Proof for God's Non-Existence

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket!

When I stressed some people, I did mean other than myself.

That is fair and reasonable. Please note I did not accuse you of such, I merely gave a response to yours. It will be interesting to see what you have to say in another thread.

 

[Quahom1]

That was great!

I will work with these for my response:

Evidence for the existence of God as personality:
1. An articulated form. Any notion of personality in the ordinary sense (I would argue) must be paired with a kind of body. God of course can also be beyond this form, but as with any other personality, some form would be necessary to God as personality.
2. A divine signature. One would expect such a mighty work as creation to leave traces of its maker, if that maker also has a personality. Every great artist leaves a signature.
3. A single biographical arc, or story line.
4. A single integrated, unitary personality.

1. An articulated form, does not have to be a form that we currently understand, yet do sense, yes? The little voice in our minds that we constantly communicate with...what is it? Consciousness? Us babbling at ourselves? Random thoughts? Then why do we often become angry with what it is telling us about our current state?

2. A divine signature...have you considered running PI on your computer? Be warned it will take a long long time to see a pattern. Years on a PC I suspect. Tell your computer to calculate PI to the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th
decimal point and, print the results while calculating PI, in Binary code...this is not infinity, but your computer's CPU would fail from overheating well before completing the task, and should you have enough printer paper and ink to see this through, you might be surprised at what you see just beginning to form...a perfect circle of 1. Tell your computer to calculate PI in three dimensions, and you find the resultant graphics to be the beginnings of a perfect sphere of 1s surrounded by 0s....It is the ultimate shape, and a nice signature.

3. A single biographical arc, or story line. Who's Gods? Or ours as a collective? Based on the number of "religions" that have come and gone, and are here today, man has never considered that there is no God, until recently...Aeithism, is a "relatively" new concept. Though Humanism is not (grant you that).

4. A single integrated, unitary personality. Humans don't have integrated, unitary personalities...why should a God have one? Perfect integration perhaps? The problem with this line of thinking is that we attempt to place "God" within the confines of human existence. In otherwords, we put our limitations and expectations on our concept of God.

But I submit to you that we can't even step back into yesterday (even to observe). Yet the Concept of "God" is above time as we know it. Therefore our "rules" for determining the non existence of God begin to break down.

In short Devadatta, we hobble ourselves, in order to show lack of evidence for the existence of God, which in turn, makes our point mute and contradictory. "Catch 22".

v/r

Q

 

[Devadatta]

1. An articulated form, does not have to be a form that we currently understand, yet do sense, yes?

I'm not sure if my replies will satisfy your objections. Like Juantoo3, you appear to assume that I'm offering evidence for the non-existence of God in a much larger sense than I intended. I tried my best to point out that I'm only taking about the idea of God as a quasi-human personality, not about God in a more abstract, sophisticated or absolute sense. Anyway, I'll assume it's my faulty expression and carry on the best I can!

Now, when I talked about the universe being "formless" it was in the context of lacking a form we can reasonably relate to notions of a personal God. Whether in the final analysis the universe is formless, or whether it turns out to have a vast & at present inconceivable form may have something to do with the notion of God in the absloute, transcendent sense, but it has little to do with a belief in God as personality. We may experience this vast form you're talking about, but it doesn't follow that we necessarilly define this experience as an encounter with a personal God.

The little voice in our minds that we constantly communicate with...what is it? Consciousness? Us babbling at ourselves? Random thoughts? Then why do we often become angry with what it is telling us about our current state?

I hate to fall back on mere psychology, but voices in our head obviously don't require metaphysical explanations.

2. A divine signature...have you considered running PI on your computer? Be warned it will take a long long time to see a pattern. Years on a PC I suspect. Tell your computer to calculate PI to the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th
decimal point and, print the results while calculating PI, in Binary code...this is not infinity, but your computer's CPU would fail from overheating well before completing the task, and should you have enough printer paper and ink to see this through, you might be surprised at what you see just beginning to form...a perfect circle of 1. Tell your computer to calculate PI in three dimensions, and you find the resultant graphics to be the beginnings of a perfect sphere of 1s surrounded by 0s....It is the ultimate shape, and a nice signature.

Way cool, Q. I remember reading a science fiction story, called something like the Million Names of God. I realize now the writer was probably stealing from Jewish mysticism, but the idea was this super computer would go through all possible combinations of the Hebrew alphabet (which those Kabbalah dudes do for fun, I'm told) to form all the secret names of God; once it finished poof! the universe disappears!

