The Future Of Religion

[HolyTao]

We now live in an interconnected world where almost all previous knowledge is made available. All the major Religions of the past can be looked at and compared with each other as well as with science. Ideas can be combined between these different "belief systems" to produce something "new", and hopefully better - reflecting more closely "Absolute Truth". Belief systems have developed like this throughout history, and it's not going to stop now! But how do you see it developing? <_<

[sahyo]

dandelion fluff
seeding scatters stream skying
hands speckled with paint

field humming aglow
songing sings no where voicing
painting not a view


'Tao Te Ching' - Lao Tzu

"It is called indefinable and beyond imagination."

"Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.
The way of nature is unchanging."



'Tao: the pathless path' - Osho

"It cannot be taught.
It can be learned,
but it cannot be taught.
And when I say
that it can be learned,
I mean that if you relax,
if you allow life to happen to you,
if you don't create a barrier,
if you are ready to go
wherever it leads,
you will learn it.

It is the most dangerous path,
because you will not be in control.
Your mind cannot manipulate;
your mind cannot
prepare in any way.
You will have to live
moment to moment...
As the trees live,
as the stars live,
as the mountains live.
You will have to live
in the same way,
the same natural way.
Tao is nature."

[sahyo]

didn't happen reading the quote from 'Tao: the pathless path'
til searching for responsing the post

wouldn't say: "It can be learned"
"you will learn it."
however using words
happened

;)

[HolyTao]

An important thing to notice when looking at Religions is that they change and grow over time...Following one thread we have Abraham -> Moses (The Jewish Law) -> Exile to Babylon (encounter with Zoroatrianism, adopting some of it's beliefs) -> More Jewish Prophets -> Jesus arrives and "re-interprets" the Jewish Law -> St.Paul adds his (mystical) views to the mix (based in part on the Mystery Cults of the time - eg Mithra (who's centre was in the City where Saul/Paul grew up)...On and on the development goes...No Religion is ever "perfect" (although they often say that they are). Christianity needs to be "re-interpreted"; Firstly, because the Catholic (and pre-catholic) Church messed it up (sometimes on purpose) for their own benefit...or because of (sometimes understandable) ignorance. In the Reformation (16th century) some of the "possible errors" were looked at and re-considered/"corrected"...but some were not. Secondly, no Religious text should be considered infallible. (Inspired does not mean infallible.) The prophets/mystics do the best they can, for the time/place and circumstances they live, but they can't "see it all".

I've only been talking about the Jewish/Christian development here so far...but the same principles hold true for the other Religions...and they have some good/valid points too. (Some of them unique).

I consider it quite worthwhile to compare different Religions, see what they have in common, see if they allow you to see life in new and interesting ways, see if their principles can help in human relations...etc.

I think there is really only one reality - The Universe! (with all it's dimensions). Religion/Beliefs and Science are the "template" thru which we "see"/understand it. No-one can see Reality as it actually is!
Does The Universe have a purpose or will? ...I think it does!
You can see that it has been moving in a particular direction.
Life on Earth has been moving in a particular direction...
...from simple forms to complex forms. If the trend is allowed to continue, more intergration and larger forms will come into existance. The internet is one of those forms of intergration.
The Internet is becoming the Worlds "nervous system" - maybe even a new part of the Earths "brain", in a sense. The whole world is now connected - it is one big, dynamic system.

[sahyo]

I think

is comforting thinking I?

[Ronagon]

Religions are basically going to be phased out... They are revealing themselves as the largely destructive entities they are. Religion will be replaced more and more by the worship of logic and honest living. The path to righteousness will be found in the worship and discipline of objectivity, living life in a deeply philosophical way.

The only thing that people really needed from religions, were whatever rational prescriptions for life that they provided... People kept doing this more and more, using their brains and picking out from all the various religions, that which worked and made sense. The rest they have been ignoring.

[HolyTao]

Our current "Religion" in the West, is Capitalism.

In the past, the Church was the tallest building in town - now it's the Big Business organizations. <_<

[sahyo]

the re :think: ligion most people
worship and encourage is thinking imagined
'who-entity-Ithis-youthat'

[thirst4sun]

There will always be conflict with religions but I hope there continues to be new knowledge about different religions and new ideas.

