All(Singularity) in All(Plurality)

[Fool]

If there is an absolute, or infinite, or universal, then would not the absolute/infinite/universal have to exist in the plurality, or forms, to be the singular absolute? infinite? universal?


and the same with god?


I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

 

[Spirit of Light]

If there is an absolute, or infinite, or universal, then would not the absolute/infinite/universal have to exist in the plurality, or forms, to be the singular absolute? infinite? universal?


and the same with god?


I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

In my understanding there is not only one entity humans calls god. but many, and the universe we exist in is not one but many.

 

[Fool]

In my understanding there is not only one entity humans calls god. but many, and the universe we exist in is not one but many.

i'm using specific terms; which are not plural nouns to describe the all as one whole. even if there is a multiverse, there is only one whole and yes there are many universes but you could only have one omniverse.

so again if there is an omniverse of multiverses, then would not the omniverse exist in the multiverses?


Pantheism Today: The Omniverse Defined

 

[Spirit of Light]

i'm using specific terms; which are not plural nouns to describe the all as one whole. even if there is a multiverse, there is only one whole and yes there are many universes but you could only have one omniverse.

so again if there is an omniverse of multiverses, then would not the omniverse exist in the multiverses?

Well if you look at the existence as a hierarchy where there is one on the top and many levels under then yes it would be as you say.

 

[Fool]

Well if you look at the existence as a hierarchy where there is one on the top and many levels under then yes it woud be as you say.

this is called a one to many relationship


basically the idea of movement from one into many. this is the idea of generative power, or germ.

 

[Spirit of Light]

this is called a one to many relationship


basically the idea of movement from one into many. this is the idea of generative power

I am not sure we can call the beings in other realm for other then singularity even there are many beings But if we could look deep enough in to what existance trully contain maybe we find a singel consiousness that all is developed from. But not as in a creator God. but honestly that deep in to existance i can not see yet.

 

[dybmh]

Hmmmmmm....

@Fool ,

The Bible quote you provided appears to contradict the premise that God is absolute, or infinite, or universal? And that is the source of the question?

It's a good question, though. I think the answer comes from a plurality of perspective not applying the concept of plurality to God.

From a human perspective in the material world: if, ( BIG IF ), God is creating ALL; The best way I have found to visualize God's creativity is to visualize it as a funnel where the top is open, and the bottom is almost completely closed with only a pin sized hole in it.

This analogy, this visualization, of God's creative process acting in the shape of funnel defuses the paradox of plurality vs singular absolute. From the top of the funnel, it would appear that God is acting from plurality; and from the bottom of the funnel it would appear that God is acting singularly.

What is the result of God's creative process? I think it's "ALL". I think it is described best in Isaiah 6:3. The result of creation is that Godliness fills the whole earth. But this Godliness is hard to perceive from a human material world perspective because it completely fills it.

It's like an aquarium, or swimming in the ocean. Fish in the ocean perceive the water they are swimming in as absolute singular reality. Humans perceive the ocean the fish are swimming in as one of many oceans. A scientist studying the macrocosm would perceive the oceans and the atmosphere as one singular unit. But an astronaut from space, perceives many macrocosms of oceans and atmospheres on various planets.

I propose that God is singular because if we were ever able to keep zooming out all of creation would blend together. Existence and non-existence would be perceived together as a single creation formed something from nothing out of the Godliness.

I further propose that if we were able to keep zooming in smaller and smaller inside ourselves we would come to the same conclusion.

In this way, both Dharmic beliefs and Abrahamic beliefs can be used to support the concept of a singular source of everything. But they approach it from opposite perspectives.

Because the Bible is generally read from a human material world perspective, and the Hebrew OT was translated by humans, it's understandable that contradictions like the one you pointed out exist.

But if, BIG IF, the Bible is divine; then, it should lead to Truth ( capital T ) even if the individual words themselves and their translations contradict each other.

Does that help?

 

[dybmh]

Well if you look at the existence as a hierarchy where there is one on the top and many levels under then yes it woud be as you say.

Bingo! Top to bottom difference of perspective is exactly what I was thinking too.

