I now believe in god, and invite you to prove me wrong… ;)

[Bhaktajan II]

Z wrote:
For me the meaning of ‘absolute’ contradicts ‘omni’,
so how do you have a deity that is both.

absolute’
Nirvana (Nir, without; Vana, qualities) = a Zero empty vaccuum field (aka, brahman).

NOTE: Matter and Energy cannot be seperated from the Field that it occupies ---it is the two polar opposites famously known as Duality (the world is composed of Opposite; hence the principle of Duality, ie: the Ying-Yang Symbol).

Brahman (the underlying vacuum) is absolute’ ---ie:
Two men possess a box of 'Nothing'.
Each goes to court to sue the other for theft.
The Judge says, 'Both owners have the same items inside their boxes'.
The two men aggree that each box contains the same thing!
There is no 'Difference' between one bit of NOTHING and another bit of NOTHING ---they are absolutely the same without any distinguishing qualities.

Nothing here is the same as nothing over there ---this absolute-ness is omni-present.

The deity that is the personification of Absolute Nothingness could only be one entity ---He would be that which BEYOND NOTHINGNESS ---and the truth of HIS Existence could only be revealed by him upon his causless reasoning.

If There is such a deity.

If There is such an Absolute deity.

I am not "proving" yea or nay ---I am postulating the requisite properties of the Land-lord-Impresario of the whole Big Show, where we are just working spectators.

 

[_Z_]

bhaktajan

absolute’
Nirvana (Nir, without; Vana, qualities) = a Zero empty vaccuum field (aka, brahman).

On the reality map it is not absolute, because the universe exists too, you cant just ignore existence. Nirvana would have to be all there is in reality for it to be absolute, otherwise it is limited and we have other things within the ‘whole‘.

Nothing here is the same as nothing over there ---this absolute-ness is omni-present.

There isn’t nothing ‘here’ though, there is something, and hence it is not ‘omni’ I.e. in all places.

The deity that is the personification of Absolute Nothingness could only be one entity

Hang on let me clarify; the ‘deity’ + ‘Absolute Nothingness’? ...does not correlate!

These fundamentals we have to ascertain, or I may as well be pagan again ~ which is looking more and more likely.

 

[bananabrain]

Weather [sic] or not there are areas of uncertainty [ a good ideal Imho], belief needs a basis or its just vacuous. If we can ascertain certain areas philosophically or scientifically, then we should do so, it doesn’t do to just give up or ignore good arguments.

i agree belief needs a "basis", but i'm not entirely sure we could agree what that basis could be without recourse to axioms, in other words, beliefs. with the best will in the world, science requires peer-reviewed double-blind-tested data in order to hypothesise and there are many areas of philosophy where such data cannot be conceived, let alone gathered; you don't even need to mention religion for that to be true. what happens more often is that people start "gaming" the data - whether this is by religious people selectively interpreting or by scientists arbitrarily defining a priori categories - for example, we would struggle to find a mutually agreeable data set to ascertain the existence of the soul; a scientist might then conclude that there is therefore no possibility that such data could exist, whereas a religious person might try and distort scientifically available data to argue that it is "the same" as a soul... either way, both approaches are philosophically bogus; personally, i think that a decent combination of philosophy and religion usually does the trick, but there is more than one sustainable position on this issue.

Two men possess a box of 'Nothing'.
Each goes to court to sue the other for theft.
The Judge says, 'Both owners have the same items inside their boxes'.
The two men aggree that each box contains the same thing!
There is no 'Difference' between one bit of NOTHING and another bit of NOTHING ---they are absolutely the same without any distinguishing qualities.

but unless each box contains a vacuum, they don't contain "the same things" - besides, even a vacuum may contain matter and two different vacuums will contain different particles of matter. technically, then, this argument is what we call "bollocks".

The deity that is the personification of Absolute Nothingness could only be one entity ---He would be that which BEYOND NOTHINGNESS ---and the truth of HIS Existence could only be revealed by him upon his causless reasoning.

er.... if it's "beyond nothingness", then it isn't "vacuum". nor is it necessarily "empty", if it contains, for example, Light?

