Nature based religions

[Spirit of Light]

As a Buddhist i dont see a creator God in that sense, Buddha did not teach about other Gods or other Buddhas but stated there are countless Gods,Buddhas, Daos, But to gain the inner wisdom to reach what Buddhism call Enlightenment one should only follow one path. So as Buddhist i follow Buddha Sakyamunis teaching, But i can not say there is not other Gods or other Buddhas

In meditation one can experience different "super natural" things that is very difficult to explain using todays science. it has to be experienced by the person. For one who has experienced "super natural" things he or she can not explain it to those who can not understand, because one would only look foolish, that is why very seldom do you hear a buddhist explaining those things.

Buddha means Enlighten person, it means one has let go of the human aspect of life.
As a Buddhist i do not see human life other then suffering because of attachments to human things, thoughts or actions. when one let go of the attachments and has followed the guidlines Buddha Sakyamuni teached us we might get enlighten too.

But about the nature them of this tread. a Buddhist does not see any reason to harm any living being or plant, tree and so on. we believe in no harm of other (karma law)

 

[metis]

I sorta mix my liberal Catholicism with nature-based leanings.

 

[David T]

Well nature plays many roles in most religions but I think, but as for nature being "the thing" in the absolute sense (whether deified or not) and worshiped, tends to lean itself more to paganism than anything else. Look at it's role in Zen for example compared to Hinduism, within the Abrahamic religions it tends to be treated as 'Gods gift to mankind' to appreciate but not worship.

I dont think the data points to that at all. While there certainly is a sort of suburban goes camping in an rv aspect to some things that you allude to, i dont think they make up the majority.

 

[David T]

Nature religions – There are religions referred to as nature religions where nature is a central focus of belief. Some of these many Pagan religions, Indigenous religions, Pantheism, Animism and Religious Naturalism. In the last example there has been an attempt create a metaphysical and philosophical structure to a religion of nature and includes such philosophers as early as Baruch Spinoza in the 1600s to modern philosophers such as Karl Peters, Henry Wieman, Donald Crosby, Usrula Goodenough, Willem Drees and Jerome Stone are examples. We portray many of the earliest religions to be centered around the natural world and this seems consistent with the few remaining indigenous religions we know about.

When I look at religions with respect to the change relationship to the non-human natural world it seems that the more separated humans became from the rest of the natural world it there is a shift to human centered religion. As people began to control their environment more depending less and less on the wilder aspects of the natural world their religious views seem seems to change reflecting a new outlook on god in relationship to humans. As social groups grow and become more complex it seems the god changes again into a more personal god. With increasing political strength, we see religious movements that support a religious hierarchy in a which then works to eliminate more tolerant religious ideas in the advance of a dominant monotheistic religion supporting the political power. Yet as successful as these monotheistic religions had been to exert the view of a single way of believe there developed a diversification of the beliefs which could not be controlled.

One of these diversifications was the return of religions with nature as the central or even sole aspect of belief. Despite the claims of a one true religion, what factors lead to this diversification and in particular to a of focus to Nature? Why did some of these nature oriented religious movements develop or return as important in a world in which a monotheistic human centered religious was so dominant?

 

[David T]

Interestingly i am not sure the text of christianity is infact not extremely nature based. Its almost an impossible text to understand by modern perspective but its all about birth life death and thats all natural.

I think that a shift towards a more nature oriented spirituality will continue to develop. As long as we find ourselves in the situatIon enviromemtally. Its not seen at this time as a spiritual issue but a resourcing allocation issue by the majority.

Now i have read by some whom percieve it as simply modern western religion of the "i believe/atheism/agnostisism" majority in nature drag. While this is partially true, in context to some, its not totally true and rather superficial.

For some the intellect has little to do with it, its related to experience.john muir is a good example. A modern writer David abram is another. One can also see it in a number of more nature oriented voices including Jane goodall, rachel carlson, arne ness, fr. Tomas berry, wendell barry, and the list is long.

I could say animism in regards to this . But the topic is deeply confused and unsettled at the accedemic level so i cant see how it cant help but be superficial and confusing On RF, so i dont even bother discussing it. The forum is more is dr who a real dr.? Some believe, some are unsure, others say there is no evidence of that. Thats pretty "normal"

 

[Bear Wild]

Interestingly i am not sure the text of christianity is infact not extremely nature based. Its almost an impossible text to understand by modern perspective but its all about birth life death and thats all natural.

I think that a shift towards a more nature oriented spirituality will continue to develop. As long as we find ourselves in the situatIon enviromemtally. Its not seen at this time as a spiritual issue but a resourcing allocation issue by the majority.