On the other hand: cool story, but no sale! Nature generates fantastic patterns every day, and much closer at hand.

3. A single biographical arc, or story line. Who's Gods? Or ours as a collective? Based on the number of "religions" that have come and gone, and are here today, man has never considered that there is no God, until recently...Aeithism, is a "relatively" new concept. Though Humanism is not (grant you that).

I'm not sure what your point is here, except that while the story of God has varied among different peoples, every people has had one to tell. And I agree that where there's smoke there's fire; there is a reality which I would not complain about anyone calling God. But again my evidence was against the literal idea of a god of a single identifiable personality, who acts in history, as is maintained for example in the Abrahamic tradition. (Notice I said evidence against the literal idea in the Abrahamic tradition, not against the tradition itself.)

As for atheism, I think good points have been made on that topic in previous threads. I think of it as a reactive formation, making a point about religion itself from a variety of motivations. I mean, why else even make the annoncement? I think the greatest fault of atheism is to fixate on logic and ignore the experience. I happen to think that the logic of religion is usually suspect, but the best of it, the core experience, is real.

4. A single integrated, unitary personality. Humans don't have integrated, unitary personalities...why should a God have one? Perfect integration perhaps? The problem with this line of thinking is that we attempt to place "God" within the confines of human existence. In otherwords, we put our limitations and expectations on our concept of God.).

Presto! Chango! This is exactly what I have been saying. The personality we project onto God has its uses, it fits into our narratives, is an aid to morality perhaps, but is finally too small and too simple to do justice to its referent, God in the inconceivable absolute.

But I submit to you that we can't even step back into yesterday (even to observe). Yet the Concept of "God" is above time as we know it. Therefore our "rules" for determining the non existence of God begin to break down.

Again, let me remind you that I was not offering evidence nor rules for determing the non-existence of God. In fact, I was saying almost precisely what you're saying here, but applied to the idea of "rules" for determining God as a "personality". Those rules break down because they are based on the faulty analogy between human personality, and the personality we like to imagine of God. Monotheism is famously not supposed to be anthropomorphic, but here I think we have a residual anthropomorphism.

In short Devadatta, we hobble ourselves, in order to show lack of evidence for the existence of God, which in turn, makes our point mute and contradictory. "Catch 22"..

You seem to be saying that here I'm creating an obstruction to the experience of God by applying human, all-too-human categories to disprove his/her existence. Now I hope you understand that I was proceeding quite otherwise. I was providing evidence for the idea that our human, all-too-human projections of personality on God, when these projections are taken literally, are truly the obstructions that keeps us from the experience of God.

Anyway, I think the real distinction between our points of view isn't touched on here. In a thread on the previous page, I tried to make what think is the true distinction between us. I'll paste it below for your review.

Thanks for coming back at me, and the cool parts of your reply.

A basic distinction in religious attitudes:

1. The theistic, metaphysical, absolutist path which creates articulated steps between, and includes theories of emanation, incarnation, the personhod of God, Divine Will, the trinity of Christianity, the ten sefirot of the Kabbalah, - but the variety is endless.
2. The non-theistic, anti-metaphysical, pluralist path which is experiential, relying on direct approaches between the individual and the absolute, and which is represented by various types of yoga, Buddhism, Santana Dharma (Hinduism) at its core, and by the mystical strands of all traditions.

I more than lean toward Door #2, which is why I've presented the kind of evidence I have, but I don't oppose Door #1 as a path for others, and in fact in the all over scheme these are complementary realities, always implicated one with the other and never appearing in a pure form. (And again, my evidence is presented against a literal belief in the personality of God, not against the deployment of the idea within a spiritual tradition.)

 

[Quahom1]

Guess Dev, I gotta get back to ya, since I have no intention of using religion against ya ...but I do see something seriously wrong with your arguement.


I guess I have to figure how to word it...

 

[Devadatta]

Kindest Regards again, Devadatta!

BTW, I am really enjoying the discourse between you and Vaj on the other thread, one more reason I chose to post here rather than there, so as not to disrupt that conversation.


