Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dictionary definitions are exoteric. CB prefers the esoteric definitions of Advaita, IMO.
The texts of Advaita are in Sanskrit. And it has a large glossary of terms and how they apply. All disciplines do, Advaita is no different. Certain words have specific meaning in context. They are not always available in the exoteric (Did not know that term before) dictionaries. To limit discussions only to English language dictionary meaning is not just religious discrimination in a Religion forum, it is foolish and narrow minded, possibly out of desire to limit discussion. What are you afraid of?
Thank you for your thoughtful post, Cruithne.
1) Mystic and I don’t bicker. We are having difficulty understanding each other’s perspective on Divinity. It seems to me Mystic has difficulty understanding his own perspective. And i feel this is one reason why he struggles with what seems to be anger and frustration.
So obviously our spiritual paths are not the same. If i am unable to understand him it cannot be the same.
2). True, Divinity can be defined as well. I prefer not to use God as it is too loaded a term that signifies a Christian concept of an anthropomorphic, male, old, creator who punishes and rewards. That is not what I would call God or Ishvara, lord of the universe, who is not androgynous but has both aspects of what we consider male and female qualities, which can be problematic if misunderstood. You can see it is too complex for this post.
The Divinity i refer to is Brhman and Ishvara, the one that belongs to the Cosmos and one that belongs to the World, but they are not distinct and separate either. I see an affinity to the way God and Jesus are understood.
Honestly I don't think it's too complex. I'm interested by that.
I had no idea about this. What I know about your religion would probably fit comfortably on the back of a first class stamp as they say. So there you go, I've learned something.
I never make assumptions about the kind of god people believe in. The Christian anthropomorphic, male, old, creator god that you talk about is IMHO, so old hat. Clearly conceived of by the male half of our species. Logically, a creator, if it existed and was a specific gender, would if anything be female. We're the ones who give birth! But more logically it would be all genders or no gender at all.
Anyway thank you for explaining that, it makes sense to me.
I'm not saying I'm going to go away and read a book about your religion, because I won't. But I enjoy learning snippets like this almost by osmosis.
Quote:
Glad you like the post as written. Atheism is mentioned because it always forms, i would say intrudes and inserts itself, as part of the discussion on Religion and Spirituality. Why, I don’t know, it is what it is. I, personally, have decided that it is not productive for me to engage with most atheists who post copiously here. We seem to be at cross purposes, it gets downright nasty, and it sullies the spirit. I do not see any evidence that we are here to understand each other. It seems more like a battle of useless and meaningless gotcha arguments, juvenile, and it is ugly. Of course not all atheists do that and it has been my pleasure to engage with the few of you in this forum. We must define spirituality differently then. To me spirituality is in the seeking and in the worship of Divinity in the form of deity. I believe Atheism precludes Deity or worship, so not sure what is left. If it is merely appreciation of Nature, well nature is nothing but Divinity, Ishvara.
I'd just like to say a few more things about spirituality and about how we all get along on this forum.
First of all a bit more about me as a spiritual person. Unfortunately I don't think there's a word in the English language to adequately describe an atheist as a spiritual person, because of the inevitable baggage the 'spirit' part of the word brings with it. But it's the only word we have, so we have to roll with it.
All I can say is that as I grow older, my spirituality only intensifies. I think of myself these days as a very spiritual person. I feel it. I feel a very strong bond and integration with the universe. It fills me with joy. It has ebbed and flowed throughout my life, but at the moment, it is particularly strong.
I've long had sympathy with the pantheist view. I really get that. I think of myself as something close to a pantheist but without the theism. I realise that doesn't make a lot of sense but it's again it's gap in the English language that has no word for what I am. I believe the Universe creates itself and I see wonder in that. I don't think we really have the capacity to fully understand it and maybe that's a good thing. The element of mystery is what drives us forward.
Now to the second part - us all understanding each other.
I think if we really took the time to REALLY understand each others beliefs - I don't mean that we should all believe the same thing, I just mean if saw each others perspectives, we would all find we had at least some things more in common than we think.
That's why Mystic and I get along. We've just taken the time to understand each others perspectives.
If Mystic and I can get along, I think so can anybody.
What I would love would be to have a window into my mind so that I could show you my spiritual side, because like a theist describing a spiritual encounter, there's really no way to adequately put it into words, at least no words that a theist may believe or understand.
I have to laugh at posters like that O'Reilly guy or whatever his name was the other day saying we are spiritually dead inside. He really does not have the first clue.
I'll make an addition here to my earlier comment about my reasons for posting here. Initially as stated it was to understand religion and why people believe what they do. A secondary reason has become to show that atheism isn't what people think it is.
I agree that there are way too many meaningless, hostile, gotcha arguments. People who argue like that don't seem to realise that its the absolute last way to change hearts and minds, if that's your intention. Plus it just makes them look like an arse IMHO. i would just say continue what you are doing and ignore those people.
Anyway, in summary I think we all have more in common than is immediately obvious. We just have to dig a bit deeper.
Honestly I don't think it's too complex. I'm interested by that.
