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.
Anybody else feel they aren't really a theist or an atheist?
To me atheism and theism is like a chicken or an egg argument. One poses that Mind preceded matter, in the form of an all conscious, omni-present ego, who expresses jealousy, vengefulness, and anger toward his earthly subjects, at least in Abrahamic tradition. Staunch, atheist materialism poses that matter, random chance, and the laws of physics precedes mind.
In my view, mind and matter are just two different forms of the same consciousness, and I think that everything in the universe is this single consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. The fact that mind has an effect on matter through observer effect in Quantum mechanics experiments lends credence to this idea and is probably a good proof of free will. Matter affects me and we effect it. I also think we've always existed and that death isn't permanent. Were just caught in one of many transitions in an eternal, cosmic cycle. (I'm sure the Buddhists here are familiar with this idea)
I believe prayer works to a certain extent but that its not really a supreme deity answering them. I think It might actually be the effects of mind over matter being realized through synchronicity. Whenever people describe answered prayers, its often in the form of things lining up too perfectly to just be explained by coincidence. Einstein's spooky time lends some credence to this. I think there's a collective unconscious behind it and that were integrated into it.
As for my view as to whether there's a soul or not, I think there's a kind of proto-consciousness or potential for consciousness existent within all empty space in the universe and that the activity of the brain warps this into arbitrary (yet barrier defined) points in space-time to create human and animal consciousness, much like how the mass from a planet temporarily warps points in space-time to create gravitational fields. When a planetary body moves out of one area of space and stops occupying it, there's no longer a gravitational field there. However, as it moves from place to place on a plane, a gravitational field is maintained in a seamless progression of locational transitions until the planet breaks apart or gets engulfed by a star. From moment to moment, it really isn't the same gravitational field it was moments before, though it maintains a consistent form.
In the same way, we aren't the same people we were moments earlier, but its such a consistently seamless process from conscious moment to conscious moment that we often get stuck in the idea that there's some non-arbitrary, non-relative substance about our individual identities and egos. One extreme is assuming you carry your personality and memories with you to live as a harp playing eunuch in heaven, because, after all, personality and memories are what you really are (as the western assumption goes anyway). The other extreme is believing that because personality and brain function is everything (same assumptions), when you die (and your mind completely fades away when the physical brain ceases functioning) you transition into an eternity of nothingness with the rest of the universe.
Anyway, I don't see myself as theist or atheist, because my beliefs don't hold the basic assumptions of either. The only God I might believe in is one that represents the integrated whole of a universe made up of multiple layers of consciousness. I just believe in the universe, like many atheists claim to. However, I don't ignore the phenomenon of consciousness and awareness to the extent they do. I see us as more than just being bits of protoplasm, directed like puppets by random chance and one step away from an eternal grave. (To be fair though, even with western theism, they kind of write off free will too. If everything stems from a single mind and intention from God, separate and precedent from our own thoughts and intentions, then this super mind is ultimately directing us like puppets on a string as well, at least in Calvanism.)
I think the laws of nature are some sort of conscious habit of the whole universe. This could be God, but I see us as being appendages and manifestations of the single conscious entity, as opposed to being separate entities from it. I don't really think worshipping or appeasing it is necessary either. I just believe in respecting it, as you would respect your own body, your own self. other people, or the environment, because its ultimately you and all of us combines.
I think I'm caught in a weird place when it comes to these basic categorizations and extremes. I used to be a staunch, materialist atheist until I stopped overlooking such an important facet of reality, my own experience, and I'm not talking about a specific experience in particular. I'm just talking about the process of experience itself. Yah, colour may be related to specific wavelengths, but why does a very narrow range of these frequencies vibrate rods and cones in my eyes, and send out a signal in the brain that results in these labels called "red" or "blue". In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins describes colours as simply being arbitrary labels, which is partially true, but where do the labels come from though? Why should I be experiencing something as unexplainable as red at all? ...or experiencing emotion for that matter? Emotion isn't just some spring loaded mechanism. Why am I not simply just a meat robot that reacts to certain stimuli much like how a clock reacts to stimuli. I tell atheists this, and they will often say, "why are you so sure you aren't". I try to explain that experienced reality, like gravity, is a very bizarre, unexplainable phenomenon. However, just like how people took gravity for granted hundreds of years ago (and probably still do) because its a part of daily lives (which is such a boring and un-amazing thing to so many people), people take consciousness for granted.