Hang on let me clarify; the ‘deity’ + ‘Absolute Nothingness’? ...does not correlate!

no, it doesn't correlate - this is paradox territory and mystical speculation of this nature will require you to have a healthy appreciation of the mathematical and physical nature of such paradoxes. i would recommend andrew aczel's book on the maths on infinity in connection with this. infinity can be both 1 and 0 in binary terms. what you may be heading towards, rather than paganism, is deism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Oh "bollocks",
Oh "bollocks",
Oh how I hold my "bollocks" on high'.

Must you always insert the word "bollocks" in all your posts?
Are you Russell Brand, or are you a farmer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhaktajan
Two men possess a box of 'Nothing'.
Each goes to court to sue the other for theft.
The Judge says, 'Both owners have the same items inside their boxes'.
The two men aggree that each box contains the same thing!
There is no 'Difference' between one bit of NOTHING and another bit of NOTHING ---they are absolutely the same without any distinguishing qualities.

but unless each box contains a vacuum, they don't contain "the same thing . . .

Yes they BOTH CONTAIN A VACUUM.
Yes they BOTH CONTAIN A VACUUM.

This is my analogy!
My analogy is devoid of your bandied about Bollocks.
So please re-address my analogy and rectify your reply.

Thanks inadvance,
Bhaktajan

PS: Who are the royal "we" that says, "this argument is what we call "bollocks".

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Nirvana would have to be all there is in reality for it to be absolute,

Are you aware that you are re-defining a 2,500 year old term?

I am sure you have not studied Shakespeare, where "the Play is the Thing".

 

[Bhaktajan II]

There isn’t nothing ‘here’ though, there is something, and hence it is not ‘omni’ I.e. in all places.

Again, You are not addressing the analogy ---you are replacing it with another definition that is improvised here in your response.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

er.... if it's "beyond nothingness", then it isn't "vacuum". nor is it necessarily "empty", if it contains, for example, Light?

Elementary my dear Watson . . . Lets just stay with the elementary:

A "vacuum" is a vacuum.

When I say vacuum, I am referring to a vacuum.

A vacuum is devoid of all things ergo it is called a vacuum.

It is the intellectual idea of the principle of a vacuum that I refer to when I say "vacuum".

I am interested in the vacuum, incontradistinction of 'varigated forms of matter & energy' that occupy the underlying space ['Space' aka, the cosmic vacuum].

To say that there is no Vacuum is to say:
a] the manifest creation is an occurence existing in the mind of God or Somebody incharge of God's Mind.
or
b] There is no final Zero Stratum 'underlying space, matter & energy' ---But this would be contra-instinctual or inother words, Mental Speculation.

Science-fiction is Mental Speculation.
Shakespeare is Mental Speculation.

Zero is Absolutely beyond Mental Speculation.

Make "Hay while the Sun Shines" was taught father to son.

The Sun too, can be compared to the Zero-State-Vacuum in its contradiction to the varigatedness of cosmic phenomena.

So too can God the Transcendent be compared . . . in its contradiction to the varigatedness of cosmic phenomena.

 

[_Z_]

bananabrain

personally, i think that a decent combination of philosophy and religion usually does the trick, but there is more than one sustainable position on this issue.

Wisdom. I wont stop searching though, I think by questioning the shape of reality [infinity, the absolute, omni-X] we can get closer, but I agree we are never going to get more than close. The simply act of gathering info into the conscious sphere [and its subsequent subjectivity] is enough to stop us from attaining the highest knowledge. I do feel there is part of our minds that can connect to divinity, but I don’t think if we do that we can then express what is meant.

what you may be heading towards, rather than paganism, is deism.

Hmm I see your point, however there is another level. In my visions I see gods but I still find it hard to believe in them, in fact I see deity and personality as indistinct from the emptiness.
I would expect something similar in Judaism, so as to correlate god the creator and nature of man with the ultimate inexplicitly of divinity? Paganism to me simply means a personal connection to the inexplicable via localised and/or personal deities.
I guess there were reasons why abrahamics view this as negative, though perhaps this comes down to the position of Judaism at its crisis point having only a single city when these thing were decided ~ I really don’t know.
Thanks.

bhaktajan

Yes they BOTH CONTAIN A VACUUM.

I understand, but please note that not ‘all’ spaces are a vacuum, energy and its forms occupy a space [even if there is an emptiness within that also], this should be most apparent.

PS: Who are the royal "we" that says, "this argument is what we call "bollocks".

I don’t understand, did I say something wrong, please accept my apologies if I did.