 

[Fool]

I am not sure we can call the beings in other realm for other then singularity even there are many beings But if we could look deep enough in to what existance trully contain maybe we find a singel consiousness that all is developed from. But not as in a creator God. but honestly that deep in to existance i can not see yet.

the problem is you can't use the term infinite, absolute, universal, or all in relation to something outside of it. the otherness creates a limitation because of the contrast. you can't say all if there is any other; all is defined as inclusive of everything. it isn't defined as exclusive to something else.



all (adj./adv.)
Old English eall "every, entire, the whole quantity of" (adj.), "fully, wholly, entirely" (adv.), from Proto-Germanic *alnaz (source also of Old Frisian, Old High German al; German all, alle; Old Norse allr; Gothic alls), with no certain connection outside Germanic. As a noun, in Old English, "all that is, everything."



Combinations with all meaning "wholly, without limit" were common in Old English (such as eall-halig "all-holy," eall-mihtig "all-mighty") and the method continued to form new compound words throughout the history of English. Middle English had al-wher "wherever; whenever" (early 14c.); al-soon "as soon as possible," al-what (c. 1300) "all sorts of things, whatever."



Of the common modern phrases with it, at all "in any way" is from mid-14c., and all "and everything (else)" is from 1530s, all but "everything short of" is from 1590s. First record of all out "to one's full powers" is 1880. All clear as a signal of "no danger" is recorded from 1902. All right, indicative of assent or approval, is attested from 1953.



The use of a, a' as an abbreviation of all (as in Burns' "A Man's a Man for A' that") is a modern Scottishism but has history in English to 13c.



the earth has multiple layers, like an onion, but when speaking of earth as a whole, we do not exclude any part of it.

 

[Fool]

Hmmmmmm....

@Fool ,

The Bible quote you provided appears to contradict the premise that God is absolute, or infinite, or universal? And that is the source of the question?

It's a good question, though. I think the answer comes from a plurality of perspective not applying the concept of plurality to God.

From a human perspective in the material world: if, ( BIG IF ), God is creating ALL; The best way I have found to visualize God's creativity is to visualize it as a funnel where the top is open, and the bottom is almost completely closed with only a pin sized hole in it.

This analogy, this visualization, of God's creative process acting in the shape of funnel defuses the paradox of plurality vs singular absolute. From the top of the funnel, it would appear that God is acting from plurality; and from the bottom of the funnel it would appear that God is acting singularly.

What is the result of God's creative process? I think it's "ALL". I think it is described best in Isaiah 6:3. The result of creation is that Godliness fills the whole earth. But this Godliness is hard to perceive from a human material world perspective because it completely fills it.

It's like an aquarium, or swimming in the ocean. Fish in the ocean perceive the water they are swimming in as absolute singular reality. Humans perceive the ocean the fish are swimming in as one of many oceans. A scientist studying the macrocosm would perceive the oceans and the atmosphere as one singular unit. But an astronaut from space, perceives many macrocosms of oceans and atmospheres on various planets.

I propose that God is singular because if we were ever able to keep zooming out all of creation would blend together. Existence and non-existence would be perceived together as a single creation formed something from nothing out of the Godliness.

I further propose that if we were able to keep zooming in smaller and smaller inside ourselves we would come to the same conclusion.

In this way, both Dharmic beliefs and Abrahamic beliefs can be used to support the concept of a singular source of everything. But they approach it from opposite perspectives.

Because the Bible is generally read from a human material world perspective, and the Hebrew OT was translated by humans, it's understandable that contradictions like the one you pointed out exist.

But if, BIG IF, the Bible is divine; then, it should lead to Truth ( capital T ) even if the individual words themselves and their translations contradict each other.

