immortal

OK, as you say, the thread isn't about Inow.

so why did you accuse him of dishonesty?

As I have said many times its simply because of the vitriolic position that he holds on religion. His conclusion is what is dishonest because religion should not be dismissed so easily unless otherwise there is positive evidence to account for the commonality of religious experiences and a religious claim should not be dismissed unless it is falsified and also it should not be accepted very easily either. I want to put forward God as a scientific hypothesis, if it is falsified then yes its right to dismiss the notion of god, if it is testified then we all should accept his existence whether you want to revere him or not is left to you. If it cannot be falsified put it in the pool of metaphysical ideas. Its so simple and why bother calling or labelling a group broken, is it that important than the truth?

the only way you could legitimately have done that was to read his mind.

You say you didn't do that so, how do you know what he really thinks and how do you know that what he thinks is different from what he says?

If I happen to remember I quoted his words to show you that I know some of his thoughts from my past experiences with him.

 

 

I know what iNow means, that sense of awe you get when you see or conceive of certain things in certain ways but you are saying that feeling cannot exist unless gods exist? Is this what you are getting at?

That's not the definition of transcendent unity which I have, its not simply a feeling, I don't call feelings as transcendent unity. We laugh, we cry, we get excited and these all are feelings but its not a transcendent unity.

Transcendent unity is non-dualistic thought, its the place where all the opposites meet into a single unity.

 

I understand it quite well, thank you. The issue is that the ancients did not "discover" deities, but instead they "invented" them. That's a rather important distinction about which you seem rather consistently obstinate and willfully ignorant.

Nope, that seems to be your preaching and its not the consensus of religious scholars investigating different religions.

"Our forefathers who discovered or received Vedic truth, did not arrive at it either by intellectual speculation or by logical reasoning. They attained it by actual & tangible experience in the spirit,—by spiritual & psychological observation, as we may say, & what they thus experienced, they understood by the instrumentality of the intuitive reason."

- Aurobindo

That's what Plotinus claimed and the adherents of these different tradition claim, you have to support your assertion with something in order to show that ancients were liars and that they invented gods just to socially control people other than your wishful thinking.

Rubbish. You're presenting a completely invented distinction and false dichotomy. Of course one can believe that there are mental states not yet understood, but still quite moving and transformative and life altering, without accepting in parallel that Thor causes the lightning or Poseidon rules the seas or storks deliver babies.

If I was just talking about feelings of awe like you then there is obviously no need to assume the existence of deities.

 

How are you defining numinous? I see it as a sense of awe and wonder before the universe... a feeling of something greater but hard to describe... a transcendent unity across all things... but not anything to do with deities or magical dragons or other such stupid crap.

What you are not understanding is that introspection towards that feeling of something greater but hard to describe, a transcendent unity is what led these ancient traditions to discover the existence of deities.

According to the psychologist David Fontana, mandala's symbolic nature can help one "to access progressively deeper levels of the unconscious, ultimately assisting the meditator to experience a mystical sense of oneness with the ultimate unity from which the cosmos in all its manifold forms arises."

Its double standards to believe in some kind of transcendent unity and at the same time not believe in the existence of deities because one cannot exist without the other. Either both exists or both doesn't exist. That's the basic theory.

I have my own concept of "numinous," but what is yours?

This concept of numinous is a specific type of idealistic concept and that whatever exists including this empirical universe cannot exist independent of Self consciousness, or in other words it is a top-down approach to the view of the cosmos that the empirical universe is a simulated virtual reality which means the brain, the planets, the supernova and all the awe that exists in the cosmos doesn't exist independent of us.

Many of us acknowledge transcendent experience and altered states of being or consciousness, but none of that (to me) in any way, shape, or form relates to deities or other mythology.

That's where deities or their light rays come into the picture, the altered states of being are due to the influence of these light rays who structure our body and mind, the traditional religious view just for you to give an example is that people go to sleep due to the influence of the light rays of the goddess Usha Devi¹ of the Rig Veda.

_{1. The goddess of dawn. Aurora Of Roman mythology.}

Psychologists who view things only from the phenomenal world think that people enter sleep due to different brain wave activities.

http://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/sleep_stages.htm

The question is if the traditional view is true then how can changes to one's brain chemistry or brain mapping affects one's experiences and the answer to that is you have no control over your actions and everything the cause as well as the effect is a simulated reality and free will is just an illusion. The traditional view of the Karma lingpa's teachings of the peaceful and the wrathful deities is that all phenomena appears as the activities of the peaceful and wrathful deities and hence the whole cosmos is working under the influence of these light rays.

That's an another common feature of these religious traditions that deny any notion of free will whatsoever whether you take the Gnostic view or the view of the Vedic Aryan religion.

Eosteric Christianity - Spiritual freedom from moral codes - but metaphysical determinism/fatedness, predestined election.

Exoteric Christianity - Spiritual enslavement to morality - with delusion of free will and choosing faith oneself.

- Elaine Pagels

You already know that, I presume. All sentient and insentient things, all immovable and movable beings, are under the control of these devathas. They eat nothing but are satisfied by mere sight and they have everything under their control. Forgetting all this, mainly the tender compassion and vast powers of the Gods(devathas), if you declare that it is your own choice that helps you do the deeds, you are labouring under a delusion. Remember, that it is our power and might that are responsible. Everything in creation is subject to the universal law of devathas and are at their mercy. The daffodils that dance in the gentle breeze, the springs and sprouts that wave their heads in the wind, the the diamond-studded golden ornament suspended from the ear ring of Menaka which springs gently and attractively whenever she nods her head, all these happen at our behest. The lily which I am holding in my hands twists and turns according to my wish. Everything in creation, their birth, being and movements, happens as per our wish. But one thing I'll clarify. The devathas are not perceptible to the naked eye, they are imperceptible. It is not their way to stand visibly before one and issue commands or get things done. Just as an engineer builds a dam to arrest and store the waters of a fast flowing river, we are right behind every one of your actions, your mind and intellect, your choices and ego.

- The traditional Vedic Aryan View.

I call all of those things the "numinous," but suspect you have a different idea in mind. If we're going to have a rational discussion, we need to share and agree upon the meaning of our key terms.