Are you aware that you are re-defining a 2,500 year old term?

Of course, what’s wrong with that?


　
　
　
　

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

thank you for the post.

Vaj

No I am just seeking meaning to it all as ever, the only way I can do this is by contrasting one idea with another. Hence I am looking at the fundamental nature of reality in different lights ~ not meaning to change minds or cause a riot lols.

This is why I look at that fundamental nature of reality in monotheistic, pagan and Buddhist perspectives, it helps me get an idea of what it is.

i certainly agree that engaging in and trying on, so to speak, new perspectives is valuable... perhaps even a necessary aspect of a beings individual journey towards Awakening and Liberation and i would heartily encourage every being, to the extent which they are able, to do just so.

i was mostly curious about the invitation to change your mind about your belief and i realize now that it was simply the way in which you worded your invitation for debate which caused my confusion

within the Vajrayana system the idea of debate lies near the epicenter of the scholastic process and gets a significant amount of time dedicated to it so that a monk can expound and defend the various philosophical tenets of the various yanas within the Buddhadharma. clearly having ones ideas clarified is of tremendous value, the potential that reality becomes less of a direct experience and more of a logical exercise is one which cannot be overstated or overemphasized in my estimation. to balance the intellecutalization of reality the Buddha recommended meditation which is, unsurprisingly, found in nearly every religious tradition that has arisen in our world system. humans, clearly, have a tendency to intellectualize and not really experience suchness as is.

"I don't believe people are looking for the meaning of life as much as they are looking for the experience of being alive."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/josephcamp121325.html - J. Campbell.

have a nice weekend Z.

Paladin:

thank you for the kind words and thoughts!

metta,

~v

 

[_Z_]

Hi vaj

within the Vajrayana system the idea of debate lies near the epicenter of the scholastic process and gets a significant amount of time dedicated to it so that a monk can expound and defend the various philosophical tenets of the various yanas within the Buddhadharma.

Yes that’s what I am doing in my own way, the thread title didn’t put it right but there is only so much one can say in a single line, I kinda expect people to know where I am coming from ~ probably erroneously.
Any thoughts on the absolute and nature of nirvana ~ the ‘place’ gladly accepted. I know in your system its just a state of mind [stateless one] but surely Buddhist of other systems conceive of it in some manner.

thanks

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

thank you for the post.

Any thoughts on the absolute and nature of nirvana ~ the ‘place’ gladly accepted. I know in your system its just a state of mind [stateless one] but surely Buddhist of other systems conceive of it in some manner.

thanks

well... nirvana isn't a something or a place it is, indeed, a mental state.. a state of consciousness so to speak. the Buddha describes Nibbana/nirvana (your choice.. pali/sanskrit) in both positive and negative ways.. i.e. nirvana is true bliss and worthwhile working to attain and nirvana is the complete cessation, the blowing out of the flame. there are two salient points to bear in mind, in my estimation, regarding the Buddhist exposition of this idea. the first is that this state of consciousness is something that every being can attain for themselves in the here and now, it is not something that occurs post mortem. secondly, nibbana is not the end of the practice.. it is not the 'goal' so to speak, of the Buddhadharma. the goal of the Buddhadharma is to Awaken and attain Liberation.. nirvana is a way station, if you will, along a long journey and the Buddha, in his compassion, has recommend that we set our sights here so that we are not discouraged at the length of the trip.

as for the absolute.. well... hmm. the Buddhadharma teaches a concept called The Two Truths. there is a relative and an absolute truth but we don't have an "absolute" as a ground of being kind of concept. you can find, however, a large amount of material that uses absolutist langauge and even makes claims like primordial and absolute beings and Buddhas and all the rest. this is most a result of transliteration considerations and, unfortunately, can lead some beings down some erroneous paths.

i would offer this.. the Buddhist view regarding the arising of reality and the objects therein.. i.e. the universe and all it's stuff is a concept called Interdependent Co-Arising and can be summed up as "this is because that is and that is because this is." now.. in truth, the Buddhist cosmology does indicate that this universe had a beginning event which was inherited from the previous universe and so forth.. a continuous cycle of universes arising, expanding and ceasing to arise with no ultimate beginning to be found.

metta,

~v

 

[Snoopy]

the Buddhadharma teaches a concept called The Two Truths. there is a relative and an absolute truth but we don't have an "absolute" as a ground of being kind of concept. you can find, however, a large amount of material that uses absolutist langauge and even makes claims like primordial and absolute beings and Buddhas and all the rest. this is most a result of transliteration considerations and, unfortunately, can lead some beings down some erroneous paths.

