Coltsfan, what is desire if it is not a movement within spirit. If God desired, is not her desire but the seed of her creation? It follows then, how could one, and where could one, draw a distinction between the seed and the tree?
ganeshpuri89

Thank you for your response.

I think I may disagree with premise 1 above, “movement within spirit,” thus leading to my disagreement with premise 2, referring to the “seed of creation”, and hence, leading to my rejection of the conclusion.

I affirm that desire is part of volition, but I consider it to be a part of the faculty of the will.

Thus, I maintain the Grand Canyon divide (”divide of different ontologies”) between Creator/Creation.

What evidence would you offer to persuade me to rationally accept your worldview?

ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 1:35 AM

Ganeshpuri89,

Does your worldview acknowledge the mind-independent existence of immaterial, abstract entities such as propositions and the laws of logic?

Or would you say that a non-cognitive, meditative, mystical, non-rational, “spiritual” experience obliterates and destroys the laws of logic and propositions?

ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 2:19 AM

Then as the subconscious boils off (as in dreaming) one maintains lucidity and the practice of coming back to where attention and its object arise. At this point we are entering the subtle domain, the home of psi experience. According to one’s cultural upbringing one may experience many “visions.” Intuitions may occur. Do not be seduced. Don’t worry, you will remember them when arising from your meditation seat. Do not question your sanity. Press on. These manifestations are of no more significance than any objects in the gross world. Press on. Always establish yourself in the place from which they arise. Then, at some point in your practice, it could be sudden or it could take years, you will become established in that place where nothing arises, nothing moves. In fact, you will regard your very seperate self sense as arising from that space.

This is the black void of near attainment.

There is nothing to do at this point and no one to do it.

True attainment, at this point, happens and there is nothing you can do to happen it.

ganeshpuri89 on September 12, 2007 at 2:02 AM

Thank you for your careful explanation of your position.

I have been wresting with your position. Here are my thoughts.

1.) Your position D (I am calling your Monism “D”) teaches or entails the followig beliefs, which I am calling “Q.”
2.) I believe (based on the following reasons) that Q is either mistaken, flat out wrong, or involves contradiction.
3.) Since therefore “not-Q,” therefore “not D.”

Concerning premise 2 above, here are my thoughts:

a.) Your position seems to me to not make sense of the metaphysical existence of evil. We know evil exists. We know that it exists independent of us. Your position entails that metaphysical evil can be submerged into the Monistic one. But evil can never be submerged into Good, because they are ontologically and qualitatively different.
b.) Your position seems to take a dim or uncharitable and (uncompassionate) view of human suffering. Human suffering is personal and raises genuine, existential questions, which are “odd” if your worldview is correct in that human suffering (personal) can be submerged into the impersonal realm of the Buddhist “suchness” or Monistic One.
c.) Your position seems to imply that the teachings of your worldview can be gleaned from non-cognitive, mystical experiences with the “Monistic One.” How can that be?
d.) Your position seems to imply that the universal law of non-contradiction is not universal at all. But this is not “reflective of reality”. Hence, your position must be false.

My thought processes of a.) through d.) lead me to reject your worldview.

I hope I have understood your position clearly.

Any responses from you concerning the above would be appreciated.

Thanks for the dialogue and philosophical discussion.

ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 2:39 AM

no no no. compassion and empathy come from wisdom. wisdom is achieved through practical means. practice yields results. the pinnacle of mystical experience is not in visions or auditions or out of body experiences or bilocation or telepathy, but in the knowledge, not the belief, that many is in the one and the one in the many. From this emanates Love for all beings, sentient or no.

Kinda like that dude Jesus.

ganeshpuri89 on September 12, 2007 at 2:50 AM

Okay.

It seems that the submerging of ***the personal*** (human pain, human suffering, trials, wickedness, goodness, evil, good) into the impersonal Monistic One, in effect, trivializes and discounts in a negative sense, ultimately, the personal.

ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 3:00 AM

I agree. My problem with religion is simply its implication that people are born “bad” and God makes them good.
frreal on September 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM

But what if the philosophical evidence points towards a worldview that teaches that humans have something called “total depravity” in them? What if the evidence points in the opposite direction of your worldview? Would you personally change your position?

Total depravity or the view “that humans have something fundamentally wrong with them” is indeed reflective of reality. Religious Liberals and the early 19th century Atheistic Humanists (I am looking at my personal copy of “Humanizing Religion” by Charles Francis Potter) were always criticizing Bible believers for their “negative view” of human nature, preferring instead to believe that human nature is “good” and that an upbeat, positive, optimism about humanity should and will win in the battle of ideas in the long run. Atheistic Humanists of the last century were convinced of the inherent goodness of human nature.

But what happened? Why did religious liberalism and atheistic humanism decline in popularity and influence?

The chemical warfare of World War I, followed by World War II, followed by the discovery of concentration camps and stoves for Jews, followed by the worldwide spread of Karl Marx in North Korea and Vietnam, followed by communism of Central America (Nicaragua, Cuba)…

The point is that the cheerful optimism rooted in a “human nature is good” viewpoint of Religious Liberalism and atheistic Humanism died many years ago.

leads to an inherant belief that those who claim disbelief are “bad” despite doing “good” things, while those who claim belief but do “bad” things are still “good”. This is where/why you get your militant atheists.
frreal on September 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM

The Christian position is that atheists may in fact do “good” things, but those actions flow from a heart that is not centered on God.

As far as Christians who do “bad things” but who are still called “good,” here is my response. Our everyday practices, and pattern of behavior reveal the true state of our hearts. Our outward behavior reveals the true condition of our heart. If a Christian consistently does “bad things,” without repentance, then he may be a hypocrite, and thus, not a Christian at all. Jesus’s harshest words were not directed at an unbelieving, skeptical, dying world.

Rather, Jesus’s stern words were directed at so-called, “professing believers” who claim to follow Jesus, yet deny Him by their lifestyle. The strongest argument for atheism is the lives of so-called, professing Christians who acknowledge Jesus Christ with their lips verbally, but yet deny Him as Lord by their evil deeds and their sinful lifestyle. But these so-called Christians are not Christians at all, according to the Bible.

That is why I get upset at HotAir.com when I see arrogant Christians acting uncharitably and rude towards unbelievers. The mark of Christian living is love emanating from a transformed heart that is utterly dependent on God’s grace alone. This eliminates any pride or any arrogrance on the part of the individual Christian believer.

After all, Jesus himself said that many people will claim to follow Him out of purely sociological or psychological or cultural reasons, instead of choosing to follow Jesus out of a transformed, thankful, dependent heart.

Only in a religion created by men would a god promise a group of people a land for which they did not labor, and for which in order to claim said land it was required of them to slaughter all of its inhabitants …. all except for the virgins that is.

Your quote above may be valid for other religions, but not relevant for Christianity. For an excellent discussion of
the psychological motivations of Christianity in comparision with atheism, check out this excellent book. Also, this superb book, SUSPICION AND FAITH: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism is also relevant to some of your points as well.

ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 12:42 PM