[vicente]

TRANSLATION VS. TRANSFORMATION, by Ken Wilber


In a series of books (e.g., A Sociable God, Up from Eden, and The Eye of
Spirit), I have tried to show that religion itself has always performed two
very important, but very different, functions. One, it acts as a way of
creating meaning for the separate self: it offers myths and stories and
tales and narratives and rituals and revivals that, taken together, help
the separate self make sense of, and endure, the slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune. This function of religion does not usually or
necessarily change the level of consciousness in a person; it does not
deliver radical transformation. Nor does it deliver a shattering liberation
from the separate self altogether. Rather, it consoles the self, fortifies
the self, defends the self, promotes the self. As long as the separate self
believes the myths, performs the rituals, mouths the prayers, or embraces
the dogma, then the self, it is fervently believed, will be "saved"-either
now in the glory of being God-saved or Goddess-favored, or in an afterlife
that insures eternal wonderment.

But two, religion has also served-in a usually very, very small
minority-the function of radical transformation and liberation. This
function of religion does not fortify the separate self, but utterly
shatters it-not consolation but devastation, not entrenchment but
emptiness, not complacency but explosion, not comfort but revolution-in
short, not a conventional bolstering of consciousness but a radical
transmutation and transformation at the deepest seat of consciousness itself.
There are several different ways that we can state these two important
functions of religion. The first function-that of creating meaning for the
self-is a type of horizontal movement; the second function-that of
transcending the self-is a type of vertical movement (higher or deeper,
depending on your metaphor). The first I have named "translation," the
second, "transformation."

With translation, the self is simply given a new way to think or feel about
reality. The self is given a new belief-perhaps holistic instead of
atomistic, perhaps forgiveness instead of blame, perhaps relational instead
of analytic. The self then learns to translate its world and its being in
the terms of this new belief or new language or new paradigm, and this new
and enchanting translation acts, at least temporarily, to alleviate or
diminish the terror inherent in the heart of the separate self.
But with transformation, the very process of translation itself is
challenged, witnessed, undermined and eventually dismantled. With typical
translation, the self (or subject) is given a new way to think about the
world (or objects); but with radical transformation, the self itself is
inquired into, looked into, grabbed by its throat and literally throttled
to death.

Put it one last way: with horizontal translation-which is by far the most
prevalent, widespread and widely shared function of religion-the self is,
at least temporarily, made happy in its grasping, made content in its
enslavement, made complacent in the face of the screaming terror that is in
fact its innermost condition. With translation, the self goes sleepy into
the world, stumbles numbed and nearsighted into the nightmare of samsara,
is given a map laced with morphine with which to face the world. And this,
indeed, is the common condition of a religious humanity, precisely the
condition that the radical or transformative spiritual realizers have come
to challenge and to finally undo.

For authentic transformation is not a matter of belief but of the death of
the believer; not a matter of translating the world but of transforming the
world; not a matter of finding solace but of finding infinity on the other
side of death. The self is not made content; the self is made toast.
Now, although I have obviously been favoring transformation and belittling
translation, the fact is that, on the whole, both of these functions are
incredibly important and altogether indispensable. Individuals are not, for
the most part, born enlightened. They are born in a world of sin and
suffering, hope and fear, desire and despair. They are born as a self ready
and eager to contract; a self rife with hunger, thirst, tears and terror.
And they begin, quite early on, to learn various ways to translate their
world, to make sense of it, to give meaning to it, and to defend themselves
against the terror and the torture never lurking far beneath the happy
surface of the separate self.

And as much as we, as you and I, might wish to transcend mere translation
and find an authentic transformation, nonetheless translation itself is an
absolutely necessary and crucial function for the greater part of our
lives. Those who cannot translate adequately, with a fair amount of
integrity and accuracy, fall quickly into severe neurosis or even
psychosis: the world ceases to make sense-the boundaries between the self
and the world are not transcended but instead begin to crumble. This is not
breakthrough but breakdown; not transcendence, but disaster.

But at some point in our maturation process, translation itself, no matter
how adequate or confident, simply ceases to console. No new beliefs, no new
paradigm, no new myths, no new ideas, will staunch the encroaching anguish.
Not a new belief for the self, but the transcendence of the self
altogether, is the only path that avails.

