The Nature of Illusion as it Relates to Pantheism

[Capstone]

By "pantheism", I mean the multitier conviction that all things are fundamentally connected to one another and that this singular totality of existence is intelligent, multi-personal, and on the whole ... divine.

In order to understand how such a oneness of being is even possible, it's necessary to first get a handle on the nature of illusory thinking relative to 'perceived reality'.

The OED defines "illusion" as "a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses". My favorite example of this kind of thinking can be seen in the following clip:



Did master illusionist, David Blaine, really penetrate the window with the chosen card, or did some of the spectators make faulty assumptions based primarily on what escaped their perceptions (namely David's cohorts both inside and outside of the diner)? For those not inclined toward magical thinking, the answer is obvious.

Likewise, physical reality only shows us a partial picture via sense perception. Do the limitations of human perception negate the truths that rest beyond its scope? Again, the answer is clear: hell no. Therefore, the prospect that what lies beyond the senses is, at base, universal oneness, cannot be dismissed on the grounds of the potentially faulty assumptions associated with our limited perceptions.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Capstone]

Great quotes: "Come in close, because the more you think you see, the easier it will be to fool you. [...] Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you'll actually see."

Those highlighted words hint at the common MO of all great illusionists: focus the prospective fool's attention on some distraction at center stage, and he or she will invariably miss the true machinations of the illusion ... which are never in the central line of sight.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" - The Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz

Or, to put a modern and more relevant spin on it, pay no attention to the implications of quantum non-locality; and fret not about the fact that the demarcation between 'particles' and 'waves' seems little more than a matter of perspective! The important thing is that you assume whatever it takes to prop up the cherished but teetering cardhouse that is the Grand Illusion of the dualistic paradigm.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Great quotes: "Come in close, because the more you think you see, the easier it will be to fool you. [...] Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you'll actually see."

Those highlighted words hint at the common MO of all great illusionists: focus the prospective fool's attention on some distraction at center stage, and he or she will invariably miss the true machinations of the illusion ... which are never in the central line of sight.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" - The Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz

Or, to put a modern and more relevant spin on it, pay no attention to the implications of quantum non-locality; and fret not about the fact that the demarcation between 'particles' and 'waves' seems little more than a matter of perspective! The important thing is that you assume whatever it takes to prop up the cherished but teetering cardhouse that is the Grand Illusion of the dualistic paradigm.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Capstone]

Humans are bathed in "magic" pretty much from cradle to grave, as though the universe were a magician on stage and we(?)...its largely unwitting captive audience. The problem is that too many of us believe in the illusions that inform and seemingly justify our faulty assumptions in life. Even as we learn our very first words, we're taught to describe 'things' in a manner that affirms their separateness and thereby denies the real physical connections between us and the 'objects' we perceive. Later, in school, this communicative denial is only strengthened as we learn about nouns and verbs, adjectives and adverbs, when the only "noun" that truly exists is the universe itself, and we're just the adjectives that describe it. It's a vicious cycle of indoctrination (especially in the western world) that must be broken, that is, if humanity is ever to break the magician's spell.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Not everyone can be a wizard or shaman.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Capstone]

It doesn't take a wizard or a shaman to see through the façade that's been foisted on many of us in the guise of 'western civilization'. In fact, the marriage of mental clarity and perception may well be out of bounds for sincere practitioners of such ancient superstitions.

Sorry, but it seems to me that the 'new age' approach to issues of divinity, spiritualism, ETC. often bears an uncanny resemblance to some of the failed philosophies of the old age. What's the point of rejecting the dualistic fundamentalism of modern-day theism, if we're simply expected to embrace an equally flawed but far older form of it?

 

[Capstone]

Back to pantheism and to looking at one's world through the philosophical lens of monism, the simple realization that rationality should guide perception (and not vice versa) is key. This is necessary in order to circumvent the "persistent illusion of reality", as famously coined by Einstein. So, how do we do this? The answer consists of one's abilities to interpret and properly describe what he or she perceives.

For example, although what I see in front of me appears to be a group of autonomous objects, my understanding informs me that such appearances are illusory and based primarily on what my senses have failed to perceive (namely the physical interconnectedness of all of those 'things'). Accordingly, my description of the scene should fit the bill. I don't see a laptop; I see that the vicinity of the universe directly in front of me is laptopish. In line with this, I don't even see 'myself' as anything more than an individual vantage point from which the universe interacts with itself. Here, in this body's present locale, the universe is Capstonesque. There, in the reader's present locale, the universe is ________-esque (insert your own moniker).

Since we know those unique 'vantage points' are intelligent and possessed of personality, it's reasonable to ascribe those qualities to the one who ultimately possesses them: the universe (which we pantheists like to refer to as "God").

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It doesn't take a wizard or a shaman to see through the façade that's been foisted on many of us in the guise of 'western civilization'. In fact, the marriage of mental clarity and perception may well be out of bounds for sincere practitioners of such ancient superstitions.

