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.
Those ideas are massively different. An Abrahamic God who creates, who created everything in 7 days, who judges, who gives and takes away favours, who punishes, who's sometimes wrathful and sometimes loving, who would send you to hell for breaking commandments. Some even believe him to be a man who is up there somewhere separate from ourselves, who we have to pray to for help like weak little subjects. A Monarchy.
To an observer who is an intelligent, eternal, timeless consciousness who initiated the universe, who like us is pure spirit, we ourselves are the same source, and as being the same source dare I say equal in nature and also eternal, only the egoistic mind prevents us from knowing our real nature. Being the same source we also have divine power within us, which through practice can be unleashed. An observer who never judges but designed karma, cause and effect, so we only judge ourselves and are answerable to ourselves and will either suffer or find joy through our own actions. And to even be able to create our existence through our own thoughts. A Republic.
I can go on but to answer your question There you have it.
Dear MIG1,
I couldn't agree more with your analysis and division into the notions of God as Monarchy vs. God as Republic. I should love to share my thoughts (and lots that I have written on the subject) but it would be seriously off-topic.
My problem, however, remains the same: what is the difference between believing in God, either as Monarchy or as republic, and believing in multiple universes? To date, there is no accepted experiment or mathematics to demonstrate the existence of either as anything more than "thought experiments".
To an observer who is an intelligent, eternal, timeless consciousness who initiated the universe, who like us is pure spirit, we ourselves are the same source, and as being the same source dare I say equal in nature and also eternal, only the egoistic mind prevents us from knowing our real nature. Being the same source we also have divine power within us, which through practice can be unleashed. An observer who never judges but designed karma, cause and effect, so we only judge ourselves and are answerable to ourselves and will either suffer or find joy through our own actions. And to even be able to create our existence through our own thoughts. A Republic.
This sounds very speculative to me. And if God is just an observer, what relevance does he/she/it have anyway?
I couldn't agree more with your analysis and division into the notions of God as Monarchy vs. God as Republic. I should love to share my thoughts (and lots that I have written on the subject) but it would be seriously off-topic.
Hi, if you have time please do, PM me if you like I'd love to here them.
My problem, however, remains the same: what is the difference between believing in God, either as Monarchy or as republic, and believing in multiple universes? To date, there is no accepted experiment or mathematics to demonstrate the existence of either as anything more than "thought experiments".
Absolutely true. There is no point trying to prove or disprove a God, it's impossible to do that. That's why I no longer try to prove or disprove anything. All you can do is hope for direct experience of true reality, which is why I'm so attracted to Zen and Buddha's teachings.
I realise Buddha's focus was on ending suffering, but that in a way is refreshing. For example if I was to go down the path of Sufism I would then go along with the idea of what and who God is according to their teachings. I'm willing for my beliefs to be changed with the hope that if they are they will be truthful and not deluded.
As for me believing in a God and God to be the first cause. Well all I can say is I've experienced things in meditation & prayer and life that I would define as God. God as a first cause is I suppose<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --></style> a personal philosophical belief I have come to after studying a little of Hermetica, Neoplatonism, Stoicism, attending a Theosophy group and contemplating it all.
It does seem as if we are pointing in the same direction, yes.
It is faith... sort of, but more in tune with the least potent qualities of the word, rather than a direct burning faith in the perfect wisdom of the guru.
Definition I found on faith:
Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes.
To start a path it must take faith whether that's burning faith or subtle faith as you put it, faith is faith none the less, it's just different degrees of the same thing, and for a while it must take faith to continue until you have those experiences you are looking for. They can come quickly or not. As I've said a transition from faith into knowing as you learn from experience.
Again, this isn't meant to be in contention with your definitions, but just looking at the qualities.
As for me believing in a God and God to be the first cause.
I have never been able to accept this theory... Theists claim God to be the primary mover of the universe and everything... To be a prime mover means God has no prime mover... If one can believe that God is the prime mover then how can they then refute a non-theist believing that the universe itself is a prime mover or that no prime mover actually exists and the universe has always existed with out the need of a god...
