> Hi again Darryl,
> Thanks for a great AoM – think I have read your
> introductory piece a half dozen times.
My pleasure! An apologies for dropping off the radar for a couple of days.
> I am a little uncomfortable with the pantheist
> concept of oneness. As mentioned I don’t like to
> go anywhere near the ‘who kick-started it’
Ah, but with pantheism "who" is the wrong way to phrase the question, because God is not defined in any way as a persona. On my part there is just humility before a Ground of Being that is utterly uncategorizable.
> It would
> seem to me, if we are looking for what the
> goldfish ‘was before’ and ‘will be again’
> then a biological explanation will likely offer
> more clues than contemplating the fact that we
> were all once particles left over from an
> exploding star.
Perhaps. This is an area I'm not well versed in.
> I think you are saying here that
> pantheism (the contemplation of a universal
> wholeness) can help us understand the order and
> energy that must have been present prior to our
> universe coming into existence – something most
> scientists will admit we have no way of ever
> I am not comfortable with ‘I God’ or ‘I
> Universe’. I think it is okay that we are unable
> to comprehend our creation. To me, the ‘I God’
> or ‘I Universe’; is putting the human soul on
> a hierarchical level one step higher than it
At first glance, "I, Universe" looks like a statement of ego, but I mean it in completely the opposite sense. I subscribe to non-duality. The ego is a fiction. There is no object called the "self" sitting between the eyes. When I use the word "I" in the normal everyday sense of the word, I am using a practical convention that is untrue in an ultimate sense. So if I want to use the word "I" in a meaningful way, in the context of the nature of reality, "I" must equal "everything". It's all about getting past the notion that there's a self separate from the wholeness.