As I said this concept of the numinous is quite idealistic and I doesn't want to argue for one particular pantheon of gods but for a common single theory of the existence of these light rays of a different ontology which can take the form of anthropomorphic gods and also influence the functioning of the cosmos.

 

No it doesn't, but we're not talking about whether gods actually exist but whether Buddhists believe in them. If you are unwilling to take the word of many Buddhists quoting from various sources that's your prerogative. There is a sufficient trail here now for any interested reader to know your views of Buddhism are not those held by Buddhists themselves, which is all i wanted to achieve, so i won't post anymore on this subject.

You cannot escape from the truth of your own religion, Can you? Playing the numbers game won't help you, I gave you long reason why non-theistic Buddhists are not genuine Buddhists, the numbers of non-theistic Buddhists worldwide is irrelevant. Atheistic Buddhists don't know that atheistic Buddhism is simply dead, they are nothing different from the people who insist that earth is flat and deny that there are no gods in their religion.

BTW, who said Buddhists don't believe in deities? who said Buddha didn't taught about deities?

http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/bardo.pdf

 

Question: You talked about the peaceful and wrathful deities. Most Westerners don’t know they exist. Is it possible to recognize fear, anger and wrathful things in bardo?

 

Rinpoche: This is the reason Trungpa Rinpoche had the Tibetan Book of the Dead translated, printed, and distributed everywhere. It is very beneficial in introducing people to the bardo.

 

 

Question: Who taught these teachings and where were they first revealed? Were they from the historical Buddha or from the Tibetan tradition?

 

Rinpoche: These are Tibetan teachings, but the source of these teachings is found in the tantras. In the tantras you can find the 42 peaceful and 58 wrathful deities. You can’t find this complete teaching in the tantra though, but you can recognize deities in specific tantras and know about what is held in the hands and all contents of this teaching. That was taught by the Buddha.

Its quite clear that one has to believe in the existence of these deities to achieve nirvana and that's what Buddha taught. Modern Buddhists who are ignorant of the Vajrayana traditional view can go to any extent in twisting the dharmakaya and even distorting the sensitive traditional views, right? I am quite happy to see scholars and philosophers like Dr. Alan Wallace and Jonathon Duqette even though they are from the same academic world are beginning to realize that the traditional view should be given much credence which modern Dharmic people cannot see it lacking simple common sense.

You might not post anymore without giving some justification for this, but I really don't care because they themselves are at a loss and making fools of themselves.

If you think you could go to a hundred Buddhist forums, speaking to several Buddhists from each, and they tell you your understanding of Buddhism is lacking, do you not think it might actually be true? How many Buddhists need to tell you before you believe them?

The simple popularity of a belief doesn't make it to be true. The misrepresentation of the traditional view that these deities are symbolic and aid only in meditative practices rather than believing in their existence as it is, is something which has happened over the years and it needs a fixing.

Immortal,

 

Well thankyou for the context of your linkage.

 

You and I have attended and posted on enough threads for me to "guess" at your intent. And as you already know, I alternately back you up and oppose you, depending on whether you are going toward what I am trying to express/discover about our consciousness/existence or whether you are veering from what I judge to be reasonable and supportable.

 

Operating on the deep agreements we have, I can understand your support of WHR's call to "not be constrained" by scientific method. For the simple logical reason that no matter how much one downplays subjective experience, and promotes objective reality, two facts remain. The subjective experience has to occur in and of objective reality. And objective reality has to be subjectively judged to be the case, inorder to be aware of it. Therefore to allow ONLY objective reality to be the case, you ignore the one most important component in the judgement equation. The judge.

 

But this is already obvious and true, to both atheist and theist. What differs is the determinations of where this judgement originates and where is it going. How much of it is yours, and how much of it is yours alone. How much of it is information and how much of it is form itself.

 

I would back you up, suggesting that we MUST contain some of the form itself, and therefore can realistically claim personal knowledge of it and inspect reality, as a partial owner, and unremovable participant...but I would fall away from your take, once you tell me what jewels god wears. Because these are images ONLY subjectively produced, and do not actually exist.

 

Likewise, with WHR. He cannot manipulate information and images in his imagination, in his subjective model of the universe, see that something fits together, there, in his model, and assume that this means it MUST work for real. It MIGHT be true, but has to be put to test. If it cannot be put to the test, it MIGHT be wrong. And smart money would say it most probably IS wrong.

 

So please do continue to support the logical, forced reality of the wisdom and truth contained in the teachings of the masters, but be advised of the possibility, that they were and are just as prone to mistake their model of reality, for reality itself as the rest of us are. And scientific method is a darn good way to determine where one should judge the line, between fact and fiction, to be.

 

Regards, TAR2

BTW you never did tell me if i got the jewels god wears right...

 

- Moontanman

Quite a few members have asked me about this jewel thing but I am not sure what concept they have in mind. Actually the meaning of it is quite esoteric and don't understand how much of it is turning out to be true.

One needs to read the teachings in the Tibetan Buddhism to understand it and they have explicitly explained it.

http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/bardo.pdf

Just read it once.

 

Question: You talked about the peaceful and wrathful deities. Most Westerners don’t know they exist. Is it possible to recognize fear, anger and wrathful things in bardo?

Rinpoche: This is the reason Trungpa Rinpoche had the Tibetan Book of the Dead translated, printed, and distributed everywhere. It is very beneficial in introducing people to the bardo.

Question: Who taught these teachings and where were they first revealed? Were they from the historical Buddha or from the Tibetan tradition?

Rinpoche: These are Tibetan teachings, but the source of these teachings is found in the tantras. In the tantras you can find the 42 peaceful and 58 wrathful deities. You can’t find this complete teaching in the tantra though, but you can recognize deities in specific tantras and know about what is held in the hands and all contents of this teaching. That was taught by the Buddha

Its true that westerners don't know that the orthodox traditions seriously believe in the existence of these deities and I actually don't find any good academic scholar even talking about it in his works, so for people hearing it for the first time might find it ridiculous but its actually quite an intellectual topic.

What's interesting is that these light rays or coloured jewels also embody the deities of the Vedic Aryan religion, if one reads the Secret of the Vedas by Aurobindo one can get a glimpse of it but the deities described in the Vedas are different but the theory is the same.

The Neo-platonic Christianity especially the Valentinian monism also has the same theory but the Aeons described in them are different, Carl Jung's cosmogony or his seven sermons of the dead also describe the same theory but again his is a completely different pantheon.

