Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
As a psychologist i dont for one mintue believe there is a god up there, its a diffcult situation with my sons both being baptised roman catholic and attending an RC school. I cant comprehend that God created the earth and is up there, praying to god for good health and a lottery win seem pointless, when all my life i have believed that we create our life and our paths. Studying psychology and holistic therapies has reaffirmed my beliefs! I do think that people need to believe in something, and its this that is misguided. Religion is a destructive belief, l went on a course to Belfast, Northern Ireland and the circumstances under which locals live is beyond belief the divide due to religion is inhumane in my opinion!
There's a simple basic rule that is applied in some Buddhist traditions, at least; what hasn't been personally experienced or shown to exist through reasoning can't logically be asserted. Classic example? "There are ghosts in this house", from one who has never encountered a ghost nor reviewed evidence from which one could establish their existence within a reasonable certainty.
For most of us gods are not certainties; we haven't met them; we reject treatises such as Kant's treatise alleging to prove the existence of God as well, because it and, it seems, all Christian proofs make assumptions about the soul, which defy pure logic.
Fortunately the Buddha did the reverse; he challenged his listeners NOT to take anything he said as "Gospel Truth" ....uhm...pun, not intended OK...merely out of respect for him (Kalama Sutta/Sutra) and urged people to test his words as one might test gold---by rubbing it, cutting it, and burning it... in another (I posted name in another thread; can't remember long Pali names).
So...if you ARE a god, more power to you! (a lot more, I guess); and if you have a firm belief in their existence you have experienced them through personal observation/contact OR you've developed a really excellent proof, or...you're engaging in either blind faith or wishful thinking.
New here but if meditation means living in the present or being here, there seems there is no need for a god in the present. Just being there means not complicating your mind with questions about the existence of a god. So in my opinion during meditation it does not matter if gods exists.
zen_world: "All these galaxies, stars, paralel universes indicate higher level of consciousness and forces".
I wonder what your thoughts are about the fact that the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists, the people who actually study this stuff for a living, DON'T believe that this stuff indicates "higher level consciousness".
I submit that the reason they don't is because the formation of these phenomena do have natural explanations in gravity and inflationary big bang cosmology. We don't know about the origin of the big bang itself, but to invoke deity there is just to commit the God Of The Gaps Fallacy. And if we had always invoked deities whenever we didn't know the answer to something, we would never have found the real answers, and we would have no science at all. Poseidon would still be seen as necessary to explain the tides, Zeus' rage would still be seen as necessary to explain thunder and lightning, etc. etc. We would still be in the Dark Ages.
Who knows, perhaps the answer will indeed turn out to be God/s. But to say it is God/s just because we don't currently have another answer doesn't seem to me a good reason to believe that it is. But that's just me.
The whole creator god/s thing just seems to be labels for want of a better term. So far, it's been observed and proven to be fact that, the living, breathing, and thriving are the only beings with consciousness and awareness. Everything else just seems to be chaotic energy with no sign of awareness, at all.
However, there is room to be open to possibilities here with no real requirement to wait for proof either. If there is a creator deity out there, it is not worth the headache to attain adduced at this time. It would sooner be attainable have dark matter and black hole and galaxy be as gods and goddesses before an almighty creator god anyway, and not even they have proven to have consciousness or awareness.
Perhaps it would be possible to subscribe to mindless chaotic energies as procreation gods and goddesses anyway. Also, perhaps its that way so that the conscious ascend in awareness to be the greater being of them. Really, who's to say?
zen_world: "All these galaxies, stars, paralel universes indicate higher level of consciousness and forces".
I wonder what your thoughts are about the fact that the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists, the people who actually study this stuff for a living, DON'T believe that this stuff indicates "higher level consciousness".
I submit that the reason they don't is because the formation of these phenomena do have natural explanations in gravity and inflationary big bang cosmology. We don't know about the origin of the big bang itself, but to invoke deity there is just to commit the God Of The Gaps Fallacy. And if we had always invoked deities whenever we didn't know the answer to something, we would never have found the real answers, and we would have no science at all. Poseidon would still be seen as necessary to explain the tides, Zeus' rage would still be seen as necessary to explain thunder and lightning, etc. etc. We would still be in the Dark Ages.
Who knows, perhaps the answer will indeed turn out to be God/s. But to say it is God/s just because we don't currently have another answer doesn't seem to me a good reason to believe that it is. But that's just me.
I can give you all bunch of long answers in response to your questions. I come to buddhism thru science. Science was my religion for about 15 years. Now all I can suggest you is that do not believe in anythin other than what enlightened one says.
Rejecting science and blindly and blithely accepting the word of Sakyamuni Buddha Himself, as reported by a committee a few hundred years after his death, simply on faith, unless it is the result of faith based on reasoning, wherein strong conviction about the Buddha's presentation(s) is achieved, is foolish.
It's like the example of Milerepa. He is said to have shrunk his body so small that he was able to fit into a yak's horn. Now a Tibetan peasant would almost certainly say "of course he could do that, he's Milerepa" (considered by many as Tibet's greatest yogi); a Western scientist would say "that's impossible; it defies the laws of physics". Who's right? Neither. It's something one can accept provisionally as anecdote requiring personal experiential confirmation. Milerepa was known for just this sort of thing, and his contemporaries clearly felt he had unique abilities, to say the least; and what he is alleged to have done does defy "in the box" thinking within Western scientific tradition as well. But if science is correct about everything there is no enlightenment possible , in the sense of being something beyond birth and death. That's all there is that can produce and support mind according to science, and many scientists deny the existence of even mind as an emergent property of the brain.
a Western scientist would say "that's impossible; it defies the laws of physics"
Surely any good scientist wouldn't say 'it's impossible' so long as the phenomenon was demonstrated to be real. If the phenomenon was demonstrated to be real then it would become a part of our scientific understanding of reality; if it's not demonstrated to be real, then there's no reason to believe it anyway. On this point, surely someone has to be right and someone wrong in the scenario you describe... I mean, either Milerepa did it or he didn't, right?
