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.
@ourself said: When the military goes looking for intelligence what are they looking for, information or the ability to learn?
Information gathering is a human activity, I don't see how it applies to the fabric of the cosmos.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Wouldn't that mean humans are somehow excluded from said fabric?
Anyways, that's completely incorrect. How could you imply such a thing?
Have you never watched insects at work?
When a billiard ball rolls across the table it gathers information and when it hits another ball there is an information exchange between the two and a result.
Two organisms having sex is an exchange of information and that is an updated version of reproduction.
Information sharing has been happening way, way, way before we humans came on the scene, trying to figure it out.
From the tiniest bit of cyber space to the biggest cosmic giant, it's all information being shared.
@ourself said:> When a billiard ball rolls across the table it gathers information and when it hits another ball there is an information exchange between the two and a result.
Sorry but I'm not buying your use of the word "information" here. An inanimate object has no way of gathering or sharing information. It might work to talk about reproduction in those terms, a sharing of DNA perhaps.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Sorry but I don't see the relevance of the origin of life here. I also don't see what your information model of the universe has to do with "God".
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Ok, then we're at an impasse because I'm not repeating the last page and a half, lol.
Been there.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
Yes but it depends on who's using the intelligence and for what...'they' used Einstein to create the bomb. I bet he felt Urkel-ish about that.
To be fair, this is what he said in the aftermath of the United States bombing of Japan: "Einstein's answer was always that his only act had been to write to President Roosevelt suggesting that the United States research atomic weapons before the Germans harnessed this deadly technology. He came to regret taking even this step. In an interview with Newsweek magazine, he said that "had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing."
@ourself said:
DhammaDragon;
It's interesting that you brought up Thays meditation technique because he is one God-loving Buddhist.
"To me, the kingdom of God or the Pure land of the Buddha is not some vague idea, it is a reality."
-- Thich Nhat Hanh from The Eyes of the Elephant Queen
“It is said that God has created man in his own image. But it may be that humankind has created God in the image of humankind.”
― Thich Nhat Hanh, Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers
“Discussing God is not the best use of our energy. If we touch the Holy Spirit, we touch God not as a concept but as a living reality. In Buddhism, we never talk about nirvana, because nirvana means the extinction of all notions, concepts, and speech. We practice by touching mindfulness in ourselves through sitting meditation, walking meditation, mindful eating, and so on.”
― Thich Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, Living Christ
Note: I have never read these books by Thich Nhat Hanh. I prefer others.
Did Thay actually say that he loved God?
The fact of drawing parallels between religions does not mean that he loves God...
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Well, to tell the truth I think I just took liberty there. When Thay uses that specific label I think he's just making the dharma accessible to Theists.
However I'm sure you have probably read his poem "Call me by my True Names" and that is exactly what I mean when I do use the label "God" although I generally don't unless it's already been bandied.
As I was saying to @SpinyNorman, people from many different mindsets and religions use the word and even within the Abrahamic religions there are many different interpretations as to what exactly God is.
Not all concepts of God depict a persona that plans and creates everything or who judges and punishes based on petty rules.
Not all concepts of God come about by anguish or a deep seated need to know.
Not all concepts of God offer any comfort in an afterlife or an assurance of reward.
Some just come from looking deeply with compassion as well as a curious and open mind.
@SpinyNorman said:
But yes, there are other conceptions of God, though I think it's probably better to use different language for those because of the baggage attached to "God". I think sometimes people use "God" in a rather lazy way, not having worked out what they really believe.
So what? Why should I use a different language for 'lazy' people if others can't be arsed offending who knows because they're too 'lazy' to give a rats about who they offend?
This is a rather stupid and pointless discussion that will only lead to divisiveness.
I'm still what would be considered a theist and frankly, coudn't give three shits about what other people do or don't believe. So why should you (or anyone else)? Isn't that missing the point about why we're here? I mean, we're here because we all study, follow, are learning about Buddhism, that should be enough.
what if gods are just another sentient entity?
Wrapped up in the cycle just like we are, but unaware due to their long lives?
If we are all continuing in this cycle of existence, this system of continuation?
Surprisingly, I find this thought comforting, to me.
But, that's just me.
@dhammachick said:Isn't that missing the point about why we're here?
I don't know why you're being defensive, we're just having a discussion.