I had no idea about this. What I know about your religion would probably fit comfortably on the back of a first class stamp as they say. So there you go, I've learned something.
I never make assumptions about the kind of god people believe in. The Christian anthropomorphic, male, old, creator god that you talk about is IMHO, so old hat. Clearly conceived of by the male half of our species. Logically, a creator, if it existed and was a specific gender, would if anything be female. We're the ones who give birth! But more logically it would be all genders or no gender at all.
Anyway thank you for explaining that, it makes sense to me.
I'm not saying I'm going to go away and read a book about your religion, because I won't. But I enjoy learning snippets like this almost by osmosis.
I'd just like to say a few more things about spirituality and about how we all get along on this forum.
First of all a bit more about me as a spiritual person. Unfortunately I don't think there's a word in the English language to adequately describe an atheist as a spiritual person, because of the inevitable baggage the 'spirit' part of the word brings with it. But it's the only word we have, so we have to roll with it.
All I can say is that as I grow older, my spirituality only intensifies. I think of myself these days as a very spiritual person. I feel it. I feel a very strong bond and integration with the universe. It fills me with joy. It has ebbed and flowed throughout my life, but at the moment, it is particularly strong.
I've long had sympathy with the pantheist view. I really get that. I think of myself as something close to a pantheist but without the theism. I realise that doesn't make a lot of sense but it's again it's gap in the English language that has no word for what I am. I believe the Universe creates itself and I see wonder in that. I don't think we really have the capacity to fully understand it and maybe that's a good thing. The element of mystery is what drives us forward.
Now to the second part - us all understanding each other.
I think if we really took the time to REALLY understand each others beliefs - I don't mean that we should all believe the same thing, I just mean if saw each others perspectives, we would all find we had at least some things more in common than we think.
That's why Mystic and I get along. We've just taken the time to understand each others perspectives.
If Mystic and I can get along, I think so can anybody.
What I would love would be to have a window into my mind so that I could show you my spiritual side, because like a theist describing a spiritual encounter, there's really no way to adequately put it into words, at least no words that a theist may believe or understand.
I have to laugh at posters like that O'Reilly guy or whatever his name was the other day saying we are spiritually dead inside. He really does not have the first clue.
I'll make an addition here to my earlier comment about my reasons for posting here. Initially as stated it was to understand religion and why people believe what they do. A secondary reason has become to show that atheism isn't what people think it is.
I agree that there are way too many meaningless, hostile, gotcha arguments. People who argue like that don't seem to realise that its the absolute last way to change hearts and minds, if that's your intention. Plus it just makes them look like an arse IMHO. i would just say continue what you are doing and ignore those people.
Anyway, in summary I think we all have more in common than is immediately obvious. We just have to dig a bit deeper.
My perspective is if one digs deep enough one will "see" one's self in the other. In fact that's at the heart of Advaita and from the Advaita perspective it's the ultimate in ethics and morality as most people don't intentionally self-harm.
My perspective is if one digs deep enough one will "see" one's self in the other. In fact that's at the heart of Advaita and from the Advaita perspective it's the ultimate in ethics and morality as most people don't intentionally self-harm.
Aren't you describing empathy? Or something in the same ball park?
Honestly I don't think it's too complex. I'm interested by that.
I had no idea about this. What I know about your religion would probably fit comfortably on the back of a first class stamp as they say. So there you go, I've learned something.
I never make assumptions about the kind of god people believe in. The Christian anthropomorphic, male, old, creator god that you talk about is IMHO, so old hat. Clearly conceived of by the male half of our species. Logically, a creator, if it existed and was a specific gender, would if anything be female. We're the ones who give birth! But more logically it would be all genders or no gender at all.
I did not mean to imply all Christians hold the same view about God. Esoteric Christianity for instance has quite a similarity to Advaitic view. Advaita has influenced the thoughts of many philosophers who reflect the concepts in their own philosophy. It is lovely to see the echo of this concept of the oneness of the world and cosmos.
But in THIS forum, more than the Christians (actually I never peruse the forum) it is the Atheists who have a tight grip on the old hat as you call it and they cannot let go of that God. They have no use for the thoughts of Advaita.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
I'd just like to say a few more things about spirituality and about how we all get along on this forum.
First of all a bit more about me as a spiritual person. Unfortunately I don't think there's a word in the English language to adequately describe an atheist as a spiritual person, because of the inevitable baggage the 'spirit' part of the word brings with it. But it's the only word we have, so we have to roll with it.
Sanskrit has a word for it and in fact it is considered one of the Vedantic darshana/perspective. It is Nastika. I would count my dad as Nastika, and many of his generation. It is the non-belief in rituals and ceremonies, astrology, dietary, purity and pollution laws, seclusion laws for women. But they do not reject the texts of the Vedas, only those practices that have to do with gathering good karma. He knew all the texts and has taught all of us, my siblings and me. I have seen him in tears while reciting some of the verses at worship. All this may not be quite what you have in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
All I can say is that as I grow older, my spirituality only intensifies. I think of myself these days as a very spiritual person. I feel it. I feel a very strong bond and integration with the universe. It fills me with joy. It has ebbed and flowed throughout my life, but at the moment, it is particularly strong.