Like I said, I'm caught in this weird place not very definable. Some would call it a form of sexed up atheism. Some would call it new agey. Anyone else find their selves in a similar place where they don't fit into this paradigm?
In my view, mind and matter are just two different forms of the same consciousness, and I think that everything in the universe is this single consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. The fact that mind has an effect on matter through observer effect in Quantum mechanics experiments lends credence to this idea and is probably a good proof of free will. Matter affects me and we effect it. I also think we've always existed and that death isn't permanent. Were just caught in one of many transitions in an eternal, cosmic cycle. (I'm sure the Buddhists here are familiar with this idea)
I believe prayer works to a certain extent but that its not really a supreme deity answering them. I think It might actually be the effects of mind over matter being realized through synchronicity. Whenever people describe answered prayers, its often in the form of things lining up too perfectly to just be explained by coincidence. Einstein's spooky time lends some credence to this. I think there's a collective unconscious behind it and that were integrated into it.
As for my view as to whether there's a soul or not, I think there's a kind of proto-consciousness or potential for consciousness existent within all empty space in the universe and that the activity of the brain warps this into arbitrary (yet barrier defined) points in space-time to create human and animal consciousness, much like how the mass from a planet temporarily warps points in space-time to create gravitational fields. When a planetary body moves out of one area of space and stops occupying it, there's no longer a gravitational field there. However, as it moves from place to place on a plane, a gravitational field is maintained in a seamless progression of locational transitions until the planet breaks apart or gets engulfed by a star. From moment to moment, it really isn't the same gravitational field it was moments before, though it maintains a consistent form.
In the same way, we aren't the same people we were moments earlier, but its such a consistently seamless process from conscious moment to conscious moment that we often get stuck in the idea that there's some non-arbitrary, non-relative substance about our individual identities and egos. One extreme is assuming you carry your personality and memories with you to live as a harp playing eunuch in heaven, because, after all, personality and memories are what you really are (as the western assumption goes anyway). The other extreme is believing that because personality and brain function is everything (same assumptions), when you die (and your mind completely fades away when the physical brain ceases functioning) you transition into an eternity of nothingness with the rest of the universe.
Anyway, I don't see myself as theist or atheist, because my beliefs don't hold the basic assumptions of either. The only God I might believe in is one that represents the integrated whole of a universe made up of multiple layers of consciousness. I just believe in the universe, like many atheists claim to. However, I don't ignore the phenomenon of consciousness and awareness to the extent they do. I see us as more than just being bits of protoplasm, directed like puppets by random chance and one step away from an eternal grave. (To be fair though, even with western theism, they kind of write off free will too. If everything stems from a single mind and intention from God, separate and precedent from our own thoughts and intentions, then this super mind is ultimately directing us like puppets on a string as well, at least in Calvanism.)
I think the laws of nature are some sort of conscious habit of the whole universe. This could be God, but I see us as being appendages and manifestations of the single conscious entity, as opposed to being separate entities from it. I don't really think worshipping or appeasing it is necessary either. I just believe in respecting it, as you would respect your own body, your own self. other people, or the environment, because its ultimately you and all of us combines.
I think I'm caught in a weird place when it comes to these basic categorizations and extremes. I used to be a staunch, materialist atheist until I stopped overlooking such an important facet of reality, my own experience, and I'm not talking about a specific experience in particular. I'm just talking about the process of experience itself. Yah, colour may be related to specific wavelengths, but why does a very narrow range of these frequencies vibrate rods and cones in my eyes, and send out a signal in the brain that results in these labels called "red" or "blue". In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins describes colours as simply being arbitrary labels, which is partially true, but where do the labels come from though? Why should I be experiencing something as unexplainable as red at all? ...or experiencing emotion for that matter? Emotion isn't just some spring loaded mechanism. Why am I not simply just a meat robot that reacts to certain stimuli much like how a clock reacts to stimuli. I tell atheists this, and they will often say, "why are you so sure you aren't". I try to explain that experienced reality, like gravity, is a very bizarre, unexplainable phenomenon. However, just like how people took gravity for granted hundreds of years ago (and probably still do) because its a part of daily lives (which is such a boring and un-amazing thing to so many people), people take consciousness for granted.
