The Manifest and Unmanifest

Schizo, asked this question in another thread and I thought it was worth replying to in it's own thread.

Schizophretard wrote:

Aaron wrote:

The way I see it, logic is dependent on dualisms, however "the absolute" is non-dual in nature. So although logic or "logos" may be the basis of manifestation it is ultimately grounded in the formless unmanifest "absolute".

I'm still confused when you bring up the manifest and unmanifest. I'm interested in your belief in them but have trouble comprehending the concept. Is the unmanifest everything that doesn't exist and the manifest everything that can possibly exist? Please explain.

Everything that we see, taste, touch, hear, smell, think and do are manifestations. The world of manifestations is a world of forms (even thoughts are a type of form) and a world of dualisms (ie. hot and cold, hard and soft, up and down, etc..) They are grounded in the unmanifest potential for them to exist. This unmanifest "potential" is infinite, formless, non-dualistic and contains all possible future manifestations as well as all past manifestations.

With every singularity of time, existence is constantly renewing itself. The unmanifest "gives birth" to the manifest and then it returns to itself.

I don't know if that makes any more sense or not. The idea is grounded on Taoist and Hindu thought, as well as neo-platonism, the philosophy of A. N. Whitehead, quantum physics, and systems theory, among other influences.

Aaron wrote:

They are grounded in the unmanifest potential for them to exist. This unmanifest "potential" is infinite, formless, non-dualistic and contains all possible future manifestations as well as all past manifestations.

I suspect that most people think, if it ain't manifest (evident to the senses) it ain't real. But if you substitute the concept of "potential" it will become evident that potential and actual are two sides of the same coin.

Scientists speak of "potential" energy, but how do they know it exists if they can't measure it until it becomes "actual" energy? They know it exists in an unmanifest state by reason instead of by sensation. If you look at a flashlight battery it doesn't appear to be very energetic. But from experience we know that, in the future, we can expect to actualize energy from the battery which is now sitting passive and inert. So we call that hidden energy "potential" (future power).

Anything that is limitless in time or space would also be unlimited in power. But as long as that power is unmanifest, we call it potential power. Hence, the infinite and eternal Deity of Deism must be omnipotent but unmanifest. Yet Atheists would call that kind of unreal power "impotence". They might be in for a future shock though, if they underestimate the power of unmanifest potential.

Also something like condensation as an example....a cold glass of tea in the summer heat collects moisture from the air. Until that moisture appears on the glass it's unmanifest tho it has the potential to manifest/appear as condensarton, or rain or ice or snow. All different forms but all H2O, tho not the totality of H2O.

Aaron wrote:

Schizo, asked this question in another thread and I thought it was worth replying to in it's own thread.

Schizophretard wrote:

Aaron wrote:

The way I see it, logic is dependent on dualisms, however "the absolute" is non-dual in nature. So although logic or "logos" may be the basis of manifestation it is ultimately grounded in the formless unmanifest "absolute".

I'm still confused when you bring up the manifest and unmanifest. I'm interested in your belief in them but have trouble comprehending the concept. Is the unmanifest everything that doesn't exist and the manifest everything that can possibly exist? Please explain.

Everything that we see, taste, touch, hear, smell, think and do are manifestations. The world of manifestations is a world of forms (even thoughts are a type of form) and a world of dualisms (ie. hot and cold, hard and soft, up and down, etc..) They are grounded in the unmanifest potential for them to exist. This unmanifest "potential" is infinite, formless, non-dualistic and contains all possible future manifestations as well as all past manifestations.

With every singularity of time, existence is constantly renewing itself. The unmanifest "gives birth" to the manifest and then it returns to itself.

I don't know if that makes any more sense or not. The idea is grounded on Taoist and Hindu thought, as well as neo-platonism, the philosophy of A. N. Whitehead, quantum physics, and systems theory, among other influences.

awe-some explaination

scorch wrote:

awe-some explaination

Thanks

Aaron wrote

Quote :

They are grounded in the unmanifest potential for them to exist. This unmanifest "potential" is infinite, formless, non-dualistic and contains all possible future manifestations as well as all past manifestations.

Well I hope my stake in a $27 million lottery goes from the unmanifest to the manifest tonight! That'd be nice!

The possibility exists, but the chances are very small I'm sure.

So the unmanifest is simply all possibilities.

Reality, then, is the particular possibility that comes to fruition.

