The One and the Many

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Maybe not from your perspective of thinking you know the one truth.

And from your perspective truth is whatever you say it is? Is that what you're implying?

[pianoperformer]

I guess it makes sense that you can't conceive of the original impersonal Source through thinking. But mind still wants to know.

What was the first thought? Perhaps "I am"? Or, actually, ascribing something to that, such as "I am this" or "I am not that." But how was this distinction made?

[Arz Sra]

Originally Posted by Maguru

What do you mean by The Truth? Has god not created everything?




Your truth appears to be exclusive whereas mine is fully inclusive, including your concept.

Interrelation of parts is often forwarded as oneness – its just a subtle, cunning substitute... Oneness is realization of absolute oneness, not an intellectual reconciliation of the dissected(s) ( concepts) . Its the dissolution of dissection itself , not the mending of it.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Don't you think that maybe god had a hand in duality?

Have you no control over your mind? My mind doesn't consider itself to be anything without me. It has no sponsored thoughts of its own. It is only I who names and acknowledges it. I'm not saying it doesn't 'seem' to have a mind of its own, it yabbers like everyone else but I see it for what it is.

Who is 'god'? What is 'me'?

Mind talking to mind.

Mind acknowledging mind.

Mind congratulating mind.

Mind cannot go beyond mind.

Mind conceives duality.

Mind is Duality.

Mind conceives time.
Mind perpetually conceives more and more distinctions and concepts.
Mind continuously asks questions.
Mind continuously reject answers that don't fit into mind's framework.
Mind seeks meaning to mind.

Mind talks to mind incessantly, creating more and more concepts/distinctions, ad nauseam.

Mind ,forever, is a cycle of self-perpetuating dualism.

Spirit just knows.

Inspiration enlightens mind.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Arz Sra

Interrelation of parts is often forwarded as oneness – its just a subtle, cunning substitute... Oneness is realization of absolute oneness, not an intellectual reconciliation of the dissected(s) ( concepts) . Its the dissolution of dissection itself , not the mending of it.

Precisely. Oneness is not a collection of parts, but rather what is actually the case prior to the thought of parts. The thought of separation does not alter the truth of oneness.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I guess it makes sense that you can't conceive of the original impersonal Source through thinking. But mind still wants to know.

What was the first thought? Perhaps "I am"? Or, actually, ascribing something to that, such as "I am this" or "I am not that." But how was this distinction made?

It's difficult because what we consider conscious thought is not actually the beginning but rather an expression of intelligence that begins on much more subtle levels. Mind can only be conscious of a fully formed conceptual thought and so it's natural to ask what sort of thought started the whole process, and we usually talk about creation as beginning with a thought or idea, but it may be more accurate to say it begins with a feeling. This still only vaguely points to that which is prior to thought, and which cannot be thought.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Why is it so difficult to believe that there is an underlying truth to that creation that isn't changed by the creation?

Would a creator have awareness of self as a creator without creation? It may well be that the creator hasn't changed but everything else has. It's possible that the creator is also the created and everything is just an expansion of the creator. In any case, for awareness of One there must be an-other, otherwise one is just being without knowing. The nature of duality affords the 'knowing'.

That's like saying what's actually true is exclusive because it doesn't include what isn't true, which is mind playing games with ideas in order to believe what it wants to believe. Keep it simple. Only the Truth is true.

I measure truth with reality. Simple.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

And from your perspective truth is whatever you say it is? Is that what you're implying?

I thought we were discussing absolute truth i.e. god, oneness or reality? Your idea of absolute Truth dismisses all else which makes it exclusive. Whereas my idea of the absolute truth includes all of creation, including duality. There isn't much difference, is there? We are looking at the same thing i.e. god but from different perspectives.

From my experience, without an-other, there is nothing known, as awareness comes from at least sensing a separate other. I don't know if this would stand true for god but it does for us. If god exists and we are to know god then how would god be known ( and not merely sensed) by us if we were not separate?

We certainly wouldn't be discussing it here. There would be nothing to talk about and I believe this is what you say of Oneness. That it is no-thing and no-thing exists outside of Oneness, in which case there would be no illusions, no experiences, no nature, no knowledge, no reality. If I was god and my creations were being dismissed, I would be pretty pissed off.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Would a creator have awareness of self as a creator without creation?