Like I said, I'm caught in this weird place not very definable. Some would call it a form of sexed up atheism. Some would call it new agey. Anyone else find their selves in a similar place where they don't fit into this paradigm?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As difficult as it is to live without this solid ground of belief one way or another under my feet ... I think it helps me in my practice of Buddhism to learn to be comfortable with not knowing. If ignorance is bliss, then I am well on my way!
We can imagine a million and one ways the universe might be constructed, or how our consciousness might come about and might relate to everything else, but in the end it's just speculation. Better to just try and see what is there.
A Pantheistic Deist, but ultimately, it doesn't matter.
You can believe with knowledge.
You can believe without knowledge.
You can not-believe with knowledge.
You can not-believe without knowledge.
Just stop conflating belief with knowledge! Jesus...(not that I believe in Jesus)
For all intents and purposes, this equivalent to atheism, but I do assign a finite, though very small, probability to God existing.
We imprison ourselves in a certain school of thought, just like how we frame our vision by looking through a window in the wall.
We increase our scope by looking through a binoculars, but we see far, but do not see the sides that are blocked by the wall.
For me, I don't want to belong to a preset.
I'm not theist, atheist, agnostic, I'm just a humble human.
Indeed. In fact "I am" can be the problem ! Letting go of conceptual thinking and just being aware and mindful of the present moment is far less stressful.
.
Palzang
What's wrong with labels? Nothing wrong with a label unless you think the label is actually the thing.
You are a label imputed on the aggregates. Don't dismiss the conventional...
Then as I started doing more reading and talking about the subject, I realized that it's really not pretending. It's really not possible for me to have a clear understanding of what a person means when they say "God" unless they give me a clear and coherent description of what they're talking about first, at least without me having to make assumptions. It's even relatively easy to find two people who are in the same faith tradition and call their deity by the same name to give descriptions of it that are different to the point of being contradictory.
With all that in mind, labeling myself in accordance to belief or non belief in a poorly defined word makes no sense to me.
Yes, it works for me too - not something that comes into my thoughts often ( actually mostly it is from online interactions and mostly only in discussions online that I discuss my beliefs at all ) ... love the sign out the front of an Agnostic Association near me that reads " God save me from your followers "
I was alot less happy when I was agonastic and athiest, because looking all the political issue and injustice in the world you feel like there is no point or real resolve to anything, feels like all the bad guys are winning.
For trying to access the highest levels without grounding yourself as a human being first will most likely locks one up more. As for the whole concept of "freedom" I think alot of people mis-interpret what is freedom. Infact the whole problem lies in this desperate need to "seek path to freedom for ourselves". You forget about all the other thats around you.
People tend to forget it's because of everybody else that allows us to survive. That allows us to have the opprtunity to have access to the Dharma teachings in peace.
From my school's teachings, I personally believe true freedom lies in having the ability to take care of ourselves so as not t burden others unneccesarily and also help others and society to improve to show our gratitude. Seriously, most of us in the West are literally living in Heaven compared to all the other human beings living in constant Karmic obstructions that have no hope of cultivating themselves.
What good is having the notion of enlightenment without trying to purify our mind?
Anyway, as by my message above you can probably see that my current school still puts alot of emphosis on discipline. This is not too suprising considering historical Ch'an school are very strict institutions. All the funny mind opening Ch'an stories are what happens to masters who have done the hard yard of doing hard labour, getting yelled and beaten.
Ch'an is pretty inflexible when it comes disciplining new students.
I'm not sure where I'm going with any of this. Nevermind.
http://blondemomblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/waynes-world.jpg
I can't think of a buddhist school that makes things needlessly complex, outside of maybe the "Difficult Points" of the Gelukpas. Which forms of Buddhism do you mean?
