Towards a rational faith and religion

[buddhist]

Brahman is not subject to change in Advaita thought and is pure sat-chit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss). Brahman only experiences the illusion of change when he imposes Maya/Illusion on himself and temporarily experiences through finite forms.

I am not sure I grasp that. 'Nibbana' to me is liberation from changing finite conditions and realizing the infinite One consciousness.

Isn't change which is experienced, whether illusory or not, still change?

 

[Demonslayer]

If you're working with rational thought and reasoning, why do you need a religion? It seems to me people want to shoe-horn the word "religion" into more and more things these days.

If you have a world view based on rational thought and reasoning, I wouldn't call it religion, I'd call it science or rationalism or something. The word religion implies that, at some point the world view being referred to is going to take a sharp left turn into la-la land.

I could be wrong I guess, I know some religions have very little in the way of supernatural claims or beliefs. I just think trying to apply the word religion to a complete rational, reasonable, evidence based world view is misleading.

 

[George-ananda]

Isn't change which is experienced, whether illusory or not, still change?

Yes, Brahman, the unchanging, can intentionally impose Maya/Change on himself through His creative aspect. Why do humans create art? An eternal unchanging state with no art/movement is pointless maybe? Now, I admit I am getting into ultimate conjectures.

 

[buddhist]

If you're working with rational thought and reasoning, why do you need a religion? It seems to me people want to shoe-horn the word "religion" into more and more things these days.

If you have a world view based on rational thought and reasoning, I wouldn't call it religion, I'd call it science or rationalism or something. The word religion implies that, at some point the world view being referred to is going to take a sharp left turn into la-la land.

I could be wrong I guess, I know some religions have very little in the way of supernatural claims or beliefs. I just think trying to apply the word religion to a complete rational, reasonable, evidence based world view is misleading.

I use the word "religion" in the sense that I am extrapolating what can be learned from the laws found in the "natural" world to an understanding of that which is normally unseen, the "supernatural" world.

 

[Demonslayer]

I use the word "religion" in the sense that I am extrapolating what can be learned from the laws found in the "natural" world to an understanding of that which is normally unseen, the "supernatural" world.

I just feel the more we learn about laws in the natural world, the more we realize there really is no "supernatural" world.

I think this is why the most fundamentally religious have such fear or distaste for science. The more we learn about our natural world the fewer supernatural explanations we need.

Now again, I could be wrong (it happened once in 1982 ). Maybe one day we will learn something from rational thought, reasoning and scientific exploration that WILL point to something supernatural. I don't think so though. It appears to me the more we pull back the curtain, the more obvious it is that Oz is just some frumpy old troublemaker.

 

[George-ananda]

I use the word "religion" in the sense that I am extrapolating what can be learned from the laws found in the "natural" world to an understanding of that which is normally unseen, the "supernatural" world.

I like that. The 'supernatural' is really just the natural that is normally unseen.

 

[George-ananda]

I just feel the more we learn about laws in the natural world, the more we realize there really is no "supernatural" world.

The 'supernatural' is really just the natural that is normally unseen.

 

[buddhist]

Yes, Brahman, the unchanging, can intentionally impose Maya/Change on himself through His creative aspect. Why do humans create art? An eternal unchanging state with no art/movement is pointless maybe? Now, I admit I am getting into ultimate conjectures.

IMO "creative" implies change

 

[buddhist]

I just feel the more we learn about laws in the natural world, the more we realize there really is no "supernatural" world.

I think this is why the most fundamentally religious have such fear or distaste for science. The more we learn about our natural world the fewer supernatural explanations we need.

Now again, I could be wrong (it happened once in 1982 ). Maybe one day we will learn something from rational thought, reasoning and scientific exploration that WILL point to something supernatural. I don't think so though. It appears to me the more we pull back the curtain, the more obvious it is that Oz is just some frumpy old troublemaker.

I agree, there really isn't a "supernatural" world. It's simply that which men and women with their normal physical senses cannot directly observe or experience.

In the Dharmic religions, including Advaita and early Buddhism, it is said that there are additional dormant senses which must be exercised and "opened" by the spiritually mature, in order to experience other realms which can only be "seen" using those senses.

There is no distate for science in early Buddhism. Authentic "science" is simply another word for one way of exploring the Dhamma (reality).

 

[Demonslayer]

The 'supernatural' is really just the natural that is normally unseen.

So wind, love, black holes and radiation are "supernatural?"

I don't think it's accurate. There are many natural things that are normally unseen.

 

[Demonslayer]

agree, there really isn't a "supernatural" world. It's simply that which men and women with their normal physical senses cannot directly observe or experience.

OK I'm with you here.

In the Dharmic religions, including Advaita and early Buddhism, it is said that there are additional dormant senses which must be exercised and "opened" by the spiritually mature, in order to experience other realms which can only be "seen" using those senses.

And then I fall off here. The old "we only use 10% of our brains" theory has largely been debunked, and I don't believe we have any "sixth sense" or can "mature spiritually" to the point where suddenly other worlds open up to us.

