Triune or Nondual God 🤔

[Fairy]

The terms triune or trinity, or, that “a seeming three are actually one”, is an idea that is simply saying “not three”
The term nondual is simply saying two, but “not two”


It’s like saying - that which there seems to be - ideas such as humans (human constructs), what feeling is (feeling constructs), Atman, Brahman, person, God (mental constructs) - don’t actually exist, or, are just appearing thoughts (theories, concepts, philosophies, dogmas, etc).

Hence the pointing term nonduality, one, not two, or two, but not two. Simply the many of the One.

[mickthinks]

Whose question is this trying to answer? What are you trying to say and why?

Because, for me at least, you are not succeeding.

[Iwannaplato]

The terms triune or trinity, or, that “a seeming three are actually one”, is an idea that is simply saying “not three”
The term nondual is simply saying two, but “not two”


It’s like saying - that which there seems to be - ideas such as humans (human constructs), what feeling is (feeling constructs), Atman, Brahman, person, God (mental constructs) - don’t actually exist, or, are just appearing thoughts (theories, concepts, philosophies, dogmas, etc).

Hence the pointing term nonduality, one, not two, or two, but not two. Simply the many of the One.

Well, there's probably some trinity believers who'd go along with that and think that was the idea. I like the idea of it is really being a sort of game (thinking more of Chritianity) than the nondual traditions. I mean, what an ornate game, so much detail and theology, fussing over there being three and yet it's a monism - of course they generally don't include us and the mud, stones, trees, glaciars and wolves in that monism.

Even the non-dual traditions have the non-three....

Brahma - the creator
Vishnu - the preserver
Shiva - the destroyer

To make up a term for "not-three" in Sanskrit, it could be Atriputi:

A (अ) is a prefix meaning "not."
Tri (त्रि) means "three."
Puti could imply "counting" or "division."

From the Latin that gives us non-dual, non-trial (which makes a nice pun)

Christians have seemed to take issue with destroyer deities (I mean, destroy in relation to everything) and then also sex: Shiva and Parvati. Or gods sleeping. And then the Catholics have Mary, and even if she isn't officially number four, a lot of people, especially female Catholics pray to here, getting the sense she's more forgiving and empathetic.

So, there we have non-quadrial.

[Fairy]

The terms triune or trinity, or, that “a seeming three are actually one”, is an idea that is simply saying “not three”
The term nondual is simply saying two, but “not two”


It’s like saying - that which there seems to be - ideas such as humans (human constructs), what feeling is (feeling constructs), Atman, Brahman, person, God (mental constructs) - don’t actually exist, or, are just appearing thoughts (theories, concepts, philosophies, dogmas, etc).

Hence the pointing term nonduality, one, not two, or two, but not two. Simply the many of the One.

Well, there's probably some trinity believers who'd go along with that and think that was the idea. I like the idea of it is really being a sort of game (thinking more of Chritianity) than the nondual traditions. I mean, what an ornate game, so much detail and theology, fussing over there being three and yet it's a monism - of course they generally don't include us and the mud, stones, trees, glaciars and wolves in that monism.

Even the non-dual traditions have the non-three....

Brahma - the creator
Vishnu - the preserver
Shiva - the destroyer

To make up a term for "not-three" in Sanskrit, it could be Atriputi:

A (अ) is a prefix meaning "not."
Tri (त्रि) means "three."
Puti could imply "counting" or "division."

From the Latin that gives us non-dual, non-trial (which makes a nice pun)

Christians have seemed to take issue with destroyer deities (I mean, destroy in relation to everything) and then also sex: Shiva and Parvati. Or gods sleeping. And then the Catholics have Mary, and even if she isn't officially number four, a lot of people, especially female Catholics pray to here, getting the sense she's more forgiving and empathetic.

So, there we have non-quadrial.

LoL

Thanks for that super interesting rendition, from you Iwannaplato

I like the non-quadrial idea, quite funny you are.

It’s obviously all down to preference, kind of like, which God suits me the best, or which fits on my foot, which incidentally is either in my mouth or totally outside the boundaries and limitations of space&time duality.

[Fairy]

Whose question is this trying to answer? What are you trying to say and why?

Because, for me at least, you are not succeeding.

Sorry about that, I have a habit of starting a thread topic and then leaving out a huge portion of missing information as to the intention of the topic. I don’t think I leave information out on purpose, I just get forgetful, thus I miss the opportunity to add it in.

[Self-Lightening]

The terms triune or trinity, or, that “a seeming three are actually one”, is an idea that is simply saying “not three”
The term nondual is simply saying two, but “not two”


It’s like saying - that which there seems to be - ideas such as humans (human constructs), what feeling is (feeling constructs), Atman, Brahman, person, God (mental constructs) - don’t actually exist, or, are just appearing thoughts (theories, concepts, philosophies, dogmas, etc).

Hence the pointing term nonduality, one, not two, or two, but not two. Simply the many of the One.