Nope, needs the creation.

It may well be that the creator hasn't changed but everything else has.

Well, a creation has appeared, if that's what you mean.

It's possible that the creator is also the created and everything is just an expansion of the creator.

Yes, that's the case. That's oneness.

In any case, for awareness of One there must be an-other, otherwise one is just being without knowing. The nature of duality affords the 'knowing'.

There has to be "an expansion of the creator", which doesn't mean it is separate from the creator.

It occurs to me that possibly you may be thinking that the creator creates stuff and then it runs on it's own. This might lead you to believe that there are now two, but as you say, the creation is an expansion (or expression) of the creator, and so the creation never operates without the source. It IS the source in expression at all times.

I measure truth with reality. Simple.

So if you see a rope and think it's a snake, this is reality and therefore truth? Doesn't it remain a rope regardless of what you perceive?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Who is 'god'? What is 'me'?

Mind talking to mind.

Mind acknowledging mind.

Mind congratulating mind.

Mind cannot go beyond mind.

Mind conceives duality.

Mind is Duality.

Mind conceives time.
Mind perpetually conceives more and more distinctions and concepts.
Mind continuously asks questions.
Mind continuously reject answers that don't fit into mind's framework.
Mind seeks meaning to mind.

Mind talks to mind incessantly, creating more and more concepts/distinctions, ad nauseam.

Mind ,forever, is a cycle of self-perpetuating dualism.

Spirit just knows.

Inspiration enlightens mind.

Mind hung up with itself again.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Maguru

If I was god and my creations were being dismissed, I would be pretty pissed off.

That's because you would be just a god and not GOD.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I thought we were discussing absolute truth i.e. god, oneness or reality? Your idea of absolute Truth dismisses all else which makes it exclusive. Whereas my idea of the absolute truth includes all of creation, including duality. There isn't much difference, is there? We are looking at the same thing i.e. god but from different perspectives.

As has been said an infinite number of times (at least!) oneness is all inclusive by definition. Nothing is dismissed.

From my experience, without an-other, there is nothing known, as awareness comes from at least sensing a separate other. I don't know if this would stand true for god but it does for us. If god exists and we are to know god then how would god be known ( and not merely sensed) by us if we were not separate?

God isn't known by us. That's the point. God is known by God. There isn't something else.

We certainly wouldn't be discussing it here. There would be nothing to talk about and I believe this is what you say of Oneness. That it is no-thing and no-thing exists outside of Oneness, in which case there would be no illusions, no experiences, no nature, no knowledge, no reality. If I was god and my creations were being dismissed, I would be pretty pissed off.

I dunno what you're talking about but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

There has to be "an expansion of the creator", which doesn't mean it is separate from the creator.

Can you explain this? How does the Creator expand? Into what?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Can you explain this? How does the Creator expand? Into what?

Well, expansion was Maguru's word. I would say expression. The nightly dream is a good analogy. What we call mind is a concept that refers to mental activity itself, so there is no mind separate from this activity. (No object called mind) In dreams, images and sensations appear, and we can call this the expression of mind, but the images are not other than mind; they are not separate from mind. They are mind itself in expression. The images are appearing in/as mind; one with mind.

What we call creator or source is what I usually call intelligence. What appears as the waking world of sensation, thought and feeling, is happening in/as this intelligence in expression. Everything literally is one with this intelligence at all times.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Arz Sra

Oneness is realization of absolute oneness, not an intellectual reconciliation of the dissected(s) ( concepts) . Its the dissolution of dissection itself , not the mending of it.

But how would you KNOW?

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Who is 'god'? What is 'me'?

Mind talking to mind.

Mind acknowledging mind.

Mind congratulating mind.

Mind cannot go beyond mind.

Mind conceives duality.

Mind is Duality.

Mind conceives time.
Mind perpetually conceives more and more distinctions and concepts.
Mind continuously asks questions.
Mind continuously reject answers that don't fit into mind's framework.
Mind seeks meaning to mind.

Mind talks to mind incessantly, creating more and more concepts/distinctions, ad nauseam.

