Santa V God

[seattlegal]

Well, I wasn’t suggesting one or the other. I was suggesting one might usefully use both. And perhaps one can also have ciabatta and mozzarella. Each one is a legitimate ingredient. The more the viewpoints the more "solid" the hologram we linguistically label as “reality.” Pass the Barolo.

s.

Are you sure it's safe to pass the Barolo? {Has enough time passed since the Borolo Wars that we won't risk starting a new Borolo War, which will then start a movement to stamp out Borolo because someone will declare Borolo to be the root of all the evil in the world?}

 

[Snoopy]

The ultimate void is lack of an afterlife. Not all religions address the afterlife in any kind of detail. Judaism for one. Basic Buddhism doesn't really address it either. Nirvana is attained in this life.

I do enjoy reading your posts Netti-Netti . Just wanted to add a little two pence worth here.

"Basic Buddhism" (the Pali Canon?) seems to have quite a lot to say about Nibbana, doesn't it?

Yes, it is to be attained in this life I think, as per the Pali Canon, as long as one is a monk in this life?

"Void" sounds rather nihilistic I think, in reference to Nibbana ("peaceful, sublime, wonderful, amazing, a state of supreme happiness, peace and freedom" - Bhikkhu Bodhi).

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Are you sure it's safe to pass the Barolo? {Has enough time passed since the Borolo Wars that we won't risk starting a new Borolo War, which will then start a movement to stamp out Borolo because someone will declare Borolo to be the root of all the evil in the world?}

I'm selflessly prepared to offer myself as an arbitration service to both sides; and am willing to accept ongoing samples as part of the service, to ensure no redemption of hostilities.

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Are you sure this process cannot be enhanced by nurturing?

Of course it can.

I had heard of the concept of God as a child, and I had heard of the concept of atheism as a child. However, I received no conditioning towards God belief as a child, but did receive conditioning towards atheism via the scientific literature I read as a child. If I understand your hypothesis correctly, my childhood conditioning should have swung me towards atheism. However, I'm not an atheist.

Then you do not understand my hypothesis correctly. That relies on the overwhelming cultural acceptance of belief. If you had grown up in a, (non-existent), culture where 99% of people were atheistic and the remaining 1% were viewed as misguided and delusional then it is highly unlikely you would become religious.

Why? Because you declare it to be so? How closely have you observed children without your blinders? {Apparently not enough to be able to even recognize the idioglossia phenomenon. (I didn't know the proper name for this phenomenon until I googled it, but I have observed children enough to be able to recognize and identify the phenomena through my observations.)}

I have observed my children very closely and recognised them and aided them in reaching milestones of development that put both of them at the top of their classes.

Ginny and Gracie:
...the twins' private communication has turned out to be something less than a true invented language. Linguists Meier and Newport now call Gracie and Ginny's speech "deformed English." What had seemed to be a vocabulary of hundreds of new words, when slowed down and analyzed on tape recordings proved to be about 50 complex mispronounced words and phrases jammed together and said at high speed...

These two children were actually the victims of abuse by neglect and as there were two of them they were able to compensate by developing their own way to communicate. But their very limited vocabulary was built upon the mixture of English and German they had picked up from their family. Likewise other cases of this usually involve twins. The development of speech in the child has been very well studied and there are no examples that I have ever come across that show one to have developed a proper language with a distinct syntax.

tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Well no-one makes you start them do they, ya loony???!!!


s.

lol....no they dont.

Leads me to ask.. on a site dedicated to comparative religion is "no religion" a valid view to present here?

tao

 

[Snoopy]

Re: Tao V the World

There are several parapsichiatric issues relating to this.

Personally, I wouldn’t be holding up psychiatry as a model of “objective” science.

On Being Sane in Insane Places -- Rosenhan 179 (4070): 250 -- Science

Ritual is a vital aspect of the conditioning. Whether it be Buddhist meditations, Catholic bead counting, or Evangelical speaking in tounges a high degree of ritual behaviour serves to re-inforce and give structural legitimacy.