Vaj, is the two truths notion prevalent or found as explicitly this in the Theravada (rather than as two erroneous extremes of view)? It seems to have been most brought to the fore in the Mahayana, through Nāgārjuna? It is also a concept that may lead one into the heresy of duality, is it not?!

s.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Snoopy,

thank you for the post.

Vaj, is the two truths notion prevalent or found as explicitly this in the Theravada (rather than as two erroneous extremes of view)? It seems to have been most brought to the fore in the Mahayana, through Nāgārjuna? It is also a concept that may lead one into the heresy of duality, is it not?!

s.

suffice it to say that, in my view, the Three Yanas are integral aspects of eachother addressing different aspects of beings in a generalized manner. as the Theravedan school is one of 18 original schools of Buddhadharma yet is the only extant representation of that Yana, we have their teachings to study.

it is my considered view that the more explicate teachings of the Mahayana are all to be found in the Hinyana.

the idea of the Two Truths is one which is hard to grasp if one has a bivalent view regarding reality. the Buddhist ontological view is one which is called multivalent, essentially the difference between the maths A or B / A AND B. the idea of the Two Truths is, essentially, two sides of the same coin; reality or Suchness. the relative side of Suchness is the side which we can apprehend and the absolute side of Suchness is the side which we cannot grasp.. cannot get our minds around, as the saying goes.

of course the term is used in various manners depending on the context of it's usage. you may find this link interesting:
Two truths doctrine

metta,

~v

 

[Snoopy]

suffice it to say that, in my view, the Three Yanas are integral aspects of eachother addressing different aspects of beings in a generalized manner.

Indeed. And I think what suits one does not always suit another.

it is my considered view that the more explicate teachings of the Mahayana are all to be found in the Hinyana.

I should have thought so yes, being grounded on the same analysis of reality.

the idea of the Two Truths is one which is hard to grasp if one has a bivalent view regarding reality. the Buddhist ontological view is one which is called multivalent, essentially the difference between the maths A or B / A AND B. the idea of the Two Truths is, essentially, two sides of the same coin; reality or Suchness. the relative side of Suchness is the side which we can apprehend and the absolute side of Suchness is the side which we cannot grasp.. cannot get our minds around, as the saying goes.

Not two? Difficult stuff, this ontology

Chants - Sandokai: Harmony of Difference and Sameness

you may find this link interesting:
Two truths doctrine

Thanks. This Wiki gets everywhere!

s.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

God, the transcendant persona, who, in his own personal right, is known to be unlimitedly full in 6-Opulences [whence: Bhagavan, sanskrit] ---all Wealth, all Strength, all Beauty, all Intelligence, all Fame and, most interestingly, all renunciation ---yet, outside his own persona, whilst expanding His own potency to created the manifest material-cosmos, God exists in three features, as preceivable by us Human-Beings (if we cared to see it):

God exists in three features:
1 The Void
2 The life/being-force in each individual speck of matter or energy.
3 God, the transcendant persona

aka,
1 Brahman
2 Param-atma
3 Bhagavan

 

[TripleGem]

Now onto the aspect of self; the mind is not an aggregate of the senses, it is a metaphysical entity fed by the instrumentation of the human form. where we may say that the ultimate nature is nirvana, we then have to describe its space and nature, then whenever we do so we come across the same thing as trying to describe either the inner most self or god.
　
[/FONT]

The problem with trying describe nirvana's space and nature is that we have to use the realm of mind and matter to do so. Nirvana is a state beyond mind and matter. It's a state where mind stops and hence matter isn't perceived by mind anymore. That's why nirvana is indescribable; a state beyond mind and matter can't use mind and matter to describe it.

 

[Ben Masada]

I now believe in 'god', and invite you to prove me wrong…

Hi people, I have been rethinking my entire philosophy, and so as to compare, I invite you all, atheists, Buddhists and religionists to challenge or compare my new understanding…

In order to understand ‘the reality map’ completely, the first thing to do is to see reality as a ‘oneness’, if we attempt to define it in any manner of a plurality then that will always be contained within a greater oneness, hence oneness is prime and fundamental. A oneness composes necessarily everything we know to exist but in an undifferentiated form, so everything we are is within it in some manner ~ even infinity.

