Definition of "god"?

[articulett]

Okay arti, I'll bite (but only because you asked ) - what the hell does this have to do with Jerome?

I meant plumjam... I get my trolls mixed up.

(egads... you bite?)

 

[plumjam]

I meant plumjam... I get my trolls mixed up.

(egads... you bite?)

Arti, even if Salma Hayek were to walk back into my life, rest assured that I will never ever forget you.

 

[jj]

The great theologists of the 1990's USENET answered this question:

Bob is...

THE SUBGENIUS MUST HAVE SLACK!

You were around in the 1990's on Nutnews? Egads! I dare say I was there from the 1980's and a-news!

 

[Hokulele]

Which is why, Meher Baba, in the first quote, made it clear that the relational dualistic realm is ultimately unreal; being a product of partial knowledge (ignorance).. in other words illusory. See the concept of Maya in Hinduism and Buddhism.

Erm, no. Buddhism's take on the nature of reality is rather different from the Hindu version. Buddhism is about cause and effect and directly rejects the notion of an eternal self (soul) or an eternal existence, very unlike Hinduism. In addition, a person can be enlightened and still experience objects and emotions, which directly contradicts the notion of maya.

Regardless, none of this negates the fact that by requiring your god to have concern for anything (much less mankind), it must be dualistic. You may wish to study anatta for a better understanding of why the concern argument fails.

 

[Sceptic Realist]

And the fact that there is video footage clearly showing Sai Baba to be engaging in cheesy (and poorly done) sleight of hand tricks as supposed "miracles" has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that he's a fraud?

Nothing?

Nothing whatsoever?

For you it's all about your "intuition"?

Please tell me that's not true. Because if it is, I fear you will be taken advantage of by some other "guru" in due time. Of course, it is your life...

If I may be so bold as to offer a possibility....this may be a case of imporper word useage. Reading his posts, I've got the impression that he's using intuition to mean (and my own feeble attempt to grasp a proper replacement, as it is very late) opinion. For clarification:

Intuition
1: quick and ready insight2 a: immediate apprehension or cognition b: knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c: the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

Of course, I could be mistaken. It's up to him to clarify. That's just what his posts seemed to indicate (to me).

 

[articulett]

Arti, even if Salma Hayek were to walk back into my life, rest assured that I will never ever forget you.

Yes... you're a troll... but I've grown fond of you which I hate, of course. Cheer up, I don't have you on ignore anymore.

(Can Salma Hayak say as much?)

 

[plumjam]

Erm, no. Buddhism's take on the nature of reality is rather different from the Hindu version. Buddhism is about cause and effect and directly rejects the notion of an eternal self (soul) or an eternal existence, very unlike Hinduism. In addition, a person can be enlightened and still experience objects and emotions, which directly contradicts the notion of maya.

Regardless, none of this negates the fact that by requiring your god to have concern for anything (much less mankind), it must be dualistic. You may wish to study anatta for a better understanding of why the concern argument fails.

Hokulele, you seem to have a knack of taking one aspect of a discussion, or something that I've said, and then draw it out to connect it with extraneous non-relevant (to what was being discussed) matter.
Here, for example, I mentioned maya, as a principle involved in the understanding of finite reality in Hinduism and Buddhism. You draw this out to connect it to alleged differences between H and B regarding an eternal self, eternal existence, enlightened people experiencing objects and emotions etc..

Earlier you addressed my definition of God (actually Meher Baba's) and extraneously connected it to God having concern for mankind. Which is another topic.

Where is all this stuff coming from?

Anyway, back to maya. H and B do differ on some things, mainly on emphases rather than big theological points. When it comes to maya I'm not aware of any really significant differences in H and B beliefs on this particular topic. In both maya is an illusory principle which is the causal factor allowing the infinite to appear finite.

 

[plumjam]

Yes... you're a troll... but I've grown fond of you which I hate, of course. Cheer up, I don't have you on ignore anymore.

(Can Salma Hayak say as much?)

Awww.. I feel like stroking a kitten now

(yeah, Salma still has me on ignore, ever since I started boffing J-Lo)

 

[Sunstealer]

I would never argue that the brain should necessarily be excluded, as a means of interaction with the soul, from such matters.

