[ Post a Response | Tao Speaks ]
Posted by josef on 4/13/2009, 8:17 am, in reply to "Re: The Mystery of mysteries cannot be known, but it can be experienced."
24.32.223.X
--Previous Message--
: josef,
:
: In a nutshell.
:
: Existence is a nonlinear function. Its
: nature is more a quality than a quantity. So
: if we must number it then we should use a
: number that is representative of it nature,
: of its quality.
:
: Unity cannot properly be numbered as One
: unless it is described as a
: "Unitive" One. An integrated
: whole. Thus the number of existence is an
: irrational number. Think Pi.
: 3.14159+++++++++++++++++++++ and on and on
: without ever getting to 3.14160. Totality is
: an irrational number if number it we must.
: Not irrational in the loco sense. Irrational
: in the nonrational sense. Transrational.
:
: So we might number existence
: 1.999999999999999999999999 and on and on
: without ever reaching 2. The Whole is
: greater than the sum of its parts. Synergy.
: More than one, but less than two. Undivided.
: Nondual. Whole.
:
: The tao that can be numbered is not the
: eternal Tao.
:
: We tend to make gods of taos all the while
: the Tao goes everywhere unnoticed.
:
: I hope these words are of some help.
:
: Butcho
:
Butcho, my experience of thoughts, of mind, of the action of ego and emotion in mind affirms what I read in Taoist texts, and is in agreement with what I read in your words. What then causes me a little "whut?" in reading your posts is your addition of such as this:
"Monism leads to all sorts of solipsistic perspectives. If all is numerically one then I am God. If all is n one then nothing matters. If all is n one then my god is the God. If all is n one then nothing is real. It is all just a play on words."
Your understanding of these things is very akin to mine. Then you make what seems to me a leap in relating it to "God", and there for me is that little "Whut? How did God get into this?", as I don't assume, presume, or even lean toward your conclusions that it all relates to God.
I spent most of my life a devout Catholic. A spirit of real inquiry and years of meditation have brought me to now seeing the concept of God as only another reification, (the word is defined by traditions).
Having been a person of deep faith, I know it as a subtle and pervasive frame of reference. As I no longer have it as a frame of reference, when you relate things to God, our agreement veers off; this is where any hitches in understanding happen between us, I think. Our experiences so similar, our frame of reference in understanding them different. So we can speak of process, all is a unitive one, of energy and matter, thought, mind and emotions, these things we all can relate to. God as a reality and experience not all relate to, so discussions can get hung up there.
This isn't resolvable, imo. Living in the Bible Belt, as I do, I respect those who believe, find most sincere and good people, but I understand their "given" is not mine, so any discussion will not go far to mutual benefit.
Enough to accept each other and not expect our life views to agree. This is easier for me; they feel sadness we non-believers are not "saved" and pray for us, feel sorry for us, know us to be wrong. Oh, well. :-)
peace and namaste,
josef
122
"The Tao is basically utterly open. Utter openeness has no substance. It ends in endlessness, begins in beginninglessnes".
-Li Daoqun
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Webmaster: zentao00@yahoo.com Donations help to support, upgrade and expand the Tao Speaks! community..