If one is going to conduct a scientific experiment it is important to not be biased and to not expect and influence an outcome. As someone always searching for answers (an amateur scientist if you will) I choose to remain open minded to any possibility. At least until there is enough evidence to sway me to believe or disbelieve in something. With that said I think the idea of a God who created us to send us to hell and judge us is a bit silly. I have found talking to people that some people call themselves atheist because they don't believe in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god. It seems not all atheist are closed to the idea of some other higher power being possible.
I don't tend to think about this subject much though as I have found zero evidence for either argument. There are so many other things out to learn about and spend time figuring out. Too much beautiful stuff in the world to enjoy while I am still alive.
To me these are distinctly different.
Spending less money on yourself and giving to charities.
Learn to get along with people around you.
Respecting your parents
discipline when it comes to doing things your suppose to do
Striving to talk less and use more action to influence others
Will probably have more effect to push yourself closer to enlightenment than more knowledge and big talks.
If a thiest practice their religion more to benefit others than they will have much more spritual development than any body else.
After some time I've grown to realize that I belong on the fence because I won't ever make a permanent decision one way or the other, and I'm finally ok with that.
So the Buddhist can only say, "I don't know what god is like."
When someone asks, "IS there a god?"
Buddhists would have to answer, "I don't know."
Why? Because these questions suggest there's something knowable about god. That's extremely presumptuous!
IF someone asks, "IS there a godly presence in the universe?"
You'd still have to answer, "I don't know."
Why? Because if you answered you'd be suggesting you know something about "godly presence."
IOW, No matter what - you can't answer questions that assume some knowledge of god.
Buddha said there is no point in pursuing answers to questions concerned with what god is like.
Yes, what Buddha says makes you think there's something knowable about god because he was able to put that concept into a question in the first place. But that's just because _language_is_sloppy_ and we get by with it anyway.
Underlying principle: "It" is unfathomably ***HUGE.*** Our little bit of sense awareness in these bodies, and our little brain which provides a limited arena for infinite mind can't compare with the "huge-osity" of "It." (It means everything else there is).
We should only be concerned with issues we can handle and ultimately make sense of in this lifetime, in this embodiment.
The question of god, knowing about god, being able to communicate about god, is NOT one of those things.
Maybe this will help somebody. That's how I see it. Works for me. My workload doesn't feel much lighter. It's just that I put that nagging, goofy, "M.C.Escher" question where it belongs: waaaay in the back of a file cabinet.
Or to put it another way, if all that teaching is correct, I'd rather live in blissful ignorance because such a God would be a devil, if he were to exist in that way.
However, I cannot be absolutely certain that no sort of supreme being exists. It is even harder to dismiss the possibility of capricious, amoral deities, like the Ancient Greeks believed. Maybe there is a Zeus or a Thor. Who knows. So I'm agnostic about those gods.
Mostly, I suspect that when good people say "God", they are labelling an intangible "thing" - the goodness in the universe, the love between sentient beings, dharmakaya, perhaps. I don't really analyse it, I am just learning to accept the language that other people use to describe the stuff that is indescribable, but which we all sense.
Far more important than how you label it, is what you do with this "belief" or awareness. I know some wonderful people who are theists, who attribute all of their goodness to this God. I also know some pretty suckish people who claim to believe in the same deity. I think you have to look beyond the words people use to see what they really believe.
4 arupa jhånas,
4 stages of nirvåna.
When a planetary body moves out of one area of space and stops occupying it, there's no longer a gravitational field there. However, as it moves from place to place on a plane, a gravitational field is maintained in a seamless progression of locational transitions until the planet breaks apart or gets engulfed by a star. From moment to moment, it really isn't the same gravitational field it was moments before, though it maintains a consistent form.
Your attachment shows through the metaphor. Why the gravitational field of a "planetary body" and not , for instance, the force of a butterfly's wing? Or the reaction a deep valley has to a loud call? Do not the same "laws " apply?
To look out into the universe , perhaps useful to yourself, will not provide any more insight than staring at a leaf.
I am not suggesting you get a microscope out now
the Dharma doesn't negate the existance of brahmas, devas and asuras (pretas may be metaphorical).
using DharmaCakkhu (eye of Dharma), it is possible to see some form of "supreme force" (basically spherical, energetic, comfortable to be near)... with basically no citta (mind)