I think I understand, you are supposing that God, as in "Big Beard" or "Big Tits" in the sky (thanks, bb!), does not exist. And to that I have agreed. God, in my mind, is masculine and feminine, neither and both. Truly paradox. And I have no problem understanding "Him" in that context. And I stand by my earlier statements, in that your arguments against a "personality" are actually moot and do not serve the purpose of either evidence or proof. Is it not possible we do not understand how to read the signs? I know I do not know. Are you telling me you do, and don't see them? I mean, proving a negative is admittedly difficult. But even then the "evidence" should at least be consistent with the argument. What I see, and have for years in the discussion, is circumstantial on both sides. Because "science" cannot "see" God, does not mean God does not exist. As to whether or not God has a personality, in the traditional sense, I cannot say, because I have not had the direct pleasure of His company. My little pea-brained self stands in awe of His presence. To dare ascribe something as meaningless as personality to something so "awe-full" and "awe-inspiring" is truly beyond what I dare. Maybe He does, maybe He doesn't. All I know, in what scanty little I understand within my little pea-brain, is that it doesn't matter. What does matter, is that He IS.Thank you for your posts. You have been a great sport through all of this discussion.

Again, I think you may be a little quick to dismiss my points and perhaps you still misunderstand my intent, just a little. But it may have been my faulty expression, as I've said in a reply I've just made to Q. If you like, you can have a look at that, since it deals with a similar divergeance.

Just to add one thing: my intent was to focus narrowly on this idea of God as a specific personality active in history and who is thought to have particular aims, requirements, and so on, much like a human personality. The whole aim was to show the inadequacy of this notion, taken literally. All my points were designed to that end. I was not saying "the universe is formless, therefore there is no God". I was saying that the personality theory of God is anthropomorphic and unsuccessfully imposes anthropomorphic forms on the universe, which as you rightly point out is likely more subtle in its formations.

It seemed to me that it's only ideas of God in this sense that are ever truly in question. I have no problem with going off impressionistically, elaborating and speculating on our more grand notions of God and her mystery; it's fun and instrucive up to a point. But at that stratospheric level we're really all in fundamental agreement, so what's to discuss?

Anyway, that was my idea. Maybe it was too pointy-headed. Didn't sell! The drift of the thread has gone otherwise. No worries.

Thanks for the interesting reads.

Cheers.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Devadatta,


that is the primary reason why i've not been able to participate in this thread. without some sort of qualifications or objects which my consciousness can relate to, there is nothing to be discussed, from my point of view.

and, of course, that one cannot offer positive evidence for a negative claim.

an aside... did you know that George Lucas considers himself a "methodist/buddhist"? his idea for the "force" was inspiried by a conversation with Joseph Campbell concerning the broad and open eastern Dharma traditions.

metta,

~v

 

[Devadatta]

an aside... did you know that George Lucas considers himself a "methodist/buddhist"? his idea for the "force" was inspiried by a conversation with Joseph Campbell concerning the broad and open eastern Dharma traditions.

Yah, I've heard that. Of course, if you've see George Lucas interviewed you'll notice that he takes himself a little too seriously - the downside of talking to Joseph Campbell. As an aside from this end, I very much like Mr. Campbell. He may be considered no more than a popularizer of Jung and others, but he writes very well, is a very appealing character and I think he was essentially right about how we should view the history of mythology, religion and symbolic forms.

Cheers.

 

[earl]

I'm not sure if my replies will satisfy your objections. Like Juantoo3, you appear to assume that I'm offering evidence for the non-existence of God in a much larger sense than I intended. I tried my best to point out that I'm only taking about the idea of God as a quasi-human personality, not about God in a more abstract, sophisticated or absolute sense. Anyway, I'll assume it's my faulty expression and carry on the best I can!

Now, when I talked about the universe being "formless" it was in the context of lacking a form we can reasonably relate to notions of a personal God. Whether in the final analysis the universe is formless, or whether it turns out to have a vast & at present inconceivable form may have something to do with the notion of God in the absloute, transcendent sense, but it has little to do with a belief in God as personality. We may experience this vast form you're talking about, but it doesn't follow that we necessarilly define this experience as an encounter with a personal God.



I hate to fall back on mere psychology, but voices in our head obviously don't require metaphysical explanations.



Way cool, Q. I remember reading a science fiction story, called something like the Million Names of God. I realize now the writer was probably stealing from Jewish mysticism, but the idea was this super computer would go through all possible combinations of the Hebrew alphabet (which those Kabbalah dudes do for fun, I'm told) to form all the secret names of God; once it finished poof! the universe disappears!

On the other hand: cool story, but no sale! Nature generates fantastic patterns every day, and much closer at hand.



I'm not sure what your point is here, except that while the story of God has varied among different peoples, every people has had one to tell. And I agree that where there's smoke there's fire; there is a reality which I would not complain about anyone calling God. But again my evidence was against the literal idea of a god of a single identifiable personality, who acts in history, as is maintained for example in the Abrahamic tradition. (Notice I said evidence against the literal idea in the Abrahamic tradition, not against the tradition itself.)

