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.
Maybe the truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
As of late I have come to the understanding that love and compassion is really our best and most important quality. Whether one believes in god or not is rather inconsequential to me, rather does what you profess help you to love better, to open your heart and be accepting of all that is. If it does that, then your on the right path in my humble opinion.
@Earthninja said:
The Buddha didn't comment, it's not that he wasn't bothered it's that we all have an arrow in our leg.
First get the arrow out, then maybe our god questions would have been a answered.
Some people say enlightenment is meeting god. Papaji says God is not the object. God is the subject.
Once we get the arrow out, we realize that whether God exists or not does not matter anymore.
Since we could pull out the arrow by ourselves, what would we need him for?
@DhammaDragon said:
Since we could pull out the arrow by ourselves, what would we need him for?
Exactly so. Dharma does not required Cod or fish gods. However parts of us or some of us might [shrug]. If you look for God much like your permenant soul self you will find nothing independent. Can you accept that some people believe in an unconstructed or even constructed Perfect Being? As I said to one of my construction projections only yesterday:
@Jeffrey said:
We should create good karma not bad. For who? God? OurSELVES? others? nobody there? who cares!!!!
As a mystic and gnostic I have gods, they are a focus of attention for me. From them I expect Nothing. Surprisingly they are karmically beneficent, even if I am the source of origination.
And now back to the worship of the male form (mentioning no Rugby fans) perfect Bodhisattvas from the imagined Purelands and the mythical (for most of us) Enlightened Realm ...
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I read some interesting articles recently, that looked at the human tendency to develop religion in every culture that ever happened.
Apparently, our brain is oriented to perceiving patterns, AND our perceptions are oriented to pay close attention to 'agency'.
A young child sees their world as everything in it having some kind of purpose. Why is tree bark so rough? So bears can itch their backs. The sun is warm so I won't be cold, it rises so I can see the world. Children also are natural 'dualists' and without being taught or told to, see their bodies and minds as separate things.
This focus on 'agency' and 'duality' may have contributed to our overall survival as a species. Even though we are modern and civilized, we still have the brain of the early man eeking his life out on the savannas of east Africa.
I regard the Buddha's teachings as a way to use our giant brains to 'transcend' our hard wired biology, so we aren't locked into perpetual habits and unexamined attitudes, preferences and beliefs. Even those these big brains delivered us to the top of the food chain with a sense of dominion over everything else, these brains are hardwired in ways that limit our experiences and that sounds like a pretty big part of why we suffer.
Believing there is some kind of God or supernatural intelligence is a function of the way our brain seeks to explain our world in terms of 'agency'. Just because our brains formed that way does not indicate there IS a God or some grand 'agency'. In fact, part of growing up is letting go of relying on 'agency' to inform us of what is going on.
The various gods we know about are results of our human tendency to seek 'agency' in order to give us a sense of 'control' over ourselves. It's automatic, and gives a specific, predictable 'way' of relating to what happens in life. Letting go of that is like leaving safety, security and predictability behind and diving into an impersonal chaos that doesn't care about us at all. It's no wonder folks resist giving up God.
@Hamsaka said:> The various gods we know about are results of our human tendency to seek 'agency' in order to give us a sense of 'control' over ourselves. It's automatic, and gives a specific, predictable 'way' of relating to what happens in life. Letting go of that is like leaving safety, security and predictability behind and diving into an impersonal chaos that doesn't care about us at all. It's no wonder folks resist giving up God.
Exactly. But with Buddhist practice letting go is what we eventually need to do.
@Theswingisyellow said:> Maybe the truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Not according to Buddhist teaching, which is quite specific about what truth is, and how to recognise it. And clearly not all beliefs can be true. The challenge is having the courage to observe closely what is actually happening, and abandon out-dated preconceptions and wishful thinking.
@lobster said: And now back to the worship of the male form (mentioning no Rugby fans) perfect Bodhisattvas from the imagined Purelands and the mythical (for most of us) Enlightened Realm ...
