Dualism, God, and Self

in dualism god cannot exist as an absolute, eternal, or infinite because god is contrasted, or opposed, to mankind and/or creation. in dualism god delimits mankind and mankind limits god because of the opposed existences. mankind's presence limits god's presence and vice versa. oneness cannot exist in dualism except in the illusion of forms.

thus this dualistic god can't be omnipotent, nor omnipresent, nor omniscient because it is separated and contrasted to the otherness it created.


in order for oneness to exist then god would have to be pantheistic, inherent, intrinsic to the thing created? god would have to be present in the form and the form would have to exist within god for oneness?

Yep, a non-dual 'God' wouldn't be a god in the usual sense.
A "God" is generally conceived of as a personage of some sort, and invested with human qualities like senses, desire, likes and dislikes.

Fool said:

in order for oneness to exist then god would have to be pantheistic, inherent, intrinsic to the thing created?

Click to expand...

Yes, but it also could be panentheistic.

Fool said:

god would have to be present in the form and the form would have to exist within god for oneness?

Click to expand...

Yes, but as I've said before there's still countenance, God's attention can be close or far and still maintain oneness. It's like human awareness. Usually it's in the head, but it can also rest on other parts of the body.

dybmh said:

Yes, but it also could be panentheistic.

Click to expand...

No again, panentheism creates a state of dualism because there appears two separate things because of forms. god is both formless and form. like nirguna and saguna brahman, .attributes are illusory, temporal. brahman, god is not. brahman is all that there is. the forms are maya. like waves on an ocean appear/disappear as an illusion of ocean

dybmh said:

Yes, but as I've said before there's still countenance, God's attention can be close or far and still maintain oneness. It's like human awareness. Usually it's in the head, but it can also rest on other parts of the body.

Click to expand...

there is no attention. attention requires awareness to something separate from self. god cannot be omnipresent and attending to something afar. there is no far/close in oneness. oneness is like entanglement, when it happens here it is understood there too. there is no here/there in omnipresent. there is just now. this is the only way that omniscient could also occur as to the all(singular).


like meister eckhart said, "The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love."

Fool said:

No again, panentheism creates a state of dualism because there appears two separate things because of forms. god is both formless and form. like nirguna and saguna brahman, .attributes are illusory, temporal. brahman, god is not. brahman is all that there is. the forms are maya. like waves on an ocean appear/disappear as an illusion of ocean

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. Everything you've said above can be applied to panentheism. Any form is nullified into the never ending.

Fool said:

there is no attention. attention requires awareness to something separate from self. god cannot be omnipresent and attending to something afar. there is no far/close in oneness. oneness is like entanglement, when it happens here it is understood there too. there is no here/there in omnipresent. there is just now. this is the only way that omniscient could also occur as to the all(singular).

Click to expand...

This applies a limit to God which seems unfounded. God has no awareness? In addition to this, iir, there are verses in Psalms which describe god being far from the haughty, but close to the widow, the orphan, and the broken-hearted.

Fool said:

like meister eckhart said, "The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love."

Click to expand...

Well.... it's easy enough to test. I give you full consent to read my heart soul and mind. If it's true there is only one eye, then you should be able to tell me what I had for dinner last night. Or the clothes I'm wearing. Or my mother's maiden name. Etc.

dybmh said:

I respectfully disagree. Everything you've said above can be applied to panentheism. Any form is nullified into the never ending.

This applies a limit to God which seems unfounded. God has no awareness? In addition to this, iir, there are verses in Psalms which describe god being far from the haughty, but close to the widow, the orphan, and the broken-hearted.

Well.... it's easy enough to test. I give you full consent to read my heart soul and mind. If it's true there is only one eye, then you should be able to tell me what I had for dinner last night. Or the clothes I'm wearing. Or my mother's maiden name. Etc.

Click to expand...

this makes sense from a believer's point of view, belief system. but reality isn't something that exists somewhere else, or in some other form, or at some other time.


reality is NOW


i didn't claim to be God Absolute. I claimed to be an illusory form that is temporal but being of the same spirit. a fractal of the whole. why would i care what some other temporal form chose to eat, do, or say yesterday? i don't need to know that. that was your free will to be. i got better things to do. i don't need to know what everyone else is being.


i claimed Absolute god can only be omniscient if god is pantheistic and omnipresent, intrinsic to what ever is being at any given moment and place in space/time.

Fool said:

this makes sense from a believer's point of view, belief system. but reality isn't something that exists somewhere else, or in some other form, or at some other time.


reality is NOW


i didn't claim to be God Absolute. I claimed to be an illusory form that is temporal but being of the same spirit. a fractal of the whole. why would i care what some other temporal form chose to eat, do, or say yesterday? i don't need to know that. that was your free will to be. i got better things to do. i don't need to know what everyone else is being.


i claimed Absolute god can only be omniscient if god is pantheistic and omnipresent, intrinsic to what ever is being at any given moment and place in space/time.

Click to expand...

I hear you, I don't want to argue. But if you are not the absolute, then what you're describing is duality. The absolute is one thing, you are another. Even if it's just an illusion, you described yourself as a fractal of the whole. That's duality.