As for atheism, I think good points have been made on that topic in previous threads. I think of it as a reactive formation, making a point about religion itself from a variety of motivations. I mean, why else even make the annoncement? I think the greatest fault of atheism is to fixate on logic and ignore the experience. I happen to think that the logic of religion is usually suspect, but the best of it, the core experience, is real.



Presto! Chango! This is exactly what I have been saying. The personality we project onto God has its uses, it fits into our narratives, is an aid to morality perhaps, but is finally too small and too simple to do justice to its referent, God in the inconceivable absolute.



Again, let me remind you that I was not offering evidence nor rules for determing the non-existence of God. In fact, I was saying almost precisely what you're saying here, but applied to the idea of "rules" for determining God as a "personality". Those rules break down because they are based on the faulty analogy between human personality, and the personality we like to imagine of God. Monotheism is famously not supposed to be anthropomorphic, but here I think we have a residual anthropomorphism.



You seem to be saying that here I'm creating an obstruction to the experience of God by applying human, all-too-human categories to disprove his/her existence. Now I hope you understand that I was proceeding quite otherwise. I was providing evidence for the idea that our human, all-too-human projections of personality on God, when these projections are taken literally, are truly the obstructions that keeps us from the experience of God.

Anyway, I think the real distinction between our points of view isn't touched on here. In a thread on the previous page, I tried to make what think is the true distinction between us. I'll paste it below for your review.

Thanks for coming back at me, and the cool parts of your reply.

A basic distinction in religious attitudes:

1. The theistic, metaphysical, absolutist path which creates articulated steps between, and includes theories of emanation, incarnation, the personhod of God, Divine Will, the trinity of Christianity, the ten sefirot of the Kabbalah, - but the variety is endless.
2. The non-theistic, anti-metaphysical, pluralist path which is experiential, relying on direct approaches between the individual and the absolute, and which is represented by various types of yoga, Buddhism, Santana Dharma (Hinduism) at its core, and by the mystical strands of all traditions.

I more than lean toward Door #2, which is why I've presented the kind of evidence I have, but I don't oppose Door #1 as a path for others, and in fact in the all over scheme these are complementary realities, always implicated one with the other and never appearing in a pure form. (And again, my evidence is presented against a literal belief in the personality of God, not against the deployment of the idea within a spiritual tradition.)

Hi, D, interesting point re atheism as "reaction formation," which I believe has some truth to it. Point made me think about looking through a decade old book of mine by that great philosopher of spirituality, Sam Keen-his book, "Hymns to an Unknown God." He stated in this he thought we did not enough to be either thesits or atheisits, but he states that "the Unknown God for whom I search-the principle of unity-is not absent, only hiding in the substance of things." He describes his philosophy as "agnosticism with trust," meaning "I choose to trust the surrounding mystery out of which I emerged and into which I disappear at death and to rest secure within the darkness of the unknowable One." Frankly, his writings here re his "faithful agnosticism," darn nearly indentical with my form of apophaticism. He's basically in thhis book speaking quite poetically on behalf of a llosely held belief in Spirit as outs is in lovely format: "To hope we must know that we cannot know the limits of Ever-Creating Power that has, is and will bring all that is into being. And beyond that, we must trust that the inexhaustible mystery we touch when we discover our soul-spirit-freedom-capacity-to-transcend provides our best clue to the nature of Being. The question of God is not the question of the existence of some remote infinite being. It is the question of the possibility of hope. The affirmation of faith in God is the acknowledgment that there is a deathless source of power and meaning that can be trusted to nurture and preserve all created good. To deny God is equivalent to denying any ground for hope. Hope begins with the realization that human expereince is finally inadequate to deal with all the possibilities reality harbors."

Did offer in that bok some useful guidelines as to beliefs however: 1)question authority, 2) gather and evaluate evidence, 3) subject all hearsay evidence to cross-examination, 4) be internally consistent, (uses for eg here notion that would be inconsistent would be to say all beings created in image of God/love thy neighbor, while espousing various forms of judgmental denigration of various human beings), 5) check to see if your core beliefs are consistent with known facts, 6) strive for coherence, 7) prefer simplicity in belief structure-here he warns against "cluttering up" your mind with an over-growth of many beliefs into complicated mental picture, 8) respect complexity-meaning at same time, don't fall into oversimplified trap of "either-or" thinking, 9) engage in respectful deliberation, dialogue, and communion-I mthink we do a pretty good job of that here, 10) submit your beliefs to the test of moral action & requirement of compassion, & 11) hold your beliefs in open, flexible, light-hearted manner. The latter tends to be my most important personal guideline & this is where my "zen" side grounds me-when I get way too caught up in my hobby of imaginative speculation of things metaphysical, begin to lose touch with what's right in front of me ( start to drive myself-or others- nuts with conceptual stuff) -zen reminds me life is all about "just this, just now." Then I breathe my sigh of relief and smile. Take care, Earl