Now i have read by some whom percieve it as simply modern western religion of the "i believe/atheism/agnostisism" majority in nature drag. While this is partially true, in context to some, its not totally true and rather superficial.

For some the intellect has little to do with it, its related to experience.john muir is a good example. A modern writer David abram is another. One can also see it in a number of more nature oriented voices including Jane goodall, rachel carlson, arne ness, fr. Tomas berry, wendell barry, and the list is long.

I could say animism in regards to this . But the topic is deeply confused and unsettled at the accedemic level so i cant see how it cant help but be superficial and confusing On RF, so i dont even bother discussing it. The forum is more is dr who a real dr.? Some believe, some are unsure, others say there is no evidence of that. Thats pretty "normal"

Animism is an interesting view point and it is integrated into the language of at least the northeastern Native American/First American language. It gives respect to the rest of the natural world. Have read the works of David Abram and Graham Harvey and followed Jane Goodall. I believe Christianity needs to remove the concept of Dominion of the rest of the natural world and replace it with greater equality. It is time to move away from anthropocentric viewpoint.

 

[David T]

Animism is an interesting view point and it is integrated into the language of at least the northeastern Native American/First American language. It gives respect to the rest of the natural world. Have read the works of David Abram and Graham Harvey and followed Jane Goodall. I believe Christianity needs to remove the concept of Dominion of the rest of the natural world and replace it with greater equality. It is time to move away from anthropocentric viewpoint.

Yes totally agree. I know that dominionism has been more recently understood in catholic tradition, at least, as a misreading of the text and has changes its views to a degree.

I have been on this site to understand why exactly we tend to be detached from nature emotionally and intellectually. Its been interesting to say the least. Science "mindedness" is as problematic as religious "mindedness" in regards to our current views on nature. So i would say anthromorphism is not just a myth narrative issue but also a part of the scientific methodology as well. I also look at science like church. A huge spectrum.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes totally agree. I know that dominionism has been more recently understood in catholic tradition, at least, as a misreading of the text and has changes its views to a degree.

I have been on this site to understand why exactly we tend to be detached from nature emotionally and intellectually. Its been interesting to say the least. Science "mindedness" is as problematic as religious "mindedness" in regards to our current views on nature. So i would say anthromorphism is not just a myth narrative issue but also a part of the scientific methodology as well. I also look at science like church. A huge spectrum.

Science is important but it is limited in how it sees nature. There is the aesthetic, experiential and spiritual aspects. I believe it is time we all become better connected with the rest of the natural world more with the appreciation of the experiential as did those you mentioned like John Muir, Rachel Carson, Alexander Humboldt and Henry David Thoreau as examples. We all would be better off.

 

[David T]

Science is important but it is limited in how it sees nature. There is the aesthetic, experiential and spiritual aspects. I believe it is time we all become better connected with the rest of the natural world more with the appreciation of the experiential as did those you mentioned like John Muir, Rachel Carson, Alexander Humboldt and Henry David Thoreau as examples. We all would be better off.

in·spire
/inˈspī(ə)r/
verb

1. 1.
   fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative.
   "his passion for romantic literature inspired him to begin writing"
   synonyms: stimulate, motivate, encourage, influence, rouse, move, stir, energize, galvanize, incite; More
   
   
2. 2.
   breathe in (air); inhale.

david abram points out the term breathed into in genisis is the same as inspire to breathe in...... In a real sense god breathed into or inspired into man.

Breathing... a much underappreciated aspect of life! We share our breath with trees..... Another unappreciated fellow traveler.

 

[Bear Wild]

Interconnection/Interdependence– All of life is interconnected and interdependent. There complex networks of interrelation and interdependence in the natural world. We see ourselves as separate and operate to an extent as separate yet we are intimately connected at the same time. When we breath in air we take in the oxygen released by the plants of our world and release the carbon dioxide. We cannot exist without the other also being present thus have an intimate tie with the plants in our world. We are sustained by the natural world which gives us the food we eat and each of the forms of food are intimately connected of other forms of life for their existence. Even though we are individuals we are also in continuum with the rest of nature every time we breath, drink or eat. The distinction between the individual and the rest of the natural world is not as distinct as it seems from our individual perspective. Bee and flower distinct but at the same time interconnected. Trees and fungal relations create supportive relations between trees of the forest. Bacteria and the humans are separate and yet intimately connected in the digestive system. We see ourselves as individuals but must also see ourselves as interconnected and interdependent with the rest of the natural world and form the appropriate respect to the natural world.