Still, the number of individuals who are ready for such a path is, always
has been, and likely always will be, a very small minority. For most
people, any sort of religious belief will fall instead into the category of
consolation: it will be a new horizontal translation that fashions some
sort of meaning in the midst of the monstrous world. And religion has
always served, for the most part, this first function, and served it well.

I therefore also use the word "legitimacy" to describe this first function
(the horizontal translation and creation of meaning for the separate self).
And much of religion's important service is to provide legitimacy to the
self-legitimacy to its beliefs, its paradigms, its worldviews and its way
in the world. This function of religion to provide a legitimacy for the
self and its beliefs-no matter how temporary, relative, nontransformative,
or illusory-has nonetheless been the single greatest and most important
function of the world's religious traditions. The capacity of a religion to
provide horizontal meaning, legitimacy and sanction for the self and its
beliefs-that function of religion has historically been the single greatest
"social glue" that any culture has.

And one does not tamper easily, or lightly, with the basic glue that holds
societies together. Because more often than not, when that glue
dissolves-when that translation dissolves-the result, as we were saying, is
not breakthrough but breakdown, not liberation but social chaos. (We will
return to this crucial point in a moment.)

Where translative religion offers legitimacy, transformative religion
offers authenticity. For those few individuals who are ready-that is, sick
with the suffering of the separate self, and no longer able to embrace the
legitimate worldview-a transformative opening to true authenticity, true
enlightenment, true liberation, calls more and more insistently. And,
depending upon your capacity for suffering, you will sooner or later answer
the call of authenticity, of transformation, of liberation on the lost
horizon of infinity.

Transformative spirituality does not seek to bolster or legitimate any
present worldview at all, but rather to provide true authenticity by
shattering what the world takes as legitimate. Legitimate consciousness is
sanctioned by the consensus, adopted by the herd mentality, embraced by the
culture and the counterculture both, promoted by the separate self as the
way to make sense of this world. But authentic consciousness quickly shakes
all of that off its back, and settles instead into a glance that sees only
a radiant infinity in the heart of all souls and breathes into its lungs
only the atmosphere of an eternity too simple to believe.

Transformative spirituality, authentic spirituality, is therefore
revolutionary. It does not legitimate the world, it breaks the world; it
does not console the world, it shatters it. And it does not render the self
content, it renders it undone.
And those facts lead to several conclusions.

[vicente]

WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO TRANSFORM? by Ken Wilber

It is a fairly common belief that the East is simply awash in
transformative and authentic spirituality, but that the West-both
historically and in today's "New Age"-has nothing much more than various
types of horizontal, translative, merely legitimate and therefore tepid
spirituality. And while there is some truth to that, the actual situation
is much gloomier, for both the East and the West alike.

First, although it is generally true that the East has produced a greater
number of authentic realizers, nonetheless, the actual percentage of the
Eastern population that is engaged in authentic transformative spirituality
is, and always has been, pitifully small. I once asked Katigiri Roshi, with
whom I had my first breakthrough (hopefully, not a breakdown), how many
truly great Ch'an and Zen masters there have historically been. Without
hesitating, he said, "Maybe one thousand altogether." I asked another Zen
master how many truly enlightened-deeply enlightened-Japanese Zen masters
there were alive today, and he said, "Not more than a dozen."

Let us simply assume, for the sake of argument, that those are vaguely
accurate answers. Run the numbers. Even if we say there were only one
billion Chinese over the course of its history (an extremely low estimate),
that still means that only one thousand out of one billion had graduated
into an authentic, transformative spirituality. For those of you without a
calculator, that's 0.0000001 of the total population.

And that means, unmistakably, that the rest of the population were (and
are) involved in, at best, various types of horizontal, translative, merely
legitimate religion: they were involved in magical practices, mythical
beliefs, egoic petitionary prayer, magical rituals, and so on-in other
words, translative ways to give meaning to the separate self, a translative
function that was, as we were saying, the major social glue of the Chinese
(and all other) cultures to date.

Thus, without in any way belittling the truly stunning contributions of the
glorious Eastern traditions, the point is fairly straightforward: radical
transformative spirituality is extremely rare, anywhere in history, and
anywhere in the world. (The numbers for the West are even more depressing.
I rest my case.)