 

[Devadatta]

Sam Keen-his book, "Hymns to an Unknown God." He stated in this he thought we did not enough to be either thesits or atheisits, but he states that "the Unknown God for whom I search-the principle of unity-is not absent, only hiding in the substance of things." He describes his philosophy as "agnosticism with trust,"

Not a bad phrase. Sounds like a sensible dude.

You know, while I think you have more taste than I do for various metaphysical wrinkles (maybe because you have a stronger Christian streak?), I think that our respective heresies may have the same ultimate base: optimism. I don't know about you but even when I'm under some terrible stress, undergoing difficulty or depressed, I never quite lose the sense of the extraordinary nature of things, or the inconceivable fact than anything exists at all, never mind the manifest wonders spread before us. And when my own particular eddy in the stream feels in sync with the rest, and all is merry & bright, as Henry Miller used to say, what's to complain about?

So while I recognize the intent, application and even indispensability of ideas like Original Sin, or the stern formulations of the Four Noble Truths, I'm much more naturally inclined to, say, the Gospel of Thomas, when it has Jesus saying: The Kingdom of God is spread out before them, and they do not see it.

And you know as well as I that there are lots of formulations that make essentially the same point in both traditions, in the Mahayana & Zen and among the Christians mystics. They all skirt heresy according to the more orthodox, ideologically driven or nervous on all sides - and to me that's a sheer sign of being close to the truth.

Cheers.

 

[earl]

Yes, D, I'm "theistic" in my own unique way in that to me "theistic" implies in some undefinable way a certain "sentience, purpose, "direction," meaning, if you will, to this thing we call life/death. So, I guess if I tried to depict my position graphically, if we had a continuum with clearly defined, "doctrinal," theistic concepts on end and atheisim at the other, perhaps it would look like this:

theism..........me( )............atheism

I think of Keen's "faithful agnosticsim" as generally being that open space( )
openings are the only places you will find growth, mystery, novelty, change, true "knowledge'-i.e., stuff you don't know yet. Whenever I find myself drifting too far to the left-or, i suppose, "God" forbid it ever happen, too far to the right, remind myself to scoot my little butt zen-like snug back up against that glorious "Middle Way." Sorry for taking name in vein as it were, Vajradhara. Maybe someday, will even hold to the middle if Ican manage not to hold too firmly. Take care, Earl

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, earl!

Thank you for your response! I wanted to be sure you did not feel I was ignoring you, but I am quite overwhelmed on a number of levels. Not least your response,

Don't have to worry about losing a "personality"... who we take ourselves to be. "I'm a this, not a that,etc."

OK, I'm trying to follow...

The Buddhist path is in part about discovering that none of those parts of what you take to be "you" is definitive of you and further on the meditative journey as a result of changes in perception and accompanying emoptional reactivity, we find ourselves less pushed about by our less noble impulses-what hesychastic Christians called the "passions."

I think I followed pretty well up until "what you take to be 'you' is definitive of you," after which, frankly, I got lost. It sounds to me like not taking ourselves too seriously, not letting the naysayers convince us we cannot.

We become more truly ourselves in that we then tend to live lives of less fear, hostility, and craving-so much of our behaviors as we get to know ourselves we discover is motivated/based in such things.

I think I generally agree.

Ultimately, we learn to stop creating self "concepts" altogether.

OK, if I am following, when we learn to overcome our mental shackles, we can grow.

Buddhism has a well-developed ethical system;

I did not in any manner mean to imply Buddhism does not have an ethical system. I believe Buddhism to have a very well-defined ethical system. Which is why I knew that the words and the meaning of those words to me conflicted with my understanding. Even so, I still have trouble fully grasping the concept that "every action is good" (or something like that).

but from the Buddhist sense of overcoming self then-or to be enlightened-implies that one is acting with great wisdom and compassion and if one isn't in that moment one definitionally is acting from some as yet "self-based" view.

Very well, I think I see where you are coming from. Of course, if I understand correctly, one needn't be Buddhist to be acting with great wisdom and compassion.