Buddhist meditation has been shown to cause changes in the brain. But guess what, that needn’t be relevant.

He emphasizes that with the advance of Westernized scientific endeavour such phenomena have been rejected and ridiculed as the defective beliefs of the 'primitives’.

Again, just my personal take here, I don’t necessarily put much or any credence in the fact that the “advance of Westernized scientific endeavour such phenomena have been rejected and ridiculed as the defective beliefs of the 'primitives’ "; what arrogance. I’m not anti-science, I just don’t think it’s the be all and end all of looking at and living in the world.

This deals with what spirituality actually is. Pseudohallucination.

Can't imagine why you might cause offence.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Leads me to ask.. on a site dedicated to comparative religion is "no religion" a valid view to present here?

Well you've not been shown the door have you?

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Re: Tao V the World

Personally, I wouldn’t be holding up psychiatry as a model of “objective” science.



s.

I agree when it comes down to treatment. But in the study of how and why people think as they do there has been a lot of good work done. We have touched on other threads about the increasing use of drugs to modify behaviour and my feeling is that no drug has yet been developed that is of help to a patient. Though some for controlling violent behaviour, for example, help everybody else.

tao

 

[Netti-Netti]

To the extent that the same kinds of religious imagery has historically shown up in cultures that are far removed from each other, one might reasonably conclude that the underlying archetypes are functionally independent of social environment and logically orthogonal to cultural reinforcement, social norms and habits or doctrinal belief systems.

Or are drawn from universal principles.

According to Carl Jung, what we see is an expression of "universal dispositions," which can be easily mistaken for a cultural inheritance.

You might be interested in Dr Anthony Stevens. He has written numerous books along neo-Jungian lines with titles like Archetypes: A Natural History of the Self and The Two Million-Year-Old Self.

Here's an abstract for an article entitled Thoughts on the Psychobiology of Religion and the Neurobiology of Archetypal Experience:

Abstract. There is good reason to suppose that religious belief and ritual are manifestations of the archetypal blueprint for human existence encoded in the genetic structure of our species. As a consequence, religion has become a focus of study for psychobiologists and neuroscientists. However, scientific explanations of religious experience do not "explain away" such experience nor are they substitutes for the experience itself. On the contrary, scientific discoveries may be seen as corroboration of religious insights into the unus mundus, the essential oneness of all experience, which links human nature with the nature of the cosmos.​

Blackwell Synergy - Zygon, Volume 21 Issue 1 Page 9-29, March 1986 (Article Abstract)​

If you like, a good way to dig up related article is to identify articles that cite the one you have and get authors' names and titles through Google Scholar

I suspect this is pretty obscure stuff, so there may not be much along these lines.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I do enjoy reading your posts Netti-Netti .

Hey, hey! Likewise.

"Basic Buddhism" (the Pali Canon?) seems to have quite a lot to say about Nibbana, doesn't it?

Yes, it is to be attained in this life I think, as per the Pali Canon, as long as one is a monk in this life?

I think some people become monks after they reach Nibbanna. Being a monk does not appear to be a prerequisite. I suspect there are many whose life circumstances do not allow them to live as monks, especially in Western cultures that do not value their holy men and women and do not support them.

"Void" sounds rather nihilistic I think, in reference to Nibbana ("peaceful, sublime, wonderful, amazing, a state of supreme happiness, peace and freedom" - Bhikkhu Bodhi).

The English translations of the Pali have been described as atrocious. To get the meaning, I think you have to cover a lot of territory rather than deal with individual passages.

 

[Netti-Netti]

This deals with what spirituality actually is.

Maybe we need to start with a definition of spirituality?

I very much doubt there are many who consider themselves spiritually inclined would equate their spirituality with an isolated mystical experience.

One could reasonably argue that the spiritual meaning of these experiences are developed in the course of the individual's life long after the experiences and that the meaning is an aspect of the person's spirituality as part of their experiential reality and motive force for their actions.

 

[Tao_Equus]

especially in Western cultures that do not value their holy men and women and do not support them.