For those that believe in a more traditional God, it roughly aligns with the concept that while it doesn't make sense for God to know which choice we will make, God could indeed know all the choices and all the possibilities.

Yep that makes sense.

Aaron,

Helium's last post reminded me about how I view God. Within the mind of God exists all possible universes and all the possible outcomes. God chooses which universes he wants to exist and those universes become in a sense real and the ones he doesn't want lack a realness to them. For an example, I believe that in the mind of God exists worlds that we would consider Hells. Since God doesn't want any Hells to exist they all lack this real quality to them. God knows all the possible outcomes of our universe. We have freewill so we choose which outcome becomes real. So, God chooses which universes exist and the creatures in them choose the outcomes.

What is similar between the way I view God and the way you view God? What is different? What is the closest things in my view to the manifest and unmanifest? Is the options God chooses and the options we choose the manifest and is all the options neither God or us choose the unmanifest?

When I looked up the definition for manifest it said,"To take form and become visible." I assume that unmanifest is the opposite. So, from God's perspective everything would be manifest because he "sees" all and everything we don't see is unmanifest.

Schizophretard wrote:

What is similar between the way I view God and the way you view God?

We're both Panendeists for one. But more specifically I think we both recognize an interconnectedness between us, the universe, and "god".

Schizophretard wrote:

What is different?

I think I view god in more abstract, holistic terms where you take a more anthropomorphic, objective view of the nature of god.

Schizophretard wrote:

What is the closest things in my view to the manifest and unmanifest?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Schizophretard wrote:

Is the options God chooses and the options we choose the manifest and is all the options neither God or us choose the unmanifest?

I don't view god as a separate entity from the manifest or the unmanifest nor do I view god as a decision maker. I view god more as a "ground of being" from which "being" emerges and on which the game of life is played out.

Schizophretard wrote:

When I looked up the definition for manifest it said,"To take form and become visible." I assume that unmanifest is the opposite.

Yes, but not in such a literal way. When something is manifested, it moves from a potential form to an actual form. When something dies or becomes unmanifested it moves from it's actual form back to it's potential form.

As an example think of a flower. Before a flower grows and blooms it exists in potential form as the carbon dioxide in the air, the water in the ground, the energy from the sun, in the nutrients in the soil, and in it's seeds. At the time the flower is manifested all of these things come together at once and move from potential flowerdom to actual flowerdom.

When the flower is unmanifested (or dies) all of the things that made up the flower move back into potential form with the possibility of once again becoming any one of a myriad of different things. In this analogy god is not only the air, the water, the energy from the sun, the nutrients in the soil and the seeds, but god is also the flower and the possibility of it all becoming a myriad of different things over and over again.

Schizophretard wrote:

So, from God's perspective everything would be manifest because he "sees" all and everything we don't see is unmanifest.

I guess that would be the case in your god model but not mine because I don't view god (in it's ultimate form) as "a being" with the capability of "seeing" everything. In my god model, god (in it's ultimate form), is simply the springboard for being or manifestation.

Timeless does not posses great aptitude, so her words are simple. She admires the thought, agrees with the theroms and admires the intellectualism.

Cheers and welcome!

Timeless wrote:

Timeless does not posses great aptitude, so her words are simple. She admires the thought, agrees with the theroms and admires the intellectualism.

Thanks and welcome.

Yep. At least that's what I'm discussing anyway.

I think there is bad and good, but it's important to remember that those terms are relative. I guess from the grand scheme of things they do balance each other out, but that doesn't mean that there aren't pockets where there is no balance or where things are out of balance.

Regarding those who are corrupt, it's up to us to use our reason to try and best figure out what to do with those that don't follow 'the letter of the law'.

Aaron wrote:

Schizophretard wrote:

What is similar between the way I view God and the way you view God?

We're both Panendeists for one. But more specifically I think we both recognize an interconnectedness between us, the universe, and "god".

Schizophretard wrote:

What is different?

I think I view god in more abstract, holistic terms where you take a more anthropomorphic, objective view of the nature of god.

Schizophretard wrote:

What is the closest things in my view to the manifest and unmanifest?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Schizophretard wrote:

Is the options God chooses and the options we choose the manifest and is all the options neither God or us choose the unmanifest?

I don't view god as a separate entity from the manifest or the unmanifest nor do I view god as a decision maker. I view god more as a "ground of being" from which "being" emerges and on which the game of life is played out.

Schizophretard wrote:

When I looked up the definition for manifest it said,"To take form and become visible." I assume that unmanifest is the opposite.

