Re: If the gods ‘exist’ then how can god do so? …or what does that mean for monotheis Hi nick I am with you there, to me we then must take things like creation as universals, man can create [not universes obviously as our ability and knowledge of it is severely limited] things like ideas, art, poetry, inventions etc, even lesser creatures can, and this is part of how evolution works [though only in a minor way]. I think I can agree with the basic idea of singularity, though I think of it as the universal [probably the absolute], there is perhaps no singleness whatsoever? If we imagine that nothing has a definite edge not even the emptiness, and that all things come and go from that base, then the duality is only apparent and not actual. Indeed, this is why I always use the analogy of ‘the piece of paper and that which is drawn upon it’. if we imagine the base nature [ceugant/the source/infinity] as like a piece of paper without edges, then existence as that which is drawn upon it, then perhaps the absolute is both of these aspects. In other words we and all things are both empty and filled/existent at once, so we can become un-manifest [e.g. at death] and manifest ~ whilst remaining the same essential entity. Another way to look at this is; all things are in the emptiness [un-manifest version], and that is how they can then be created from nothing into something [manifest version]. Good point! This brings me to the idea that maybe there is an aleph omega of universals, in other words all universals belong to an entirety of universals. Then as they are within the infinite [unlimited], there cannot be universals nor particulars exterior to the aleph omega?_! Does this then define how the absolute can be containing and yet equally unlimited? Indeed, to have an identity as all existences do [perhaps this is the ‘name’ or essential information of a thing], they must belong to the realm of beginnings and endings. We cannot even conceptualise without that very thought making a thing ‘finite’ or limited by its own effect or ID. Equally we must remember that such things also have their un-manifest natures and thus also belong to the sphere of the unlimited. The bond between things I feel is something of this glue. Equally so the perpetuality and time/timelessness of reality. Very similar I reckon, the only differences so far are semantic. I look at the same things perhaps differently to others, some will see god as the only manifester, where I see an innate and occult shared ability [utility of universals] to make oneself and other things manifest in various realms, and in the world. The ancients often saw this ability as like weaving, we only have a miniscule ability to utilise such things ~ thankfully. In Christianity I expect that these things are seen as dark arts or satanic, yet I think we are children learning what the father does to a small degree of what he does. In druidry we follow the father also [dispater ~ sky father, or the dagda], but our initiation vision is such that we are shown by him some of how it works, and also our future [a small part of]. So to us it is divine and not satanic ~ unless one attempts to overrule the father [or other higher gods/godesses]. ------------------ Thomas, hi . As deep as we can go of course. I would say there is only real and nothing is unreal, so I would rather use terms like false, deceptive, apparent, or greater and lesser, or we may get caught up in the semantics rather than specific meanings. See also my reply to nick ~ we may be in agreement on much of it. I partly agree, though rather than seeing is as levels of ’blindness’ [we cannot see angels nor god], I think of it more in terms of focus and perception. Man can be entrenched in his focus on worldly things and thence only see the world, he can also become unattached and not see the world at all. At this point in visions [as they tend to occur when this is practiced] we see the void, then or instead we may see a tunnel, or something that our minds see as a means of connecting to another mental sphere. ‘enlightenment is found by loosing the world’ one could say. In all honesty is that our error? [please forgive any apparent impertinence ~ as it is not meant] If there is it and only it, then all is within the absolute. We have to draw a distinction and division right through reality otherwise? This I feel is the main area where all religions diverge, where perhaps it should be an area of convergence. It is the most important aspect of the whole debate as I see it. A oneness ~ is perhaps better. I agree emptiness is and also that infinity is equally inadequate. As there is distinction [even if not absolute] as well as oneness then that too fails, perhaps the absolute may only be called the absolute, anything else we place against it fails. This doesn’t stop us using philosophy to determine it via comparatives, we still may determine if it is dualistic or not. ‘Emptiness is the result of the equation of everythingness in one place’ [kinda like all things put in a blender]. Weather it is in our faiths or not, we should be thinking of the reality ~ the sacred science of it yes? I would think of universals as something we may partake in the utility of, and that none can possess. The absolute would be the collection of universals, I am unsure if that is a possession of? We don’t even possess ourselves, so it would seam reality is a bit anarchic on this front. 'advanced consciousness' = Minds with the ability to utilise universals and to understand any ‘things’. an animal would not possess such a consciousness for example, hence man is advanced according to his domain. Purer angles would be similar but they are not focused on the earthly, perhaps we could say angels and similar are our otherworldly form. Man transcends man? I agree it does but what I mean is that a pure human mind would see divinity, that is why we are in the likeness of god, though not the sameness, pure man and god are ‘man’. Kalaam is not understanding cardinality correctly ~ that’s quite a topic aside though. Universals should indeed not be considered as the infinite, they are simply different things. My brain is running dry so I hope we can resolve some of the fundamental differences. Its funny how even small differences end up with posts like these lols. Thank you very much for all wisdoms so far, no matter our shades, eventually all colour is within the white light.