Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rjunker

Contradictions When Using The Word "god" And "non-Theism&#

60 posts in this topic

" 'That there is suffering, this I know'
So proclaimed the Buddha"

 

The first noble truth of suffering, or dissatisfaction, is followed by the reason for it and a "way out". The "nature of things" is not a supernatural or mystical concept and one doesn't have to be a card-carrying anything to observe this. It is in the nature of things to come into being, stay for a while and then pass away - impermanence. Because we cling to and desire things that are impermanent is our innate and conditioned ignorance of the nature of things.

 

To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false. If we mistake the impermanent for the permanent and eternal, we are mistaken. Can we still say that in this condition we observe what is real?

 

Everything we think beyond the "true" nature of things is then, born of ignorance and requires theological and philosophical speculation to resolve. The antidote for this, according to the Buddha is to seriously confront the fact of death and impermanence by continued study and reflection/meditation. This is, as he said, the "king" of meditations.

 

If one says they are a "theist" or a "non-theist" it is beside the point. It is merely speculation, subject to potential error. Realizing (not an intellectual assent of) the "nature of things" is the most profound way to proceed.

 

Steve

Edited by SteveS55
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false. If we mistake the impermanent for the permanent and eternal, we are mistaken. Can we still say that in this condition we observe what is real?

 

Again my take, for me: existence is real. My access to it is limited and incomplete; and much, if not all of it, is not what it seems. Illusory.

Nevertheless my perceptions are a reflection of existence and at times that reflection may be distorted or at least the perception is distorted.

And a "good" starting point for looking at illusions is when I use the words "I" or "my". I think of myself as real and illusory.

 

These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" 'That there is suffering, this I know'

So proclaimed the Buddha"

 

The first noble truth of suffering, or dissatisfaction, is followed by the reason for it and a "way out". The "nature of things" is not a supernatural or mystical concept and one doesn't have to be a card-carrying anything to observe this. It is in the nature of things to come into being, stay for a while and then pass away - impermanence. Because we cling to and desire things that are impermanent is our innate and conditioned ignorance of the nature of things.

 

To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false. If we mistake the impermanent for the permanent and eternal, we are mistaken. Can we still say that in this condition we observe what is real?

 

Everything we think beyond the "true" nature of things is then, born of ignorance and requires theological and philosophical speculation to resolve. The antidote for this, according to the Buddha is to seriously confront the fact of death and impermanence by continued study and reflection/meditation. This is, as he said, the "king" of meditations.

 

If one says they are a "theist" or a "non-theist" it is beside the point. It is merely speculation, subject to potential error. Realizing (not an intellectual assent of) the "nature of things" is the most profound way to proceed.

 

Steve

 

Of course, I assume, you do acknowledge that your statement ("To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false.") is a matter of belief accepted by some but not others. And the statement, "Everything we think beyond the "true" nature of things is then, born of ignorance..." is stated as if it is dogma and to go against it is considered ignorance and, I guess, heresy (wrong opinion).

 

You point to Buddha's advise for continued study and reflection and mediation but dismiss the same 'need' for other faiths as philosophical or theological speculation - although both these disciplines involve continued study, reflection and mediation or prayer.

 

To say one is a theist, for example, is not beside any point, it is part and parcel of their faith. It would seem that all human faiths, religions, philosophies or whatever one calls them, including Buddhism, are also 'mere speculation subject to error'

Edited by thormas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Again my take, for me: existence is real." That's fair enough, Rom. My purpose is not to convince anyone else of my perspective, which is more of a question regarding the nature of things. We could get into what we mean by "real", but that would be engaging more discursive thought than is required. In the end, I think any definition of what is "real" will end in a meaningless tautology.

 

Steve

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Of course, I assume, you do acknowledge that your statement ("To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false.") is a matter of belief accepted by some but not others." This is more along the lines of others pointing out what should be obvious, or self-evident if you like. I don't have beliefs, I have questions regarding the nature of things. You, on the other hand, cling to beliefs. :)

 

Steve

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Again my take, for me: existence is real." That's fair enough, Rom. My purpose is not to convince anyone else of my perspective, which is more of a question regarding the nature of things. We could get into what we mean by "real", but that would be engaging more discursive thought than is required. In the end, I think any definition of what is "real" will end in a meaningless tautology.

 

I get it Steve ... I am not making claim as to what is "real" ... only that there is a real. And if there is no real ... that too is reality.

 

I don't have beliefs

 

So you believe?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Of course, I assume, you do acknowledge that your statement ("To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false.") is a matter of belief accepted by some but not others." This is more along the lines of others pointing out what should be obvious, or self-evident if you like. I don't have beliefs, I have questions regarding the nature of things. You, on the other hand, cling to beliefs. :)

 

Steve

 

First you say something is 'simply false' and then you attempt a clarification by stating - that it is false should be obvious or self-evident. In other words, it is 'simply false.'

 

As for beliefs, you have just stated one: existence is not real, to think otherwise is false and (it is obvious that) the nature of things is not supernatural or mystical. This is not a question, it is a statement, a belief statement. It is as much a belief statement as a fundamentalist saying God and his world are real, to think otherwise is false and the true nature of things is found in the supernatural, i.e. God.

 

As for me, I'm not a clingy kind of guy, but I am curious.

Edited by thormas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe that I have no beliefs!

 

Steve

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As for me, I'm not a clingy kind of guy, but I am curious.

 

"The dharma is for passing over, not for grasping" We'll make a card carrying Buddhist of you yet...... :D (Just remember that "curiosity killed the cat")

 

Moving on, and trying desperately not to grasp, just now I am dipping into yet another "about Merton" book, this after an interval in my interest. The book I am reading is "Follow the Ecstasy:The Hermitage Years of Thomas Merton" by John Howard Griffin. Not a new book, but while browsing I spotted it. Reading, I was reminded once again of Merton's sheer intensity, the unflagging self analysis that always went hand in hand with the call to surrender completely to the will of God.

 

On the subject of this thread, a relevant passage quoted by Griffin from Merton's Journals during his Hermitage years (From 1965 onwards)

 

My first obligation is to be myself and follow God's grace and not allow myself to become the captive of some idiot idea, whether of the hermit life or anything else. What matters is not spirituality, not religion, not perfection, not success or failure at this or that, but simply God, and freedom in His spirit.

 

​So, the "theist take".

 

And from the Theravada Buddhist texts......

 

So this holy life.......does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end.

 

The "non-theist take".

 

I am not seeking to claim some sort of idiot idea ( :D ​) that both are the "same", just reporting the words that came to my own mind, and offered for the thoughts of others.

 

Later on Merton speaks of the "pharisaical division between the sacred and sense, between the sacred and the secular, and to see that the whole world is reconciled to God in Christ" (Merton's emphasis) and, speaking of union with God, that it "means the end of my own ego-self-realization, once and for all".

 

As I see it, the "contradictions" involved between Thestic and non-theistic language involve our own "either/or" mindset. Reality is more "both/and".

Edited by tariki
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not seeking to claim some sort of idiot idea ( :D ​) that both are the "same", just reporting the words that came to my own mind, and offered for the thoughts of others.

 

As I see it, the "contradictions" involved between Thestic and non-theistic language involve our own "either/or" mindset. Reality is more "both/and".

I don't think it is an "idiot idea" - it rings true.

 

I like the comment that reality is both/and. I have for quite a long time believed that the Way (for lack of a better description) is One and men find it (or it finds men) it the particularity of their circumstances. So, given those circumstances, some say, what matter is God, while others say, what matters is the goal, the end - the deliverance of mind.

 

Well and truly said!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0