Dr. Alan Wallace is right in putting forward such a hypothesis.

The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation." In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory."

and he further concludes.

 

Conclusion

While Buddhism is deemed nontheistic, the Vedas are regarded as polytheistic, and the Bible is monotheistic, we have seen that the cosmogonies of Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory. Moreover, the commonality does not end there, for in the Near East, the writings of Plotinus (205-270) also influenced Islamic and Jewish theories of creation. This apparent unity could be attributed to mere coincidence, or to the historical propagation of a single, speculative, metaphysical theory throughout south Asia and the Near East. For example, the Upanisads may well have influenced the writings of early Mah›y›na thinkers in India, and they could also have made their way to the Near East, where they might have inspired the writings of Plotinus. On the other hand, Plotinus declared that his theories were based on his own experiential insights, and similar claims have been made by many Buddhist and Vedantin contemplatives. If these cosmogonies are indeed based upon valid introspective knowledge, then there may some plausibility to the claims of many contemplatives throughout the world that introspective inquiry can lead to knowledge, not only of the ultimate ground of being, but of the fundamental laws of nature as well.

I strongly claim that these light rays of a different ontology do exists and it can confirm the existence of the numinous.

So first they moved your thread out of the Buddhism section

I sort of expected that because they don't allow anyone to debate in the DIR forums, its only to learn about the religion. One cannot go there and argue Buddhism is wrong or Christianity is wrong.

and then you've managed to get that thread suspended too. When I finally get a chance to comment on the thread I will have to apologise to them.

 

It was not intended, well I don't know what the moderators there found so offensive about, if one is not allowed to back up evidence to support their position and reply to an another member explaining one's own position then how can truth come out of such a discussion. They think I am ridiculing Buddhists while all along I am arguing for the existence of deities in the Vajrayana tradition which was in the best interests of Buddhism. No one is arguing that these deities exist externally which is an another strawman made against my view.

Did you want to try one of the other Buddhist forums?

If people ignore evidence and simply say you're entitled to your opinion then even if you try with another 100 Buddhist forums the effort is simply in vain to make them realize how wrong some of their pre-conceived notions are. Honestly speaking the Vajrayana tradition takes the existence of these deities very seriously and the so called non-theistic or atheistic Buddhism is a vehement lie born out of ignorance.

I didn't say what I thought your beliefs were, I questioned your ability to judge whose beliefs are real or not...

We can use negative theology and the current empirical evidence to determine which doctrines are feasible for our cosmos and which aren't. In negative theology we don't assert God is this or God is that but instead figure out what God cannot be and in that way one can judge whose beliefs are real and whose are false. Its not a personal opinion or faith or belief.

You have no empirical evidence of anything, all you have is faith and belief and your own opinion...

 

You cannot support your assertions with anything other than opinions and belief and faith, not to mention more than a bit of arrogance...

 

That seems to be your fundamental belief.

So you give me another persons opinion on yet another persons beliefs about what certain science theories mean as evidence you are correct?

Nope, I just showed you why the beliefs of orthodox religions cannot be real.

 

BTW, haven't we been at this impasse before?

Things have changed and the gaps in evidence which was there before to support my view are slowly closing.

Dude. You've managed to get the thread closed within a day and before I even get a chance to contribute?

They just don't allow anyone to debate in the DIR forums, its their rule. They have moved the thread to the same faith debates you can contribute here -

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/142512-dharmic-only-buddhism-theistic.html

You are as slippery as an eel swimming in vaseline dude, you failed to address my question completely!

 

How can you say this are not truly religious people but you provide no evidence of how you can say it. It's the No true Scotsman fallacy, How can you say anyone is not truly religious? How doyou know other than by judging them by the standard of your own fairy tail?

 

Then you say this

 

On the whole all scientific evidence is pointing in favour of a hypercosmic God which none of these orthodox religions predicted it or believes in it and hence we can safely ignore the doctrines of these orthodox religions which don't have any truth in them and the evidence is actually in favour of Gnostic cosmogony.

 

I don't go by fairy tales dude, I go by empirical evidence. BTW, how do you know what my beliefs are?

Can you support that with anything other than assertions by religion?

 

Yes, I can, all evidence is in favour of a hypercosmic god, if that disturbs people from orthodox religions as well as atheists then its not my problem.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16769-concept-of-hypercosmic-god-wins-templeton-prize.html

 

The "veiled reality", then, can in no way help Christians or Muslims or Jews or anyone else rationalise their specific beliefs. The Templeton Foundation – despite being headed up by John Templeton Jr, an evangelical Christian – claims to afford no bias to any particular religion, and by awarding their prize to d'Espagnat, I think they've proven that to be true.

It seems the Templeton Foundation is more honest than atheists and people from orthodox religions, at least they are not showing double standards like the way how the latter people ignore evidence and continue to hold on to their false beliefs.

 

 

Then you go on to say

 

Never once have I suggested you said this, you are setting up a strawman instead of answering my original question about your original unsupportable assertion...

 

Now one more time, how can you assert this?

 

You simply assumed that I can in no way support my assertions and to prove that now you're going and saying I set up a strawman, the concept of hypercosmic god is there in all the religions of the world and if people ignore this and continue to hold on to their false beliefs then yes obviously they are not true religious people. If you happen to think that someone who is from the orthodox religions whom you're arguing with is religious then you're mistaken because you have not yet met with the kernel of truth of religion.

Because genuine Buddhists can only come from the far east, right?

Yes, I see a huge difference in how people with in the tradition interpret the scriptures and how scholars who study them only for academic purposes interpret it. Remember its people who are with in the tradition who have the practical knowledge to design the mandala for that respective deity and invoke it.

Are you Pleroma? I'll join the site and debate a later today or tomorrow when i get a chance.

Yes.

Tell you what. I don't think anyone here actually cares about our discussion - and why should they, this is a science forum.

 

Why don't we take this debate to a Buddhist forum or two and continue where many Buddhists can contribute?

 

If it is amenable to the mod team here, perhaps we can provide a link to this Buddhist forum here so people can follow the debate (if someone has read all our squibbles this far, it is clear they have a genuine wish to know the truth about Buddhism and so it wouldn't be like sending traffic away).

 

Would you agree to this compromise?

