Talk:Emanationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Well, I guess anything with an "-ism" on it is an "ism." But this "ism" doesn't stand up all by itself... Wetman 04:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The only unresolved issue with the assumptions above is that an eternal has neither a beginning nor an end. I established this easily describing the irrational number as being and not being concurrently, the two valid premises of a paradox which becomes a contradiction in applying either one.
Thus, "Creationism" in common lore as an event and moment of origin is a misconception. Things always were and will be - that is the meta concept of "God" - separation of an entity from a "creation" is extrinsic nonsense.
The will is also distracting as it implies a sentient being but does not imply consciousness or motivation beyond the primal expression of life and survival as is the non-alternative character of an eternal being. GeMiJa 02:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This could do with explaining what an emanation is, as it redirects to here. I'm finding this article pretty hard going, it seems to require a philosophy degree. Secretlondon 22:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe emanation in Tibetan Buddhism needs its own article as it seems to be a key concept which this article isn't helping with. Secretlondon 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
