New Thread To Remind....

[Comet]

Well, all old threads on Monism seem to be gone to the sands of time. So it is that we live in the past alone as well as the future. Thus, I've decided to revive this area of discussion.

I'm sorry all the old posts are gone, there were a few good discussions there. Perhaps they will rear their heads again.... Thanks again to Todd and Michel (and others) for making this area to give me a home within the RF home!

Monism is to believe that there is but one. Unlike Monotheism and the like, I do not believe that a deity is the ultimate say in the universe/es. Unlike Substasial Monism (there is no ONE substance to things) and unlike Absolute Monism which would say there is but ONE (which I do not believe either); Attributive Monism is more of a Monistic perspective on things.

As to whether there are gods or a God, I find it irrelevant. I do not believe that this is the end and all knowing of things. Gods may have different insight to certain things and work together in a Pantheon/Panentheon, but it is what that is beyond them that makes them whole. I do not believe in one God, as the Christians/Muslims. That God believes in things such as good and evil and tells you to choose sides.

In the end of things shall one find the begining of things. To his right, he saw he sat to his left. When one looks forward, they only see what is behind. I could use a thousand pardoxes, but it is uncalled for...

There is but GOD. GOD is ALL, ONE, and NOTHING. GOD is that which is beyond the meaning of our senses, knowledge, etc... ALL as ONE as NOTHING as I say. That is what I believe. I do not believe in the dualitic ways.

There is no good or evil, it is a perspective. There is no right or wrong. Yet, all exist as ONE. They are not opposed to each other.... they are ONE as ALL in the NOTHING. As the Hindu Rig Veda spoke of the "being/nonbeing".

That is why I am an Attributive Monist..... not because I "attribute" the oneness to something. Nothing is something as well.... and I don't agree with the dualistic world in which we live. Yet, I do understand it from my studies. To me an Attributive Monist knows that there is no truth but of itself.... which is also falsehood. Thus, by the stance of perspective do I argue the attributive aspecpt; though some should call me absolute in that.

Confused? I thought so. Paradoxal Quandry? Perhaps. Yet, I understand what I mean.

One of the threads before we agrued mathematics. I posted the theory of how it is possible to divide by zero. Few got the point of that theory, as few understand Einstein or Planck. It is all in how one learns to see things..... I'll refrain from listing books, etc....

I refrain.... most don't care or understand, and fewer care to understand. The Western mind doesn't comprehend well and the Eastern is more prone to study that which is known to this way. If there is an Western mind that wishes to discuss this and understand better..... try Hinduism and Buddhism first.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There is but GOD. GOD is ALL, ONE, and NOTHING. GOD is that which is beyond the meaning of our senses, knowledge, etc... ALL as ONE as NOTHING as I say. That is what I believe. I do not believe in the dualitic ways.

I admit that I have not researched monism as much as I should, but I think this is the view of God as I see it. The problem is, I can't get away from the dualistic perspective.

What seperates an attributive monist from any other monist? What are the distinctions between monism and pantheism?

 

[Comet]

I admit that I have not researched monism as much as I should, but I think this is the view of God as I see it. The problem is, I can't get away from the dualistic perspective.

What seperates an attributive monist from any other monist? What are the distinctions between monism and pantheism?

2ndly: Pantheism deals in THEISM, in which... I am not a Theist by any means.... Panentheism intriges me, but then again... it is many making up a ONE.... it loses the NOTHING. I do not believe in the way of Gods.... While I may believe in them and follow some of their ways, I know that they ALL stem from the same place. That place is ONE and NOTHING as well...... perhaps that is where I differ to those who believe and follow such paths. As I said, gods/God is irrelevant to my beliefs.... yet, they can guide one.... Plus, I do not adhere to ANY god/gods... nor respect them all...

Other Monists and me.... I thought I explained. Maybe not well enough:

Unlike Substansial Monism (there is no ONE substance to things) and unlike Absolute Monism which would say there is but ONE (which I do not believe either); Attributive Monism is more of a Monistic perspective on things.