@Earthninja said:
DhammaDragon said: "Once we get the arrow out, we realize that whether God exists or not does not matter anymore."
How do you know that? Or is that a belief? Just like God.
My dearest Earthninja: what do you think originally sets people pondering existential questions that lead them to the speculation/wishful thinking/invention of a creator principle?
The fact that there is suffering and that they trust this alternatively magnanimous, alternatively cruel in his indifference, superbeing will spare them from that suffering.
If by any chance it finally dawned on man that he has the key to bring about the cessation of his own suffering -or to pull his own arrow- in his own hands, what makes you think would make him revert back to speculating about he origin of he universe, aka the existence of a God?
Tell me one instance, just one instance in your life in which believing in a god has actually made a difference in the course of events as they unfolded themselves before your eyes.
I am 44, and have yet to see that instance...
@DhammaDragon that's a fair statement, I can see your coming from the Abrahamic God idea though. Whereas I'm coming from more Brahman, universal god that manifests as everything itself.
We are not even talking about the same thing haha.
So from your point, hey I'd agree with that.
@Earthninja said:> Whereas I'm coming from more Brahman, universal god that manifests as everything itself.
That's effectively a form of pantheism, which is another example of theism-lite. But then how you do relate beliefs like this to your exploration of anatta and sunyata?
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited May 2015
My spiritual exploration had nothing to do with looking for someone to praise and/or blame for anything. I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.
My father unwittingly set my inquiry in motion when I was about 7 years old. He was trying to be funny but he actually gave me my first koan. I was eating a doughnut and he told me to save him the hole. I tried giving him smaller and smaller rings until the doughnut had no more integrity. I was very frustrated and the family could tell so I was told to just eat it and that a hole could not be taken from the doughnut.
It dawned on me then just how big a hole could be.
"If by any chance it finally dawned on man that he has the key to bring about the cessation of his own suffering -or to pull his own arrow- in his own hands, what makes you think would make him revert back to speculating about he origin of he universe, aka the existence of a God?"
I'm trying to make sense of that comment but I just can't seem to do it.
For some of us, speculation about the universe and/or ultimate being comes hand in hand with pulling out the arrow.
I think you refer to the god of the gaps but not all of us are coming from that angle.
I could see it being beneficial to come at the exploration from a place where we are not suffering any more though.
It's my guess that is why Buddha was trying to teach only about suffering and its cessation. Not that suffering is all he knew to teach but that the rest would have to wait until we get that part down.
@SpinyNorman ok cool! I'm not sure on the differences between all the theism's.
Well Anatta is not self right, but it's not non existence. There IS existence. It all appears to be a oneness or has a unity to it. I guess that's where it merges. You could call it Brahman or quantum field etc... Sunyata, well I'm beginning to understand emptiness of the self and some objects of meditation but I haven't fully realised it. So I'm not sure. Maybe it does negate a God.
I'm not saying I believe in a god, or any idea of one in any form. Just so far the closest thing I can experience is more Brahman but these terms are so riddled with conceptions just fun to play with ideas right?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I think it negates any permanent identity but I think the kind of thing you are talking about would always be in a state of change. By calling it Brahman or God we give it an I.D.
Emptiness or Sunyata is almost the same concept as Anatta really. Because things are empty of a permanent self or essence or whatever it is we label, they have the potential to change.
To me, we are what some call the Tao becoming aware. I use the word Tao because it is the only label I know for that which cannot be labelled.
@Hamsaka, in talking with people who have traveled extensively in Asia, the dualistic nature of a separate body and mind is a western phenomena, not something that occurs across all of the human race. But perhaps the children are simply taught differently rather that perceiving differently immediately. I do not know. But I do know in many areas they are not seen as separate.
Well said @ourself. The neti-neti quality of enlightenment is similar to the Divine Fish or Tao as you state. The difference between enlightenment and Codliness is semantic.
