Why is it so difficult to leave religion?
Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.
-
- Working Associate
- Posts: 10645
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
- Contact:
I like Campbell's view on syncretism. God is beyond all categories of thought. Yet here we are discussing categories of thought! They are all lenses for focusing on the divine. Choose one!
Or discard them all and just be. That's also an option, no? Isn't that what the Buddha did?
Or discard them all and just be. That's also an option, no? Isn't that what the Buddha did?
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
Hi Clemsy. Well. I guess I got things hoppin' with my one small quote. In God is not Great, Hitchens takes a feeble and totally ridiculous swipe at Eastern Religion. I guess when he was young and impressionable, he fell for some guru thing and was unable to levitate or somethin' and was disillusioned.Neo, the whole question, and while I haven't read Hitchen's or Harris' books I have heard both of them speak on the topic, invariably concerns god as personal. Consideration of an impersonal god, however, is also considered, by some, atheism.
In the video of PoM, Joe talks about the observable green conciousness of the leaves on his porch tree in Hawaii. We are the conciousness of Gaia. All things are a manifestation of god.But human beings do have superb consciousnesses - that does not mean a flower does not have a pathetic one - at least by our lights.
Well, the Buddha may not have categorized his own beliefs, but he was definitely of the monistic persuasion.Clemsy wrote:I like Campbell's view on syncretism. God is beyond all categories of thought. Yet here we are discussing categories of thought! They are all lenses for focusing on the divine. Choose one!
Or discard them all and just be. That's also an option, no? Isn't that what the Buddha did?
Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
-
- Working Associate
- Posts: 10645
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
- Contact:
He didn't categorize his beliefs, but you just did! Good example of what happens to to religion. Before you know it we have flavors of Buddhism sprouting up.Cindy B. wrote:Well, the Buddha may not have categorized his own beliefs, but he was definitely of the monistic persuasion.Clemsy wrote:I like Campbell's view on syncretism. God is beyond all categories of thought. Yet here we are discussing categories of thought! They are all lenses for focusing on the divine. Choose one!
Or discard them all and just be. That's also an option, no? Isn't that what the Buddha did?
Cindy
I just found this:
Fascinating. The above link says four types. Another says five types. Another says three and another two. We can't even agree on how many flavors there are! (LINK)In our world today, there are at least four different types of Buddhism. The first type is the authentic Buddhism, the education of understanding the true face of life and the universe originally intended by Shakyamuni Buddha. Unfortunately, the authentic Buddha's education is rare nowadays, and difficult to encounter. The remaining types of Buddhism are more or less distortions of the original teachings. LINK
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
I thought I'd edit the quote with a little bit of context -Clemsy wrote:The consciousness of a flower is perfect, yes? Pathetic only if one consider's one species of consciousness better than another. Apples and oranges?that does not mean a flower does not have a pathetic one - at least by our lights.
But I don't disagree with your point - but, a major but - we could fall into the same trap as using 'pathetic' when using 'perfect'. The flower's consciousness ultimately just is.
I was trying to say the a flower likely does have a consciousness, although it is rudimentary compared to that of a human being. But then again by this argument, a rock also has consciousness. Back to the Is man part of nature? thread.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
I told you I can't tell the difference. If the words don't work for me...what's the point in the terms? I can always stick with Eckhart Tolle and say "Oneness of Being".You got it backwards, Neoplato: pantheism is monistic, and panentheism is dualistic. (The ontologies differ.) -Cindy
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
JJjonsjourney wrote:Gosh Rom....hopefully you did not consider that a poke at you personally! The point was that the free will thread is a current discussion that crosses into the consciousness debate, as well. If it came across as a poke, I do sincerely apologize, I really enjoy our exchanges and do not think we are polar figures here.Hey guys - I do occasionally look at other threads. -Rom
No not at all. It was me poking you guys. Trust me I won't get upset at a poke.
For future reference - if I am upset at something I will PM the person concerned or a mod.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
It's true--sometimes a picture--or a symbol--is worth a thousand words.Neoplato wrote:I told you I can't tell the difference. If the words don't work for me...what's the point in the terms? I can always stick with Eckhart Tolle and say "Oneness of Being".You got it backwards, Neoplato: pantheism is monistic, and panentheism is dualistic. (The ontologies differ.) -Cindy
Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
This conversation is great. I been silently following it and I know realize a bit more how the clockwork... works.