Most Monsists believe in ONE... beyond the God/gods..... I believe that all is ONE as ALL as NOTHING... big difference. Thus, attributive.... not attributed to a God or one of the gods..... attributed to the ONE which is of the NOTHING which made the ALL.

 

[Buttercup]

Most Monsists believe in ONE... beyond the God/gods..... I believe that all is ONE as ALL as NOTHING... big difference. Thus, attributive.... not attributed to a God or one of the gods..... attributed to the ONE which is of the NOTHING which made the ALL.

I think my head is gonna explode.

 

[Angelfire]

I think my head is gonna explode.

Me too. I thought I had everything figured out, after reading this lot I'm not sure now
that I ever believed anything. LOL

 

[blackout]

Me too. I thought I had everything figured out, after reading this lot I'm not sure now
that I ever believed anything. LOL

What's that?
You don't get it?
I'd gladly stay and explain it all for you...
but..... uhhh.....
I have to go and wash my socks now....:run:

 

[lilithu]

Well, all old threads on Monism seem to be gone to the sands of time. So it is that we live in the past alone as well as the future. Thus, I've decided to revive this area of discussion.

I'm sorry all the old posts are gone, there were a few good discussions there. Perhaps they will rear their heads again.... Thanks again to Todd and Michel (and others) for making this area to give me a home within the RF home!

They're not gone, Comet. Just change your settings within the forum to display from the "beginning." (Towards the left-hand bottom of the page.)

I refrain.... most don't care or understand, and fewer care to understand. The Western mind doesn't comprehend well and the Eastern is more prone to study that which is known to this way. If there is an Western mind that wishes to discuss this and understand better..... try Hinduism and Buddhism first.

Some schools of Hinduism are monist. Some, like Buddhism, are non-dualist.

 

[doppelganger]

non-dualist.

. . . Something seems . . . odd . . . about that word.

 

[lilithu]

. . . Something seems . . . odd . . . about that word.

Good.

 

[Pariah]

Some schools of Hinduism are monist. Some, like Buddhism, are non-dualist.

What are the nuances between monism and non-dualism?
If, conceivably, everything is Brahman, then wouldn't that belief in monism result in non-dualism?

 

[lilithu]

What are the nuances between monism and non-dualism?
If, conceivably, everything is Brahman, then wouldn't that belief in monism result in non-dualism?

I don't know how to describe it except negatively.

Dualism says that there is a difference between us and God/Ultimate Reality.
Monism says that there is no difference between us and God/Ultimate Reality.
Non-dualism does not make either claim.

Buddhism, as the Buddha taught it, is non-dualistic. I can't remember the sutta off the top of my head but there is one in which a disciple comes to the Buddha and asks (paraphrasing):
Is the universe A?
No.
Is the universe not A?
No.
Is the universe both A and not A?
No.
Is the universe neither A nor not A?
No.

You get the picture.

Taoism is also non-dualistic. Hence, the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.

In Hinduism, neti neti.

 

[doppelganger]

Do you think the Buddah have also answered the question "Is the Universe non-dualistic?" with "No" as well?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Tao.

Or, perhaps, as Julia Sweeney put it to "God" - "It's because I take you so seriously that I can't bring myself to believe in you."

 

[lilithu]

Do you think the Buddah have also answered the question "Is the Universe non-dualistic?" with "No" as well?

I think he woulda said, "huh?"

The word "non-dualistic" comes from people's attempts to stay in the mystery, away from thinking that they understand. But of course it's a losing battle, because the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.

And yet the Buddha taught, didn't he? As have countless after him, in the belief that even tho talking about it distorts it and there is so much potential for mistakenly thinking that one understands, we still can learn from the teachings of others.

Or, perhaps, as Julia Sweeney put it to "God" - "It's because I take you so seriously that I can't bring myself to believe in you."

lol, on first pass I read that as "It's because I take myself so seriously that I can bring myself to believe in you."

Depending on which "you" we're talking about, I agree with both.