I wasn't arguing that the brain should be excluded, included or partially excluded. I'm arguing that the brain is ALL. The is no need for a soul, whatever that is. Another thread could be titled "define the word soul". Again it's a made up and imaginary. It does not exist. If it does then please show me this soul by giving evidence for it and show how it interacts with the brain (and your god).

The fact that some things can be communicated to the consciousness via the brain, due to neurochemical changes, has no bearing on whether the things being communicated are real or unreal.
They could be real chairs or chairs mentioned in a novel.

Yep I agree and this is why religion is so strong (see final paragraph), however, without the brain there is no conciousness. It matters not whether one is communicating real or imaginary objects the fact of the matter is you have to have a brain to be able to be concious and interpret the communication.

You're asking me to show you via your senses how God produces the effect of love on a consciousness without a material brain.
I'm guessing you complain quite a bit at restaurants?

I'm asking you how you receive love from your god. Love can be expressed and experience shows this to be physical so how can your non-material god show love? How do you make the immaterial interact with the material to produce chemical changes in the brain that make one feel good and equate that feeling with love? If you can't tell the mechanism and you can't tell if the thing being communicated is real or not then why espouse believe a non-material reason?

I've long believed that people think that god is love because they simply feel good due to the experiences associated with god. This is usually gained through a sense of well being within a group, but I also think that there is a reward through some conditional behaviour which leads to self delusion. They don't actually have any direct dealing because god is not real, but the feel good factor is without doubt there. It is so strong that to abandon the reason behind the feel good factor is to abandon the high. Religion is not called the opiate of the masses for no reason and I wouldn't be surprised if those that had strong feeling would also have similar brain patterns to those who have an addiction.

I've seen a Christian go into an ecstatic state as she talked about Christ, she was absolutely overwhelmed with joy and I'd say physically aroused too. Nothing would make her happier than a good old Christian sing song on the guitar with her Christian friends or telling us heathens how goody good she was and that she was singled out for special treatment because she believed and we didn't.

 

[maxfrost]

Exactly. Just in the same way that you and I are sharing a similar delusion about the existence of a chair.

Yes, but we're not having meaningful communication.

 

[Hokulele]

Earlier you addressed my definition of God (actually Meher Baba's) and extraneously connected it to God having concern for mankind. Which is another topic.

Which showed how your definition of god ("yours" in that you are the one who dragged it into this thread) is dualistic, hence the contradiction. Only an indifferent god could avoid dualism.

Where is all this stuff coming from?

Various and sundry books, articles, and discussions on comparative religion and philosophy. Why, where are you pulling the nonsense regarding Buddhism from?

Anyway, back to maya. H and B do differ on some things, mainly on emphases rather than big theological points.

Erm, no. There are many differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, for example the concept of Nirvana vs. Brahma, the existence of a soul, the origin of the universe, equality between people of different castes/faiths/what-have-you, the role of a teacher/mentor/priest, the existence of an afterlife, reincarnation vs. rebirth, etc. The differences are staggering when you read the source texts.

When it comes to maya I'm not aware of any really significant differences in H and B beliefs on this particular topic. In both maya is an illusory principle which is the causal factor allowing the infinite to appear finite.

There is only one sect of Buddhism that I am aware of (and a relatively small one at that) that subscribes to the concept of maya and it has more to do with self-delusion, intentional or not, than any underlying "truth" regarding the infinite/finite. For the most part, mainstream Buddhism doesn't bother with it.

It sounds like you are getting some Theosophy mixed in with your Hinduism and Buddhism. D.T. Suzuki, anyone?

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, thanks for the long reply.
No disrespect, but you're basically saying the same as before.. and my previous reply pretty much covers what you've brought up here.
We'd be dancing over old ground, my friend.

I know we are, my friend, but since the issues keep coming up, I keep addressing them. Remember that the forum is not like a phone conversation. We write for others to see. There may be newbies here. It may not be old ground for them.