Okay, fine, you wish to discuss it in a Buddhist forum so it be, follow here -

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/buddhism-dir/142512-buddhism-theistic.html#post3173466

Let's see how it goes but don't assume that it will be the opinion of genuine Buddhists from the far east, that forum too has the same ethnicity problem as this one.

 

 

You just said it again, please tell me how you know that to be true other than you disagree with them...

As I have said it many times there is no truth in the orthodox Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Hindu religions, they have never ever upheld the torch of the kernel of truth. Just because majority of the religious people are emotionally attached to these doctrines doesn't mean we should not question their validity.

Take Christianity, there were many other gospels and doctrines that existed in pre-Christian times but the truth got suppressed and only those doctrines which suited a certain political criteria to control people went through as orthodox Christianity.

Take Hinduism, they know that Vedas and the Upanishads are the basis for their religion but yet they continue to worship Rama, Krishna because a careful analysis of Vedas and the Upanishads shatters their cornerstone beliefs. They no longer take the Vedas and the Upanishads seriously.

The doctrine that is espoused in the oral tradition of Judaism like Midrash, Talmud, Zohar, Mishnah etc is completely different from the doctrine of the religious people who believe in the literal truth of the bible.

On the whole all scientific evidence is pointing in favour of a hypercosmic God which none of these orthodox religions predicted it or believes in it and hence we can safely ignore the doctrines of these orthodox religions which don't have any truth in them and the evidence is actually in favour of Gnostic cosmogony. Therefore the opinions of these orthodox religious people who blindly follow their religions without questioning them doesn't represent the opinion of all religious people.

 

 

Yes but you said that people who believe the end of the world stuff are not truly religious people, how can you justify that statement?

That's not what I said, people who believe in the end of the world stuff and who want the end to happen in their own life time or see it as too important are not truly religious people and yes irrespective of whether the great tribulation happens in our life time or will happen sometime in the future or has already happened in the distant past has no affects on your path to enter the kingdom of god, its almost irrelevant.

Its quite easy to justify that.

Immortal,

 

But the white horse remains a metaphor. And the cleansing is an internal thing.

Its true that cleansing is an internal thing, people doesn't somehow magically become righteous by receiving a divine potion, one needs to work hard for it with his own will. That's the point I am making, Christ has each within him whether a human, angel or a mystery (Gospel of Philip), its not like Christ is not there now and somehow will come and reside in you during the end times or the second coming, that's silly. So if it is a metaphor then the second coming, the great tribulation doesn't make any sense, I think its a prophecy and it should be taken literally that a ruler will command over all the world. You're right about the cleansing thing, yes it is an internal thing.

 

If the metaphors were to be constructed today, we would not require the quivers and horses and hoards. We might use some different imagery. But it would still be imagery. It would still make sense, only as metaphor. What kind of rightgeous armies can you imagine could possibly issue forth, from a rent in the sky...the day after tomorrow, over Newark, NJ?

 

Regards, TAR2

I have got no idea, as I have told I am not so interested in such a eschatology.

 

I agree completely, but I don't think this is an argument against one specific version of belief, but instead against faith based beliefs in essentially all forms.

All versions have a common belief so definitely its not against only one specific version of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki

Kalki (Devanagari: कल्कि), translates to 'Eternity,' 'White Horse,' or 'Destroyer of Filth' and is the final incarnation of Vishnu, foretold to appear at the end of Kali Yuga, our current epoch. Puranas foretell that he will be atop a white horse with a drawn blazing sword. He is the harbinger of end time in Hindu eschatology, after which he will usher in Satya Yuga.

The name Kalki is a metaphor for eternity or time. Its origins may lie in the Sanskrit word kalka which means foulness or filth. Hence, the name translates to the 'destroyer of foulness,' 'destroyer of darkness," or 'destroyer of ignorance.'^[1] Another etymology from Sanskrit is 'white horse.'

The Vishnu Purana also explains:

“Worship God: For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse;

And he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True,

And in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns;

And he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:

And his name is called the Word of God.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses,

Clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword,

That with it he should smite the nations:

And he shall rule them with a rod of iron:

And he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness, and wrath of Almighty God.

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written,

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Revelation 19:11-16

 

 

I would really like to see how you can justify making that assertion...

 

Now I remember, no true scotsman...

Just because institutional religions and other organized religions form the majority of religious people doesn't mean that what they say is the opinion of all religious people.

 

So, although rather an unremoval delusion, I think it is at least "explainable" in this manner, and I thank you, for helping me answer the question of why some religious people need the end to be near.

 

Regards, TAR2

Its not genuine religious people who want the end to be near, its politicians and other organisations who want the end to be near by misusing a few religious texts. Much of the Bible eschatology and the end-time scenario is because of the Book of Revelation and this book has been misused through out the human history to justify their evil acts of non-violence.

Not only there are people who seriously believe this they literally want nations to raise against nations and kingdoms against kingdom. Its highly disturbing to live in such an environment.

http://38.121.103.33/node/187

http://www.god.tv/node/183

I as a theist have no interest in such an end of the world eschatology, I am more interested in realized eschatology and returning to fullness because you can always enter the kingdom of god any time irrespective of whether the end is near or not, you don't have to wait till the judgement day because there were other revelation books which got suppressed just because they taught how to know the divine and achieve salvation in this world, right now and did not divided people into believers and non-believers but instead treated all humans equally.

Elaine Pagels' New Book Offers 'Revelations' On The Book Of Revelation

Wallace's point may well be clear, but that does not make it right. I have already given my reasons and references for thinking otherwise.

Perhaps its time for you to reassess your thinking then. Wallace is a Buddhist scholar and as he says those who think that Buddhism is non-theistic are inexcusably ignorant.

The Christian concept of Aeons may well be the same as the buddhist concept of devas. I have no wish to study Buddhist or Christian mysticism to find out. I have given samples from Buddhist scripture indicating the Buddha did not think teachings about god(s) as important to the dharma.

 

You may not wish to study it and you can go on ignoring the scholarly evidence and continue to show double standards but religious scholars will study it and they will realize that this was the core doctrine of Buddhism. Your personal wish-thinking has no bearing in reality and in scriptural evidence.

