Can a Christian be a Buddhist? Vice-versa?

[weepingforloman]

Psalm 23 "The Lord is my sheppard, I shall not want." The Buddha considered desire a prime path to suffering. Christ spoke of the meek and poor in spirit as blessed. Notice Christ didn't say modesty, he said meekness; This is a rare thing, as opinion is so front and center nowadays. Maybe heaven or nirvana's attributes are neither positive or negative with nothing to lose or gain?

"I shall not want"-- this means that God will provide for all the person's needs, not that the person will not ever want anything-- he'd die if that were the case! We have wants because they can be satisfied. However, it is true that wants are often excessive or misdirected.

[JGL57]

...Pascal said God was a hidden, concealed God. He said not knowing God was not proof of his inexistence because that was one of the tenants of Christianity, that God was unknowable.

My definition of God is the link between us all. But that's not going deep enough. God is more simple, and more basic than that. He's the link between all atoms. He's infinite, as Pascal says, a point that is in all other points simultaneously, traveling at infinite velocity around the universe. But I think that belies the static nature of God - God is energy and life.

But in that sense we can know God. God is the deepest sense of life. Anyway.

I find nothing to argue against here, and I am an atheist. Hope that doesn't bother you.

I believe that God is not static... This kind of definition makes God seem subhuman, not superhuman, as He is. If things as foolish and weak as humans are active, how can God not be? But, yes, God does hold together the universe, but that is not His only action...

What if you think outside the box and define "god" as neither subhuman or superhuman, not a person or an impersonal something, but the ground of being, the Non-Dual, The Absolute Unity, is transendent to all dualistic concepts, an "Energy" that is beyond all concepts of energy and non-energy?

What if god is you and you are god? The ocean less a drop of water is not the ocean. It would then be something else. But it can't be something else. It is the ocean.

[NikolaiI]

Ha, that nails it. Thank you, J. And no it doesn't bother me, because I consider myself atheist as well, since I don't believe in any one else's God. Therefore, to the definition of the world, I am atheist, by my definition.

Your talking about the ocean reminds me of something Ken Wilber said. Actually I believe it was someone else that Wilber quoted. "We search for enlightenment, but we do not have to search, because it is all around us and everyone is living in it. It is like trying to figure out how to be wet while standing in the ocean, and splashing about, but not seeing it." Or something like that.

Also, I think the Buddhists have it really right when they say we are not seperate from the world, but a part of the world. Working for the whole.

I believe that God is not static... This kind of definition makes God seem subhuman, not superhuman, as He is. If things as foolish and weak as humans are active, how can God not be? But, yes, God does hold together the universe, but that is not His only action.

Your grandmother's writing reminds me of something G.K. Chesterton (a theologian, long dead) wrote: a British magazine wrote to various writers with the question "What is wrong with the world?" Chesterton replied, "Dear Sirs, I am." And that was all.

Maybe I have it wrong. But I didn't mean that God was subhuman. God is in us all, and therefore greater than us all. God is in the entire universe, in every atom, etc., decidedly awesome.

Well, the book, Arslan, is...shocking, to say the least. I was just reminded of that quote.

[weepingforloman]

I find nothing to argue against here, and I am an atheist. Hope that doesn't bother you.



What if you think outside the box and define "god" as neither subhuman or superhuman, not a person or an impersonal something, but the ground of being, the Non-Dual, The Absolute Unity, is transendent to all dualistic concepts, an "Energy" that is beyond all concepts of energy and non-energy?

What if god is you and you are god? The ocean less a drop of water is not the ocean. It would then be something else. But it can't be something else. It is the ocean.

What you describe is still subhuman, I don't think that an "Energy" could have conciousness, and the unconcious is subhuman. The second thing you describe is essentially Pantheism. If I am God, then God has a whole lot of problems.

[JGL57]

What you describe is still subhuman, I don't think that an "Energy" could have conciousness, and the unconcious is subhuman...

You really like humans, don't you? You seem sure that humans are the only reason the universe is even here. And your god seems to be a super human, a superman, but in a white robe and with a long white beard, rather than in blue and red tights and a cape.

Apparently the person god was created in our own image because (many) humans love themselves so much that they can't imagine ultimate reality being anything other than a great big powerful human (who is usually envisioned as white and male).

Excuse me, but that's almost funny.

...The second thing you describe is essentially Pantheism. If I am God, then God has a whole lot of problems ...

No, god (ultimate reality) is cool - it is indeed you that has all the problems.

And pantheism is a dirty word? Since when?

[NikolaiI]

Wikipedia has a great article on pantheism. I think the Bhagavad Gita is amazingly rewarding to study. It's so beautiful.

[JGL57]

Ha, that nails it. Thank you, J. And no it doesn't bother me, because I consider myself atheist as well, since I don't believe in any one else's God. Therefore, to the definition of the world, I am atheist, by my definition. .

