Dialoguing - A Neo-Buddhist and a Symbiotic Panentheist
Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.
Buddhistic duality versus sp duality
[050610 cg] The diagram 050605 certainly illustrates your understanding.
I do believe that there is a simpler understanding that is at least as true. Here are the two diagrams that illustrate that understanding:
The first symbolizes the empty nature of reality. …
[050612 djs] I understand the concept regarding ‘the empty nature of reality …’ if one is referring to the physical when one speaks of ‘realty’. ‘The empty nature of reality’ is often alluded to as the void by religions. It is religions which state the universe was created from ‘the void’. As such ‘the empty nature of reality’ would apply to section ‘A’ in diagram 050605.
I understand ‘the empty nature of reality …’ as it applies to the formation of a void within a non-void.
I also understand the potential possibility existing in terms of ‘the empty nature of reality …’ when one refers to section ‘B’, the initial virgin introduction of the ability to know when the individual is ‘first’ introduced to a state of existing (Perhaps when an individual first enters the physical universe?).
I do not understand the concept regarding ‘the empty nature of reality …’ when one refers to sections ‘B’ (having already experienced), ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’.
[050610 cg continues] … The second symbolizes the interdependencies of dualities in reality.
[050612 djs] Duality of what becomes the question?
The model of the whole of reality as demonstrated by symbiotic panentheism would suggest duality embraces three concepts:
- The whole
- Individuality
- Nothingness/the void from which the physical universe itself emerges.
Now one might suggest that this is three, a trinity, not two, a duality. One must consider, however, that within the system of sp nothingness does exist and does have functionality but nothingness is nevertheless, just that, nothingness, a void and thus by definition not an entity but rather a (and the only) non-entity while ‘the whole’ and ‘individuality’ are entities as opposed to non-entities.
Again I ask: When Buddhism speaks of duality, what is it Buddhism is referring to:
- …?
- …?
[deleted materials]
[050531 cg] I understand the usual meaning of 'the totality of consciousness' as a conceptual (mental) reality such as "chair" or "person"; i.e., one can think of, speak of, and point to examples of "chair" or "person", but there is no physical entity to which one can point. For example, think of 'the totality of blueness'. Would you argue that 'the totality of blueness' is a physical entity, although things are blue?
There are mental entities, but they are the individual thoughts, feelings, images, etc. that occur. There is the concept, a mental entity, of 'the totality of consciousness', but it has the same attributes as other concepts; i.e., the concept of 'the totality of consciousness' does not itself have consciousness.
Having said that, I also understand that Reality (capital "R" meaning all-inclusive existence) includes, but is not identical to, the totality of consciousness, as a simple summation. …
[050603 djs] I would suggest your last paragraph is demonstrated in 'Graphic': Diagram 050605: The whole of Reality, Sections 'D' and 'E'.
[050531 cg continues] … In this usage, I would not apply the attribute "entity" to the term as the attribute may suggest an intentional intelligence or some other attribute merely because we label the summation.
[050603 djs] Question: What word would you 'prefer'?
[050610 cg] I have no objection to the term 'the totality of consciousness', but you have suggested that 'the totality of consciousness' is an entity. This is like suggesting that "animal" is an entity like the members that compose the category and that "animal" has itself the attributes of animals. Both "animal" and 'the totality of consciousness' are merely concepts.
[050611 djs] I think we may have different perceptions here. I perceive ‘total consciousness’ to be ‘an entity’ just as you are an entity. In the case of yourself, you are composed of kidney cells, blood cells, minerals, organic molecules, neurons, synopsis, organs, tissues, … In addition you are composed of infinite elements of experiencing beginning with the experiencing of each atom within your composition up to and through your total self experiences.
Nevertheless, in spite of all the apparently discrete elements found within your body, I would suggest you, as a whole, are an entity.
Likewise I would suggest the totality of consciousness is an entity. Now I grant you that ‘total consciousness’ may be but one of many aspects of the un-manifested but the totality of consciousness is as much an entity as it is an attribute just as a white blood cell within yourself is as much an entity as it is an aspect of your total self.
If the white blood cell could communicate with its cohorts, it would say much the same thing as you are saying: The whole of reality (the human body) is simply a concept. You and I know differently. So it is with the totality of consciousness/omniscience. Now some proclaim ‘the totality of consciousness’ to be nothing but a ‘concept’ but I would suggest it is both a concept and an entity in the sense that it is a discrete form of existence just as your knowing is discrete in nature.
Now I grant you that many religions speak of omniscience as being the ultimate limit. In such a discussion one has no option but to describe the totality of consciousness as the non-discrete/the Supreme Being.
But if one moves ‘outward’ from ‘the totality of consciousness’ and adds the layer of ‘omnipresence’ and then ‘the unmanifested’ as shown in diagram 050605, then ‘the totality of consciousness’ retains the attribute of discreteness as does ‘omnipresence’ and it is the ‘unmanifested’ which then takes on the attribute of being non-discrete.
I hesitate introducing the concept of ‘the discrete’ and the ‘non-discrete’ at this point, however, since I am not sure it applies to our present issues.
