• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"We are That"

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
OK, for those of us who especially believe and/or who were brought up in one of the Abrahamic faiths, I'm gonna ask you to put that aside for at least this introduction and try to consider something from the eastern approach.

A phrase that would make sense to one brought up as a Hindu is "We are That". The "We" is obvious, but the "That" may not be, plus it is also even controversial in the east. In general, "That" can stand for "the Great Soul", namely "Brahman" in Hindi, or "God" in English. Unlike the Abrahamics, which tend to anthropomorphize "God" to a large extent, "Brahman" is generally not treated as such. Some may use terminology like "a consciousness that envelopes all", but even that is conjectural because how does one define such "consciousness" without slipping back into anthropomorphizing. Therefore, even in Hinduism, this is pretty much an open question.

So, what happened in Hinduism is more along the line of the "many paths to God" approach, namely that each of us need to study and contemplate that which we may conclude is the best path for ourselves, realizing that our path may not be the best path for someone else. This also tends to lead to pretty much a non-judgmental approach to other faiths, so if one feels more "spiritual", however defined", with their belief in Jesus and his teachings, that's fine, as well as the Muslim who feels more spiritual with their belief in Mohammed and his teachings. Etc.

What are your thoughts on this?

BTW, a Blessed & Happy New Year to you all.
 

allfoak

Alchemist
The many path approach is fine for what it is worth.
It helps people to be more tolerant of one another and that is a good thing.
The problem is that many of these paths lead to dead ends.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
What's a dead end, and who defines it?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
OK, for those of us who especially believe and/or who were brought up in one of the Abrahamic faiths, I'm gonna ask you to put that aside for at least this introduction and try to consider something from the eastern approach.

A phrase that would make sense to one brought up as a Hindu is "We are That". The "We" is obvious, but the "That" may not be, plus it is also even controversial in the east. In general, "That" can stand for "the Great Soul", namely "Brahman" in Hindi, or "God" in English. Unlike the Abrahamics, which tend to anthropomorphize "God" to a large extent, "Brahman" is generally not treated as such. Some may use terminology like "a consciousness that envelopes all", but even that is conjectural because how does one define such "consciousness" without slipping back into anthropomorphizing. Therefore, even in Hinduism, this is pretty much an open question.

So, what happened in Hinduism is more along the line of the "many paths to God" approach, namely that each of us need to study and contemplate that which we may conclude is the best path for ourselves, realizing that our path may not be the best path for someone else. This also tends to lead to pretty much a non-judgmental approach to other faiths, so if one feels more "spiritual", however defined", with their belief in Jesus and his teachings, that's fine, as well as the Muslim who feels more spiritual with their belief in Mohammed and his teachings. Etc.

What are your thoughts on this?

BTW, a Blessed & Happy New Year to you all.
That is basically my belief - that there are many streams which lead to the ocean.

And even in Western faiths, we see such things as Matt 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." which points to perfection. Islamic sufis speak of "fana fillah" and "baqa billa", the death of the separative self and the abiding in God. I'm not sure if the Jewish "devekut" at its end would be considered similar or not - I don't know enough about Kabbalah to say.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
The ocean metaphor is fine if one is able to understand what it means.

I take it to mean that the goal or destination is the same. Personally I think it's an assumption which can easily be challenged, and I'm not a fan of woolly syncretism.
 

allfoak

Alchemist
I take it to mean that the goal or destination is the same. Personally I think it's an assumption which can easily be challenged, and I'm not a fan of woolly syncretism.

I would have to agree that the notion can and should be challenged.
I would like to keep my individuality.
 

Kenaz

I Am
The first question is: "What does one desire?"
The second question is: "What may be done?"

Truth would appear to be what is useful towards obtaining each desire.

Whether this is "Union with God," "immortality of self," or "material wealth."
Walking = walking. The Path we choose, or create, appears to be the difference.

If we are not all looking to go to the same Place (goal/desire), it is silly to expect everyone to be on 'THE' right Path.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Some may use terminology like "a consciousness that envelopes all", but even that is conjectural because how does one define such "consciousness" without slipping back into anthropomorphizing.
I'm not clear why defining 'consciousness' slips us into anthropomorphizing. Consciousness is more the ability to experience existence so I'm not sure why the definition slips into anthropomorphizing.


What are your thoughts on this?
Hinduism rocks! But as you point out all major religions can rock when approached properly.

BTW, a Blessed & Happy New Year to you all.
And to you friend.
 

arthra

Baha'i
OK, for those of us who especially believe and/or who were brought up in one of the Abrahamic faiths, I'm gonna ask you to put that aside for at least this introduction and try to consider something from the eastern approach.

A phrase that would make sense to one brought up as a Hindu is "We are That". The "We" is obvious, but the "That" may not be, plus it is also even controversial in the east. In general, "That" can stand for "the Great Soul", namely "Brahman" in Hindi, or "God" in English. Unlike the Abrahamics, which tend to anthropomorphize "God" to a large extent, "Brahman" is generally not treated as such. Some may use terminology like "a consciousness that envelopes all", but even that is conjectural because how does one define such "consciousness" without slipping back into anthropomorphizing. Therefore, even in Hinduism, this is pretty much an open question.