The link you provide is to a Tibetan Buddhist scholar. They have a great many gods never directly mentioned by the Buddha himself or referred to in any other form of Buddhism. Notice even in the link you provide it acknowledges itself as a later addition to the Buddha's teaching (no pages numbers, but very early on).

 

I'm not saying Tibetan Buddhism is the wrong interpretation of the Buddha's teaching - but it is only one interpretation among a great many. If you amend your claim to saying teachings about god(s)/devas are important to Tibetan Buddhism I would have no problems - but Tibetan Buddhism does not represent all Buddhism. Far from.

Perhaps you didn't fully read what Wallace said, Tibetan Buddhism is the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, don't try to make it as a separate sect.

Buddhism is commonly distinguished on doctrinal grounds from monotheistic and polytheistic religions by the fact that it refutes the existence of a divine Creator, and indeed there is ample textual evidence in early Buddhist, Mahayana,and Vajrayana treatises to support this claim. However, a careful analysis of Vajray›na Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent groundof being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation. In the following paper I shall present this Vajrayana Buddhist theory in terms of its images of space and light in the creation of the universe, and I shall conclude with a reappraisal of the non-theistic status of Buddhism as a whole.

 

- Alan Wallace

Its time to realize how esoteric Buddhism really is.

Please show a direct reference from the scriptures (not later commentaries) demonstrating the Buddha's doctrine is entirely dependent on the existence of god(s).

 

BTW, the core teachings of Buddhism are regarded as being the four noble truths, the noble eight-fold path and the five precepts, all from the very first discourse he gave (Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dharma (Dharmacakra Pravartana Sūtra). None of which even mention god(s) in passing.

 

If such a core concept, would it not have been included as a noble truth?

Everything in Buddhism is made esoteric, just because you think that such a core concept doesn't exist in the eight fold path to nirvana doesn't mean that the people of Vajrayana tradition doesn't know to interpret the same core concepts from the same scriptures which you study.

Esotericism

 

In Vajrayāna particularly, Tibetan Buddhists subscribe to a voluntary code of self-censorship, whereby theuninitiated do not seek and are not provided with information about it. This self-censorship may be applied more or less strictly depending on circumstances such as the material involved. A depiction of a mandalamay be less public than that of a deity. That of a higher tantric deity may be less public than that of alower. The degree to which information on Vajrayāna is now public in western languages is controversial among Tibetan Buddhists.

 

Buddhism has always had a taste for esotericism since its earliest period in India.[25] Tibetans today maintain greater or lesser degrees of confidentiality also with information on the vinaya and emptiness specifically. In Buddhist teachings generally, too, there is caution about revealing information to people who may be unready for it. Esoteric values in Buddhism have made it at odds with the values of Christian missionary activity, for example in contemporary Mongolia.

You talk of the eight fold path to Nirvana but what you don't understand is that the mandala of the peaceful and wrathful deities is the place of Nirvana and peace and this is the core essence of mandala worship. Every genuine Buddhist will go through this path as the main essence of Buddhist teachings is to achieve Buddha-hood.

Visualisation of Vajrayana teachings

 

The mandala can be shown to represent in visual form the core essence of the Vajrayana teachings. The mindis "a microcosm representing various divine powers at work in the universe."[2] The mandala represents thenature of experience, and the intricacies of both the enlightened and confused mind.

 

While on the one hand, the mandala is regarded as a place separated and protected from the ever-changing and impure outer world of samsara,[12] and is thus seen as a "Buddhafield"[13] or a place of Nirvana and peace, the view of Vajrayana Buddhism sees the greatest protection from samsara being the power to see samsaric confusion as the "shadow" of purity (which then points towards it).

 

Buddhism most certainly does not teach about permenant self. There is no 'thing' which is self - god manifestations or otherwise. Our sense of self as some kind of transcendent being is an illusion in Buddhism. The doctrine of Annatta is very clear about this is Buddhism. Seriously, if you think Buddhism teaches there is such thing as a self you are grossly mistaken.

 

From the Dhammapada (i think).

 

Again depends on the school of thought, Mahayana Buddhists do see a ground of being for everything where as Madhyamikas and Yogacaras neither say that the unity does not exists nor do they say that it exists. They say its beyond existence and non-existence.

The question to all Buddhist voidists or illusionists is if everything is an illusion or a projection of the mind then from where did the mind came from? Speculating on this thought reveals that the mind is the product of a divine God who is the supreme Aeon of the mandala from which both the objective world of five elements as well as the subjective world of metaphysical mind, intellect and sense organs emanated and he is the place where all the opposites reconcile into a non-dual unity.

 

Sorry i thought you might actually be a Buddhist when i asked you that. If i am at a loss it is only by your reckoning.

 

I am not a Christian but I revere Christ, I am not a Brahmin but I revere Savithru, I am not a Buddhist but I revere Buddha, I am not a Gnostic but I revere Abraxas.

"In Christ dwells all the pleroma of Deity in bodily form."

(Colossians 2:9)

"Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15).

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing."

(Gospel of Philip)

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

"Isha vashyam idam sarvam jagathyam jagath"

Everything in this world is covered by God.

- Isha Upanishad

"Everything that discrimination taketh out of the pleroma is a pair of opposites. To god, therefore, always belongeth the devil.

This inseparability is as close and, as your own life hath made you see, as indissoluble as the pleroma itself. Thus it is that both stand very close to the pleroma, in which all opposites are extinguished and joined.

God and devil are distinguished by the qualities fullness and emptiness, generation and destruction. Effectiveness is common to both. Effectiveness joineth them. Effectiveness, therefore, standeth above both; is a god above god, since in its effect it uniteth fullness and emptiness.

This is a god whom ye knew not, for mankind forgot it. We name it by its name Abraxas. It is more indefinite still than god and devil.

That god may be distinguished from it, we name god Helios or Sun. Abraxas is effect. Nothing standeth opposed to it but the ineffective; hence its effective nature freely unfoldeth itself. The ineffective is not, therefore resisteth not. Abraxas standeth above the sun and above the devil. It is improbable probability, unreal reality. Had the pleroma a being, Abraxas would be its manifestation. It is the effective itself, not any particular effect, but effect in general.

It is unreal reality, because it hath no definite effect.

It is also creatura, because it is distinct from the pleroma.

The sun hath a definite effect, and so hath the devil. Wherefore do they appear to us more effective than indefinite Abraxas.