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
@dhammachick said: So what? Why should I use a different language for 'lazy' people if others can't be arsed offending who knows because they're too 'lazy' to give a rats about who they offend? This is a rather stupid and pointless discussion that will only lead to divisiveness.
I'm still what would be considered a theist and frankly, coudn't give three shits about what other people do or don't believe. So why should you (or anyone else)? Isn't that missing the point about why we're here? I mean, we're here because we all study, follow, are learning about Buddhism, that should be enough.
Actually @dhammachick, yours is the first, and so far the only divisive post in the thread.
I would thank you to watch your language and attitude.
After all, as you consider yourself to be theist AND a student, follower and a learner of Buddhism, you have at your disposal two callings for benchmarking your contributions.
When I take part in this God debates -and I must own I have a minor problem with the G word, though I'm striving hard to work on it, as with my right speech deficiencies- I don't do it to rant and rave against theists.
I am sincerely just utterly curious. That's all.
I have no indoctrination intention, I have no intention to insult theists, either.
I deeply want to understand how the belief in a God really changes their life and practice for the better. Just that.
@federica said:
After all, as you consider yourself to be theist AND a student, follower and a learner of Buddhism, you have at your disposal two callings for benchmarking your contributions.
Ok, I'm out. Take care all
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
@dhammachick said: I'm sorry, my definition of "discussion" must differ from yours.
It must differ from mine as well, because that's the first time I've needed to 'step in' here.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Let's not let a little thing like God come between us.
@DhammaDragon said:
I deeply want to understand how the belief in a God really changes their life and practice for the better. Just that.
OK
As somone who was involved in a highly unfashionable theism I'll give it a go:
In Sufism the qualities or attributes of the Allah Mighty have 99 names or stations. Some dervishes practice mantra (zhikr) to evoke these qualities in order to polish their spiritual persona. This is similar to the tantric practices.
Thank you, @lobster.
I stick by Nietzsche and his dreams of a Superman who would tap within himself the greatness to rise above himself, and be the best he could be... without the help of a god.
Indeed. Dharma offers spirituality for want of a better word without the need for sky spirits, Holy Ghosts or imaginative members of Marvels Avengers such as Thor.
In a sense the rising above self is not a rising above our higher Self. Superman is godlike and some advanced practitioners do manifest an ability to externalise their will let us say. This is manifest in Tantra and warned of in Zen. It is also present for yoginis.
However siddhis seem from my experience perfectly natural sensitivities, side effects of concentration and visualisation. Problems arise with ideas of special favour.
God not required.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited May 2015
Personally I think Nietzsche was very short sighted. He was so much about what he was against that he couldn't see past it.
He was against the idea that we needed God to have a natural sense of morality which is right on the mark but then only focused on that view of God and generalized the rest as the same.
It's odd because when his philosophy is boiled down, it is very much like the Middle Way but then he totally misunderstands the Dharma as nihilistic and condemns it as decadent, seeing only one of the Two Truths in Buddha's message.
He does offer some beautiful insight on a host of subjects but he loses focus when he goes into his negative spin which takes away from his position big time.
Which is what he actually accused Buddha of.
Oh, btw, sorry for not giving Douglas Adams credit for my last post in this thread. A terrible oversight on my part. @federica, is there any way you could fix that so I don't look like a plagiarizist? (spellcheck says that's not a word)
It was an age where the Dharma was appreciated by Western philosophers for all the wrong reasons.
Schopenhauer also considered Buddhism as nihilistic, yet was attracted to it.
All I can say, @ourself, is some of us are hardwired to believe in a God, and some of us not.
I would like to one day understand that need for transcendence, and thank you, @lobster, for attempting an explanation but well, I'll go prepare myself another mug of green tea and enjoy impermanence while it lasts.
One sip at a time, one breath at a time...
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
Yeah, them atheists have faulty genes!
I always knew there was something terribly wrong with me...
My mother knew it too, since she put me through Catholic school and still to no effect...
I was always the Orientalist cuckoo in the duckling lot.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited May 2015
It says Atheism and theology are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.
I would beg to differ and say that theology and atheism are conditioned responses with agnosticism being the most reasoned and reasonable.
@ourself said:
Nobody knows for sure either way so why pretend?
Some of us at least know that we don't need to know.
I am quite enjoying my morning walking meditations in the countryside and fields, which coming from a darned city-slicker fed on pollution and tarmac as I am, is much to say.
