• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The One and the Many

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
If a God or Ultimate Reality exists, a God or Ultimate Reality that is one, infinite, and indivisible, a God or Ultimate Reality that is not contingent on anything outside Itself, how do we arrive at the many? What is our place in the scheme of things?

Although there is no substantial evidence, there seems to be no other way to proceed than to formulate a conceptual model of existence arising and evolving from a primordial dualization in the house of dynamic Being. Out of all the fundamental possibilities or forces, the behavior-potential of consciousness as one of the ground conditions is essential to a comprehensive understanding of the universe and our place in it. Therefore, consciousness is postulated as intrinsic to the very Nature of Being itself. And if consciousness is in Its Nature, then dynamic self-reflection is Its Experience. However, such a concept requires that we postulate MIND as the principle unifying the ever-widening divergence of the universe manifestations of the original monistic I AM.

Creatorship can hardly be an attribute of such a God, but must be the aggregate of its acting nature. And we can infer from the nature of the universe that It’s purpose is not concerned with human individuality, but to satisfy an intrinsic yearning for diversity and intimate companionship. As a result of that yearning, the knowledge that “I am, am not, and yet am that which is in all things” is, potentially, an experiential reality.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
True and in that is why people shouldn’t go after any saying “I Am Christ” as it isn’t real…..as if “I Am” is the ultimate reality, then we are mere parts…..

Like pieces of sand of the large rock in the middle….

I believe and can show where that applies within most ideology, yet people refuse to accept this and so make the whole thing not real….

In agreement on finding individuals of character and expression who stand out in the book of life…..

Like interesting characters, in pages….the expression they add makes the page more interesting….

Yet now that book is nearly finished, code can be simplified and in fact the book can be read alone with the character and not the additional words, making it to long to read.…..
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
For there to be a recognition of "One" doesn't there also have to be a recognition of "more than one"? After all, to reflect on all things being part of one thing, requires a certainty in the "existence" of the many to add up to make the One. Self-consciousness requires other than self for its definition. I am is defined necessarily by what I am not.

Indeed, the "existence" of things is defined through language by their differences from other things. For there to be "One," there must also be "many" by which "One" is reflectively defined.

Both the "One" and the "many," are constructs of thought though - the product of the Divine Logos - which is merely the reflection of the consciousness necessary for communication.

Both the "One" and the "many" are experientially real, but not at the same time. Hence, mystical experiences of the "One," reflectively brought into the reality of the "many" (the world of ordered thought and language) through metaphor and interpretation, are not and never can be the experience of the "One" to which they point.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
doppelgänger;842062 said:
For there to be a recognition of "One" doesn't there also have to be a recognition of "more than one"?
That's exactly what I'm saying. The topic I put up for discussion is how the many arise from the one; not how coherence (unity) arises from chaos because the only thing that one can say in that regard, or so it seems to me, is "just because"-- and that doesn't tell me anything at all about my role or place in the scheme of things. It doesn't tell me anything at all.
 
Top