 

[lilithu]

Do you think the Buddah have also answered the question "Is the Universe non-dualistic?" with "No" as well?

I think he woulda said, "huh?"

(Reminds me of a Zen koan:
Q: Do dogs have a Buddha nature?
A: No.)

The word "non-dualistic" comes from people's attempts to stay in the mystery, away from thinking that they understand. But of course it's a losing battle, because the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.

And yet the Buddha taught, didn't he? As have countless after him, in the belief that even tho talking about it distorts it and there is so much potential for mistakenly thinking that one understands, we still can learn from the teachings of others. In the hopes that language can ultimately lead us to something beyond language.

Or, perhaps, as Julia Sweeney put it to "God" - "It's because I take you so seriously that I can't bring myself to believe in you."

lol, on first pass I read that as "It's because I take myself so seriously that I can bring myself to believe in you."

Depending on which "you" we're talking about, I agree with both.

 

[Comet]

Dualism says that there is a difference between us and God/Ultimate Reality.
Monism says that there is no difference between us and God/Ultimate Reality.
Non-dualism does not make either claim.

I'd disagree with this.

Dualism is to say that there are differences in things, two-sides etc...

Non-dualism is to deny that dualism exists.... perhaps even that all is ONE OR NOTHING truly exists.

Monism is to see the dualism as the same thing of itself.

My branch of Monism (not Hindu or Buddhist by any means of current religions), sees that they are the same and different. Separation from ones self causes many "issues".

 

[methylatedghosts]

Just saw this thread..

Comet, you may like to read a book called "Conversations with God" if you haven't already.

It covers some aspects of this very nicely

 

[lilithu]

I'd disagree with this.

Dualism is to say that there are differences in things, two-sides etc...

Non-dualism is to deny that dualism exists.... perhaps even that all is ONE OR NOTHING truly exists.

Monism is to see the dualism as the same thing of itself.

My branch of Monism (not Hindu or Buddhist by any means of current religions), sees that they are the same and different. Separation from ones self causes many "issues".

Yeah, I think there are different definitions of dualism. I am talking about the belief that spirit and matter are separate, often (unfortunately) leading to the belief that spirit is "good" and matter is "bad."

I've never heard your definition of non-dualism before. The only way I know that term is from Buddhism and Buddhism does not say that.

 

[Comet]

Just saw this thread..

Comet, you may like to read a book called "Conversations with God" if you haven't already.

It covers some aspects of this very nicely

I have had many conversations about this book. Everything I have argued about and heard about the book, I DON'T CARE FOR IT! Thanks though, maybe I will check it out someday....

Lilithu:

Yeah, I think there are different definitions of dualism. I am talking about the belief that spirit and matter are separate, often (unfortunately) leading to the belief that spirit is "good" and matter is "bad."

I've never heard your definition of non-dualism before. The only way I know that term is from Buddhism and Buddhism does not say that.

That is not Monism at all.... they are not separate.

That sounds like some of the gnostic beliefs I've read of, such as those of the Cathars. Rex Mundi indeed!

To be a Monist is to not separate the dualism that we see. By saying that spirit and matter are different, you'd be a dualist. To speak of good and evil, you'd be a dualist. I am a Monist. THERE IS NO GOOD OR EVIL, THEY ARE THE SAME. There is no difference between spirit and matter.... they act as one.....

 

[the cloaked stranger]

I think I get what you're saying. I just didn't realize it was any kind of movement. It's certainly, to an extent, a biblical concept. God created everything, so nothing is good or evil on its own -- all things serve the will of God, who is in everything. The duality is an imposition created by people, but it has nothing to do with the true nature of the universe.

 

[Comet]

I think I get what you're saying. I just didn't realize it was any kind of movement. It's certainly, to an extent, a biblical concept. God created everything, so nothing is good or evil on its own -- all things serve the will of God, who is in everything. The duality is an imposition created by people, but it has nothing to do with the true nature of the universe.

It isn't a movement, it is a belief!

Yes and no about the next... and okay to the last.