Their are plenty of "individual" characters in Zen lore.

I am unlearned in Buddhism, I know next to nothing. I know even less of Zen.

As to that "force" thing-sounds kinda Star Wars doesn't it? But that's not what I meant by that. Just that I can't refer to "Buddha Mind/enlightenment as a "thing" or entity. Then again I obviously think it's a mistake to think of "God" that way, too.

OK. If I recall correctly, I believe that point of the conversation had something to do with spirit communing (my words here). To which I expressed my reservations.

Anyway, just thought I'd give you a bit more info to clarify that part of the Buddhist thing I was getting at. Have a good one, Earl

Thank you very much for the effort, earl! I realize I have a long way to go to understand Buddhism. You, Vajradhara and Devadatta have all gone a long way to helping me understand, but there are some bridges I am as of yet unwilling to cross. I suppose that is just my "self." Even so, I appreciate the effort. With time and patience, perhaps I will get it figured out.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


i was thinking about this last night... and i thought that perhaps i could try another explanation for the Buddhist view of self.

by and large (and i am being somewhat loose and general) what Buddhism is refering to as the "self" is what most western hemisphere beings would call the "ego".

thus, becoming "self-less" in Buddhism is, in a sense, becoming "ego-less".

perhaps that helps?

metta,
~v

 

[earl]

Juantoo-I sometimes use the term "mistaken identity" for the "self" in Buddhism. Self concepts are comprised of sets of various beliefs we have about ourself and how it is in relationship to an other. So, for eg whether we think of ourselves in glowing terms or dark ones, we define ourselves by concepts re who we think we are. Now, just for the next 5 minutes, take note: what different thoughts go through your head? what different feelings or sensations? How long do they last? what do they change into? Now, what is the "essence" of you that remains forever unchanged? Can't be thoughts, they're always changing. Can't be feelings, they're always changing. Mistaken identity is hanging onto beliefs re who we are that are built up of shifting sand, thus the old standard useful zen koanic question to ask oneself,"Who" is experiencing right now? Generally, speaking our less noble impulses come out of this knot of mistaken identity. So, when Buddhists traditionally speak of enlightened behavior, they are speaking of one who has seen through/overcome that knot of self and, by doing so, largely transcended these ignoble impulses. The well developed Buddhist ethical system exists as guidelines for those 99.9999% of us who haven't gotten to the point of being able to naturally behave with the ethical impeccability of a Buddha. As for "communing with the Spirit," Buddhist don't generally put it in those terms. Rather, they might say that enlightened individuals are simply manifesting Reality in each word and deed. Hope this is somewhat clarifying, Earl

 

[Devadatta]

Juantoo-I sometimes use the term "mistaken identity" for the "self" in Buddhism. Self concepts are comprised of sets of various beliefs we have about ourself and how it is in relationship to an other. So, for eg whether we think of ourselves in glowing terms or dark ones, we define ourselves by concepts re who we think we are. Now, just for the next 5 minutes, take note: what different thoughts go through your head? what different feelings or sensations? How long do they last? what do they change into? Now, what is the "essence" of you that remains forever unchanged? Can't be thoughts, they're always changing. Can't be feelings, they're always changing. Mistaken identity is hanging onto beliefs re who we are that are built up of shifting sand, thus the old standard useful zen koanic question to ask oneself,"Who" is experiencing right now? Generally, speaking our less noble impulses come out of this knot of mistaken identity. So, when Buddhists traditionally speak of enlightened behavior, they are speaking of one who has seen through/overcome that knot of self and, by doing so, largely transcended these ignoble impulses. The well developed Buddhist ethical system exists as guidelines for those 99.9999% of us who haven't gotten to the point of being able to naturally behave with the ethical impeccability of a Buddha. As for "communing with the Spirit," Buddhist don't generally put it in those terms. Rather, they might say that enlightened individuals are simply manifesting Reality in each word and deed. Hope this is somewhat clarifying, Earl

Some skillful teaching, Earl.

Cheers.