I never thought I'd find myself so awestruck with nature as I am.
Yet, no, I don't miss the presence of a God in the bucolic setting. Sorry.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Comments
Information gathering is a human activity, I don't see how it applies to the fabric of the cosmos.
Wouldn't that mean humans are somehow excluded from said fabric?
Anyways, that's completely incorrect. How could you imply such a thing?
Have you never watched insects at work?
When a billiard ball rolls across the table it gathers information and when it hits another ball there is an information exchange between the two and a result.
Two organisms having sex is an exchange of information and that is an updated version of reproduction.
Information sharing has been happening way, way, way before we humans came on the scene, trying to figure it out.
From the tiniest bit of cyber space to the biggest cosmic giant, it's all information being shared.
Sorry but I'm not buying your use of the word "information" here. An inanimate object has no way of gathering or sharing information. It might work to talk about reproduction in those terms, a sharing of DNA perhaps.
There's no perhaps about it, actually.
Where do you think DNA came from?
And how if not by the sharing of information?
Either life has always been or it came from non-life elements.
Sorry but I don't see the relevance of the origin of life here. I also don't see what your information model of the universe has to do with "God".
Been there.
Yes but it depends on who's using the intelligence and for what...'they' used Einstein to create the bomb. I bet he felt Urkel-ish about that.
To be fair, this is what he said in the aftermath of the United States bombing of Japan: "Einstein's answer was always that his only act had been to write to President Roosevelt suggesting that the United States research atomic weapons before the Germans harnessed this deadly technology. He came to regret taking even this step. In an interview with Newsweek magazine, he said that "had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing."
Fwiw
“It is said that God has created man in his own image. But it may be that humankind has created God in the image of humankind.”
― Thich Nhat Hanh, Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers
“Discussing God is not the best use of our energy. If we touch the Holy Spirit, we touch God not as a concept but as a living reality. In Buddhism, we never talk about nirvana, because nirvana means the extinction of all notions, concepts, and speech. We practice by touching mindfulness in ourselves through sitting meditation, walking meditation, mindful eating, and so on.”
― Thich Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, Living Christ
Note: I have never read these books by Thich Nhat Hanh. I prefer others.
Did Thay actually say that he loved God?
The fact of drawing parallels between religions does not mean that he loves God...
Well, to tell the truth I think I just took liberty there. When Thay uses that specific label I think he's just making the dharma accessible to Theists.
However I'm sure you have probably read his poem "Call me by my True Names" and that is exactly what I mean when I do use the label "God" although I generally don't unless it's already been bandied.
As I was saying to @SpinyNorman, people from many different mindsets and religions use the word and even within the Abrahamic religions there are many different interpretations as to what exactly God is.
Not all concepts of God depict a persona that plans and creates everything or who judges and punishes based on petty rules.
Not all concepts of God come about by anguish or a deep seated need to know.
Not all concepts of God offer any comfort in an afterlife or an assurance of reward.
Some just come from looking deeply with compassion as well as a curious and open mind.
That is what we Buddhists do.
So what? Why should I use a different language for 'lazy' people if others can't be arsed offending who knows because they're too 'lazy' to give a rats about who they offend?
This is a rather stupid and pointless discussion that will only lead to divisiveness.
I'm still what would be considered a theist and frankly, coudn't give three shits about what other people do or don't believe. So why should you (or anyone else)? Isn't that missing the point about why we're here? I mean, we're here because we all study, follow, are learning about Buddhism, that should be enough.
Bravo, @Dhammachick!
I like to be kind to gods, cods, atheists and Buddhists with agendas and I just Luvs God wether or not he brings ice cream or Her own Existence ...
In the alleged words of Marie Antoinette, 'Let them eat Eucharist'.
and now back to the inclusion ...
what if gods are just another sentient entity?
Wrapped up in the cycle just like we are, but unaware due to their long lives?
If we are all continuing in this cycle of existence, this system of continuation?
Surprisingly, I find this thought comforting, to me.
But, that's just me.
I don't know why you're being defensive, we're just having a discussion.
Actually @dhammachick, yours is the first, and so far the only divisive post in the thread.
I would thank you to watch your language and attitude.
After all, as you consider yourself to be theist AND a student, follower and a learner of Buddhism, you have at your disposal two callings for benchmarking your contributions.