 

[blauregen]

I've seen a Christian go into an ecstatic state as she talked about Christ, she was absolutely overwhelmed with joy and I'd say physically aroused too.

It reads as if christianity works for her.

 

[plumjam]

Which showed how your definition of god ("yours" in that you are the one who dragged it into this thread) is dualistic, hence the contradiction. Only an indifferent god could avoid dualism.

The first Meher Baba quote fully dealt with this. It, (and I) have already explained to you why any definition of God will be inadequate.

Various and sundry books, articles, and discussions on comparative religion and philosophy. Why, where are you pulling the nonsense regarding Buddhism from?

Read em a bit closer.

Erm, no. There are many differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, for example the concept of Nirvana vs. Brahma, the existence of a soul, the origin of the universe, equality between people of different castes/faiths/what-have-you, the role of a teacher/mentor/priest, the existence of an afterlife, reincarnation vs. rebirth, etc. The differences are staggering when you read the source texts.

See the part I bolded. This just gives away your ignorance on this whole subject. There is no Nirvana vs. Brahma comparison. Nirvana means a blowing out, an extinction, release from bondage to the world of duality i.e. liberation. The Hindu equivalent to this is Moksha - liberation.

Brahma means something else entirely.
Brahma is the Hindu God of Creation, and is usually presented along with Vishnu and Shiva in the Trimurti.
Brahma - Creator
Vishnu - Preserver
Shiva - Destroyer

Perhaps you meant to say Brahman. But that would still be incorrect; Brahman being the supreme (typically described as impersonal) cosmic spirit, NOT liberation (moksha).

You are also wrong on other points, particularly the role of the teacher, and reincarnation. But I really see no reason to waste my time going into it, seeing as the original point of contention was about maya.

There is only one sect of Buddhism that I am aware of (and a relatively small one at that) that subscribes to the concept of maya and it has more to do with self-delusion, intentional or not, than any underlying "truth" regarding the infinite/finite. For the most part, mainstream Buddhism doesn't bother with it.

Kidding right? The Theravada tradition, which is the original and oldest Buddhist tradition subscribes to Maya. That is not "a relatively small sect". It is the national religion of whole nations such as Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia etc..
There are also aspects of the Mahayana tradition which view the world as ultimately illusory, as with the maya concept.

It sounds like you are getting some Theosophy mixed in with your Hinduism and Buddhism. D.T. Suzuki, anyone?

More extraneous irrelevancies brought in by you, I see.

 

[Paulhoff]

Brahman, the top dog, for those who need a so-called god.

Paul

 

[Civilized Worm]

Isn't god the guy that goes around burying fossils and making them look much older than they really are? Or was that the devil?

 

[Hokulele]

The first Meher Baba quote fully dealt with this. It, (and I) have already explained to you why any definition of God will be inadequate.

If any definition of a god is inadequate, how do you get away by claiming that god is eternally, infinitely loving? As Tricky said earlier, only by making the terms "eternal", "infinite", and "loving" meaningless can you avoid a contradiction with your first quote. Which is rather the same as making the term "god" meaningless. Which is exactly the point of the OP.

See the part I bolded. This just gives away your ignorance on this whole subject. There is no Nirvana vs. Brahma comparison. Nirvana means a blowing out, an extinction, release from bondage to the world of duality i.e. liberation. The Hindu equivalent to this is Moksha - liberation.

Brahma means something else entirely.
Brahma is the Hindu God of Creation, and is usually presented along with Vishnu and Shiva in the Trimurti.
Brahma - Creator
Vishnu - Preserver
Shiva - Destroyer

Perhaps you meant to say Brahman. But that would still be incorrect; Brahman being the supreme (typically described as impersonal) cosmic spirit, NOT liberation (moksha).

Yay! You found a typo.

Brahman vs. Nirvana as ultimate end goals. Since as you yourself pointed out various contrasts in their definitions, you can see that Hinduism and Buddhism are extremely different. Thank you for supporting my point.

You are also wrong on other points, particularly the role of the teacher, and reincarnation. But I really see no reason to waste my time going into it, seeing as the original point of contention was about maya.