Well, it's not simply (singly!) the many of the One if it's one, not two, or two, but not two. The "not" part already conveys why it's called "nonduality" and not, say, "nonplurality". And triune symbolism, if it has any depth to it, is about the positive, the negative (the "not"), and the neutral which encompasses both. Trinity, then, is basically or ultimately the same as nonduality.

[Fairy]

The terms triune or trinity, or, that “a seeming three are actually one”, is an idea that is simply saying “not three”
The term nondual is simply saying two, but “not two”


It’s like saying - that which there seems to be - ideas such as humans (human constructs), what feeling is (feeling constructs), Atman, Brahman, person, God (mental constructs) - don’t actually exist, or, are just appearing thoughts (theories, concepts, philosophies, dogmas, etc).

Hence the pointing term nonduality, one, not two, or two, but not two. Simply the many of the One.

Well, it's not simply (singly!) the many of the One if it's one, not two, or two, but not two. The "not" part already conveys why it's called "nonduality" and not, say, "nonplurality". And triune symbolism, if it has any depth to it, is about the positive, the negative (the "not"), and the neutral which encompasses both. Trinity, then, is basically or ultimately the same as nonduality.

Yes, thank you, that was my point. Both the trinity and the nondual are saying the same thing.

I made this thread solely to point out the absurdity of Christianity claiming only the triune god is real. Which IC claims to be true, rejecting the nondual God, which to me is absurd since both ideas are pointing to the same one god.

I have no argument with differences because I know differences are simply illusions.

[Skepdick]

The terms triune or trinity, or, that “a seeming three are actually one”, is an idea that is simply saying “not three”
The term nondual is simply saying two, but “not two”


It’s like saying - that which there seems to be - ideas such as humans (human constructs), what feeling is (feeling constructs), Atman, Brahman, person, God (mental constructs) - don’t actually exist, or, are just appearing thoughts (theories, concepts, philosophies, dogmas, etc).

Hence the pointing term nonduality, one, not two, or two, but not two. Simply the many of the One.

The constructive "NOT" operator works exactly like that in Intuitionistic/Constructive logic. Can't negate what doesn't exist.

not(X) therefore X.

Apophatic teleology works like that.

[Fairy]

The terms triune or trinity, or, that “a seeming three are actually one”, is an idea that is simply saying “not three”
The term nondual is simply saying two, but “not two”


It’s like saying - that which there seems to be - ideas such as humans (human constructs), what feeling is (feeling constructs), Atman, Brahman, person, God (mental constructs) - don’t actually exist, or, are just appearing thoughts (theories, concepts, philosophies, dogmas, etc).

Hence the pointing term nonduality, one, not two, or two, but not two. Simply the many of the One.

The constructive "NOT" operator works exactly like that in Intuitionistic/Constructive logic. Can't negate what doesn't exist.

not(X) therefore X.

Apophatic teleology works like that.

I totally agree.

Thanks for shedding more clarity on the issue.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And then the Catholics have Mary, and even if she isn't officially number four, a lot of people, especially female Catholics pray to here, getting the sense she's more forgiving and empathetic.

A slight correction, from a traditional Catholic perspective. Mary, the vessel through which Christ entered the world on the salvific mission, is far more essential to the Catholic metaphysical picture than she would appear to those examining the *picture* from the outside. She represents a figure, originally human, who rose to a heavenly stature in the course of her earthly life. She is never seen as being on a plane equal to God (or Jesus) and yet she is Queen of the Angels and has a tremendous amount of spiritual power.

It is really not so that only Catholic women, or especially Catholic women, turn to Mary. In fact Mary, and the devotion of the Rosary, became and is a substantial aspect of the Catholic liturgy. All the major Church figures -- saints and fathers -- all stress that devotion to Mary is the *best* route to relationship with Jesus.

Yet it is true that beside the triune concept of Father, Son (Avatar) and Holy Ghost (a free-wheeling transformative spiritual power) Mary represents a deeply feminine spiritual power or, perhaps one could say, an aspect of the Deity representing the depth of mercy.

Naturally, Catholics visualize these *persons* as real entities and not as concepts. But since our bent is "philosophical distance" and trying to organize the way we talk about the ineffable in coherent terms that satisfy our mental needs, we look at these verbal and visual descriptions through a peculiarly analytical lens.

In the end, it all comes down not so much to the best and most coherent descriptive picture, but how a person orients and reorients their moral and ethical life in relation to the pictures of the Divine that they hold in their mind. And perhaps more important is the ethical and moral under-structure that infuses the metaphysical picture.

[promethean75]

Would now be an inappropriate time to post this song? If so, let me know and I won't post it.

[promethean75]

"Warren Cuccurullo. Kinda young and kinda wow."

Lololol. Fuckin Frank. He's ruthless.

[Iwannaplato]

And then the Catholics have Mary, and even if she isn't officially number four, a lot of people, especially female Catholics pray to here, getting the sense she's more forgiving and empathetic.

A slight correction, from a traditional Catholic perspective. Mary, the vessel through which Christ entered the world on the salvific mission, is far more essential to the Catholic metaphysical picture than she would appear to those examining the *picture* from the outside.