Does that help?

i'm speaking from the idea that reality as a whole is not called realities, even though the different aspects of that reality experience it from their individuated space/time realities, there can only be one reality that is Absolute, Whole, or All and all other aspects would have to exist within that ONE reality that transcends time/space.

in the tertium organum by p.d. ouspensky, the author proposed that time and space is only relevant to that which has contrast. that which has no contrast cannot be understood as having time/space because it would have no contrast from which to be measurable. contrast is needed for time/space to be measurable. so the whole cannot be measurable because it has nothing to be measure against.


case in point, the symbol for yin and yang represents a whole. inside that whole there is the positive actualized and inside the positive the potential for negative, in contrast is the negative actualized and within it the potential for positive.

on the first day of creation in genesis, light and darkness is separated and contrast comes to be and the first day is measurable because the end of one thing is the beginning of its contrast and vice versa.


so then the Lord exists within god, just as everything must exist within god, or else god is not eternal.

if god is separate from something else, then god has contrast, then god is limited in definition by that contrast.

 

[dybmh]

i'm speaking from the idea that reality as a whole is not called realities, even though the different aspects of that reality experience it from their individuated space/time realities, there can only be one reality that is Absolute, Whole, or All and all other aspects would have to exist within that ONE reality that transcends time/space.

try reading the tertium organum. in it the author proposed that time and space is only relevant to that which has contrast. that which has no contrast cannot be understood as having time/space because it would have no contrast from which to be measurable. contrast is needed for time/space to be measurable. so the whole cannot be measurable because it has nothing to be measure against.

Gotcha, and thanks.

I will def check out tertium organum.

When I read your reply above, I kept thinking of the difference between Truth and Reality.

Amanaki will recall I wrote about it in his thread recently.

From my persepctive, there is only one Truth. But each of us experiences our own Reality. Thus I think there can be multiple realities, but there is only one Truth. For me, this one Truth = God. In one of your previous threads, I was trying to understand Brahman. I still feel like Brahman = Truth. But I don't know if this idea is authentically Hindu or even accurate. It's just a feeling. Amanaki will remember, I equated the Dao to Truth in his thread.

So for me, the singular aspect is Truth, the plural aspect is Reality.

Regarding time/space:

I feel like this is included in the 1st day of the creation story of Genesis. If this is True, then God preceded time and space. Thus my model would still fit: Truth = God; God is singular. Reality = Space/Time; Reality is plural.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Gotcha, and thanks.

I will def check out tertium organum.

When I read your reply above, I kept thinking of the difference between Truth and Reality.

Amanaki will recall I wrote about it in his thread recently.

From my persepctive, there is only one Truth. But each of us experiences our own Reality. Thus I think there can be multiple realities, but there is only one Truth. For me, this one Truth = God. In one of your previous threads, I was trying to understand Brahman. I still feel like Brahman = Truth. But I don't know if this idea is authentically Hindu or even accurate. It's just a feeling. Amanaki will remember, I equated the Dao to Truth in his thread.

So for me, the singular aspect is Truth, the plural aspect is Reality.

Regarding time/space:

I feel like this is included in the 1st day of the creation story of Genesis. If this is True, then God preceded time and space. Thus my model would still fit: Truth = God; God is singular. Reality = Space/Time; Reality is plural.

Yes i do recall your post

A question do come to mind I dont know if i am way out but my question is.
What we humans see as reality, our physical world, is it actually truth? or is it not as real as humans want it to be?

If two people look at a mountain. then they turn around and describe what they saw. both will describe it totally different. but they still saw the same thing. so reality for me is differnet then for others is it not?

 

[dybmh]

@Amanaki

I think the physical world is an illusion. It's made up mostly of empty space, technically. Here's an example regarding illusions: Autostereograms.

These are weird pieces of art that look like random dots or geometric forms until a person relaxes their eyes; then a figure appears. I honestly have never been able to relax my eyes so that i can see these hidden pictures. And it is pretty frustrating when all my friends are like, "what do you mean, it's a sailboat???"

Until I am able to relax my eyes, those pictures ARE just dots. The picture behind it is not Real for me. I believe that the sailboat picture is Truly there. But, I can't see it. Example of a picture like this is below.

Autostereogram - Wikipedia

In the above example: My friends have their own Reality where the picture above is more than just dots and colors. And my reality only includes the dots and colors. The Truth is both are real. The dots and colors are True, and the hidden picture is True. The hidden picture exists in a different reality or a different dimension.

