguing that since the British mandate but killing each other over that .
Hence me and my maybe.
And I say it is all the same thing.
The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.
Agree...but we each have our own jobs.... it does not benefit the world if we all do the same job.
I'll leave you to game that one out with the historians. That might or might not be the case, there are scenarios ... the history of the Zionist
movement starts long before WWII.
The Holocaust was a crime – there is no causal or moral justification for what went on.
Take Israel out of the equation – say the state of Israel was never established. Is the Holocaust a 'good thing' now?
Does your maybe accommodate every evil?
+++
I know you do, but placing that against other statements makes your 'thing' is so nebulous as to be meaningless, which is why I beg to differ.
What is that supposed to mean?
wil
UNeyeR1
Yes, theoretically
...evil, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
i cant, I deal with reality not what it's. Reality is it happened and the world (the human world) will continue to deal with the repercussions (which have been both good and bad depending on who you speak with....it comes down to bias and perception not black and white, eh... but i am not saying, nor proposing the holocaust was a good thing....my proposal is neither....it happened...)
I look at every "negative" in my life, be it corporal punishment in school, fights and beatings in playgrounds, cars repoed, family that went to and died in wars or came back mentally and physically injured, my aorta dissections and hundreds of thousand ms spent to save my ass....as with everything to sides to every story, we can find negatives and positives to all, each and every one People will argue why it is good or bad and I say neither, it happened....and none of it can be viewed from space nor matter significantly to anyone a hundred miles away....everything that.has happened to me is small potatoes....it only becomes big if I make a big deal of it...i could choose to let it affect my psyche... i choose not.
wil
UNeyeR1
Coined by Frank Zappa in his song "Stink-Foot," the phrase means that the most critical detail of a complex situation is often something tiny, subtle, or seemingly absurd. It is a surreal play on the idiom "the crux of the matter."
A deeper reflection on my above comment.
I find any accommodation of the Holocaust as unacceptable. Hence, we're done.
You're wrong because the establishment of the State of Israel was never an intended consequence of the Holocaust. The intention of that was the eradication of Jews. It should be evaluated on those terms – is the intention good or ill.
Your interpretation of what happened.
I find any accommodation of the Holocaust as unacceptable. Hence, we're done.