So, although we can very rightly lament the very small number of
individuals in the West who are today involved in a truly authentic and
radically transformative spiritual realization, let us not make the false
argument of claiming that it has otherwise been dramatically different in
earlier times or in different cultures. It has on occasion been a little
better than we see here, now, in the West, but the fact remains: authentic
spirituality is an incredibly rare bird, anywhere, at any time, at any
place. So let us start from the unarguable fact that vertical,
transformative, authentic spirituality is one of the most precious jewels
in the entire human tradition-precisely because, like all precious jewels,
it is incredibly rare.

Second, even though you and I might deeply believe that the most important
function we can perform is to offer authentic transformative spirituality,
the fact is, much of what we have to do, in our capacity to bring decent
spirituality into the world, is actually to offer more benign and helpful
modes of translation. In other words, even if we ourselves are practicing,
or offering, authentic transformative spirituality, nonetheless much of
what we must first do is provide most people with a more adequate
way to translate their condition. We must start with helpful translations
before we can effectively offer authentic transformations.

The reason is that if translation is too quickly, or too abruptly, or too
ineptly taken away from an individual (or a culture), the result, once
again, is not breakthrough but breakdown, not release but collapse. Let me
give two quick examples here.

When Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a great (though controversial) Tibetan
master, first came to this country, he was renowned for always saying, when
asked the meaning of Vajrayana, "There is only Ati." In other words, there
is only the enlightened mind wherever you look. The ego, samsara, maya and
illusion-all of them do not have to be gotten rid of, because none of them
actually exist: There is only Ati, there is only Spirit, there is only God,
there is only nondual Consciousness anywhere in existence.

Virtually nobody got it-nobody was ready for this radical and authentic
realization of always-already truth-and so Trungpa eventually introduced a
whole series of "lesser" practices leading up to this radical and ultimate
"no practice." He introduced the Nine Yanas as the foundation of
practice-in other words, he introduced nine stages or levels of practice,
culminating in the ultimate "no practice" of always-already Ati.

Many of these practices were simply translative, and some were what we
might call "lesser transformative" practices: miniature transformations
that made the bodymind more susceptible to radical, already-accomplished
enlightenment. These translative and lesser practices issued forth in the
"perfect practice" of no-practice-or the radical, instantaneous, authentic
realization that, from the very beginning, there is only Ati. So even
though ultimate transformation was the prior goal and ever-
present ground, Trungpa had to introduce translative and lesser practices
in order to prepare people for the obviousness of what is.


Exactly the same thing happened with Adi Da, another influential (and
equally controversial) adept (although this time, American-born). He
originally taught nothing but "the path of understanding": not a way to
attain enlightenment, but an inquiry into why you want to attain
enlightenment in the first place. The very desire to seek enlightenment is
in fact nothing but the grasping tendency of the ego itself, and thus the
very search for enlightenment prevents it. The "perfect practice" is
therefore not to search for enlightenment, but to inquire into the motive
for seeking itself. You obviously seek in order to avoid the present, and
yet the present alone holds the answer: to seek forever is to miss the
point forever. You always already ARE enlightened Spirit, and therefore to
seek Spirit is simply to deny Spirit. You can no more attain Spirit than
you can attain your feet or acquire your lungs.

Nobody got it. And so Adi Da, exactly like Trungpa, introduced a whole
series of translative and lesser transformative practices-seven stages of
practice, in fact-leading up to the point that you could dispense with
seeking altogether, there to stand open to the always-already truth of your
own eternal and timeless condition, which was completely and totally
present from the start, but which was brutally ignored in the frenzied
desire to seek.

Now, whatever you might think of those two adepts, the fact remains: they
performed perhaps the first two great experiments in this country on how to
introduce the notion that "There is only Ati"-there is only Spirit-and thus
seeking Spirit is exactly that which prevents realization. And they both
found that, however much we might be alive to Ati, alive to the radical
transformative truth of this moment, nonetheless, translative and lesser
transformative practices are almost always a prerequisite for that final
and ultimate transformation.