Ohhh yeh the great cathedrals of Europe built themselves!!

Emphasis... glad you are coming round to agreeing with me on that one

tao

 

[Snoopy]

I think some people become monks after they reach Nibbanna. Being a monk does not appear to be a prerequisite. I suspect there are many whose life circumstances do not allow them to live as monks, especially in Western cultures that do not value their holy men and women and do not support them.

I just thought that was the "deal", so to speak (rather crudely), in the Hinayana way: the laity gain merit by giving alms and access to teachings and services from the monks (and hope to be reborn as monks); while the monks crack on with their studies and practice towards arahantship.

I'm hazy on the details. Hell, I'm hazy full stop.

s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

.... in the Hinayana way: the laity gain merit by giving alms and access to teachings and services from the monks (and hope to be reborn as monks); while the monks crack on with their studies and practice towards arahantship.

Maybe.

Descriptions I have seen of Nibbana typically emphasize detachment, impulse control, emotional and mental discipline, and conscientious living (right intention and right action). It is identified with the elimination of suffering by overcoming delusion, craving, attachment/aversion, and negative emotions

i.e. , absolute extinction of that life-affirming will manifested as Greed, Hate, Delusion, and convulsively clinging to existence, and therewith also the ultimate and absolute deliverance from all future rebirth, old age, disease and death, from all suffering and misery.

ww.triplegem.plus.com/glosary2.htm#N

To get back to your original question about Nibbana being attained in this life "as long as one is a monk in this life." There is nothing in the above description of Nibbana to suggest that it involves a career path as a monk.

As far as choice of occupation or means of livelihood, I have seen Buddhist injunctions on that but they are fairly general. They emphasize virtue and wholesome conduct, like honesty. Real basic.

Just a thought: If the practice of generosity was a component for reaching Nibbana for you, I would think you would probably seek new opportunities to be generous because that would probably be your path.

I can't see how being a monk would be a condition for realizing Nibbana. I also don't see it as a condition for "keeping" the state. Logically, how you can you "lose" the reality at hand - i.e., "unconditioned dhamma" or an aspect of everlasting and indestructible "amatadhatu" or deathless element?

Being a monk does not appear to be important in the Manjushri wisdom literature. The only reference I find to monks in Kunzan Pelden's text relates to foolish monks who chase after stones and whose status of being ordained means nothing.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I had heard of the concept of God as a child, and I had heard of the concept of atheism as a child. However, I received no conditioning towards God belief as a child, but did receive conditioning towards atheism via the scientific literature I read as a child. If I understand your hypothesis correctly, my childhood conditioning should have swung me towards atheism. However, I'm not an atheist.

Then you do not understand my hypothesis correctly. That relies on the overwhelming cultural acceptance of belief. If you had grown up in a, (non-existent), culture where 99% of people were atheistic and the remaining 1% were viewed as misguided and delusional then it is highly unlikely you would become religious.

I grew up in an overwhelmingly religious household. How did I get to where I am today? I think that I always wanted to feel that I was gifted and special. I wanted there to be something bigger that connected everything and made me important to the universe. Looking back, I was always constructing my own legend. I think that probably everyone wants to be cool and magical. Everyone wants to feel important that way. It's been the hardest thing for me to admit that it was just me pumping myself up all along. An intellectually mature person shouldn't need that kind of crutch.

I really did want it though. I was hoping I had some sort of magical powers. Just something small would be fine. I fancied myself some kind of shaman or something. I even thought I was channeling space dudes for a while. I had a conversion experience and became a Pentecostal for a while. It was all just cowboys and Indians, man. I just believed sh!t that I heard so long as it propped up the invention of myself that I was engaged in constructing.

That's my story.

Chris

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Chris,

Just as we build a house and furnish it for a combination of protection from the elements, safe comfortable retreat and utilitarian stability I think the tendency in people is to construct a mental building for the psyche. I think it entirely natural, a safe place is as important for the mind as the body.

