Hi Paul,
Thanks for your interesting post. Your philosophical position appears to me at least, indistinguishable from Advaita Vedanta. This is from Wikipedia:
Three levels of truth[LIST=1]
The transcendental or the P?ram?rthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else; The pragmatic or the Vy?vah?rika level in which both Jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Ishvara are true; here, the material world is completely true, and, The apparent or the Pr?thibh?sika level in which even material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream.
Interestingly, this belief structure, to my mind at least, is indistinguishable from Judy's*. Furthermore, this construction (for that is what I believe it is) is indistinguishable from one of the streams of Indian (and Tibetan) Buddhism. Naturally this is not the position that I am representing here in this string. However in the Buddhist version of this presentation it would perform a function that would guide the practitioner; it would not, in the final count, be understood as ontologically significant. I am willing to admit that this is a very subtle difference.
This is an extraordinarily powerful vehicle for working with mind; I am very much aware of that. That is why it is so important to understand it in the context of healing (see Judy's examples). However it has traps like all presentations of ontological truth (These are often identifying the difference between level two and level three: what is "real" and what is "unreal" in experience). I also admit that the more philosophical approach, which is generally considered to be the core of Buddhist thinking, which I'm attempting to represent (The Middle Way) can cause problems because it can appear nihilistic or be over-intellectual. It is however, the approach that the Dalai Lama advocates.
Norbu
*There is one proviso here, which to my mind is really just about terminology. Judy's position, as I understand it, would accept the definition of the third level as being the material world but would not describe the second level as material. As I understand it, Judy would describe the second level as spiritual and consistent with the first level, which is occupied by God.
I can't really comment on what other people have taught or believe on this subject, I found out a long time ago that trying to assimilate what has gone before does not alway work in the now.
My conceptual understandings have come from within, they could always be wrong and they might not work for everyone, but the model I have works for us and the people we help with it, when we apply it in our day to day work in the real world 😉
Hi Judy
Are you talking about metaphysics which is in reality philosophy or thought into action, now I understand that there has been scientific studies done to validate what some people can do with their thoughts, remote scanning, esp etc. but science can only validate the effect, not validate the mechanics of what goes on to cause the effect.
This is rather a late answer Paul! This is one of Mary Baker Eddy's descriptions of metaphysics:
[COLOR="Blue"]
Metaphysics is above physics, and matter does not enter into metaphysical premises or conclusions. The categories of metaphysics rest on one basis, the divine Mind. Metaphysics resolves things into thoughts, and exchanges the objects of sense for the ideas of Soul.
These ideas are perfectly real and tangible to spiritual consciousness, and they have this advantage over the objects and thoughts of material sense,--they are good and eternal. (Science and Health 269)
the concept of a universal consciousness goes straight over the head of most scientists apart from the ones who try and explain it through quantum physics.
You are so right! 😀
Judy
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your interesting post. Your philosophical position appears to me at least, indistinguishable from Advaita Vedanta....
Interestingly, this belief structure, to my mind at least, is indistinguishable from Judy's*....
*There is one proviso here, which to my mind is really just about terminology. Judy's position, as I understand it, would accept the definition of the third level as being the material world but would not describe the second level as material. As I understand it, Judy would describe the second level as spiritual and consistent with the first level, which is occupied by God.
Hi Norbu,
Looking at the 3 stages above, it’s difficult to get my head round how I would relate – certainly to the 1st as being the real and true and the 3rd which explains the beliefs of matter, time, space etc. But to my understanding, immortal Mind (or God) is one with its ideas (man and the universe, which are spiritual, not material)
In Christian Science, everything is mental but we see a clear distinction between the divine and what appears to us at the moment as the material – it’s really a counterfeit of the real and true spiritual substance. If anyone’s interested, here’s a link, which explains it – you need to read both page 115 and 116.
[url]SCIENTIFIC TRANSLATION OF IMMORTAL & MORTAL MIND[/url]
Interestingly, the bit above that is this, which sort of sums up the problems we all have in communicating and explaining:
[COLOR="Blue"]Apart from the usual opposition to everything new, the one great obstacle to the reception of that spirituality, through which the understanding of Mind-science comes, is the inadequacy of material terms for metaphysical statements, and the consequent difficulty of so expressing metaphysical ideas as to make them comprehensible...
Judy
Hi Judy
It is nice to hear what Mary Baker Eddy has to say on this subject, but outside of her understanding, what is you own personal thoughts and understanding on this??