Yes, but not in such a literal way. When something is manifested, it moves from a potential form to an actual form. When something dies or becomes unmanifested it moves from it's actual form back to it's potential form.

As an example think of a flower. Before a flower grows and blooms it exists in potential form as the carbon dioxide in the air, the water in the ground, the energy from the sun, in the nutrients in the soil, and in it's seeds. At the time the flower is manifested all of these things come together at once and move from potential flowerdom to actual flowerdom.

When the flower is unmanifested (or dies) all of the things that made up the flower move back into potential form with the possibility of once again becoming any one of a myriad of different things. In this analogy god is not only the air, the water, the energy from the sun, the nutrients in the soil and the seeds, but god is also the flower and the possibility of it all becoming a myriad of different things over and over again.

Schizophretard wrote:

So, from God's perspective everything would be manifest because he "sees" all and everything we don't see is unmanifest.

I guess that would be the case in your god model but not mine because I don't view god (in it's ultimate form) as "a being" with the capability of "seeing" everything. In my god model, god (in it's ultimate form), is simply the springboard for being or manifestation.

You are correct that we both recognize an interconnectedness between us, the universe, and "god". I see the universe as the thoughts of God and you see the universe as a manifestation of God's infinite potential but in a way I also see the universe as a manifestation of God's infinite potential. What seems different between our views is that I see God's total mind as unmanifest and this part of God's mind(the universe) as manifest but you seem to view the unmanifest part of God as something different than a mind. I understand the manifest aspect of your belief quite well because I'm a self aware part of it but the unmanifest part is still undefined to me. You said,"This unmanifest "potential" is infinite, formless, non-dualistic and contains all possible future manifestations as well as all past manifestations.", and this doesn't explain much to me because in a way I can say the same thing about the mind of God. My "unmanifest" is a divine mind and it is easily understood because we all have minds but what is your unmanifest? What is the seed to your flower?

What do you mean by abstract, holistic terms?

I asked,"What is the closest things in my view to the manifest and unmanifest?" because I'm trying to understand manifest and unmanifest more clearly. I told you the way I view God so you could use concepts from my view to explain manifest and unmanifest to me. I'm sure you understand my view more clearly than I understand yours because mine is more of a traditional western view. Your view is more like a Buddhist type view and all ideas of eastern civilization are completely foreign to me. I'm trying to find a way for you to explain yourself in a way that I can comprehend you and the best way for me is for you to explain your views by comparing them to concepts I understand.

Now, I do understand you when you say,"I don't view god as a separate entity from the manifest or the unmanifest nor do I view god as a decision maker. I view god more as a "ground of being" from which "being" emerges and on which the game of life is played out." You're basically saying you don't define God as the supreme being that is the source of all being but just simply the source of being. Please expand more on this. I have a supreme being as the source but what do you have as the source? What is the unmanifest? If there was no being and just the ground of being then what would this ground's attributes be? What attributes does this ground have that gives it the ability to cause being to emerge?

You said that when something is manifested, it moves from a potential form to an actual form and when something dies or becomes unmanifested it moves from it's actual form back to it's potential form. So, when I die I will become unmanifest as dirt but couldn't it be said that as I live I'm unmanifest because I have the potential to turn into dirt and when I die I will become manifest as dirt? If so then there isn't no manifest and unmanifest. There is just things that change form. For an example, I was unmanifest as dirt and became manifest when I formed into a person. I became unmanifest again when I died because I turned back into dirt. Also, I was manifest as dirt and became unmanifest as a person. I became manifest again when I formed back into dirt. So, when I'm dirt I'm both the manifest and unmanifest and when I'm a person I'm both the manifest and unmanifest. So, since I'm always both I'm really neither. I just change into different forms. The same goes for flowers and the things it was formed from. What is the universe in unmanifest form?

Explain this springboard for being or manifestation.

I can't speak for Aaron, so this is not a direct response to your questions, but rather my take on the issue. It may or may not be parallel to Aaron's views.

The difference between "dirt" and "human" seems substantial. One is conscious, one is not. Without being pretentious, I think it safe to say that being human is a higher state of being than being dirt. So, to say that dirt may have the potential to become human makes more sense to me than to say that human has the potential to become something less than human.

Potential, then would describe the ability to evolve into a higher state of being. Manifest would be the realization of that higher state, while unmanifest would be existing at the lesser state.