As Paladin put it earlier in his Steve Harrison quote:

Unless we reside within a belief system, we cannot find the criteria for failure. A life without authority puts us in direct contact with the effect of our life, our actions, our thoughts and feelings. Without the screen of belief we have direct perception of the world in which we exist.

I cannot say what has led you to face the underlying truths but my guess would be disillusionment and an awareness that such deeply held beliefs can disintegrate in one paradigm then they are all unsafe. Not everybody has the mental attitude to go it alone, and I do not mean that with any condescension at all, and when a crisis of faith hits they do not say that faith does not work but that they have failed to pick the correct one or that their faith was incomplete. They blame themselves and this is no accident. Every faith starts with the premise that people are flawed imperfect creatures and has numerous structures to repeat/condition this concept. Whether it be original sin or a quest for enlightenment it is always stated we are incomplete. The realisation that we are complete and imperfect and that there is no outside agency is a difficult one for the psyche. 1000s of years of cultural conditioning have given us a well developed acceptance that we cannot help our imperfections except through submission to higher authority. Dropping that means taking away the safety net and abandoning the comfort that abdication of personal responsibility gives.

Life is random and has no sense of what is or is not fair or just. A tornado is just as likely to sweep up a child or pious man as a murderer or burglar. The imposition of the various phrases and sayings in the worlds religions attempt to bring solace and ulterior design rather than face the facts. The child is guaranteed a place in heaven as an 'innocent', the pious man has earned it and the murderer will burn for all eternity. It is a relic of our ancient ideas of supernatural causation still alive and well despite our elevated knowledge. It is easy for the individual to dismiss this as maybe having some vague truth or none but it is its deep effect on the psyche that our helplessness is somehow structured and for a reason that makes religious thought so attractive and compelling and enduring. And on a personal level it is not only harmless but often beneficial as a coping strategy. When institutionalised though it is too easily manipulated, by building up one credulous notion you pave the way for more. This is why original sin is at the very start, it is the foundation of religious thought. Break them down so you can build them up again as you want them. Religion is nothing but the selling of a product for the psyche.

tao

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Tao,

It pleases me that you were able to understand what I was thrashing toward. I don't know that I was ever disillusioned by or with religion. It's more that I became disillusioned with the craven nature of my own self-worth mechanisms. It's hard to look up your own skirt.

Chris

 

[Netti-Netti]

Religion is nothing but the selling of a product for the psyche.

Hello Tao,

As you know, market research is able to assess the effectiveness of marketing strategies.

You have observed that: "We force our young kids to believe in Santa by our lies and by a multiplicity of cultural reinforcements. Is not belief in God exactly the same thing? ....1000s of years of cultural conditioning have given us a well developed acceptance that we cannot help our imperfections except through submission to higher authority."

So, Tao, what data can you share that tells us something about the anthropological/cultural track record for the ongoing efforts to bamboozle the masses with religious fictions like peddling "human mythos" off as Divine Truth combined with "the imposition of structured or ritualised reinforcements of the power structures in every society" and the deliberate and systematic "religious indoctrination of successive generations"??

Given your emphasis on social learning and cultural transmission mechanisms, I would think that you'd expect the indoctrination and reinforcement efforts to have been highly successful -- if for no other reason than that they are so pervasive as to be the very fabric of social existence.

 

[seattlegal]

Then you do not understand my hypothesis correctly. That relies on the overwhelming cultural acceptance of belief. If you had grown up in a, (non-existent), culture where 99% of people were atheistic and the remaining 1% were viewed as misguided and delusional then it is highly unlikely you would become religious.

I dunno, Tao. I'd likely become part of the misguided religious counter-culture, if that were the case. {Or, perhaps a hermit. I'd most likely withdraw from society.}

 

[17th Angel]

Then you do not understand my hypothesis correctly. That relies on the overwhelming cultural acceptance of belief. If you had grown up in a, (non-existent), culture where 99% of people were atheistic and the remaining 1% were viewed as misguided and delusional then it is highly unlikely you would become religious.

Seeing, since mankind has been ere, religion has aslo been ere... I have a feeling this will stay as a hypothesis.