Don't feel bad, many people confuse reincarnation with rebirth. Probably the best description of rebirth in Theravada was given by poster Elohim here. Actually, that entire thread was very interesting and any post by Elohim is, heh, enlightening.

Kidding right? The Theravada tradition, which is the original and oldest Buddhist tradition subscribes to Maya. That is not "a relatively small sect". It is the national religion of whole nations such as Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia etc..

"Subscribes to maya" how? Please cite relevant excerpts and show how these excerpts support maya as a valid world-view (as Hinduism does).

There are also aspects of the Mahayana tradition which view the world as ultimately illusory, as with the maya concept.

The source, mechanism, and method of dealing with that illusion is quite different, so technically the word is the same, but very little else. Stating that Buddhism and Hinduism share the concept of maya is rather like stating that England and China share the concept of cooking.

More extraneous irrelevancies brought in by you, I see.

You haven't read Suzuki? You should, you would very likely enjoy his work.

 

[plumjam]

If any definition of a god is inadequate, how do you get away by claiming that god is eternally, infinitely loving? As Tricky said earlier, only by making the terms "eternal", "infinite", and "loving" meaningless can you avoid a contradiction with your first quote. Which is rather the same as making the term "god" meaningless. Which is exactly the point of the OP.

You have a choice. The first is to either insist on complete logical consistency and remain absolutely quiet on the topic. This is an option that various traditions do take. However, that's not a terribly helpful position to take when people are requesting some kind of explanation on life, the universe and everything. Mattus was requesting some kind of explanation, which is a perfectly natural human need. I offered first a paragraph explaining how all attempts at explanation will be inadequate, and then a subsequent paragraph which (from the same person, who recognises this limitation) is offering something for the human mind to use as a way of thinking about it. Offering nothing is an option, but pretty useless.

Yay! You found a typo.

Brahman vs. Nirvana as ultimate end goals. Since as you yourself pointed out various contrasts in their definitions, you can see that Hinduism and Buddhism are extremely different. Thank you for supporting my point.

Still wrong. Brahman is not an ultimate end goal, Moksha is. Brahman is what I told you earlier.

Don't feel bad, many people confuse reincarnation with rebirth. Probably the best description of rebirth in Theravada was given by poster Elohim here. Actually, that entire thread was very interesting and any post by Elohim is, heh, enlightening.

If you go back and read a bit closer you'll see that I never mentioned rebirth; only reincarnation. So how could I have created some confusion between the two? It seems to me like you're imagining things in order to try to bolster what position you have.

"Subscribes to maya" how? Please cite relevant excerpts and show how these excerpts support maya as a valid world-view (as Hinduism does).

I'm not at high school being given an essay assignment. Buddhism clearly has a view of phenomenal existence as ultimately illusory. If the word 'maya' is not usually used to describe this, then that's no surprise, seeing as the original language of Buddhism was Pali, rather than the Sanskrit of the Hinduism of the time.

The source, mechanism, and method of dealing with that illusion is quite different, so technically the word is the same, but very little else. Stating that Buddhism and Hinduism share the concept of maya is rather like stating that England and China share the concept of cooking.

You're right about one thing at least. England and China do share the concept of cooking (even though they use different words for it).

You haven't read Suzuki? You should, you would very likely enjoy his work.

Why would you come to that conclusion? I can only think it's so you can let people know that you have. Which is posing.
Sure, I've read quite a lot of Suzuki, years ago. He wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (joke).
Suzuki, at least in his writings, is nothing special, at least in my opinion.

 

[edge]

Hey Plum How ya doing?

Good I hope.

Since you seem to be so well read up on the religion of the east, tell me if this is true and real.
http://bibleprobe.com/buddhatoldofjesus.htm

 

[six7s]

You have a choice. The first is to either insist on complete logical consistency and remain absolutely quiet on the topic.

Why should insisting on complete logical consistency preclude forming and voicing opinions on any topic?

This is an option that various traditions do take.

Please:

• name 2 (or more) such traditions
• describe the relevance (to this thread) of the way they vary

---------

ETA

You have a choice. The first is ...

Am I going blind/mad(der)? What is the alternative?