When I take part in this God debates -and I must own I have a minor problem with the G word, though I'm striving hard to work on it, as with my right speech deficiencies- I don't do it to rant and rave against theists.
I am sincerely just utterly curious. That's all.
I have no indoctrination intention, I have no intention to insult theists, either.
I deeply want to understand how the belief in a God really changes their life and practice for the better. Just that.
I'm sorry, my definition of "discussion" must differ from yours.
Ok, I'm out. Take care all
It must differ from mine as well, because that's the first time I've needed to 'step in' here.
OK
As somone who was involved in a highly unfashionable theism I'll give it a go:
In Sufism the qualities or attributes of the Allah Mighty have 99 names or stations. Some dervishes practice mantra (zhikr) to evoke these qualities in order to polish their spiritual persona. This is similar to the tantric practices.
I must admit I spent most of my efforts trying to get the 100th name out of a smiling camel ...
http://www.jgambini.com/hundredth_name.html
Fortunately the branch of Islamic mysticism I was involved in was secular and only nominally religious. However here is the tasawuff equivalent of mindfulness:
http://www.spiritualfoundation.net/whatistasawwuf.htm#95185440
It is important to understand that Islamic Gnosticism is a heart centered path.
So here is some of my rambling:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060709214608/http://pages.britishlibrary.net/edjason/alchemy/allah.html
... and now back to the ungodly ...
Thank you, @lobster.
I stick by Nietzsche and his dreams of a Superman who would tap within himself the greatness to rise above himself, and be the best he could be... without the help of a god.
Ungodly I stay...
Indeed. Dharma offers spirituality for want of a better word without the need for sky spirits, Holy Ghosts or imaginative members of Marvels Avengers such as Thor.
In a sense the rising above self is not a rising above our higher Self. Superman is godlike and some advanced practitioners do manifest an ability to externalise their will let us say. This is manifest in Tantra and warned of in Zen. It is also present for yoginis.
However siddhis seem from my experience perfectly natural sensitivities, side effects of concentration and visualisation. Problems arise with ideas of special favour.
God not required.
He was against the idea that we needed God to have a natural sense of morality which is right on the mark but then only focused on that view of God and generalized the rest as the same.
It's odd because when his philosophy is boiled down, it is very much like the Middle Way but then he totally misunderstands the Dharma as nihilistic and condemns it as decadent, seeing only one of the Two Truths in Buddha's message.
He does offer some beautiful insight on a host of subjects but he loses focus when he goes into his negative spin which takes away from his position big time.
Which is what he actually accused Buddha of.
Oh, btw, sorry for not giving Douglas Adams credit for my last post in this thread. A terrible oversight on my part. @federica, is there any way you could fix that so I don't look like a plagiarizist? (spellcheck says that's not a word)
It was an age where the Dharma was appreciated by Western philosophers for all the wrong reasons.
Schopenhauer also considered Buddhism as nihilistic, yet was attracted to it.
All I can say, @ourself, is some of us are hardwired to believe in a God, and some of us not.
I would like to one day understand that need for transcendence, and thank you, @lobster, for attempting an explanation but well, I'll go prepare myself another mug of green tea and enjoy impermanence while it lasts.
One sip at a time, one breath at a time...
There need be no need at all. It could be just a natural consequence of seeing clearly, that's all.
I don't think I am predisposed towards a belief in God or too much else but since you brought it up, what do you mean we are "hard-wired"?
Study here says we are predisposed to believe in God http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm
Yeah, them atheists have faulty genes!
I always knew there was something terribly wrong with me...
My mother knew it too, since she put me through Catholic school and still to no effect...
I was always the Orientalist cuckoo in the duckling lot.
I would beg to differ and say that theology and atheism are conditioned responses with agnosticism being the most reasoned and reasonable.
I dare say it's the only reasonable position.
Nobody knows for sure either way so why pretend?
Some of us at least know that we don't need to know.
I am quite enjoying my morning walking meditations in the countryside and fields, which coming from a darned city-slicker fed on pollution and tarmac as I am, is much to say.
I never thought I'd find myself so awestruck with nature as I am.
Yet, no, I don't miss the presence of a God in the bucolic setting. Sorry.
Yeah, there doesn't need to be a need.
If there was a need, I'd probably just drop it.
No need to apologize, it's not like I'd try to convert you, lol.
Nobody has the exact same view on this stuff.