Symbolically, sure. As we mature we may...hopefully DO...come to greater, deeper understandings about the world around us, how we fit into it, things we find important, etc. But these "realms" are merely ways of thinking (in my opinion) and not literal hidden worlds or dimensions like Narnia.

 

[George-ananda]

IMO "creative" implies change

I guess I can't disagree with that. Maybe I should thing of change as relative. Relative to us, Brahman's core is unchanging. Maybe ultimate, ultimate unchanging is dreary pointlessness?

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe that the immutable laws we can observe within the universe can teach us about the nature of all things - such as the fact that, even in this universe, we can see how all created things must have a creator, and how effects are always governed by causes. In such a way, I find it reasonable to conclude that there is some creator (even if we ourselves are the "creator"). Feel free to subsitute "cause" for "creator".

Sorry, you lost me there. That is just way too theistic for me to use - or to want to.

 

[George-ananda]

So wind, love, black holes and radiation are "supernatural?"

I don't think it's accurate. There are many natural things that are normally unseen.

True. I think the term 'supernatural' was created to refer just to things with spiritual significance and involving intelligences beyond the physical and has no precise definition. A ghost composed of matter normally unseen would for example, be supernatural. Cosmic rays would not.

 

[Demonslayer]

True. I think the term 'supernatural' was created to refer just to things with spiritual significance and involving intelligences beyond the physical and has no precise definition

Yes I think so too. I think to be considered "supernatural" it has to be more than just unseen.

A ghost composed of matter normally unseen would for example, be supernatural.

Absolutely a ghost of course would be a prime example of something most of us would consider "supernatural."

It is my opinion that, to the point of the original post, rational thought and reasoning and scientific exploration will never find evidence of ghosts because supernatural things are not real.

IMO, supernatural things are merely human attempts to explain what we don't know. 1000 years ago, nearly every ailment was "a demon." We used to put mentally handicapped people to death, often torturing them first because they were "possessed by demons." Now that we know what these diseases are, the cause and often the cure, we have no need for the explanation of "demon" and most people have extrapolated this to the understanding that there are in fact no such things as demons.

Some people still believe in demons of course, but the reasons for maintaining such belief are growing fewer and fewer and the onslaught of information, knowledge and rational thought have yet to indicate anything at all supporting actual demons.

The main reason to hold on to supernatural ideas is because we WANT to. When I was a kid I so badly wanted to be able to concentrate, squint, stick out my arm and use the Force to make something fly into my grasp from across the room. Try as I might it didn't happen. I figure now, the Force is just in a movie. Like demons and ghosts and other supernatural things.

 

[buddhist]

OK I'm with you here.

And then I fall off here. The old "we only use 10% of our brains" theory has largely been debunked, and I don't believe we have any "sixth sense" or can "mature spiritually" to the point where suddenly other worlds open up to us.

Symbolically, sure. As we mature we may...hopefully DO...come to greater, deeper understandings about the world around us, how we fit into it, things we find important, etc. But these "realms" are merely ways of thinking (in my opinion) and not literal hidden worlds or dimensions like Narnia.

It's not about the brain (mind), it's about the consciousness (and beyond). Additional senses exist in the higher realms of consciousness, not in the brain.

For example, a young child who has not mastered his instincts and emotions is not in touch with his sense of mind. Once the child has "opened" his sense of mind can he begin to master his latent senses connected to his brain/mind (eyes, ears, etc.), and only then can he adequately communicate using those senses. Until then, it exists much like an animal which operates on instinct, perceiving a dreamlike world which doesn't fully "make sense" to him.

In the same way, only an adult who has "opened" his sense of consciousness can begin to master his latent senses connected to his consciousness, and then communicate using those senses. Until then, the adult who has not progressed to become a spiritual adept can only sense the "supernatural" as a dreamlike state (whether literal, in dreams during sleep, or otherwise), and it will not fully "make sense" to him.

There is no shortcut to spiritual progression. Instincts must be mastered, then emotions, then the mind, then the consciousness, etc. Most do not go beyond the level of emotions, and less so the mind.

 

[George-ananda]

But these "realms" are merely ways of thinking (in my opinion) and not literal hidden worlds or dimensions like Narnia.

That's the great divide in most of these type of discussions. Those who believe other realms to be 'real' and those who don't. I believe they are 'real' from my study of various types of paranormal phenomena and the teachings of eastern spiritual masters who I have come to respect as knowing beyond the 'seen' i.e. seers.

 

[buddhist]

I guess I can't disagree with that. Maybe I should thing of change as relative. Relative to us, Brahman's core is unchanging. Maybe ultimate, ultimate unchanging is dreary pointlessness?

Perhaps, but the Buddha described the ultimate unchanging (nibbana) as the ultimate bliss. Touching the unchanging in jhana is blissful, for me at least, in my direct experience.

 

[buddhist]

Sorry, you lost me there. That is just way too theistic for me to use - or to want to.

Do you believe in the law of cause and effect?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In early Buddhism,

Could you say what you mean by "early Buddhism", and which texts you would include? Are you talking about the really early stuff like the Sutta Nipata, or the Pali Canon generally?