From the oneness we have to get from there to ‘universe’, as the universe doesn’t expand through infinite time, then it is manifest in some manner, something has to make it and that something ultimately has to be the fundamental nature of reality.

The point most people miss is that the creation has to be reasoned and logical or it would be a nonsense, rule; being infinite {unlimited}, God cannot perform imperfect actions {imperfection denotes a limit}, thus can only create what logically works. The universe is the creation, and we have to live with it, learn it and overcome our obstacles or not ~ as ‘we choose’. if anyone can suggest how to make a universe that doesn’t have all the properties of physics and metaphysics that this universe has, then please emancipate us from our ignorance.

We can blame the creator all we like, but you cant have evolution of life without the fundamentals of physics and biology. You may blame god for cancer, but cancer is resultant of some manner of degradation where cells take on their own life - so to say, just as they do in the origins of biology.
Essentially what I am saying here is that science is the study of gods creation, there is only one way to make this universe and it is pointless to say god doesn’t exist simply because universes have entropy and depredating factors.

Now onto the aspect of self; the mind is not an aggregate of the senses, it is a metaphysical entity fed by the instrumentation of the human form. where we may say that the ultimate nature is nirvana, we then have to describe its space and nature, then whenever we do so we come across the same thing as trying to describe either the inner most self or god.

…still not a christian though lols ~ the way I see it, is we are all the children of divinity, and people who profess to speak for god can only be making subjective interpretations of what god means [that doesn’t make them liars]. So philosophy is still my favourite approach to understanding divinity. I do think jesus was a great liberator, but maybe there is an inherent flaw in christian thinking…

Briefly I see Christianity as originally a force for some good, where for example in Greece you had the masses put down as going to Hades when they die [- good way to control them] and only hero’s can pop in out of there and then get to Elysium.

Then in western Europe you had he celts, iberians and germans all whom to some degree followed a roughly similar faith; druidry, now imagine preist + judge, in my mind that can only equal oppression [also consider sex and death rituals and human sacrifice that went on untul the norse finally converted]. Maybe I misinterpret some of that but that’s not the point here…

You can imagine the rest, and sure they all had more salient features, but generally I think we can see Christianity originally as a great liberator, lifting the weight of centuries, millennia even, of oppression of the people. However within Christianity lies the seeds of its own demise Imho e.g. those early Christians tore down the library at Alexandria persecuted and killed a female philosopher as a witch [cant remember her name] and destroyed centuries of great learning.

So on the one hand they gave light and release to the ordinary people, later opposing money lending etc, and giving rise to peoples revolts and liberalism even anarchism. Then with the other hand, they plunged us into a kind of literate darkness as far as they could.

Some Christians even view intelligence as immoral somehow, so in short, what I am asking is, do the scriptures give us any potential for change? Is there any need for oppression and anti universal education & intelligence, or can there be a new Christianity that recognises truth and only seeks to change things by that ~ rather than oppression?

Just a quick introduction to my current thoughts, happy Easter!
　
　

I don't even dream or dare to prove you wrong. I am not a fool. Myself, I do believe in God, albeit on the basis of the concept of probability. By using this method, I am free of King David's charges of fools in Psalm 14:1 on those who deny God's existence on knowledge that they don't have.
Ben

 

[DNAJ82]

I am a KNOWER that the Bible is the absolute truth and live a predestined life with perfectly timed events that have many times lined up with scripture beyond any 'chance'. In the beginning was the word, thus everything is language.

This being so, I believe in a God who I have no part of if I am to refuse to let him wash my feet, put himself lower than my adoration would have it be, and see he died for me.

I aint going to any church and hate the way people see the Bible due to the way it is portrayed by people who claim to be so deep in the word and filled with God given righteousness. . .oh, Jesus hated that too and got killed, as was predestined, at the hands of such people for his 'blasphemy'.

If you have a good heart, you have a good God, and he doesnt lose ANY of his sheep.
If the prodigal son died away from the father, it would not have changed his unconditional love.

Just thought i'd share this so you can see some logical reasons to not let 'christians' detract you from the gospel or interpret it for you.