It is force, duration, change.

The dead now raised a great tumult, for they were Christians."

- Seven Sermons to the Dead, Carl Jung.

ALL PHENOMENA APPEAR AS THE MANDALA OF THE PEACEFUL AND WRATHFUL DEITIES. THESE DEITIES DISSOLVE AS A RAINBOW IN THE SKY. RELAX THE MIND IN THE NATURAL STATE WHICH IS THE UNION OF APPEARANCE AND EMPTINESS, FREE FROM COMPLEXITIES. ALL SOUNDS ARE THE SPEECH OF THE WRATHFUL AND PEACEFUL DEITIES. THIS EMPTINESS SOUND DISSOLVES AS THE DRAGON'S VOICE OF THUNDER DISAPPEARS IN THE SKY

- Tibetan Buddhism

Its disappointing to see people who claim themselves to be Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc themselves don't know what are the true doctrines of their own religions.

I would go further. It is a bad idea to worship anything.

 

Nope, mandala worship is the core teaching of Buddhism and its not such a bad idea to worship the agnisoma mandala or the pleroma of God.

 

Not what was said. Speculating on any philosophy is a waste of time according to the Buddha. That includes Buddhist philosophy as well as any other. Thinking about elaborate metaphysical propositions which can never be proved is at best a waste of time. To the best of my sincere practice this is what the Buddha taught, not about god(s), devas, transcendence or self.

That is not the conclusion of religious scholars worldwide. The Conclusion is introspective religious thinking leads to genuine metaphysical truths and knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature and of how the cosmos is actually working.

Conclusion

"While Buddhism is deemed nontheistic, the Vedas are regarded as polytheistic, and the Bible is monotheistic, we have seen that the cosmogonies of Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory. Moreover,the commonality does not end there, for in the Near East, the writings of Plotinus (205-270) also influenced Islamic and Jewish theories of creation. This apparent unity could be attributed to mere coincidence,or to the historical propagation of a single, speculative, metaphysical theory throughout south Asia and the Near East. For example, the Upanishads may well have influenced the writings of early Mahayana thinkers in India, and they could also have made their way to the Near East, where they might have inspired the writings of Plotinus. On the other hand, Plotinus declared that his theories were based on his own experiential insights, and similar claims have been made by many Buddhist and Vedantin contemplatives. If these cosmogonies are indeed based upon valid introspective knowledge, then there may some plausibility to the claims of many contemplatives throughout the world that introspective inquiry can lead to knowledge, not only of the ultimate ground of being, but of the fundamental laws of nature as well."

- Alan Wallace

 

Well we could play wikipedia trumps, in which case i would play this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism ,which directly addresses A Wallace's point. But i don't think that will be fruitful, so lets quote from Buddhist scripture.

 

Its very clear from A Wallace's point that Buddhism is not non-theistic, a very careful analysis of the scriptures shows that the concept of Aeons in gnostic Christianity is the same concept of gods that exists in Buddhism. All these religions have a single theory and they take the existence of these Aeons very seriously.

A lot will depend on how you want to define god(s).

 

God as a creator, from the Pali Canon....

 

This of course does not deny the existence of a creator god, simply that it is not worth considering in Buddhism.

 

God as moral creator and/or arbiter: couldn't find a direct quote from scripture, so i'll quote from "What the Buddha taught" by Walpola Sri Rahula (p32):

 

 

Again, not denying the existence of God, only that the concept is not relevant to Buddhist morality. This book is from a Sri Lankan Theravadan scholar.

 

God(s) as devas: The definition of a deva in Buddhism is a being which occupies a realm in which there are too many luxuries around for such a being to properly contemplate the dharma. They are referred to numerous times throughout scripture, it is clear that the Buddha believed in them. It is equally clear that they are entirely irrelevant to the Buddha's teachings. My favourite quote on the subject comes from Nagarjuna, an Indian Buddhist philosopher from the 2nd century:

If you want to know what is the correct concept of gods that exists in Buddhism then you should read this.

http://www.turtlehill.org/khen/zhikhro.pdf

By practicing during the bardo of birth and life, great devotees can become enlightened within one lifetime. Yogis and yoginis with high realizations are able to perceive the entire universe as the mandala of the deities, so that every form is seen as the Buddha's body, and all sounds are perceived as the speech of enlightened beings, or mantra. Recognizing the true nature of this continually unfolding vision is part of the spontaneous activity of pristine cognitiveness. Ultimately, everything appears as a display of primordial wisdom, and within that realization, you can begin to help all sentient beings.

 

According to the zhi-khro teachings, the peaceful and wrathful buddhas do not exist externally; one's body is the palace of the deity and the entire universe is originally in an enlightened state. Awaken to the preciousness and purity of each moment as it arises, and be devoted to this great realization.

What are these peaceful and wrathful buddhas?

First, the peaceful buddhas will appear, beginning with the five buddha families. A sky-like expanse of g reat blue light is projected out from one's heart center preceding the appearance of the buddha forms. This is the light of the dharmadhatu wisdom. At first it is apparent that the light emanates from you, but when the buddhas appear, it is as if they were autonomous. In the center of this radiant blue field, you'll see a small circle of white light. This is the same light that is worked with in the Dzogchen creation stage or thod-rgyal practices. If you are able to recognize it now, you'll see that this point is no other than Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri in union. In this way, you attain enlightenment here and now

without further experience.

 

Failing this, the white light expands, encompassing the entire visionary space. If you are well acquainted with the practice of visualizing the buddhas of the vajra family, you will easily recognize Buddha Vairocana and his consort sitting in yabyum in the center of this white field. If you understand even for a second that this vision is an emanation of primordial wisdom non-separate from your natural mind, you will completely change your karmic momentum and attain enlightenment in the presence of Buddha Vairocana.

 

If you fail to recognize Vairocana as a display of your own primordial wisdom and instead assume the subject-object duality in relation to what appears, another white light appears. This presents the next opportunity for recognition which is described as "white lights following one after another like clouds." It is also known as the light of Vajrasattva and is associated with mirror-like wisdom. If you recognize it as the radiance of your own mind, this is the end of bewilderment and there are no more bardos. The clouds soon change and from the center of this brilliant white light the Buddha Vajrasattva and his consort appear surrounded by the entire refuge tree. This is all emanated from the heart center.