The universe needs a prime mover but God doesn't?????? Can anyone explain this reasoning to me?
I don't think it comes down to need, but whether or not there is. I am old enough to not need my parents, but that does not disprove their existence. If one is touched by emotions and cognitions that are divine, that experience would sure seem to be more proof than "the universe doesn't need a God, therefore it doesn't exist".
I personally have read and seen enough to believe there are forces at work beyond the aggregate's ability to perceive, be them atoms, electricity, quarks, prana, or God, I just giggle and get back to what I can perceive, and work with that.
To assume an emotion or cognition is divine sounds like it could be a symptom of an over active ego and therefore a false perception of reality... If that were to be the case then ones proof would be faulty... The whole concept of the universe being a result of God seems ego born to me...
To assume an emotion or cognition is divine sounds like it could be a symptom of an over active ego and therefore a false perception of reality... If that were to be the case then ones proof would be faulty... The whole concept of the universe being a result of God seems ego born to me...
Could be, maybe, seems so, it's a possibility. Then again since the ego is born from fear, who knows, it could be the complete opposite. Either way if you ever find out let me know.
I prefer the older, more "philosophically rigorous" definitions for agnosticism and atheism: agnosticism properly refers to a school of thought on human knowledge, whether we can ever truly know anything or not. Atheism, at its root, means a (not) theist (...theist): not a theist. It is the same as non-theist.
So one could have an agnostic atheist ("weak atheism"), an agnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist ("strong atheism"), etc. Not to be confused with the Gnostics, capital G.
I know I'm new to Buddhism, but I think there is a very important fact that has been completely overlooked in this thread. Quite simply, there are several branches of Buddhism that are polytheistic. :eek: Mahayana is, and Tibetan Buddhism is also. There are several other branches that practice polytheism, too, though I can't recall any more names.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
To the best of my knowledge, Theravada avoids the notions of gods and goddesses. I will probably start with that school, myself, mostly because the only local group I will conveniently be able to attend happens to be Theravadan. The fact that I have a non-theistic outlook to begin with just happens to be a bonus.
The deities in Mahayana and Vajrayana are known to be ultimately symbolic, that is, representing aspects of primordial wisdom. They are useful as "projective instruments" in the Jungian sense. They are archetypal symbols and their "reality" is reflected in the stream of consciousness of the individual practitioner. Through initiation to a deity such as Medicine Buddha, one actually "becomes", takes on the attributes of, the deity, in this case, compassionate healing.
The deities are not worshiped in the usual sense, except perhaps at the level of "popular religion".
The deities in Mahayana and Vajrayana are known to be ultimately symbolic, that is, representing aspects of primordial wisdom.
Thanks for the info. I guess I wasn't sure just how seriously Buddhist deities are taken. I do know, however, that several popular Buddhist schools are inundated with types of superstitions that I don't really accept. In particular, the whole concept of using a mantra for blessings and luck doesn't sit well with me. I understand, however, that a mantra can be an effective tool for deepening meditation. For that reason alone, I see no reason to discard the use of mantras in my own personal practice.
I know I'm new to Buddhism, but I think there is a very important fact that has been completely overlooked in this thread. Quite simply, there are several branches of Buddhism that are polytheistic. :eek: Mahayana is, and Tibetan Buddhism is also. There are several other branches that practice polytheism, too, though I can't recall any more names.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
There are several branches of Buddhism that appear to be polytheistic. But upon further investigation you find that they are not what they appear to be.
The deities in Mahayana and Vajrayana are known to be ultimately symbolic, that is, representing aspects of primordial wisdom.
I just came across a great pdf on this topic (actually by lurking on another Buddhist forum with a similar topic) written by Ven. Thubten Chodron. It's called I Wonder Why and covers many commonly asked questions about Buddhism. Pages 19 - 28 cover the Buddha, and pages 28 - 32 cover Idols and Offerings. There is also much more useful information.
Comments
Dear MIG1,
I couldn't agree more with your analysis and division into the notions of God as Monarchy vs. God as Republic. I should love to share my thoughts (and lots that I have written on the subject) but it would be seriously off-topic.