Sorry, but it seems to me that the 'new age' approach to issues of divinity, spiritualism, ETC. often bears an uncanny resemblance to some of the failed philosophies of the old age. What's the point of rejecting the dualistic fundamentalism of modern-day theism, if we're simply expected to embrace an equally flawed but far older form of it?

Perhaps the old ways are more suited for the present situation.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Back to pantheism and to looking at one's world through the philosophical lens of monism, the simple realization that rationality should guide perception (and not vice versa) is key. This is necessary in order to circumvent the "persistent illusion of reality", as famously coined by Einstein. So, how do we do this? The answer consists of one's abilities to interpret and properly describe what he or she perceives.

For example, although what I see in front of me appears to be a group of autonomous objects, my understanding informs me that such appearances are illusory and based primarily on what my senses have failed to perceive (namely the physical interconnectedness of all of those 'things'). Accordingly, my description of the scene should fit the bill. I don't see a laptop; I see that the vicinity of the universe directly in front of me is laptopish. In line with this, I don't even see 'myself' as anything more than an individual vantage point from which the universe interacts with itself. Here, in this body's present locale, the universe is Capstonesque. There, in the reader's present locale, the universe is ________-esque (insert your own moniker).

Since we know those unique 'vantage points' are intelligent and possessed of personality, it's reasonable to ascribe those qualities to the one who ultimately possesses them: the universe (which we pantheists like to refer to as "God").

St Luke 17-
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said. The kingdom of God Cometh not with observation.
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi Library)
2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.
...
77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

*****SMILE*****

 

[Capstone]

St Luke 17-
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said. The kingdom of God Cometh not with observation.
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi Library) [...] 3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. ...

Way to go apocryphal in order to support a pantheistic take on Christianity.

Sadly, the vast majority of the 2 billion Christians worldwide tend to denounce anything "of the world" (read: "outside" of them) as being "of the Devil", to say nothing about the general Christian consensus on the so-called 'Gnostic Gospels'.

 

[Capstone]

It seems fair to say that Christianity in general is as far away from pantheistic principles as it is from reality proper; not only in its often self-contradictory hybridization of Cartesian dualism and monotheism, but in its fear-based ethics.

Speaking of ethics though, pantheism offers perhaps the best basis for 'moral behavior' ever proffered. Think about it. When, in considering the consequences of one's actions, he or she can ask the question, "Why am I doing this to myself (?)", the motivation for proper behavior becomes obvious. All without appeals to imaginary beings or fictitious places/states of reward and punishment.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It seems fair to say that Christianity in general is as far away from pantheistic principles as it is from reality proper; not only in its often self-contradictory hybridization of Cartesian dualism and monotheism, but in its fear-based ethics.

Speaking of ethics though, pantheism offers perhaps the best basis for 'moral behavior' ever proffered. Think about it. When, in considering the consequences of one's actions, he or she can ask the question, "Why am I doing this to myself (?)", the motivation for proper behavior becomes obvious. All without appeals to imaginary beings or fictitious places/states of reward and punishment.

Christians overall are no worse than a lot of other religions, and better than some. I include the atheists in with all those other religions.

We all make our own heavens and hells in this subjective reality.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Capstone]

Christians overall are no worse than a lot of other religions, and better than some. I include the atheists in with all those other religions. ...

Oh, I think a persuasive argument could be made that Christianity is presently worse, by far, than any other religion on the planet, simply by virtue of its faux influence among the geopolitical policy-makers of the world's most powerful war-profiteering nations.

Granting the point though (solely for the sake of argument, mind you), 50 wrongs of various degrees of wrongness will never make a singular right.

...We all make our own heavens and hells in this subjective reality.

Well, yes and no. Bearing in mind that I can only speak with authority on the matter concerning the beliefs drawn from a single vantage point, I would never deny the effects of the actions taken from any amount of the virtually infinite number of other vantage points out there. Such a denial seems implicit in the notion that I can "make my own Heaven or Hell in this subjective reality"; but as long as the beliefs and actions of 'others' hold any influence whatsoever over the options made available to 'me' in the course of my day-to-day life, I'll remain but a factor among many in the make-up of even my own "subjective reality".

 

[Capstone]

The sooner human understanding of this principle of unity reaches a critical mass, the sooner the effects of behavior modification will be seen and felt on a global scale. Sad thing is: with each passing day of worsening situations under the status quo, it's becoming harder and harder for me to see such a mass social awakening as anything more than a new-agey pipe dream.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The sooner human understanding of this principle of unity reaches a critical mass, the sooner the effects of behavior modification will be seen and felt on a global scale. Sad thing is: with each passing day of worsening situations under the status quo, it's becoming harder and harder for me to see such a mass social awakening as anything more than a new-agey pipe dream.

*****SMILE*****