So far ths fits with what I was saying,.

She represents a figure, originally human, who rose to a heavenly stature in the course of her earthly life. She is never seen as being on a plane equal to God (or Jesus) and yet she is Queen of the Angels and has a tremendous amount of spiritual power.

She may not be 'seen' as this, but she is clearly felt as this, unofficially, by many Catholics, especially women, who often turn to her hoping that perhaps there they will find a more forgiving compassionate holy firgue, one that might even intercede where the male figures might be more likely to follow the rule of diving law. I acknowledge that her position officially is not on a par with the Father, Son and somewhat ambigiously gendered HS, which is why I said she wasn't officially there. But if I look at how people behave in their lives and focus also on which humans, I see her as more important to women and as having taken on an unofficial deity status.

And her place has grown in importance over time. She's been on her way up for a long time, even how she is seen, but certainly in how she is related to also. There was some Vatican Council decision fairly recently - in church history terms - that reduced her status in the norther hemisphere, but she continues to go up in importants in the south where Catholicism is thriving.

And Marian organizations have a tendency to have more female than male members. Woman are also aimed at Mary by the Church as a role model, so a special relationship is promoted and this likely leads to more focus on her by women, especially in an intercessionary role, given here special qualities.

It is really not so that only Catholic women, or especially Catholic women, turn to Mary.

Well, since I never said only, there was no need to bring that up.

In fact Mary, and the devotion of the Rosary, became and is a substantial aspect of the Catholic liturgy. All the major Church figures -- saints and fathers -- all stress that devotion to Mary is the *best* route to relationship with Jesus.

Nevertheless, on the ground, in reality, not in the abstract and officially, women are more likely to appeal to Mary than men. And, this, of course, makes sense. They can feel understood by her and also more understandible. More identifiable with. Just as Catholics in general as less likely to appeal to the hard to get a handle on Holy Spirit when in dark times, than the others.

Yet it is true that beside the triune concept of Father, Son (Avatar) and Holy Ghost (a free-wheeling transformative spiritual power) Mary represents a deeply feminine spiritual power or, perhaps one could say, an aspect of the Deity representing the depth of mercy.

Naturally, Catholics visualize these *persons* as real entities and not as concepts. But since our bent is "philosophical distance" and trying to organize the way we talk about the ineffable in coherent terms that satisfy our mental needs, we look at these verbal and visual descriptions through a peculiarly analytical lens.

I'm not sure who 'we' is in the above, but I tend, regardless of context, to be interested i what people actually do and how they practice their religion. I can certainly look at the official positions also, but here I think the lack of official deity that is purely female, has led to a balancing by the members of the church and Mary has a stature especially for women that approaches a defacto deity status.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I made this thread solely to point out the absurdity of Christianity claiming only the triune god is real. Which IC claims to be true, rejecting the nondual God, which to me is absurd since both ideas are pointing to the same one god.

Debate over the religious philosophy of our own IC is an important topic, in my view. It seems to me that we can, and perhaps we must, notice the resurgence of strains of fundamentalism in our cultural present. Our world — the largely mad world of consumer culture with its mindlessness and lack of sound grounding — produces social and psychological disassociation. Without a solid relationship to a believed-in structure of metaphysics people are, to speak generally, unable to navigate life through tangible value-sets. And they become merely cogs or victims of determining political and cultural arrangements into which they are subsumed.

Man needs — we need — a metaphysical picture with which we identify. In a postmodern reality no such thing exists. The former metaphysical directives are reduced to absurdities.

In this sense IC’s decisions (in his case formed in his earliest years) can be understood as “metaphysical anchor”.

But the real question, then, has really to do with metaphysical anchoring and less perhaps about IC’s stubborn (Evangelical Protestant) choices which, in my view, are erroneous displays of stubborn rebellion. But naturally I reveal my own views of the Protestant revolution.

The triune concept, in any case the way I handle it and conceive of it, does not pose great problems for me. “The Father” represents God as an absolute. “The Son” the incarnated representative of specific, unalterable metaphysical truth. And “The Holy Ghost” a tangible spirit that moves between the two poles: one, the abstract, and the other the way Spirit operates within the mutable “fallen” world. I take “fallen” in a wider sense. As if we are fallen into a world of insurmountable problems. Incarnated existence. A brutal life-or-death world that is set against the Ideal we naturally conceive of as possible, but unattainable.

Thus what interests me the most is religious fundamentalism. But I really want to say metaphysical fundamentalism. The postmodern — the present, dominating ideology (into which all of us are subsumed to some degree) — is inadequate, yet we struggle to find, to believe in, and to locate ourselves within a defined, solid metaphysical structure.

So many who write here are in this position. And that attitude is really the predominant, driving one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

(How Zappa can fit or will be fit into any of this is an issue I am not qualified to discourse on. However, I do not have faith in his later “kitsch” arrangements and feel that we must return to Zappan fundamentals. Let weasels rip my flesh therefore! I need a good shave in any case. Shall I be blamed — shall any of us be blamed? — for “playing the electric violin on Desolation Row”?)

Get A Little