So, what happened in Hinduism is more along the line of the "many paths to God" approach, namely that each of us need to study and contemplate that which we may conclude is the best path for ourselves, realizing that our path may not be the best path for someone else. This also tends to lead to pretty much a non-judgmental approach to other faiths, so if one feels more "spiritual", however defined", with their belief in Jesus and his teachings, that's fine, as well as the Muslim who feels more spiritual with their belief in Mohammed and his teachings. Etc.

What are your thoughts on this?

BTW, a Blessed & Happy New Year to you all.

As I recall the Sanskrit words were 'Tat Tvam Asi" as transliterated.. or "Thou art That" and refers to the identity of the Atman or soul with Brahman...and is a cornerstone of advaita philosophy. Another view was supplied by the Dvaita school which posits:

“Sa atmaa-tat tvam asi” in Sanskrit is actually “Sa atma-atat tvam asi” or “Atman, thou art not that”. In refutation of Mayavada (Mayavada sata dushani), text 6, 'tat tvam asi" is translated as "you are a servant of the Supreme (Vishnu)"
From:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi

So maybe we should see the original Sanskrit to determine this ...anyway....but as to the Baha'i teaching there is a state in which the soul can be identified with the will of God...as follows and this is from a provisional translation:

"He who walks upon this exalted plane has no will, rest, movement, destiny or decree save that which God ordaineth. He becometh, through the effulgence of the signs of unity, entirely selfless in his essence, his attributes and his very being, even as the shadows vanish before the shining forth of the Ancient Day Star. With the soul's will has vanished and disappeared in the Will of God, it will become God's will. Its satisfaction will be God's satisfaction. Then the veils shall be removed and duality will pass from the reality of the heart. Then the sign of contentment appears in the soul and because of this satisfaction with the decree of its Creator and its submission to the commands of its Maker, it is referred to as the contented soul" (9).



(Provisional Translations, 'Abdu'l-Baha - Planes of the Soul, p. 1)
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
That is a sectoral view. Other Hindus are not servants to anyone. They are themselves 'That' which constitutes the universe and all things in it. People who fear look for masters or the people who want to make others their servants take recourse to such teachings.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
OK, for those of us who especially believe and/or who were brought up in one of the Abrahamic faiths, I'm gonna ask you to put that aside for at least this introduction and try to consider something from the eastern approach.

A phrase that would make sense to one brought up as a Hindu is "We are That". The "We" is obvious, but the "That" may not be, plus it is also even controversial in the east. In general, "That" can stand for "the Great Soul", namely "Brahman" in Hindi, or "God" in English. Unlike the Abrahamics, which tend to anthropomorphize "God" to a large extent, "Brahman" is generally not treated as such. Some may use terminology like "a consciousness that envelopes all", but even that is conjectural because how does one define such "consciousness" without slipping back into anthropomorphizing. Therefore, even in Hinduism, this is pretty much an open question.

So, what happened in Hinduism is more along the line of the "many paths to God" approach, namely that each of us need to study and contemplate that which we may conclude is the best path for ourselves, realizing that our path may not be the best path for someone else. This also tends to lead to pretty much a non-judgmental approach to other faiths, so if one feels more "spiritual", however defined", with their belief in Jesus and his teachings, that's fine, as well as the Muslim who feels more spiritual with their belief in Mohammed and his teachings. Etc.

What are your thoughts on this?

BTW, a Blessed & Happy New Year to you all.
taking away the 'human' aspect of God opens the discussion for any and all kinds of entity .....greater than ourselves.
the imagination can then run to any extent and any form.

how about a spiritual version of Star Trek's .....the Borg.

you will be assimilated......resistance is futile.
no judgement....no damnation.....
no continuance for the unique person you are....

take away the play of creation that makes us unique.....and the Cause behind that creation....
you are more likely to cease as a person.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
What are your thoughts on this?

It is a mistake to give conceptions of deity too much significance, even in strictly theistic paths.

Hinduism has the right of it when it realizes, perhaps unconsciously and even incompletely, that while religion often motivates people into supernatural beliefs, it must nonetheless be judged and justified on practical terms by what it motivates and inspires.

People should not wonder whether their religion is "true", but rather on how much meaning us people can find and build in our paths.

Religion is not meant to be betting it all blindly, let alone ego-fueled hubris and arrogance shielded by silly supernatural beliefs. Nor should it be an excuse to judge others unworthy to boost and justify one's own ego.

I guess the bottom line is that belief is not an asset to people, nor to religions. It may be unavoidable, but it is not to be revered and worshipped. We should test and express our beliefs, and so should everyone else. Religion (or at least heathy living) is all about learning to do that and to deal constructively with the consequences.

Metaphysics and theology are, at best, minor and optional accessories to that.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
the death rate doesn't keep up with the birth rate.
Unchecked I might live to see 12billion people on this earth.
6billion will die in the same sequence.

that's a lot of ego going somewhere.

not believing in afterlife?......
 
Top