Dialogue: 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.

 

 

Symbiotic panentheism: Duality

 


 

[deleted materials]


[050613 cg]  Either I do not understand your use of the term 'The Unmanifested' or I do not understand your logic.  If 'the manifested' equals A and not-A equals 'The Unmanifested', then how does A exist in not-A?
 
[050615 djs] 'The manifested' may equal A and 'The Unmanifested' may equal not-A but that does not automatically imply A does not lie within not-A.

 

[050616 cg] There is no need to complicate matters.  In a later section, I wrote, 

 

      [050613 cg continues] …Terms such as Mind and Void are used to refer to the ultimate non-dual nature of reality.  But that reality is beyond words and intellectualizations.  It is nameless and cannot be truly named, so we label the Nameless (I often prefer the term G-d.), but the Nameless cannot defined, diagramed, or described.And you responded,

       [050615 djs] Diagram 050605 section 'E' refers to this as the 'unmanifested'. As such it appears we agree.

 

We do agree that there is "the non-dual nature of reality".  You call "the non-dual nature of reality" 'The Unmanifested", which clearly is not the non-manifested (not-A), but beyond the duality of manifested / not-manifested or A / not-A.

[050617 djs] Yes we appear to agree there is ‘the non-dual nature of reality’, however, symbiotic panentheism simultaneously demonstrates ‘the dual nature of reality’. Sp demonstrates both the existence of each and the functionality each has for the other. In essence sp does not ‘reject’ what it is we as limited entities are capable of perceiving and as such ‘nothing is lost’. Sp suggests reality is not an ‘either/or’ scenario within which we as limited beings must choose which ‘reality’ is real before we begin our 'true' personal ‘journey’ but rather reality is an ‘and’ scenario generating a ‘reality’ within which we can begin our journey based not upon what it is we internally sense our journey to be (our calling if you will).

 

In terms of my calling ‘the non-dual nature of reality’ ‘The Unmanifested’, I would have to reply that is partially correct and partially incorrect.

 

In terms of your last sentence, I am confused. Let me be clear, however, about my end of the discussion. I consider the ‘unmanifested’ as being composed of both that which the limits of our abilities preclude us from ‘ever’ understanding and that which we are capable of understanding but do not yet understand.

 

 

 

 


[deleted materials]


[050615 djs] The Whole of Reality includes all that exists and all that does not exist.

 

[050616 cg]  How do you distinguish or what is the difference(s) between Total Consciousness (C) and Omnipresence (D)?  Between Total Consciousness (C) and The Unmanifested (E)?  Between Omnipresence (D) and The Unmanifested (E)?  How are these different from the Whole of Reality?

 

[050617 djs] We are limited beings and to suggest that ‘consciousness’ is the ultimate of existence is anthropomorphic and considering the ‘size’ of the universe and the ‘size’ of total consciousness this perception is most probably erroneous.

 

It would be more honest, therefore to suggest: There may be more to ‘presence’ than consciousness. This ‘presence’ may be beyond our comprehension as ‘conscious’ beings. Therefore Omnipresence is depicted as being neither less nor equal to consciousness but rather potentially more inclusive than simple consciousness. Thus section ‘D’ takes on the appearance of being ‘larger’ than section ‘C’ but smaller than 'E'.

 

The same applies to the differences between ‘C’ and ‘E’, and ‘D’ and ‘E’.

 

As for the manner in which these are different from the Whole of Reality:

 

The Whole of Reality is comprised of all five sections ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’ plus ‘one’.

 

But why ‘E’? Section ‘E’ deals with the totality of ‘presence’ which is a conceptualization that emerges from conscious thought, which in turn is a limited perception. Thus 'E' takes on the appearance of being 'large' than 'D'.

 

But why ‘plus one’? ‘Plus one’ deals with the whole as a non-duality. The summation of sections ‘A’ through ‘E’ deal with the whole as ‘a summation’ and thus as a form of duality.

 

Your existence works in the same manner. You are the sum of all your ‘parts’ plus one. If you separate all your parts and then dump them all into a container and mix them with a fork, you do not get ‘you’. There is the summation of your parts and then there is 'you'.