 

The next phase is qualified by a golden-yellow light. Non-dual recognition of this light as the wisdom of equanimity leads to enlightenment in the sambhogakaya. To welcome you, Buddha Ratnasambhava and his consort will appear from the midst of that radiance and you can be liberated without further wandering.

 

This is followed by a deep red light which pervades the whole of space. This is the radiation of discriminating wisdom. Having practiced on the Buddha of Infinite Light, you can easily recognize this light and break the cycle of karmic rebirth. Resplendent in sambhogakaya display, Buddha Amitabha and his consort will appear, surrounded by the whole refuge tree.

 

Subsequently, an intensely green light radiates. This is the light of allaccomplishing wisdom. To have practiced on the deities of the karma family will allow you to recognize the nature of this display. If there is a clear understanding of this vision, one can be immediately enlightened. From the center of that green field, the Buddhas Amoghasiddhi and Tara will appear in union on the central lotus of the cosmic refuge tree.

 

Buddhas Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri, or Vajrasattva and his consort are the main deities related to the zhi-khro teachings. As they sport in the center, five other dhyani buddhas, together with various bodhisattvas associated with these families, arise as their retinue. These make up the forty-two peaceful deities, which are followed by the appearance of the fifty-eight wrathful deities. This is the mandala of the Guyagarbha tantra. All these buddhas are a display of the original wisdom which structure our body and mind.

 

Through the inspiration of these teachings, begin to investigate the subtle dimension of the world, and you will discover that the whole mandala is appearing within you. There is nothing that is outside of you. On the basis of this insight, practice and meditate so that when the time comes to die, you will recognize all the visions as your own projections and blissfully merge with the transcendent source condition. To have regularly practiced visualizing the deities and reciting mantra will be of immense benefit in this chös-nyid bardo. If you have good practice habits, you already know that these visions are projections of our minds which arise from the true nature, laden with the energy of pure love, compassion and wisdom. This is

what the deities or the dhyani buddhas represent. If you are familiar with this kind of meditation, you have a good chance of getting enlightened. You don't have to introduce yourself to your own mother. By recognizing any one of these buddhas,you will be enlightened. In that case, all bardo experiences will stop. It's all over in the moment of recognition. The whole external cosmos dissolves within you. Then, instead of being defined by the limitations of karmic rebirth, you can go anywhere and take any form. You get a pass to the red carpet club, while those who aren't practiced wander around for awhile in a very busy place that looks something like Calcutta!

 

If we somehow overlook all of these opportunities for liberation through nonrecognition of the peaceful buddhas, we will be subject to the onset of the wrathful buddhas. So it gets even tougher. Not only is there the reappearance of the blinding radiance and intense beams of light shining right through one, but terrifying thunders are resounding and a thousand fires burn as we are introduced to the wrathful buddhas.

This is nothing different from Paul's Pleroma theology which are explicitly stated in the Pauline epistles and the correct term to use is "Aeons" because the term gods is corrupted with too many vague meanings. So I am basically talking of Aeons or Buddhas and genuine Buddhists do take the existence of these buddhas very seriously and its the very core of Buddhism.

These gods or Aeons are not scoundrels, eastern religions or gnostic christianity does not entertain such thoughts all the peaceful and wrathful deities are manifestations of the Self and they are with in the Self and hence they should be happily accepted as part of things which resides in the Self and one should get through it.

This is Buddhism.

God as Brahman, self as Atman: One of the core teachings of the Buddha was the doctrine of Anatta - no self. From samyutta nikaya 22.59:

 

It follows if there is no Atman there can be no Brahman in the Hindu sense of the word (Brahman means something else in Buddhist scripture: sometimes a holy person, sometimes a deva).

 

Hindus don't believe in Brahman, they only believe in astrology and practice a few festivals without themselves being aware as to what they are doing. Jiva, Ishvar and Brahman is in the Vedas and the Upanishads and they were called as Vedic Aryans and not as Hindus.

Buddhism is another offshoot of the vast number of eastern religions and it was very much prevalent in the time of Shankara and even though they accepted the core teachings there were minute difference between Advaita of Shankara and the emptiness of Buddha. Shankara strongly criticizes the teachings of Buddha in his Brahma Sutras.

http://www.bergen.edu/phr/121/ShankaraGC.pdf

General assessment of Buddhist philosophy

"No further special discussion is required. From whatever points of view the Buddhist systems are tested with regard to their plausibility, they cave in on all sides, like the walls of a well dug in sandy soil. [buddhist philosophy] has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon, and thus it is foolish to adopt it as a guide in the practical concerns of life. Moreover, the Buddha,3 by presenting three mutually contradictory systems of philosophy — teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of consciousness-only, and general emptiness — has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to making incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings moved him to propound absurd doctrines that would thoroughly confuse all who might take him seriously. Thus, the Buddha's doctrine must be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

- Shankara

Most people don't understand Advaita, advaita and most forms of Buddhism actually recognize a noumenon and doesn't teach about emptiness. As you have quoted speculating Buddhist philosophy makes one go mad because buddhism is a series of contradictions which leads you to the ultimate truth.

Non-dual Advaita as a doctrine is different on its own and it can be clearly seen in the writings of Shankara.

"We have now refuted both the Buddhist Realists, who maintain the (momentary) reality of the external world, and the Buddhist Idealists, who claim that only consciousness exists. The third variety of Buddhist philosophy (Madhyamaka Voidism), that is, the view that everything is empty (that is, that absolutely nothing exists),2 is contradicted by all the recognized means of knowledge [perception, inference, the verbal testimony of Scriptures, etc.] and therefore requires no special refutation. The reality of the phenomenal world is guaranteed by all the means of knowledge. Its existence cannot be denied without a convincing proof of its non-existence (or "emptiness"), for a conclusion arrived at on the basis of the standard means of knowledge must be accepted in the absence of a convincing argument to the contrary."

- Shankara

Shankara refutes the Buddhist realists who maintain the reality of the external world, he refutes the Buddhist idealists who claim that only consciousness exists and he also refutes the doctrine of emptiness or void where nothing absolutely exists.

The correct doctrine of Advaita is this as espoused in the scriptures as well as by the great Acharyas is this.

