Re: Reality can be known?
- From: "Kent Johnson" <kent@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:51:14 GMT
Hi Doug,
Man (capital M) refers to the Manifestation and man (small m) refers to we
human critters. To my understanding the Writings are clear there has
always been a Man.
I still don't understand the question.
Probably but nevertheless I don't this this as something that is going to
help us be practical in application of the Writings and teaching the Faith
even though it may be an interesting intellectual issue.
My answers to my deepest challenging questions help me deal practically with
my life, my motivations, my view of my world. It am driven to honestly
consider the deepest questions I can find. I find it helpful and
fulfilling, and hopefully others will one day see the value of my endeavor.
But I can't say how practical are your beliefs.
--Kent
"Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:K4SdnanSEMzqcTXanZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 5, 2008, at 6:15 AM, Kent Johnson wrote:
The dictionary defines the words so I do not know what the problem is.
The Writings don't use the words in a positive light. So how can we say
that Abdu'l-Baha, who did not say anything good about the supernatural or
metaphysics, is using those words in the same way as Funk and Wagnall's,
who
published an encyclopedia about the same time? It seems to me the
Writings
are clear in their definitions and those are what we should use, if at
all
possible.
Dear Kent-
What makes you say the Writings don't use the words in a positive light?
Is this relating to Man or man?
I don't understand the question.
Man (capital M) refers to the Manifestation and man (small m) refers to we
human critters. To my understanding the Writings are clear there has
always been a Man.
And we humans contain it all. See SAQ regarding augmentative degrees of
spirit.
Apparently you and I have a different idea of what the word "all" means.
Probably but nevertheless I don't this this as something that is going to
help us be practical in application of the Writings and teaching the Faith
even though it may be an interesting intellectual issue. However "all" to
me means all creation, from subatomic on up to human spirit or all things
in the Created World as well as the Manifested World. And since we cannot
understand God I don't think we really can know what this means. Maybe it
means that the human contains all kingdoms and all Creation was contained
by God's creative power. I think of creating a chair and can we say that
the chair is contained by me? Not in a material way but the idea might
have been contained by me and yet that might not be true either for the
idea of a chair existed in many minds.
There are far too many quotes that I have read indicating we can
perceive
and understand the realities of things.
What is it that we can't know, Doug, and how does that relate to "the
realities of things"?
The essence of things cannot be known.
I'm sure you have read this in the Writings, so why do you ask?
doug
--Kent
"Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7vqdnVMj-KlF3zXanZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 4, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Kent Johnson wrote:
Hi Doug,
... one summary definition might be - reality is both material and
spiritual.
The trouble might be that I don't know what others mean when they say
spiritual, or metaphysical or supernatural. I only know what is in the
Writings.
Kent-
I also only know what I know from the Writings and reason. The
dictionary
defines the words so I do not know what the problem is.
Reality is all that exists. I include the "spirit" in reality unless
it
is
defined as supernatural or metaphysical, then I don't know what spirit
might
be. In the Baha'i Writings "spirit" is defined almost directly. Here
are
some short examples:
Reality is what exists and shows signs registering on our sense
perceptions and; what underlies the appearances of things, such as a
things purpose and powers, or spiritual aspects in other words.
"The spirit of faith, the beloved, the spiritual ego, the friend, the
adored
one, the desired one, the rays of the sun of truth, the flame of
reality,
the radiations of the celestial world, the lord, the nightingale, etc.,
are
all synonyms of the one reality of man." (Abdu'l-Baha, Divine
Philosophy,
p. 29)
Is this relating to Man or man?
"...the spirit radiates in all the realms of nature according to the
receptive degree."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 117)
And we humans contain it all. See SAQ regarding augmentative degrees of
spirit.
"Man's spirit comprehends the realities of kingdoms which have no
knowledge
of him, even as the child in the womb has no knowledge of exterior
existence" (Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 117)
So we can know reality then.
"According to the great ancient philosophers the words soul, mind and
spirit
implied the underlying principles of life; the essence was expressed
under
different names and these three terms designated the various functions
of
the absolute reality, or the operations of the one single essence; for
instance, when they dealt with the sensations of emotion they called it
the
soul; when they desired to express that power which discovers the
reality
of
phenomena they gave it the appellation of mind and when they discussed
the
consciousness which pervades the world of creation they gave it the
title
of
spirit." (Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 119)
I think I mentioned before we have the animal (material), human (mind)
and
higher or soul. And I also mentioned that the Master said that we have
the animal and divine nature but the human is in between and thus we
have
three natures.
There are far too many quotes that I have read indicating we can
Kent-
Can you give an operational definition of reality from your
perspective
whether it agrees or disagrees or incorporates that which is offered
in
dictionaries? I want to know how you define reality. For example one
summary definition might be - reality is both material and spiritual.
Another might be - reality is what exists and shows signs registering
on
our sense perceptions and; what underlies the appearances of things.
Both
of which make sense to me.
regards,
doug
On Feb 2, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Kent Johnson wrote:
Hi Doug,
"What is reality to you Kent?"
All that we can possibly know.
--Kent
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Reality can be known?
- Next by Date: Re: Reality can be known?
- Previous by thread: Re: Reality can be known?
- Next by thread: Re: Reality can be known?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
