2010: Integration of East and West.

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Awesome post, Clemsy.

I have always been intrigued by the fact that the Hero's journey is highly individualistic, still it applies to both East and West alike. But then, in the East, the Hero's karma is chosen for him, as a cog in the machinery of existence. His only job is to realise it.

Am I engineer, or you a teacher, through choice? Or were we destined, and free will only an illusion as romansh loves to repeat ad nauseum?

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Am I engineer, or you a teacher, through choice? Or were we destined, and free will only an illusion as romansh loves to repeat ad nauseum? -Nandu
And I'm a bean counter by choice. And now I choose not to be one...but I can't because of society and family. So no...I do not have free will...(anymore that is),

romansh is right...in my circumstance. :(
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Neo, one can also say you can but choose not to in the service of others. That's a willing sacrifice. Powerful, if difficult, stuff.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

What Clemsy said. I posted something similar.. :p
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

Sometime ago (in a galaxy far far away) Cindy posted this about Karma. Thanks again Cindy.

http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry ... hetype.htm

Interesting stuff.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Neo, have you heard about the Vyadha Gita ("The Butcher's Gospel")? I had pointed out this story in another thread. It describes a man in a non-blissful job who finds enlightenment.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

After a nice day in the woods, I am back to find that I have much to read and digest. I am looking forward to it.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Andreas wrote:Sometime ago (in a galaxy far far away) Cindy posted this about Karma. Thanks again Cindy.

http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry ... hetype.htm

Interesting stuff.
What's interesting, too, about this article is a personal note about Jung that's rarely discussed in academia: Near the end of his life, and among his confidants as I understand it, he began to seriously muse about the likelihood of what I'll call "personal karma," i.e., karma in the sense that Nandu embraces it and in distinction to the archetypal connection made in the article, and whether indeed he may have lived previous lives. If so, the article mentions how he thought that perhaps his life's purpose had been to bring into light the shadow (unconscious) of Christian consciousness given Christianity's inherent influence in Western cultures.

Cindy


P.S. to Clemsy: What was Campbell's personal belief about literal death?
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

Interesting... So until we face our shadow there is no karma. This is how I interpret it. Still Karma has no value for me unless there is some kind of personal involvement to some degree. There needs to be a choice at some point...
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

Ok, so my take on whether or not "god" can be described, or even discussed for that matter, is that it is probably best to just avoid it all together! Why? Because we have terms like theist, atheist, non-theist, agnostic, pantheist, personal god, impersonal god, transcendence. And it appears that we are able to define these terms in whatever way best suits our personal interpretation of the words. Nandu states this in a short and concise way. Clemsy offered a more detailed account of his views. Both said, essentially the same thing.

Personally, I am fine with that. I maintain though, that when we speak about something we need to be clear about what we are referring to as well as we can manage. We can certainly speak about the number "42" and never actually see a non-symbolic "42" just sitting there along the highway somewhere. It is unlikely that we will be walking down the sidewalk one day and trip over a naturally occurring equilateral triangle. Now, how we define a term can have many cultural variations, but this does not mean we cannot talk about the same thing, provided we set the grounds for discussion at the beginning. If we are going to talk about "42", then we need to agree on what numerical symbol system we are using.

The tempting alternative may be to just simplify the whole bloody mess and keep it to:

god (defined how you wish, even if definitions fail miserably).

no god (everything just is what it is, nothing more, nothing less).

But, then we are in the world of black and white dualism, which leaves nuance and understanding based on a continuum off the table, which is really what is required to have a meaningful conversation, even if it plummets into the realm of philosophical rhetoric!

So, I just for fun did a quick search and found this nifty little list of kinds of theism. Of course, as soon as you say theism, you are doing what Clemsy clearly described and putting a name on something that is associated with "god" and have left his particular version (silence; irrelevance) behind.
Agnosticism: While not really a "theism" in its suffix, it is still in this category because this is a doctrine that affirms to the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge or higher powers. Basically, an "I don't know" type of situation; an Agnostic is on the fence about higher deities. There may or may not be a Supreme Being but no one can prove it either way as of yet.

Allotheism: this is the belief or worship of strange Gods. However, what is strange to one person may be normal to another. To define oneself as believing in allotheism would indeed be strange, this is most likely a term applied to someone else when their Gods are not understood.

Animism: This is a belief that all natural things (objects, phenomena, and the universe itself) have souls or a spirit. It is also the belief in spiritual beings or agencies or a doctrine that the soul is the principle to health and life.

Atheism: the prefix means "non" in this case (think asexual) and means a disbelief in any supreme beings or any form of God.

Deism: this is best explained as either a belief in a God based on the evidence of reason or nature with rejection of supernatural evaluation. It may also mean a belief that God (s) exist but that they don't take part of our lives or that they created the world but are now indifferent to it.

Ditheism, Duo-theism or Bitheism: Di, Duo or Bi, meaning two, is the belief that there are two Gods of equal power such as in the religion known as Wicca that believes in male and female, known as the God and Goddess or Lord and Lady. Ditheism can also be said to be a belief in two antagonistic forces such as an inherently "good" God and an inherently "bad" God. By this definition Christianity could be considered Ditheistic with its beliefs in Satan and God rather than as a monotheistic religion.