 

[earl]

OK-now thought I'd do a "scandalous" riff on the skandas-where my imaginative, heretical quasi-theistic bent comes to play. in Buddhist thinking a "person" is mage up of aggregate parts called skandhas-matter, feeling or sensation, perception, thoughts, and consciousness. Buddhism asserts that these formations come into play and change with changing causes and conditions; being impermanent, and not independent of these causes & conditions they do not "ultimately exist," then as an independent entity. Further, it is usually those skandhas that create our sense of "self." Bit like peeling back the layers of an onion-this part relates to that part, etc. til we get to the core of an empty/fullness that is ineffable. There there seems to be a no-thing-ness in which things are "created" in almost ex nihlo fashion, (a sentient watcher underneath and within all those layers) though here Buddhism merely asserts the stopgap karmic cycles of causes & conditions. That may somewhat describe the why, but no more really a fulfilling explanation than standard theistic ones that proclaim creation ex nihlo from an unfathomable God. In both cases the finger of logic points back to an "openness" of Mystery that may be accessible to the intuitive power of an awakened mind, but certainly otherwise is ungraspable. It has always fascinated me that this no-thing-ness at the core of us seems to bear certain existential, ontological similarities to the unknown God of apophatic mysticism some try to know. Well enough riffing for now. Take care, Earl

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for your post.

i was thinking about this last night... and i thought that perhaps i could try another explanation for the Buddhist view of self.

by and large (and i am being somewhat loose and general) what Buddhism is refering to as the "self" is what most western hemisphere beings would call the "ego".

thus, becoming "self-less" in Buddhism is, in a sense, becoming "ego-less".

perhaps that helps?

I'm afraid it doesn't really help. As I recall, beginning on one of the first pages of my psych 101 course is Freud's use of the term "ego," in conjunction with the terms "super-ego" and "id." Which, in rather general terms, compose the personality. Ego specifically, is that part of the personality we allow others to see. I recall having this discussion with the prof, in that the manner in which I see the term used outside of psych is not consistent with Freud.

In my experience, "ego" seems to be used like a club or curse word by certain individuals. "You egoist brute!" Which is really funny to me, in that it is another's ego expressing such things. In other words, it seems to me one of the ultimate "pot calling the kettle black" scenarios I can think of. Not only does every person have an ego/personality, but to ridicule someone for having one is, how can I say politely?...not very educated.

Perhaps this is where and why I struggle with this, in that I very much equate ego with personality, therefore to do away with it is not only impossible (for a healthy individual), if it could be done it would leave a "vegetative-like" personality (no offense to anyone).

Now, I have no problem with some of the things earl pointed to, what I might be more inclined to call something like "healthy thinking." It is correct that self-defeating thoughts in our internal dialogue can conquer us before we begin. So in that regard I agree, that to box ourselves with thoughts like "I am dumb, I am ugly, I am clumsy, I am lonely," can make us conform to an unreality, which would then create a new reality for us. We make ourselves dumb, etc., in order to "live down to" our unhealthy thoughts.

The converse of this is that we can also lift ourselves with "self-appreciating" thoughts, not in the sense of untoward pride, but in believing in our abilities and potential. Overcoming fear is a big step in this direction, because with fear we are afraid to even begin to try. When we overcome fear, we at least make the attempt. Then, if we fail (still without fear), we examine our failure to figure what went wrong and try again until we succeed. This is not doing away with ego as I understand it, it is rearranging it to a successful/wise paradigm.

I suspect in the end we are really saying the same thing, after reading the last few posts. Perhaps not, in which case I am willing to reconsider...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, earl!

I agree with Devadatta, this is a big step forward.

Juantoo-I sometimes use the term "mistaken identity" for the "self" in Buddhism. Self concepts are comprised of sets of various beliefs we have about ourself and how it is in relationship to an other. So, for eg whether we think of ourselves in glowing terms or dark ones, we define ourselves by concepts re who we think we are.

I believe I have no problem with this, as I explained in my previous post to Vajradhara. This describes what I understand as "internal dialogue" and how it affects our way of projecting our psyche out towards others through the use of personality.

what is the "essence" of you that remains forever unchanged? Can't be thoughts, they're always changing. Can't be feelings, they're always changing. Mistaken identity is hanging onto beliefs re who we are that are built up of shifting sand, thus the old standard useful zen koanic question to ask oneself,"Who" is experiencing right now?

I admit this is a very good question, to which I do not have a ready answer. My gut instinct is to respond "soul," but I am not quite sure that would be a correct answer.

Generally, speaking our less noble impulses come out of this knot of mistaken identity. So, when Buddhists traditionally speak of enlightened behavior, they are speaking of one who has seen through/overcome that knot of self and, by doing so, largely transcended these ignoble impulses.

Provided my interpretation across our different paradigms is anywhere close to correct, then I must agree with this concept.

The well developed Buddhist ethical system exists as guidelines for those 99.9999% of us who haven't gotten to the point of being able to naturally behave with the ethical impeccability of a Buddha.