Clemsy, one question though about the word entropy and how exactly you are using it here. My guess is that once a certain system reaches its peak, also that is the point where the system becomes stagnant and that is where the change is needed or just happens?
Can we say that all these (entropies) we gone through in history are attempts to be transparent to the transcendent?
Clemsy, one question though about the word entropy and how exactly you are using it here. My guess is that once a certain system reaches its peak, also that is the point where the system becomes stagnant and that is where the change is needed or just happens?
Can we say that all these (entropies) we gone through in history are attempts to be transparent to the transcendent?
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
-
- Working Associate
- Posts: 10645
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
- Contact:
Good morning. Andreas!Andreas wrote:This conversation is great. I been silently following it and I know realize a bit more how the clockwork... works.
Clemsy, one question though about the word entropy and how exactly you are using it here. My guess is that once a certain system reaches its peak, also that is the point where the system becomes stagnant and that is where the change is needed or just happens?
Can we say that all these (entropies) we gone through in history are attempts to be transparent to the transcendent?
Human systems need to be closely monitored and regularly revitalized. A system won't necessarily reach its peak, meaning the highest point it can achieve. It will reach a peak and begin to decay if not consciously renewed. Even 'the highest point it can achieve is problematic. What then?
Early Christianity is a fine example of this. First, the movement was very organic. It diversified along very interesting lines. (Of course Christianity was, itself, an organic offshoot of Judaism.) The establishment of Roman Orthodoxy started Christianity away from the fundamental teachings of Christ and toward the principles of power and control which remained its primary impulse until the Reformation, when the urge to diversify began to flourish again.
'Stagnation' really is an illusion. Systems grow or decay. The only reason the Roman Church didn't totally collapse was because it rests on a foundation of real people who have faith, and enough front line clergy who do what's right. However, the institutional corruption of the church is still evident. During the 1960's Vatican II attempted to update and renew the church. Much of it, as far as I'm concerned, was window dressing that did more to 'water down' rather than renew, and did nothing to address the skeletons in the closet, especially the one pummeling the church today. This is from today's New York Times, by Maureen Dowd:
The Vatican's behavior in this context is a stunning example of how far this particular system has deviated from its initial idea. The only response consistent with the teachings of Christ would have been contrition and humility. Instead, we get standard political rhetoric. It is ironic that contrition and humility would have worked. The political rhetoric just provides material for widely read newspaper columnists. (In this case, an Irish Catholic,)If the Vatican is trying to restore the impression that its moral sense is intact, issuing a document that equates pedophilia with the ordination of women doesn’t really do that.
The Catholic Church continued to heap insult upon injury when it revealed its long-awaited new rules on clergy sex abuse, rules that the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said signaled a commitment to grasp the nettle with “rigor and transparency.”
The church still believes in its own intrinsic holiness despite all evidence to the contrary. It thinks it’s making huge concessions on the unstoppable abuse scandal when it’s taking baby steps.
The casuistic document did not issue a zero-tolerance policy to defrock priests after they are found guilty of pedophilia; it did not order bishops to report every instance of abuse to the police; it did not set up sanctions on bishops who sweep abuse under the rectory rug; it did not eliminate the statute of limitations for abused children; it did not tell bishops to stop lobbying legislatures to prevent child-abuse laws from being toughened.
There is no moral awakening here. The cruelty and indecency of child abuse once more inspires tactical contrition. All the penitence of the church is grudging and reactive. Church leaders are merely as penitent as they need to be to protect the institution.
...In a remarkable Times story recently, Laurie Goodstein and David Halbfinger debunked the spin that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had been one of the more alert officials on the issue of sexual abuse:
“The future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction. More than any top Vatican official other than John Paul, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who might have taken decisive action in the 1990s to prevent the scandal from metastasizing in country after country, growing to such proportions that it now threatens to consume his own papacy.”
Read More
Didn't intend this post to be a screed against the church, but as an example it is rather effective.
Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
-
- Associate
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:43 pm
- Location: Manchester NH
Syncretism: Isn't this the combining of various influences in ones life to come up with your own belief system? Otherwise know as the path to bliss, or for those whom it may be, lead into a path of destruction or perhaps confusion. I prefer to call it one's own journey. All of our paths meet in the end perhaps?
Everything is Bliss, Even the non-existence of same.