AletheiaRivers Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Here's a blurb I found on a New Thought site about my favorite Hindu philosopher: Ramanuja (1017-1137) was the next major philosophical innovator after Shankara and, because of his impact on popular piety in India, has probably had a more widespread influence than his predecessor. Ramanuja's Vedantic philosophy, like Shankara's, was based on a reading of the Upanishads and Brahma Sutra, but was a conscious and explicit rejection of certain key ideas in Shankara. The system he produced is called "Vishishtadvaita," which literally means "qualified" non-dualism, as opposed to the Kevala Advaita ("Absolute Non-dualism") of his predecessor. Like Shankara, Ramanuja wanted to maintain that Brahman is the only Absolute Reality, but insisted that Brahman is best thought of as God and as having qualities (saguna), and most especially as possessing personhood. Ramanuja regarded Shankara's Brahman nirguna as an empty abstraction. Matter and souls are equally and ultimately real as God, and are created out of "His" eternal substance, and so are not independent of Brahman-God. They are, in fact, the body of which Brahman-God is the soul. Thus Brahman-God is in them; but they are likewise in "Him" and are "Him" in a way. Yet souls are eternal and similar to, but not precisely identical with, Brahman-God; and their goal is to love God and to enjoy communion (versus union) with "Him" forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystictrek Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Hey just curious, but does a dog have Buddha nature? :-) --des It has one, it just isn't aware that it does. Which is nothing against dogs, most people don't know it either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But then, again, maybe they do know. Gracie is demanding a walk right now. Maybe she is reminding me of the great Zen teaching: When sitting, sit. When walking, walk. Above all, don't wobble. Dogs don't wobble. Or do they? I believe the correct answer about dogs having Buddha nature is: "Mu" which means Yes or No or Maybe/Maybe not. Can't be too sure about these things!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 (edited) Earlier in the thread I said: Eastern Orthodox Christianity is "theistic," although I would argue that EO is "panENtheistic" and just doesn't want to admit it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Little did I know how right I was. I just found this on Wiki: Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have a doctrine called panentheism to describe the relationship between the Uncreated (God, who is omnipotent, eternal, and constant) and His creation that bears surface similarities with the panentheism described above but maintains a critical distinction. Most specifically, these Churches teach that God is not the "watchmaker God" of the Western European Enlightenment. Likewise, they teach that God is not the "stage magician God" who only shows up when performing miracles. Instead, the teaching of both these Churches is that God is not merely necessary to have created the universe, but that His active presence is necessary in some way for every bit of creation, from smallest to greatest, to continue to exist at all. That is, God's energies maintain all things and all beings, even if those beings have explicitly rejected Him. His love of creation is such that he will not withdraw His presence, which would be the ultimate form of slaughter, not merely imposing death but ending existence, altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is sanctified, and thus no part of creation can be considered innately evil. This does not deny the existence of evil in a Fallen universe, only that it is not an innate property of creation. This Orthodox Christian panentheism is distinct from a "fundamentalist" panentheism in that it maintains an ontological gulf or distance between the created and the Uncreated. Creation is not "part of" God, and the Godhead is still distinct from creation; however, God is "within" all creation, thus the Orthodox parsing of the word is "pan-entheism" (God indwells in all things) and not "panen-theism" (All things are part of God but God is more than the sum of all things). I don't think the distinction between Orthodox Christian panentheism and commonly understood panentheism is all that different (even if the EO church wants to view it as such). Edited January 24, 2006 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 QUOTE(des @ Jan 23 2006, 10:35 PM)Hey just curious, but does a dog have Buddha nature? :-) --des We've done this before!!! The well-established answer is "mu" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wouldn't that be the answer to "Does a cow have a Buddha nature"? Or does that properly belong in the jokes section? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought for dogs the answer was "woof", and for Klingon canines, "Worf". But then if you are into running a loom and making your own designer fabrics, it would be " warp and woof ". Very confusing this spiritual stuff !! Imagine how it all seems to pets. My fish just swim up to the glass and wiggle for more food. Very basic stuff. They want and need, we provide. Does that make us Gods to them ? flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) Hah! That's why I asked it! On the net, whatever goes around, goes around more. Flow you are too much! Woof Worf. :-) --des QUOTE(des @ Jan 23 2006, 10:35 PM)Hey just curious, but does a dog have Buddha nature? :-) --des We've done this before!!! The well-established answer is "mu" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Edited January 25, 2006 by des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I believe the correct answer about dogs having Buddha nature is: "Mu" which means Yes or No or Maybe/Maybe not. Can't be too sure about these things!! Actually, I think Mu is the answer to a question based on false assumptions. The modern version is often: Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes - admits you once did No - you currently beat your wife. Mu - never did, still don't - can't answer the question with a yes or no. It actually fits many situations... if you're around people who get it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Actually, I think Mu is the answer to a question based on false assumptions. In Zen, just about every question is based on false assumptions. For example, that there is an actual entity called "you" asking another actual entity called "me" a question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.