I think of myself as something close to a pantheist but without the theism. I realise that doesn't make a lot of sense but it's again it's gap in the English language that has no word for what I am. I believe the Universe creates itself and I see wonder in that. I don't think we really have the capacity to fully understand it and maybe that's a good thing. The element of mystery is what drives us forward.
Advaita will tell you that joy you feel is your true Self, the Witness Consciousness. The Self is the locus of joy, compassion, contentment, empathy, peace and goodwill. That is our natural state, our true nature. The purpose of life is this Self-inquiry and understand non-duality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
What I would love would be to have a window into my mind so that I could show you my spiritual side, because like a theist describing a spiritual encounter, there's really no way to adequately put it into words, at least no words that a theist may believe or understand.
Welcome to the club. The theists, the sages, the gurus, none of them have all the words. The Vedas, and the Vedanta, and the commentaries, and commentaries on the commentaries can fill bookshelves. They all are trying to express what is impossible to do in words. Yet those words hold their thoughts, as best as they could. These words are considered sacred not because the texts are, but for their meaning. What is sacred is the Divinity that is in the meaning and the only way to get them is through study, teachings, more study, meditating on the meaning, until they begin to take root in us. Is this brain washing? Then the geography lesson I had in 4the grade was also brain washing. I had no idea there was river Limpopo that ran through South Africa. My teacher showed us a map and told us so. When I took the test I drew that bit of South Africa and showed where the river is which I have never seen and did not know existed until the class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
I'll make an addition here to my earlier comment about my reasons for posting here. Initially as stated it was to understand religion and why people believe what they do. A secondary reason has become to show that atheism isn't what people think it is.
Why? Do we not read what atheists have to say for themselves, and to us, every time we open City Data? I do not believe anything you have to say about atheism will counter what we see atheism does to atheists. The atheists we encounter are not just the ones who express themselves here, it includes those they are inspired by, who write the books, come on TV to tell us what they think, hosted by the likes of Bill Maher. (I say that knowing how much you like him.)
Thank you, Cruithne. I truly appreciate the time you have taken to write this. I would love to have more of this exchange, not because for any other reason than that it was a pleasure.
The texts of Advaita are in Sanskrit. And it has a large glossary of terms and how they apply. All disciplines do, Advaita is no different. Certain words have specific meaning in context. They are not always available in the exoteric (Did not know that term before) dictionaries. To limit discussions only to English language dictionary meaning is not just religious discrimination in a Religion forum, it is foolish and narrow-minded, possibly out of desire to limit discussion. What are you afraid of?
I have no fear of the esoteric, I just do not find that the definitions comport with what we are able to discern about Reality through science. You do not have that problem since you dismiss science and our perceptions and understanding of it as illusions (Maya). Your esoteric understanding achieves the same acceptance of Oneness for you as mine does for me - peace, contentment, self-knowledge, etc. Whatever works!
Advaita has influenced the thoughts of many philosophers who reflect the concepts in their own philosophy.
You have it backwards. It's a Johnny-come-lately philosophy that originated after Islam and is not consistent with other Hindu philosophies that predate it by more than 1,000 years.
In fact, the various Hindu sects can't even agree on the definition of Bhraman or Ishvara, in part because like x-tianity and all other religions, the theology changes.
Since two sects evolved after Advaita, we have to question why you reject them, as well as why you reject the original belief system and those that evolved between that time and the rise of Advaita.
In that regard, you're not unlike a Methodist who rejects the religious teachings of the prior existing sects and those that come after.
And in that sense, you're just like x-tians who are looking for someone to tell them what they want to hear.
You have it backwards. It's a Johnny-come-lately philosophy that originated after Islam and is not consistent with other Hindu philosophies that predate it by more than 1,000 years.
In fact, the various Hindu sects can't even agree on the definition of Bhraman or Ishvara, in part because like x-tianity and all other religions, the theology changes.
Since two sects evolved after Advaita, we have to question why you reject them, as well as why you reject the original belief system and those that evolved between that time and the rise of Advaita.
In that regard, you're not unlike a Methodist who rejects the religious teachings of the prior existing sects and those that come after.
And in that sense, you're just like x-tians who are looking for someone to tell them what they want to hear.
What two sects are rejected? How are they rejected? By whom? I have no idea where you are pulling out the above word salad masquerading as a post from.
I have no fear of the esoteric, I just do not find that the definitions comport with what we are able to discern about Reality through science. You do not have that problem since you dismiss science and our perceptions and understanding of it as illusions (Maya). Your esoteric understanding achieves the same acceptance of Oneness for you as mine does for me - peace, contentment, self-knowledge, etc. Whatever works!
I dont dismiss science. Science is knowledge and all knowledge is Divinity and there is nothing but Divinity. Maya is not illusion it is the power of ignorance. It deploys two of them, it veils the truth, and it projects the false. As long as you are under its influence, you are in bondage.
But all that aside, if you are at peace, contented, all good. Be well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