You say Tao, I say Oaties.
A similar way of not quite saying it is, 'Nirvana is Samsara' or the Cod that can be known is not the whole Cod bake.
Enlightened theistic mystics, what are they gonna say to the Buddhist Holy Ghost Busters? Nothing at all. Ineffable is not something to talk about ...
... and now back to the investigation of the unsolvable ...
@Earthninja said: I'm not saying I believe in a god, or any idea of one in any form. Just so far the closest thing I can experience is more Brahman but these terms are so riddled with conceptions just fun to play with ideas right?
Sure, it's fun to play, exploring possibilities. Though I'm not sure it really gets us any further with the practical business of closely observing our moment-to-moment experience in order to develop insight.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I can understand your sentiment from a religious perspective but certainly not a scientific one.
If we could tap into perpetual motion we could eliminate greed from our species. If there is no true beginning to the universe then perpetual motion is fundamental.
I dare say that eliminating greed would go a long way for nourishing insight.
@ourself said:> I can understand your sentiment from a religious perspective but certainly not a scientific one.
Sure, but with these God type ruminations we're usually considering the nature and origin of the universe, and science still has much to discover on these questions. It's probably more honest to admit that we currently haven't got a clue on the answers to these questions.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The good thing is that in deep states of meditation, believing in God or not is not a requirement to be mindful. I believe this is the rational why the Buddha didn't offered much on the question of God. How we could we possible understand God (if there's one) if we can't even master the art of mindfulness.
@ourself said:> We have more of a clue than we used to I think.
Yes, and the gap for God is gradually shrinking.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said "Sure, it's fun to play, exploring possibilities. Though I'm not sure it really gets us any further with the practical business of closely observing our moment-to-moment experience in order to develop insight."
Most of these posts don't really bring us into direct experience yet here we are haha. Your post about the homophobic cake is the same. It's all just playing with ideas. I'm not sure everybody here wants to be in direct experience. It takes time.
@SpinyNorman said:
I think Buddhist practices offer a good way to see the truth of things, investigating experience and letting go of beliefs and assumptions.
I on the whole agree with you, the reason I am here and call myself a Buddhist stems from the fact I do consider the practice eminently beneficial, practical and yes truthful. But I won't say I have the "truth". If someone believes something, whether it's true or not, it becomes their reality, so belief does have a certain weight and "truth" to it. For me I would tend to view a supernatural being(s) as hindrances to what I would perceive as truth.
@SpinyNorman said:
Sure, it's fun to play, exploring possibilities. Though I'm not sure it really gets us any further with the practical business of closely observing our moment-to-moment experience in order to develop insight.
@ourself: this is more or less what I meant to express with my comments.
Spiny found the way to verbalize it better.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@karasti said:
Hamsaka, in talking with people who have traveled extensively in Asia, the dualistic nature of a separate body and mind is a western phenomena, not something that occurs across all of the human race. But perhaps the children are simply taught differently rather that perceiving differently immediately. I do not know. But I do know in many areas they are not seen as separate.
Here is the article I read about children being natural dualists. If you google the term, there are quite a few articles that picked this study up and wrote about it.
It's more like children are 'primed' to deal with the physical world and the social world as if they were separate spheres. Perhaps in the west, this natural split is exploited more than it is in the east?
There is a contradiction that Bloom fails properly to highlight: brains exquisitely evolved to succeed in the material and social worlds are restricted in their conceptualisation. We understand matter and energy, but struggle to envisage quantum mechanical entities that are simultaneously both particles and waves. We think of things existing only if we can touch, see or otherwise physically locate them. Entities such as cultures - and perhaps selves - overspill the physical apparatuses that engender them. Bloom assumes a one-way street connecting biology and the social sphere. He contends that the structure of our brains makes us "natural-born dualists", yet this assertion takes no account of non-dualist traditions such as Buddhism which presumably modify what Bloom sees as a congenital disposition.