My problem, however, remains the same: what is the difference between believing in God, either as Monarchy or as republic, and believing in multiple universes? To date, there is no accepted experiment or mathematics to demonstrate the existence of either as anything more than "thought experiments".
That's the direction I'm heading in.;)
P
This sounds very speculative to me. And if God is just an observer, what relevance does he/she/it have anyway?
P
Absolutely true. There is no point trying to prove or disprove a God, it's impossible to do that. That's why I no longer try to prove or disprove anything. All you can do is hope for direct experience of true reality, which is why I'm so attracted to Zen and Buddha's teachings.
I realise Buddha's focus was on ending suffering, but that in a way is refreshing. For example if I was to go down the path of Sufism I would then go along with the idea of what and who God is according to their teachings. I'm willing for my beliefs to be changed with the hope that if they are they will be truthful and not deluded.
As for me believing in a God and God to be the first cause. Well all I can say is I've experienced things in meditation & prayer and life that I would define as God. God as a first cause is I suppose<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --></style> a personal philosophical belief I have come to after studying a little of Hermetica, Neoplatonism, Stoicism, attending a Theosophy group and contemplating it all.
<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> </style>
Definition I found on faith:
Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes.
To start a path it must take faith whether that's burning faith or subtle faith as you put it, faith is faith none the less, it's just different degrees of the same thing, and for a while it must take faith to continue until you have those experiences you are looking for. They can come quickly or not. As I've said a transition from faith into knowing as you learn from experience.
I know, no problem.
That's up to you to find out, or not.
Please just start another thread... I'm sure many would find your idea's fascinating and at least worthy of discussion
I have never been able to accept this theory... Theists claim God to be the primary mover of the universe and everything... To be a prime mover means God has no prime mover... If one can believe that God is the prime mover then how can they then refute a non-theist believing that the universe itself is a prime mover or that no prime mover actually exists and the universe has always existed with out the need of a god...
The universe needs a prime mover but God doesn't?????? Can anyone explain this reasoning to me?
I personally have read and seen enough to believe there are forces at work beyond the aggregate's ability to perceive, be them atoms, electricity, quarks, prana, or God, I just giggle and get back to what I can perceive, and work with that.
With warmth,
Matt
Could be, maybe, seems so, it's a possibility. Then again since the ego is born from fear, who knows, it could be the complete opposite. Either way if you ever find out let me know.
From my experience with religion(s) almost all belief in god(s) have everything to do with fear...
If I find out I will post it on the site for all to see... don't hold your breath waiting for it though...
lol ok
So one could have an agnostic atheist ("weak atheism"), an agnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist ("strong atheism"), etc. Not to be confused with the Gnostics, capital G.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
To the best of my knowledge, Theravada avoids the notions of gods and goddesses. I will probably start with that school, myself, mostly because the only local group I will conveniently be able to attend happens to be Theravadan. The fact that I have a non-theistic outlook to begin with just happens to be a bonus.
The deities are not worshiped in the usual sense, except perhaps at the level of "popular religion".
Thanks for the info. I guess I wasn't sure just how seriously Buddhist deities are taken. I do know, however, that several popular Buddhist schools are inundated with types of superstitions that I don't really accept. In particular, the whole concept of using a mantra for blessings and luck doesn't sit well with me. I understand, however, that a mantra can be an effective tool for deepening meditation. For that reason alone, I see no reason to discard the use of mantras in my own personal practice.
There are several branches of Buddhism that appear to be polytheistic. But upon further investigation you find that they are not what they appear to be.
You might also find some form of hatha yoga very helpful -- there's nothing like trying to become a pretzl to take your mind off your other concerns.
Namaste
I just came across a great pdf on this topic (actually by lurking on another Buddhist forum with a similar topic) written by Ven. Thubten Chodron. It's called I Wonder Why and covers many commonly asked questions about Buddhism. Pages 19 - 28 cover the Buddha, and pages 28 - 32 cover Idols and Offerings. There is also much more useful information.