As a psychologist i dont for one mintue believe there is a god up there, its a diffcult situation with my sons both being baptised roman catholic and attending an RC school. I cant comprehend that God created the earth and is up there, praying to god for good health and a lottery win seem pointless, when all my life i have believed that we create our life and our paths. Studying psychology and holistic therapies has reaffirmed my beliefs! I do think that people need to believe in something, and its this that is misguided. Religion is a destructive belief, l went on a course to Belfast, Northern Ireland and the circumstances under which locals live is beyond belief the divide due to religion is inhumane in my opinion!
So...if you ARE a god, more power to you! (a lot more, I guess); and if you have a firm belief in their existence you have experienced them through personal observation/contact OR you've developed a really excellent proof, or...you're engaging in either blind faith or wishful thinking.
Hunab Ku is closer than what "saint science" says... it is not a being (doesn't contradict anatta); but it does exist (in my personal experience).
a Western scientist would say "that's impossible; it defies the laws of physics"
Surely any good scientist wouldn't say 'it's impossible' so long as the phenomenon was demonstrated to be real. If the phenomenon was demonstrated to be real then it would become a part of our scientific understanding of reality; if it's not demonstrated to be real, then there's no reason to believe it anyway. On this point, surely someone has to be right and someone wrong in the scenario you describe... I mean, either Milerepa did it or he didn't, right?
Wait till I warm up the time machine and we'll find out.
a Western scientist would say "that's impossible; it defies the laws of physics"
Surely any good scientist wouldn't say 'it's impossible' so long as the phenomenon was demonstrated to be real. If the phenomenon was demonstrated to be real then it would become a part of our scientific understanding of reality; if it's not demonstrated to be real, then there's no reason to believe it anyway. On this point, surely someone has to be right and someone wrong in the scenario you describe... I mean, either Milerepa did it or he didn't, right?
Wait till I warm up the time machine and we'll find out.
I think my point stands. Someone is right and someone is wrong regardless of whether we can actually find out who.
Comments
just my thoughts!
For most of us gods are not certainties; we haven't met them; we reject treatises such as Kant's treatise alleging to prove the existence of God as well, because it and, it seems, all Christian proofs make assumptions about the soul, which defy pure logic.
Fortunately the Buddha did the reverse; he challenged his listeners NOT to take anything he said as "Gospel Truth" ....uhm...pun, not intended OK...merely out of respect for him (Kalama Sutta/Sutra) and urged people to test his words as one might test gold---by rubbing it, cutting it, and burning it... in another (I posted name in another thread; can't remember long Pali names).
So...if you ARE a god, more power to you! (a lot more, I guess); and if you have a firm belief in their existence you have experienced them through personal observation/contact OR you've developed a really excellent proof, or...you're engaging in either blind faith or wishful thinking.
Honesty can be seen in that.
I wonder what your thoughts are about the fact that the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists, the people who actually study this stuff for a living, DON'T believe that this stuff indicates "higher level consciousness".
I submit that the reason they don't is because the formation of these phenomena do have natural explanations in gravity and inflationary big bang cosmology. We don't know about the origin of the big bang itself, but to invoke deity there is just to commit the God Of The Gaps Fallacy. And if we had always invoked deities whenever we didn't know the answer to something, we would never have found the real answers, and we would have no science at all. Poseidon would still be seen as necessary to explain the tides, Zeus' rage would still be seen as necessary to explain thunder and lightning, etc. etc. We would still be in the Dark Ages.
Who knows, perhaps the answer will indeed turn out to be God/s. But to say it is God/s just because we don't currently have another answer doesn't seem to me a good reason to believe that it is. But that's just me.
However, there is room to be open to
possibilities here with no real requirement to wait for proof either. If there is a creator deity out there, it is not worth the headache to attain adduced at this time. It would sooner be attainable have dark matter and black hole and galaxy be as gods and goddesses before an almighty creator god anyway, and not even they have proven to have consciousness or awareness.
Perhaps it would be possible to subscribe to mindless chaotic energies as procreation gods and goddesses anyway. Also, perhaps its that way so that the conscious ascend in awareness to be the greater being of them. Really, who's to say?
It's like the example of Milerepa. He is said to have shrunk his body so small that he was able to fit into a yak's horn. Now a Tibetan peasant would almost certainly say "of course he could do that, he's Milerepa" (considered by many as Tibet's greatest yogi); a Western scientist would say "that's impossible; it defies the laws of physics". Who's right? Neither. It's something one can accept provisionally as anecdote requiring personal experiential confirmation. Milerepa was known for just this sort of thing, and his contemporaries clearly felt he had unique abilities, to say the least; and what he is alleged to have done does defy "in the box" thinking within Western scientific tradition as well. But if science is correct about everything there is no enlightenment possible , in the sense of being something beyond birth and death. That's all there is that can produce and support mind according to science, and many scientists deny the existence of even mind as an emergent property of the brain.