So you are definitely onto something What I wrote in my first post on this wasn't exactly correct; it is the social sphere being separate from the physical sphere that is the issue, not 'the mind separate from the body'. Although in the west, perhaps we exploit this essential dualism with our hyper-valuing of independence and separate-ness so that it becomes the mind/body dualism, whereas in the east this essential dualism doesn't emerge much at all?
People believe in what they want to believe, and it is great that we have that freedom to express our beliefs, to create the universe in the images that we choose... and what wonderful and/or scary beliefs emerged from this freedom to create our beliefs.
Here's the catch for me... if you are creating your universe, developing your beliefs to suit your needs, then you really are not seeking the truth, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's just a divide in approaches that I have observed.
It all depends. My ego believes we all are God and everything is God. And does it really matter? Does it change life in anyway shape and form for you? If it does, then great
But looking past the ego, it just is and you are just you. The ego and you are two separate things. The separate thing is the soul and the higher power, while the fragile ego, you, is another.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
That would seem to imply that there are two of 'you' which of course, is utter nonsense.
There isn't even 'one' of you....
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@igor.bayluk, Buddhism does not consider that a transmigrating soul exists, at all.
There are more concepts of God than the 'Santa Claus' concept of God. Isn't the idea that we start with a concept and then try to deepen that concept into a realisation? Maybe the Santa Claus concept of God is just the beginning point?
There are other, deeper, concepts of God that strike me as sounding very like the Buddhist concept of Emptiness. Anyone read any of Thomas Merton's stuff?
@SpinyNorman said:
How does Thomas Merton think of God?
Sounds a bit like emptiness to me. Though to be fair, he spent a lot of time with Buddhists.
Merton is described by many as the greatest Catholic of the 20th Century, so he's not niche.
If you're really interested, try to find his essay titled "Apologies to an Unbeliever", it's worth a read, but it's a spiritual arrogance to assume that all believers are like children grasping onto teddy bears.
Another guy is Father Richard Rohr; he's a Catholic follower of Merton (in the sense that they're from the same mold). A lot of his talks is on youtube and he reckons Jesus was the West's first non-dualistic teacher. He says a lot of kind things about Buddhism too. He also says many mainstream Christian beliefs are childish, although they may help prevent some from harming themselves and others, but they prevent further understanding.
My point is, not all diests are believers in a 'Santa Claus God'. There is depth and weight in other religions too.
What I find interesting is that when someone here on forum does mention God, or start a thread like this, or says something that explains how they look at the concept of God, a few people get all hot an bothered.
And that's when I have begun to ask the question (silently), "And how exactly does what I think or do affect their practice?"
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Surely that's up to them to decide, isn't it?
We all say every single word to cause or give an effect. Otherwise nobody would say anything. We all speak to provoke thought and/or response. But the moment our words leave us, we have abdicated control of effect.
All we can do is to speak skilfully.
And I will be the first to step up to the plate and admit habitual failure.
Comments
As of late I have come to the understanding that love and compassion is really our best and most important quality. Whether one believes in god or not is rather inconsequential to me, rather does what you profess help you to love better, to open your heart and be accepting of all that is. If it does that, then your on the right path in my humble opinion.
Once we get the arrow out, we realize that whether God exists or not does not matter anymore.
Since we could pull out the arrow by ourselves, what would we need him for?
Exactly so. Dharma does not required Cod or fish gods. However parts of us or some of us might [shrug]. If you look for God much like your permenant soul self you will find nothing independent. Can you accept that some people believe in an unconstructed or even constructed Perfect Being? As I said to one of my construction projections only yesterday:
NAMO AMITABHA
NAMO AMITABHA
NAMO AMITABHA
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemplation_Sutra
Some even have perfect Buddha statues tsk tsk [Lobster admits guilt]
... and now back to the perfectly godless Buddhists ...
We should create good karma not bad. For who? God? OurSELVES? others? nobody there? who cares!!!!