Also, I noticed that you didn't object to my claim about Psalms. Does this mean we agree on that point? The sort of oneness you're describing is brought from the NT, and from Hinduism, but not from the OT?

dybmh said:

I hear you, I don't want to argue. But if you are not the absolute, then what you're describing is duality. The absolute is one thing, you are another. Even if it's just an illusion, you described yourself as a fractal of the whole. That's duality.

Also, I noticed that you didn't object to my claim about Psalms. Does this mean we agree on that point? The sort of oneness you're describing is brought from the NT, and from Hinduism, but not from the OT?

Click to expand...

we're debating and it isn't personal for me. the Absolute is All. it has no limits, nothing to reference itself to or against. there is no otherness, nothing exists apart from it. that would be dualistic. isaiah 45:5

only the all(singular) can know the all(plural). I can only know myself in relationship to the all. i am obviously part of reality but not in a fixed form, or image. i understood from within and not by observation from without. Like jacob seeing god face to face. my face and god's are one looking inward. like paul said i know god as i know myself. jesus said only god knows when the realization of self, or enlightenment will happen.

1 Corinthians 13:12

this is what your missing. i recognize you as a image of god. the part of you that is real isn't dybmh. the part of you that is real, eternal is the mind. that is the OT Spirit. the form is a reflection, a shadow. the light that created it, isn't. that spirit, that mind is found in the OT and is understood by the kabbalist too

Fool said:

we're debating and it isn't personal for me. the Absolute is All. it has no limits, nothing to reference itself to or against. there is no otherness, nothing exists apart from it. that would be dualistic. isaiah 45:5

Click to expand...

And yet, just 2 verses later, Isaiah 45:7 asserts multiplicity.

only the all(singular) can know the all(plural). I can only know myself in relationship to the all. i am obviously part of reality but not in a fixed form, or image. i understood from within and not by observation from without. Like jacob seeing god face to face. my face and god's are one looking inward.

Click to expand...

So Jacob's face was not God's face; and your face is not God's face. These examples don't sound like oneness of absolute. How do these examples support:

• god would have to be pantheistic, inherent, intrinsic to the thing created
  
• god would have to be present in the form and the form would have to exist within god for oneness

this is what your missing. i recognize you as a image of god. the part of you that is real isn't dybmh. the part of you that is real, eternal is the mind. that is the OT Spirit. the form is a reflection, a shadow. the light that created it, isn't. that spirit, that mind is found in the OT and is understood by the kabbalist too

Click to expand...

I agree that forms themselves are a reflection. My objection is the equivilance made, if I understand, between the reflection and its source. That is how I am understanding your use of the concept "oneness". And further, on a practical level, if all is one, truly, then it is not out of reach to see the world through another person's eyes. Perhaps I'm taking it too literally. But if it's not literally true, does it have value?

Regarding Kabbalists, my personal opinion is that one needs to know whose Kabbalah it is, and where it came from before it can be taken seriously.

dybmh said:

And yet, just 2 verses later, Isaiah 45:7 asserts multiplicity.

Click to expand...

multiplicity is in forms, faces. god doesn't have a single face if man is an image. again the face is temporal. reality is not. created things are temporal. real things don't come into and out of existence.

dybmh said:

So Jacob's face was not God's face; and your face is not God's face. These examples don't sound like oneness of absolute. How do these examples support:

• god would have to be pantheistic, inherent, intrinsic to the thing created
  
• god would have to be present in the form and the form would have to exist within god for oneness

Click to expand...

• a wave on the ocean is temporal. the ocean itself doesn't arise and fall except on the surface. face to face implies a meeting of minds. god is then immanent and not in some other place and time. immanent litterally means indwelling

immanent | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

dybmh said:

I agree that forms themselves are a reflection. My objection is the equivilance made, if I understand, between the reflection and its source. That is how I am understanding your use of the concept "oneness". And further, on a practical level, if all is one, truly, then it is not out of reach to see the world through another person's eyes. Perhaps I'm taking it too literally. But if it's not literally true, does it have value?

Click to expand...

seeing is not necessarily understanding. understanding comes from with in and seeing by senses from without. understanding can be a shared experience. two people can understand something and be in different space/time. but two people being in different space/time don't see the same outward.


a mirage is a reflection. its being reflected off of something and isn't the actual something. it appears as something but is in fact a distortion of light upon water

Fool said:

multiplicity is in forms, faces. god doesn't have a single face if man is an image. again the face is temporal. reality is not. created things are temporal. real things don't come into and out of existence.

Click to expand...

This doesn't refute Isaiah 45:7. The verse asserts that God formed light, created darkness, created evil. Each of these ( light, darkness, evil ) are formless. You are free to disregard this verse, if you wish. But that undermines using the biblical references in your posts.

Fool said:

a wave on the ocean is temporal. the ocean itself doesn't arise and fall except on the surface. face to face implies a meeting of minds. god is then immanent and not in some other place and time. immanent litterally means indwelling

Click to expand...

I agree, it's true for panentheism also. It's true; but, incomplete from my POV. God is both imminent and transcendent.

Fool said:

seeing is not necessarily understanding. understanding comes from with in and seeing by senses from without. understanding can be a shared experience. two people can understand something and be in different space/time. but two people being in different space/time don't see the same outward.

Click to expand...

If so; then what was intended by the comment in post#5:

Fool said:

"The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love.

Click to expand...

Is this literally true? And if so; it should be easy to test. Can we agree on just this?