Mind ,forever, is a cycle of self-perpetuating dualism.

Spirit just knows.

Inspiration enlightens mind.

Yes, like I said the mind does seem to have a mind of its own and yabbers on and on without stopping to listen.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Well, expansion was Maguru's word. I would say expression. The nightly dream is a good analogy. What we call mind is a concept that refers to mental activity itself, so there is no mind separate from this activity. (No object called mind) In dreams, images and sensations appear, and we can call this the expression of mind, but the images are not other than mind; they are not separate from mind. They are mind itself in expression. The images are appearing in/as mind; one with mind.

What we call creator or source is what I usually call intelligence. What appears as the waking world of sensation, thought and feeling, is happening in/as this intelligence in expression. Everything literally is one with this intelligence at all times.

Thanks. That actually really clarifies it for me.

Now I wonder whether this expression will ever stop, or whether we can learn to recognize the expression for what it is, and enjoy it instead of becoming attached to it.

My intuition says that the expression never stops because the Source is eternal and so expresses eternally in the eternal now.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Nope, needs the creation.

As the dreamer needs the dream?

Well, a creation has appeared, if that's what you mean.

Yes creation is a reality that I call life.

There has to be "an expansion of the creator", which doesn't mean it is separate from the creator.

The creation is an expansion (or expression) of the creator, and so the creation never operates without the source. It IS the source in expression at all times.

The source and the expression of the source are two different things and the source could not be known without the expression of it. It would just BE without awareness. This is the nature of duality and it's an ingenius creation.

So if you see a rope and think it's a snake, this is reality and therefore truth? Doesn't it remain a rope regardless of what you perceive?

Jeez, not the rope trick again. If I think a rope is a snake or I think I am a tree or I think a giraffe is a tree then I hope someone will be taking care of me. These are just symbols of other meanings. Just say what you mean.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Maguru

The source and the expression of the source are two different things and the source could not be known without the expression of it. It would just BE without awareness. This is the nature of duality and it's an ingenius creation.

How could the expression be separate from the source?

The source does not need to know, because the source is. Knowing is of the mind, while being is of Spirit.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Maguru

As the dreamer needs the dream?

Yeah.

The source and the expression of the source are two different things

No.

and the source could not be known without the expression of it.

Yeah.

Jeez, not the rope trick again. If I think a rope is a snake or I think I am a tree or I think a giraffe is a tree then I hope someone will be taking care of me. These are just symbols of other meanings. Just say what you mean.

Illusion is reality to you?

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

How could the expression be separate from the source?

They are not separate in that they co-exist but only the source could exist without the expression, not the other way around. When you look at source and expression, they appear as two knowings that co-exist. This is the nature of duality that I believe source intended.

The source does not need to know, because the source is. Knowing is of the mind, while being is of Spirit.

I meant the source could not be known by us and duality is the ingenius expression of Oneness in order that we can know Oneness as an expression of who we are.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I meant the source could not be known by us and duality is the ingenius expression of Oneness in order that we can know Oneness as an expression of who we are.

Who are we? there is only Source.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by Maguru

The source and the expression of the source are two different things and the source could not be known without the expression of it. It would just BE without awareness. This is the nature of duality and it's an ingenius creation.

Love what you are saying here. It is pretty ingenious the way it all works.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Who are we? there is only Source.

We are the expression of source. Two separate things - living one inside the other.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Who are we? there is only Source.

Please disregard my last post, as I just realized I won't have time to engage the discussion for now. Please continue on as before. My apologies.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

Please disregard my last post, as I just realized I won't have time to engage the discussion for now. Please continue on as before. My apologies.

What you said can't stand on its own?

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Who are we? there is only Source.

We are an expression of source.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Maguru

We are an expression of source.

Do the characters in your dreams have separate being from you? Are they debating about whether they are separate from you or one?

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Do the characters in your dreams have separate being from you? Are they debating about whether they are separate from you or one?

I have no control over my dreams although I am the dreamer of them. The contents of the dream are irrelevent but the the fact that I have had a dream is real. However, I don't need to dream to know I exist.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yeah.





No.




Yeah.

Well that clears things up nicely.

Originally Posted by arcanum

Illusion is reality to you?

No.