How do you know that? Or is that a belief? Just like God.
Well, that's the point. No one knows.
As a mystic and gnostic I have gods, they are a focus of attention for me. From them I expect Nothing. Surprisingly they are karmically beneficent, even if I am the source of origination.
Aum Gam Ganapataye Namah
Aum Gam Ganapataye Namah
Aum Gam Ganapataye Namah
And now back to the worship of the male form (mentioning no Rugby fans) perfect Bodhisattvas from the imagined Purelands and the mythical (for most of us) Enlightened Realm ...
I read some interesting articles recently, that looked at the human tendency to develop religion in every culture that ever happened.
Apparently, our brain is oriented to perceiving patterns, AND our perceptions are oriented to pay close attention to 'agency'.
A young child sees their world as everything in it having some kind of purpose. Why is tree bark so rough? So bears can itch their backs. The sun is warm so I won't be cold, it rises so I can see the world. Children also are natural 'dualists' and without being taught or told to, see their bodies and minds as separate things.
This focus on 'agency' and 'duality' may have contributed to our overall survival as a species. Even though we are modern and civilized, we still have the brain of the early man eeking his life out on the savannas of east Africa.
I regard the Buddha's teachings as a way to use our giant brains to 'transcend' our hard wired biology, so we aren't locked into perpetual habits and unexamined attitudes, preferences and beliefs. Even those these big brains delivered us to the top of the food chain with a sense of dominion over everything else, these brains are hardwired in ways that limit our experiences and that sounds like a pretty big part of why we suffer.
Believing there is some kind of God or supernatural intelligence is a function of the way our brain seeks to explain our world in terms of 'agency'. Just because our brains formed that way does not indicate there IS a God or some grand 'agency'. In fact, part of growing up is letting go of relying on 'agency' to inform us of what is going on.
The various gods we know about are results of our human tendency to seek 'agency' in order to give us a sense of 'control' over ourselves. It's automatic, and gives a specific, predictable 'way' of relating to what happens in life. Letting go of that is like leaving safety, security and predictability behind and diving into an impersonal chaos that doesn't care about us at all. It's no wonder folks resist giving up God.
Exactly. But with Buddhist practice letting go is what we eventually need to do.
Not according to Buddhist teaching, which is quite specific about what truth is, and how to recognise it. And clearly not all beliefs can be true. The challenge is having the courage to observe closely what is actually happening, and abandon out-dated preconceptions and wishful thinking.
You had things that could only be true? You were lucky ...
We had to believe what we read, thought or were taught and Our Cushion [hallowed be Her Name] would provide Insight IF WE WERE LUCKY!
You could read?! Sheer luxury!
Did somebody mention Rugby fans...?
My dearest Earthninja: what do you think originally sets people pondering existential questions that lead them to the speculation/wishful thinking/invention of a creator principle?
The fact that there is suffering and that they trust this alternatively magnanimous, alternatively cruel in his indifference, superbeing will spare them from that suffering.
If by any chance it finally dawned on man that he has the key to bring about the cessation of his own suffering -or to pull his own arrow- in his own hands, what makes you think would make him revert back to speculating about he origin of he universe, aka the existence of a God?
Tell me one instance, just one instance in your life in which believing in a god has actually made a difference in the course of events as they unfolded themselves before your eyes.
I am 44, and have yet to see that instance...
We are not even talking about the same thing haha.
So from your point, hey I'd agree with that.
That's effectively a form of pantheism, which is another example of theism-lite. But then how you do relate beliefs like this to your exploration of anatta and sunyata?
My father unwittingly set my inquiry in motion when I was about 7 years old. He was trying to be funny but he actually gave me my first koan. I was eating a doughnut and he told me to save him the hole. I tried giving him smaller and smaller rings until the doughnut had no more integrity. I was very frustrated and the family could tell so I was told to just eat it and that a hole could not be taken from the doughnut.
It dawned on me then just how big a hole could be.