A thought that occurred to me after I initially read this, is in the "divine within." As V explained "Namaste" being a salute to the divine within you, so too Christians seek to bring the divine within by "accepting Jesus 'to come into their lives'." I do think though, that at least in some of the fringe "spiritualists" I have read and heard, there is emphasis on inflating that divine within in order to essentially make themselves as gods. I do have great trouble with this aspect.

As for generally seeking the divine for understanding and guidance, that to me seems an inherent search, one we seem almost programmed to do. For some this is turned inward, for some this is turned outward, and some find a way to turn it off.

As for "communing with the Spirit," Buddhist don't generally put it in those terms. Rather, they might say that enlightened individuals are simply manifesting Reality in each word and deed. Hope this is somewhat clarifying, Earl

I am thinking we are on two completely different wavelengths with this. I can understand creating reality with word and deed, in effect Christianity even teaches the same. ("Do unto others...") What I was referring to with the "commune with spirit" comment really has no association with this concept, at least none I can readily draw from in my paradigm. I guess I need to return to my comment about "seeking." If I am guiding my life in a wise manner appropriate to "God," then I am "rewarded" with blessings (and obligations!) that if properly used lead to even greater rewards. God blesses those who apply themselves to His service.

My hesitance, is in purposely seeking these rewards (particularly at the exxpense of the obligations). If I go "looking" for a spirit guide, the one I get may not guide me correctly on the path, understanding that not all spirits are "good." Not only not good, but capable, especially to an untrained or inexperienced person, to masquerade as good when the reality is that spirit is not.

I am not sure this last part is clear, and I am a little uncomfortable even broaching the subject. But this in a nutshell is where I am at in this moment.

I know there is a line of thought among certain Christians of "let go, let God." For the very same reasons I just mentioned, I must disagree.

Thank you very sincerely. I think you do a great job in trying to bridge the gap between east and west in this. I am trying to understand. I am also comfortable in my paradigm, even though I know it has room to grow. Lots of room!

 

[earl]

Hi Juantoo. I'm panentheistic in orientation-God as very basis of our being and creation's being yet also beyond it. I remember reading somewhere recently that to deny God as being the very fabric of our being is to deny God's immanence while to deny God is also somehow outside of creation is to deny God's transcendence. Both to me make the most sense in a wonderfully paradoxical manner. Over-emphasis of either pole has its built-in dangers: denying immanence can induce an undue sense of estrangement from our very selves, believing we are not truly made in the image of God. Denying the transcendence of God can lead to very subtle ways of reinforcing our mundane limited sense of self when we have to in a way get over ourselves to both realize our deepest Being and find God, one of the advantages of a devotional form of spiritual practice. I like Meister Eckhart's quote about how his "isness" is "God's isness," speaking to how the very essence of his Being is in some way part of the isness of God- why I say we of course are not God, nor are we other than God, another fruitful paradox. Take care, Earl

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, earl!

I'm panentheistic in orientation-God as very basis of our being and creation's being yet also beyond it. I remember reading somewhere recently that to deny God as being the very fabric of our being is to deny God's immanence while to deny God is also somehow outside of creation is to deny God's transcendence. Both to me make the most sense in a wonderfully paradoxical manner. Over-emphasis of either pole has its built-in dangers: denying immanence can induce an undue sense of estrangement from our very selves, believing we are not truly made in the image of God. Denying the transcendence of God can lead to very subtle ways of reinforcing our mundane limited sense of self when we have to in a way get over ourselves to both realize our deepest Being and find God, one of the advantages of a devotional form of spiritual practice. I like Meister Eckhart's quote about how his "isness" is "God's isness," speaking to how the very essence of his Being is in some way part of the isness of God- why I say we of course are not God, nor are we other than God, another fruitful paradox.

I guess I haven't gone so far as to fully understand certain terminology in this regard. I have heard the term "panentheism" before, but you are the first to offer explanation. In some deep way I think I understand and agree, but I am not learned enough to converse intelligently on this. I believe this was particularly in response to my comment about "elevating" that piece of God within. Which I still stand by. There are a great many people out there that seek diligently and sincerely. You seem like one to me. There are others that pick and choose what seems good for a moment, and run off in all kinds of crazy directions making things up as they go. I have a problem with that. They may believe what they will, but frankly I think they are barking up the wrong tree. Misinterpretations abound, usually in cohort with some brand of self-righteousness. I am sure you have encountered the prophet (for profit?) syndrome in the course of your studies?