Another view might be that "dirt" may be the condition of the body once it ceases to be human, but the spirit or soul of the human does not become dirt. The soul might revert to unbridled energy, which would still have the potential to inhabit a human form. In this sense, unmanifest would describe the shapeless existence of energy while manifest would be the conversion of that energy into matter.

Either way, we usually use the term "potential" to describe the ability to become something greater than it's present form. Everything can potentially decay into a lesser form, but that is not generally seen as "potential". My car can degenerate into a useless rust bucket, but I don't see that as a plus so I wouldn't describe it as potential. (even though it may be inevitable)

Well in a way we are dirt because the substance of our bodies comes from the Earth. Its just arranged in a way that permits us to think and move.

The main thing I'm having trouble with understanding about the manifest and unmanifest is that I can't figure out where God is in this world view. The manifest and unmanifest is God but why couldn't it be said that all of reality is the manifest and unmanifest? I don't understand how this belief is a belief in God. I could see an atheist saying that they believe that all of reality is the manifest and the unmanifest. If God isn't a supreme being and all it is is all possible worlds' potential to exist and their actual existences then why is it called God? It sounds the same as calling the multiverse God. So, where is God in this world view?

I guess that depends on how one defines god. When I use the word god I don't mean it in the same sense that theists and many deists do. I don't view god as a personified being. I view god as the ground of being, the basis for existence, the one and the myriad things.

I view all of these things as divine. The fact that anything exists rather than nothing is miraculous, it fills me with awe and wonder, and it should be cherished IMO.

I think Atheism is a knee jerk reaction to the personified deity of Theism. I don't think there's any need for it.

This is from a pantheist website. Although the belief is ever so slightly different the basis for belief is basically the same...

Quote :

What's the evidence for pantheism? How do you know the universe is worthy of reverence?

We choose to regard the universe with awe, reverence, love, feelings of belonging and a recognition of tremendous power, beauty and mystery. This is an aesthetic/emotional choice and basically lies beyond any challenge from logic or evidence. But it is based on objective qualities of the Universe and Nature.



In fact almost everyone regards the universe or nature in that way but many are mislead by traditional religious teachings into seeing these things as evidence for deities they read about in their ancient scriptures.

We need no faith, no ancient books, to reveal these feelings and experiences to us. The visions are right in front of our eyes, the feelings are in our hearts. We only need to recognize them frankly to accept the universe and nature as primal focus.

The evidence for this approach is infinitely stronger than for belief in a personal creator God.

So is Pantheism just atheism or humanism in disguise?

No. Like atheism and humanism, pantheism does not believe in a personal God separate from the Universe. Like them it is critical of beliefs that depend on faith in impossibilities, or unproven revelations in ancient books.

But atheism is essentially defined by a single proposition. It states that there is no God, and nothing more. Usually atheism implies respect for certain approaches, for example realism, physicalism, demand for very strong evidence of improbable claims, rejection of scriptural or priestly authority claims as a source of truth. All of these are valid and valuable. But these are the ways in which people arrive at atheism - they don't constitute part of the definition of atheism. Atheism does not claim to be a comprehensive philosophy. One can be an atheist and love nature, or detest nature, love life or hate it. In other words, atheism is like a starting point: if you want a system of ethics and attitudes to life, you have to add them on top, and from other sources.

Humanism has tried to develop a positive philosophy and ethics, but sometimes this has been too anthropocentric, too confident of human superiority, too nervous of appearing even remotely like anything called "religion."

Pantheism goes beyond atheism in offering a positive approach to the world and a a reverent and religious attitude towards nature and the universe. It affirms our unity with these, and rejects the idea of human mastery over nature or human pre-eminence in the cosmos. It takes our relationship to nature and to the universe as the centre of our religion, our ethics and our aesthetics.

http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/faqs.htm

I think I understand what you're saying now. In a way you are an atheist and in a way you are not. It seems to me that atheists spend most of their time claiming what they are not. Like when they say they are an atheist they are saying they are not theists. Would it be fair to say that you are just going in the other direction and instead of saying what you are not you are saying what you are? Do you agree with atheists that there is no god(supreme being) but instead of seeing that in a negative way like atheists you are seeing it in a positive way? What I mean is that atheists seem mad that there is no god and see the universe as being kind of pointless. You are not mad that there is no god and don't see the universe as being pointless. Instead of the universe being this horrible evil place like atheists see it you see the universe as beautiful and divine. Have I figured you out yet?