@DhammaDragon:
"If by any chance it finally dawned on man that he has the key to bring about the cessation of his own suffering -or to pull his own arrow- in his own hands, what makes you think would make him revert back to speculating about he origin of he universe, aka the existence of a God?"
I'm trying to make sense of that comment but I just can't seem to do it.
For some of us, speculation about the universe and/or ultimate being comes hand in hand with pulling out the arrow.
I think you refer to the god of the gaps but not all of us are coming from that angle.
I could see it being beneficial to come at the exploration from a place where we are not suffering any more though.
It's my guess that is why Buddha was trying to teach only about suffering and its cessation. Not that suffering is all he knew to teach but that the rest would have to wait until we get that part down.
Well Anatta is not self right, but it's not non existence. There IS existence. It all appears to be a oneness or has a unity to it. I guess that's where it merges. You could call it Brahman or quantum field etc... Sunyata, well I'm beginning to understand emptiness of the self and some objects of meditation but I haven't fully realised it. So I'm not sure. Maybe it does negate a God.
I'm not saying I believe in a god, or any idea of one in any form. Just so far the closest thing I can experience is more Brahman but these terms are so riddled with conceptions
@Earthninja;
I think it negates any permanent identity but I think the kind of thing you are talking about would always be in a state of change. By calling it Brahman or God we give it an I.D.
Emptiness or Sunyata is almost the same concept as Anatta really. Because things are empty of a permanent self or essence or whatever it is we label, they have the potential to change.
To me, we are what some call the Tao becoming aware. I use the word Tao because it is the only label I know for that which cannot be labelled.
@Hamsaka, in talking with people who have traveled extensively in Asia, the dualistic nature of a separate body and mind is a western phenomena, not something that occurs across all of the human race. But perhaps the children are simply taught differently rather that perceiving differently immediately. I do not know. But I do know in many areas they are not seen as separate.
Well said @ourself. The neti-neti quality of enlightenment is similar to the Divine Fish or Tao as you state. The difference between enlightenment and Codliness is semantic.
You say Tao, I say Oaties.
A similar way of not quite saying it is, 'Nirvana is Samsara' or the Cod that can be known is not the whole Cod bake.
Enlightened theistic mystics, what are they gonna say to the Buddhist Holy Ghost Busters? Nothing at all. Ineffable is not something to talk about ...
... and now back to the investigation of the unsolvable ...
Sure, it's fun to play, exploring possibilities. Though I'm not sure it really gets us any further with the practical business of closely observing our moment-to-moment experience in order to develop insight.
@SpinyNorman;
I can understand your sentiment from a religious perspective but certainly not a scientific one.
If we could tap into perpetual motion we could eliminate greed from our species. If there is no true beginning to the universe then perpetual motion is fundamental.
I dare say that eliminating greed would go a long way for nourishing insight.
Sure, but with these God type ruminations we're usually considering the nature and origin of the universe, and science still has much to discover on these questions. It's probably more honest to admit that we currently haven't got a clue on the answers to these questions.
The good thing is that in deep states of meditation, believing in God or not is not a requirement to be mindful. I believe this is the rational why the Buddha didn't offered much on the question of God. How we could we possible understand God (if there's one) if we can't even master the art of mindfulness.
Are all Buddhist teachings true or just some of them.
I think Buddhist practices offer a good way to see the truth of things, investigating experience and letting go of beliefs and assumptions.
Yes, and the gap for God is gradually shrinking.
The god of the gaps is shrinking, yes.
That is only one limited view of the kind of thing we're discussing though.
Most of these posts don't really bring us into direct experience yet here we are haha. Your post about the homophobic cake is the same. It's all just playing with ideas. I'm not sure everybody here wants to be in direct experience. It takes time.