Note: Duo-theism is used incorrectly, it is not a real word and the closest word to it is "dualism" which does not necessarily pertain to religion doctrines.

Dystheism or Maltheism: That God or the Gods do exist but that they are all evil.

Egotheism or Autotheism: this is the doctrine of God's self-existence or the dedication and worship in oneself; self-worship.

Hedonism: the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good a person can achieve; it is a devotion to maintaining personal pleasure as a way of life.

Henothism: this may be defined as belief in more than one God, but that only one is supreme. Also to be used in the case of tribes or families who worship one God but don't deny the existence of others. Ancient polytheistic religions held beliefs similar to this, such as acknowledging that others had Gods but they did not worship them but instead worshiped the ones of their own culture.

Hulo- or Hylotheism: this is the philosophical doctrine that identifies a God or Gods with that of matter. Worshiping a tree or a stone might be two examples.

Kathenotheism: similar to Henotheism, this is the belief of more than one God but that only one at a time should be worshiped; each is supreme in its turn. Greek and Roman mythology could be said to follow this. The people of ancient Greece and Rome believed in all of the Gods of their people, but worshiped each one in turn depending on the requests or needs they had.

Misotheism: this is a doctrine that does not deny a God (s) existence, but rather is just an outright hatred of the God (s).

Monolatry: this doctrine is a little confusing, or rather it is a little like multiple personality disorder. This is the belief in more than one God but that they are all expressions of the supreme God.

Monotheism: this is the most common belief, that of one God. Christianity, Muslim, Catholicism and Judaism are such examples of Monotheism.

Panatheism: this is the belief that because there is no God then nothing can be termed as a sacred or holy object. The statues, the places deemed holy, the artifacts such as the Holy Grail; all of these are just objects or places with no inherent holy value.

Pantheism, Panentheism or Cosmotheism: the belief that the universe is part of God and God is part of the universe; they are equivalent. God is the transcendent of reality and the matter and humans in the universe are only manifestations. It denies God's personality but identifies God with nature.

Polytheism: this is the belief that many Gods or Goddess exist. This is sometimes known as paganism, or any religion that is not monotheistic or non-Abrahamic. Greek, Norse, Egyptian, Celtic and Native American are a few examples of polytheism.

Tritheism: the prefix, tri, means three and this is the belief that the three persons of the trinity are three distinct Gods, each one is an independent center of consciousness and determination. An example of a trinity is best known in Christianity with the belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Wicca also has a trinity of the 3 phases of the Goddess; Maiden, Mother and Crone. In Christianity the three people in the trinity are not viewed as separate beings but 3 in 1. However, in Wicca, the three are viewed as separate beings and represented by three different Goddesses.

Oh, and here is a wiki page with some more... http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
I think I may just opt for agnostic silence on all of this from now on! :lol:
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

My personal favorite--"Nature."

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Personally, I am fine with that. I maintain though, that when we speak about something we need to be clear about what we are referring to as well as we can manage.
Precisely, JJ! And when the idea under discussion is transcendent this is very problematic. Reminds me of the quantum paradox: you can know either a particle's location or its velocity, never both and the act of observation influences that which is observed. There is no possibility of direct observation of that which it is in its unobserved state.

Metaphor comes in real handy in this regard as there is no way to discuss this without it. But at the same time, a metaphor whose referent is undefinable leaves us back where we started. Refining the language around the subject is always great fun.

And fun is, indeed, good enough.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

I feel a favorite Jung quote coming on... :P

Paradox...does more justice to the unknowable than clarity can do, for uniformity of meaning robs the mystery of its darkness and sets it up as something that is known. That is a usurpation, and it leads the human intellect into hybris by pretending that it, the intellect, has got hold of the transcendent mystery by a cognitive act and "grasped" it. The paradox therefore reflects a higher level of intellect and, by not forcibly representing the unknowable as known, gives a more faithful picture of the real state of affairs.

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Ercan2121
Associate
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:15 am
Location: Istanbul

Post by Ercan2121 »

Andreas wrote: Still Karma has no value for me unless there is some kind of personal involvement to some degree. There needs to be a choice at some point...
Andreas,
Here again, I believe that it depends on how we choose to define ‘the Law of Action’.
Can heroism be the keyword with respect to personal involvement (breaking point)
that you refer? :)

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Paradox...does more justice to the unknowable than clarity can do, for uniformity of meaning robs the mystery of its darkness and sets it up as something that is known. That is a usurpation, and it leads the human intellect into hybris by pretending that it, the intellect, has got hold of the transcendent mystery by a cognitive act and "grasped" it. The paradox therefore reflects a higher level of intellect and, by not forcibly representing the unknowable as known, gives a more faithful picture of the real state of affairs.

Cindy
Cindy! I freaking love that! Woot! Perfect! That's exactly a point I've been trying to make.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Locked