So yes, I think your Reality is different. I think everyone has their own Reality.

But here's the thing. Your Reality probably closely matches the Reality of other Buddhist cultivators practicing from same school and at approx. the same stage in the progress of their cultivation. If your Reality greatly differs from other cultivators who are practicing from the same school at the same relative stage of progress... that's cultivation insanity.

And of course, no one is immune from the host of psychiatric psychological problems that can render conventional insanity as defined by Western medicine.

 

[Spirit of Light]

@Amanaki

I think the physical world is an illusion. It's made up mostly of empty space, technically. Here's an example regarding illusions: Autostereograms.

These are weird pieces of art that look like random dots or geometric forms until a person relaxes their eyes; then a figure appears. I honestly have never been able to relax my eyes so that i can see these hidden pictures. And it is pretty frustrating when all my friends are like, "what do you mean, it's a sailboat???"

Until I am able to relax my eyes, those pictures ARE just dots. The picture behind it is not Real for me. I believe that the sailboat picture is Truly there. But, I can't see it. Example of a picture like this is below.

Autostereogram - Wikipedia

In the above example: My friends have their own Reality where the picture above is more than just dots and colors. And my reality only includes the dots and colors. The Truth is both are real. The dots and colors are True, and the hidden picture is True. The hidden picture exists in a different reality or a different dimension.

In the pictured you added it can be two things 5 sailboats with refection of the sail in the water or it can be 5 swallow birds in a row

 

[dfnj]

If there is an absolute, or infinite, or universal, then would not the absolute/infinite/universal have to exist in the plurality, or forms, to be the singular absolute? infinite? universal?


and the same with god?


I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

The idea of "up" has no meaning without the idea of "down". You need 2 things opposed to each other and a conscious observer in the middle otherwise the Tao doesn't exist.

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

 

[Fool]

The idea of "up" has no meaning without the idea of "down". You need 2 things opposed to each other and a conscious observer in the middle otherwise the Tao doesn't exist.

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

-0- is considered a whole number; so to be in the middle is neither up or down but up, down, and as no thing.



Luke 3:5
Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth;

 

[Earthling]

If there is an absolute, or infinite, or universal, then would not the absolute/infinite/universal have to exist in the plurality, or forms, to be the singular absolute? infinite? universal?


and the same with god?


I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

[Sigh] Just looking at the title was enough to kill me on this one. I hate bull**** hippie Christian logic.

 

[dybmh]

The idea of "up" has no meaning without the idea of "down". You need 2 things opposed to each other and a conscious observer in the middle otherwise the Tao doesn't exist.

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

inner and outer is probably better wording. that would render something singular with multiple dimensions.

 

[dybmh]

[Sigh] Just looking at the title was enough to kill me on this one. I hate bull**** hippie Christian logic.

That hurts a little...

 

[Fool]

[Sigh] Just looking at the title was enough to kill me on this one. I hate bull**** hippie Christian logic.

it comes from the corpus hermeticum



2. Hermes. Wisdom that understands 6 in silence 7 [such is the matter and the womb from out which Man is born], and the True Good the seed.

Tat. Who is the sower, father? For I am altogether at a loss.

Her. It is the Will of God, my son.

Tat. And of what kind is he that is begotten, father? For I have no share of that essence in



me, which doth transcend the senses. 1 The one that is begot will be another one from God, God’s Son?

Her. All in all, out of all powers composed.

Tat. Thou tellest me a riddle, father, and dost not speak as father unto son.

Her. This Race, 2 my son, is never taught; but when He willeth it, its memory is restored by God.

3. Tat. Thou sayest things impossible, O father, things that are forced. Hence answers would I have direct unto these things. Am I a son strange to my father’s race?

Keep it not, father, back from me. I am a true-born son; explain to me the manner of Rebirth.

Her. What may I say, my son? I can but tell thee this. Whene’er I see within myself the Simple Vision 3 brought to birth out of God’s mercy, 4 I have passed through myself into a Body that can never die. And now I am not what I was before; but I am born in Mind.

The way to do this is not taught, and it cannot be seen by the compounded 5 element by means of which thou seest.