I know what you mean. I’m serious thinking that, in the future if someone asked me if I believe in god or if I am an atheist I am just going to reply “I don’t believe anything other people tell me about god. And I have never personally met god. So, you tell me.”

…Your talking about the ocean reminds me of something Ken Wilber said. Actually I believe it was someone else that Wilber quoted. "We search for enlightenment, but we do not have to search, because it is all around us and everyone is living in it. It is like trying to figure out how to be wet while standing in the ocean, and splashing about, but not seeing it." Or something like that…

There are lots of analogies used to explain the Non-Dual concept. One I like is the idea of a person refusing to breath, and then complaining because he’s not getting enough air.

…Also, I think the Buddhists have it really right when they say we are not separate from the world, but a part of the world. Working for the whole…

In eastern wisdom traditions, the common esoteric philosophy is recognition of an Ultimate Unity rather than any kind of ultimate duality, i.e., pure Identify, not Relationship, which is only within the world of ten thousand things, i.e., the pairs of opposites that compose it. And yet, both are the same. That is the real Mysterium Tremendum.

[NikolaiI]

In eastern wisdom traditions, the common esoteric philosophy is recognition of an Ultimate Unity rather than any kind of ultimate duality, i.e., pure Identify, not Relationship, which is only within the world of ten thousand things, i.e., the pairs of opposites that compose it. And yet, both are the same. That is the real Mysterium Tremendum.

Yeah. Eastern wisdom is great. Hinduism and Buddhism, etc. Ken Wilber has a good book on the subject called "No Boundary", and another one called "The Atman Project". It's a romantic subject, in my opinion.

Also, a must read is Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, if you haven't heard of it.

[NikolaiI]

I believe that God is not static... This kind of definition makes God seem subhuman, not superhuman, as He is. If things as foolish and weak as humans are active, how can God not be?

I guess I didn't express my view entirely clearly. However, I'm almost positive I didn't depict God as subhuman. If he is in the entire universe, and beyond, or whatever, if he is in every atom, and he is energy, etc., you would call that subhuman? Definitely not. If god were smaller than a human, and not vice-versa, then he would be inside one person and wouldn't be available to others. On the contrary, I suggest the opposite. We are smaller than god.

Now, just because God is not conscious (if so) that does not mean he is less than conscious. There is such a thing as transcending consciousness. And not conscious doesn't mean subhuman, either. For example, a storm or a glacier or another kind of force of nature may not be conscious, but it is more powerful than humans. I like Pascal's quote about how human can be crushed by a drop of vapor.

I said God was static. Perhaps that wasn't quite what I meant. Nature isn't static, it is ever changing - flowing forces, as nietzsche says, "a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms"

- However, the GOD behind it all, beneath it all, is static energy. It is life that you can taste. But being infinite, a single point traveling infinite velocity as Pascal says, of course it is dynamic, too...

I hope that helps explain my view. Anyhow, I do not consider God (insert Life) to be subhuman.

[weepingforloman]

You really like humans, don't you? You seem sure that humans are the only reason the universe is even here. And your god seems to be a super human, a superman, but in a white robe and with a long white beard, rather than in blue and red tights and a cape.

Apparently the person god was created in our own image because (many) humans love themselves so much that they can't imagine ultimate reality being anything other than a great big powerful human (who is usually envisioned as white and male).

Excuse me, but that's almost funny.



No, god (ultimate reality) is cool - it is indeed you that has all the problems.

And pantheism is a dirty word? Since when?

Pantheism is not a "dirty word." I just think it's bull. No, I don't really like humans that much-- but I love God a lot, and I find it horrible that people would sink Him to a lower level even than we, who have "mouths like open graves," and "feet swift to shed blood." I don't believe God is a human-- He does not have a body. I think that if one were to picture God as a person it would be best to think of a Middle Eastern (Jesus was a Palestinian). I know I have problems-- that's exactly why I said if I was God God would have problems (you see, if I was God, and I have problems, God would have problems). Don't presume that all Christians, or all theists period, share your childlike, twisted picture of a personal God (since you apparently don't believe in one). Oh, and I don't believe humans are the reason the universe is here-- the universe is God's and God's alone, it is for His purposes that He created it... but humans are the closest known life to God (natural life that is, not supernatural).

[weepingforloman]

I guess I didn't express my view entirely clearly. However, I'm almost positive I didn't depict God as subhuman. If he is in the entire universe, and beyond, or whatever, if he is in every atom, and he is energy, etc., you would call that subhuman? Definitely not. If god were smaller than a human, and not vice-versa, then he would be inside one person and wouldn't be available to others. On the contrary, I suggest the opposite. We are smaller than god.