The oldest reference to Idealism in Hindu texts is in Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda. This sukta espouses panentheism by presenting cosmic being Purusha as both pervading all universe and yet being transcendent to it.[1] Absolute idealism can be seen in Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where things of the objective world like the five elements and the subjective world such as will, hope, memory etc. are seen to be emanations from the Self.[2]

This view which was recently put forward by Bernard D'Espagnat is known as open realism which says that there is "something" real the existence of which does not hinge on thought. This is the view towards which the recent experiments in quantum mechanics have taken us and since these are facts established from experiments it refutes thousand other philosophies.

The five elements, mind, will, memory, sense organs are all anthropomorphic Aeons according to Advaita and they all emanated from the Self(Brahman).

 

By so forcefully repudiating them, their existence is reinforced. But i ask you 2 things. Is this buddhist concept of deva really what you mean when you say god(s)?

Paul's pleroma theology of Aeons is nothing different from the concept of devas or deities in Buddhism and the Vedic theology and the concept of Vedic gods like Indra,Soma, Agni, Pushan, Mitra, Aruna are nothing different from paul's pleroma theology and the concept of peaceful and wrathful Buddhas in Buddhism. This is the point which A Wallace is making in his work "Is Buddhism really non-theistic?" and the answer is that no they have their own pantheon and they have their own Buddhas or Aeons and Buddhism is theistic because they take the existence of gods very seriously and their entire doctrine is dependent on them.

Is anything lost at all if someone denies the existence of something the Buddha obviously thought of as irrelevant to his teachings? Bottom line, belief in god(s) is not necessary to be Buddhist.

Yes, you're at a lost.

The message is to know both the manifested as well as the unmanifested.

9 Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone.

 

10 One thing, they say, is obtained from knowledge; another, they say, from ignorance. Thus we have heard from the wise who have taught us this.

 

11 He who is aware that both knowledge and ignorance should be pursued together, overcomes death through ignorance and obtains immortality through knowledge.

 

12 Into a blind darkness they enter who worship only the unmanifested prakriti; but into a greater darkness they enter who worship the manifested Hiranyagarbha.

 

13 One thing, they say, is obtained from the worship of the manifested; another, they say, from the worship of the unmanifested. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.

 

14 He who knows that both the unmanifested prakriti and the manifested Hiranyagarbha should be worshipped together, overcomes death by the worship of Hiranyagarbha and obtains immortality through devotion to prakriti.

 

- Isha Upanishad

Its wrong to worship only the empty Self and its also wrong to worship only the gods because they both lead us to a great darkness. The correct method is to worship them together.

 

 

Buddhism is not theistic, even though Tibetan Buddhism has a pantheon of gods. Buddhism is agnostic. The concept of god was entirely irrelevant to any of the Buddha's teachings. Look up the 10 imponderables if you are in any doubt. Buddhism teaches dharma. Dharma does not necessarily teach Buddhism.

This is what I call a sheer double standards. If you doesn't want to believe in gods go find yourself an another religion or simply admit yourself that you're an atheist but for god sake don't misrepresent eastern religions and don't be so dogmatic about the non-existence of devas in these religions.

The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated (as shown above) that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation."^[37] In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory."

• B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?", p. 7

Only ignorant people think that Buddhism is non-theistic.

Gnostic Christianity, Tibetan Buddhism, Vedic Aryan religion, Neoplatonism, Carl Jung's Red Book have so much in common between them I wonder how such seemingly disconnected cultures have come up with such identical theories of the origin of the cosmos with such a core agreement. This is a remarkable new finding which needs further investigation.

And the reason that the scientific community gives as to why they ignore such evidence is that they were all on LSD. Very funny.

If its all in the mind then how can the mental and the physical can be different. Cartesian duality of the mental and the physical is not feasible, either cognitive science will reduce mind entirely to the brain or a new science will map the physical entirely to a metaphysical mind. Penrose is right in saying that humans can solve problems for which no algorithm exists and hence the thought process of humans has to be non-computable, there is nothing in the current physics which can account for a non-computable process and he takes a top-down approach. Instead of arguing that platonic values are embedded in space-time at planck scales if he had argued that platonic values exists in a platonic realm and mathematicians just discover the absolute truths already existing there then that would have been the the correct theory of the emperors new mind. If strong AI is found to be impossible then the existence of a metaphysical mind is inevitable.

I don't know and I don't care how it's different to a moved goalpost.

The point I made was that you accuse him of dishonesty and, as far as I can see, you have not put forward any evidence for that ad hom.

what evidence do you have that he is putting forward anything other then his earnestly held beliefs?

You accused me of mind-reading him and as I have shown you I didn't do that.

This thread isn't about Inow and I like to generalize things and criticize only for the positions which people hold on to. Lets look at the scale of theism/atheism.

 

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:^[2]

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

I agree with Dawkins that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and that it needs to be tested and falsified like any other hypothesis. I doesn't want to believe, I want to know.

For Carl Jung, James Hillman, Devudu and others -

You know that's not really any better, right?

I know but it doesn't end there. There is a core agreement in the religious experiences and doctrines of Gnostics, Vedic Aryans, Neoplatonists, Tibetan Buddhists, Judaism, Carl Jung and many other works. I doesn't want to load all of them here and as you can see there are from different timelines and disconnected places.

So tell me what's going on, it deserves an explanation. I hope you don't dismiss this as wishful thinking.

As for your attempts to link quantum mechanics with religio-spiritual mumbo jumbo like Deepak Chopra likes to do, I'll leave that to another thread. You may as well be arguing that quantum tunneling is evidence that santa claus is real. It's specious at best, and delusional more likely.

 

I'm perfectly willing to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.

There have been many attempts to link both of them in the past and have failed miserably. The reason for all such failures have been a lack of basic necessary knowledge in the compared disciplines.

"Anyhow, these problems are reminders that a certain expertise in the compared disciplines, as well as a fair knowledge of their historical and theoretical issues, are indispensable."

While others tried to link it epistemologically and failed miserably I like to keep them separate and argue that only the conclusions about the nature of reality of these two disciplines are converging which is turning out to be the right view.

"As Richard H. Jones notices, it is incorrect to equate the unified field with Brahman, which is not an extended and structured field embedded in the spacetime continuum (as the unified field) but pure consciousness “beyond” space, time and even mind."

As many philosophers and scholars continue studying it they will soon realize it.