I on the whole agree with you, the reason I am here and call myself a Buddhist stems from the fact I do consider the practice eminently beneficial, practical and yes truthful. But I won't say I have the "truth". If someone believes something, whether it's true or not, it becomes their reality, so belief does have a certain weight and "truth" to it. For me I would tend to view a supernatural being(s) as hindrances to what I would perceive as truth.
You may well be right. Playing with ideas is safer than staring into the void.
@ourself: this is more or less what I meant to express with my comments.
Spiny found the way to verbalize it better.
Here is the article I read about children being natural dualists. If you google the term, there are quite a few articles that picked this study up and wrote about it.
It's more like children are 'primed' to deal with the physical world and the social world as if they were separate spheres. Perhaps in the west, this natural split is exploited more than it is in the east?
from an article in the Guardian:
So you are definitely onto something
What I wrote in my first post on this wasn't exactly correct; it is the social sphere being separate from the physical sphere that is the issue, not 'the mind separate from the body'. Although in the west, perhaps we exploit this essential dualism with our hyper-valuing of independence and separate-ness so that it becomes the mind/body dualism, whereas in the east this essential dualism doesn't emerge much at all?
People believe in what they want to believe, and it is great that we have that freedom to express our beliefs, to create the universe in the images that we choose... and what wonderful and/or scary beliefs emerged from this freedom to create our beliefs.
Here's the catch for me... if you are creating your universe, developing your beliefs to suit your needs, then you really are not seeking the truth, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's just a divide in approaches that I have observed.
It all depends. My ego believes we all are God and everything is God. And does it really matter? Does it change life in anyway shape and form for you? If it does, then great
But looking past the ego, it just is and you are just you. The ego and you are two separate things. The separate thing is the soul and the higher power, while the fragile ego, you, is another.
That would seem to imply that there are two of 'you' which of course, is utter nonsense.
There isn't even 'one' of you....
@igor.bayluk, Buddhism does not consider that a transmigrating soul exists, at all.
So what does the soul look like, practically speaking? How have you experienced it?
There are more concepts of God than the 'Santa Claus' concept of God. Isn't the idea that we start with a concept and then try to deepen that concept into a realisation? Maybe the Santa Claus concept of God is just the beginning point?
There are other, deeper, concepts of God that strike me as sounding very like the Buddhist concept of Emptiness. Anyone read any of Thomas Merton's stuff?
How does Thomas Merton think of God?
Sounds a bit like emptiness to me. Though to be fair, he spent a lot of time with Buddhists.
Merton is described by many as the greatest Catholic of the 20th Century, so he's not niche.
If you're really interested, try to find his essay titled "Apologies to an Unbeliever", it's worth a read, but it's a spiritual arrogance to assume that all believers are like children grasping onto teddy bears.
Another guy is Father Richard Rohr; he's a Catholic follower of Merton (in the sense that they're from the same mold). A lot of his talks is on youtube and he reckons Jesus was the West's first non-dualistic teacher. He says a lot of kind things about Buddhism too. He also says many mainstream Christian beliefs are childish, although they may help prevent some from harming themselves and others, but they prevent further understanding.
My point is, not all diests are believers in a 'Santa Claus God'. There is depth and weight in other religions too.
Work calls!
Sure, and I have some Quaker friends whose beliefs are somewhat more sophisticated. Though at heart they are still theists.
What I find interesting is that when someone here on forum does mention God, or start a thread like this, or says something that explains how they look at the concept of God, a few people get all hot an bothered.
And that's when I have begun to ask the question (silently), "And how exactly does what I think or do affect their practice?"
Surely that's up to them to decide, isn't it?
We all say every single word to cause or give an effect. Otherwise nobody would say anything. We all speak to provoke thought and/or response. But the moment our words leave us, we have abdicated control of effect.
All we can do is to speak skilfully.
And I will be the first to step up to the plate and admit habitual failure.
It's a Buddhist forum, so it's not surprising that there is a range of views about God.
With great difficulty. He dead.
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/thomasmerton.html
For god's sake enough already
> @lobster said:
But his thoughts live on @lobster