Now, just because God is not conscious (if so) that does not mean he is less than conscious. There is such a thing as transcending consciousness. And not conscious doesn't mean subhuman, either. For example, a storm or a glacier or another kind of force of nature may not be conscious, but it is more powerful than humans. I like Pascal's quote about how human can be crushed by a drop of vapor.

I said God was static. Perhaps that wasn't quite what I meant. Nature isn't static, it is ever changing - flowing forces, as nietzsche says, "a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms"

- However, the GOD behind it all, beneath it all, is static energy. It is life that you can taste. But being infinite, a single point traveling infinite velocity as Pascal says, of course it is dynamic, too...

I hope that helps explain my view. Anyhow, I do not consider God (insert Life) to be subhuman.

I think storms, nature, etc. are subhuman-- just because they are powerful does not make them superhuman, some of the worst people in history have been tremendously powerful people. I would consider anything lacking a purposeful, intelligent will to be subhuman. I think Nietzsche was full of crap (and yes, I have read him-- I think "Also Sprach Zarathustra" was the most overrated bit of anti-God schlock in modern history). I believe, as you seem to, that God sustains creation, but while you appear to stop at that, I would say that that is the least of His functions. Beyond the mere power of God is a purpose, a will, and a Mind like no other, balanced also with the sheer goodness of God (and that is another reason I reject the force/energy model-- I believe God is good, and forces never have goodness in and of themselves).

[JGL57]

Pantheism is not a "dirty word." I just think it's bull....

Insulting the beliefs of billions of fellow humans – just dismissing their beliefs as “bull”? I would never do that. How dare you!

…He does not have a body. I think that if one were to picture God as a person it would be best to think of a Middle Eastern (Jesus was a Palestinian)...

OK. If it is not that big a deal, then it would apparently be OK to picture god as a paraplegic Black lesbian? If so, that’s what I will do from now on – I mean, if it’s ok.

…I know I have problems-- that's exactly why I said if I was God God would have problems (you see, if I was God, and I have problems, God would have problems)...

No, you completely misunderstand the whole thrust of pantheism. I suggest you read up on it and then get back to us. Here’s a couple of links to understanding:

http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

…Don't presume that all Christians, or all theists period, share your childlike, twisted picture of a personal God (since you apparently don't believe in one)...

I have a childlike and twisted picture of a personal god? Why, thank you. And I owe it all to the southern baptists, who were essentially my only religious influence for the first twenty years of my life.

…Oh, and I don't believe humans are the reason the universe is here-- the universe is God's and God's alone, it is for His purposes that He created it... but humans are the closest known life to God (natural life that is, not supernatural)...

As the statement by you just reaffirmed EXACTLY my original point, I need make no further comment. Thank you – again.

[weepingforloman]

Insulting the beliefs of billions of fellow humans – just dismissing their beliefs as “bull”? I would never do that. How dare you!



OK. If it is not that big a deal, then it would apparently be OK to picture god as a paraplegic Black lesbian? If so, that’s what I will do from now on – I mean, if it’s ok.



No, you completely misunderstand the whole thrust of pantheism. I suggest you read up on it and then get back to us. Here’s a couple of links to understanding:

http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism



I have a childlike and twisted picture of a personal god? Why, thank you. And I owe it all to the southern baptists, who were essentially my only religious influence for the first twenty years of my life.



As the statement by you just reaffirmed EXACTLY my original point, I need make no further comment. Thank you – again.

My basic point was that you should not picture God as a human at all (He is not physical). What does paralysis have to do with anything?

Pantheism involves an impersonal pseudo-God... that's all I need to know.

Don't confuse the visible church with the invisible Church. And don't confuse either with Christ.

Do you really think any other created being is closer to God than man? Name one for me, please.

Grace and Peace.

[JGL57]

My basic point was that you should not picture God as a human at all (He is not physical). What does paralysis have to do with anything? .

“He” is not physical? Is he mental?

…Pantheism involves an impersonal pseudo-God... that's all I need to know. .

Your definition of pantheism is utterly incorrect. What else do you not know that may be relevant to the discussion?

…Don't confuse the visible church with the invisible Church. And don't confuse either with Christ. .

I am not confused. I can tell the visible from invisible. The invisible is MUCH, MUCH – fainter.

…Do you really think any other created being is closer to God than man? Name one for me, please…

Again, I recommend you read up on pantheism. I have read the bible. I know what theism is. If you continue in your total ignorance of pantheism, this discussion becomes an abortion – and no one wants that.

[weepingforloman]

I really don't see what my statement that man is close to God has to do with what you suppose to be my lack of information about pantheism... There are other forms, you know, many religious beliefs could be classified as pantheist... I say pseudo-God because the pantheist idea of God is so much different from the personal God I love... God is spiritual... The Invisible Church is a theological concept, it means all those who truly (not merely claim to) believe in Christ... Pantheism: the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature. (That's straight from the dictionary).