My second point, then, is that in addition to offering authentic and
radical transformation, we must still be sensitive to, and caring of, the
numerous beneficial modes of lesser and translative practices. This more
generous stance therefore calls for an "integral approach" to overall
transformation, an approach that honors and incorporates many lesser
transformative and translative practices-covering the physical, emotional,
mental, cultural and communal aspects of the human being-in preparation
for, and as an expression of, the ultimate transformation into the
always-already present state.

And so, even as we rightly criticize merely translative religion (and all
the lesser forms of transformation), let us also realize that an integral
approach to spirituality combines the best of horizontal and vertical,
translative and transformative, legitimate and authentic-and thus let us
focus our efforts on a balanced and sane overview of the human situation.

[DoWalker]

Unlike Vicente, I have written no books on the subject, nor do I intend to begin one now. :)

I'd like to respond to Ronagon's last posting -- I agree with the idea that people will take a "buffet" style of religion. (I, for example, call myself a Buddhist while swatting mosquitoes and eating meat.) I think this trend will continue to expand, and religions will water down or be left on the side of the road by the vast majority of the population. (Example -- Catholics and birth control.)

However, I think the idea that people will abandon spirituality in exchange for logically ethical lives ignores human psychology. Most people have the tendency to be affective and spiritual. Believing that religion will disappear is akin to thinking music or art will vanish.

[vicente]

Believing that religion will disappear is akin to thinking music or art will vanish.

Let's get real. Religion, especially the Abrahamic religions, are, as can be attested by scholars in that field, irrefutably false. How can the delusion of religion, even remotely, be compared to music and art?

The absolute truth is, that it is impossible for a Christian, Jew or Muslem to realize Enlightenment. As they represent about half or more of the worlds population, and what the world is media-ted, world peace can currently be considered unlikely.

http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm

Know god, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no god.

:)

[DoWalker]

Originally posted by vicente@Jul 13 2004, 12:48 AM
Let's get real. Religion, especially the Abrahamic religions, are, as can be attested by scholars in that field, irrefutably false. How can the delusion of religion, even remotely, be compared to music and art?
Am I wrong, or are you contesting that Buddhism is not a religion? Your website seems to indicate that, and I'm not sure other buddhists, (certainly myself,) would agree on that interpretation of the system.

Buddhist authors, including the current Dalai Lama, have defined Buddhism as stanceless on the question of God. That's one stance that attracted me to it in the first place -- logically, God cannot be either proven or disproven, so Buddhism does not attempt to do either. Certainly, at least, the idea of reincarnation points to a power that cannot be proved or disproved by science.

Besides, I thought we were talking about the future of religion, not of God. My argument was based on human nature. Even supposing that there is no God, I think that humans will always believe that there is.

Because spirituality seems to be seated in the right brain, and is an affective phenomena, I compared it to music and art. I consider the comparison a good one. Humans can get by without music, art, poetry, or any other "touchy-feely" endeavors. Even love is unnecessary to basic survival. Spirituality shares many commonalities with all of these.

Incidentally, one of the things that has originally turned me off about my mother's Christian bretheren was that membership in the church did not guarentee morality. Is it your contention, however, that all followers of the religions of the Book are immoral, or merely deluded? Your sweeping generalizations seem rather intolerant.

[vicente]

I'm not sure other buddhists, (certainly myself,) would agree on that interpretation of the system.

For most Buddhists, Buddhism is an extension of teachings from Siddhartha. Siddhartha taught, and correctly so, that attachment to the idea of a god renders enlightenment impossible.
http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/beyond/beyond03.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

logically, God cannot be either proven or disproven

On the contrary,...logically, a god, as defined by through any accepted dictionary (websters, oxford, etc) can easily be PROVED false,...that is, disproven. Unfortunately, the majority 'think' they can bring the conditional into the Unconditional, and that the Unconditional will remain Unconditional with their particular conditions, as if one could bring the past into the Now and the Now would remain the Now.

I have met the Dalai Lama twice, and should have asked why he plays dishonest about god for Western listeners. If he spoke of Buddhisms actual position on god(s), I'd doubt he'd be as welcomed in Christian dominated Country's as he is. I've heard it said that 98% of Americans for example believe that Buddhists believe in a god.

As for the future of religion (as the definition is accepted), its lifespan will have to end if Humanity is to evolve. With its dissolution will come the end of the 'god idea', which cannot exist outside the beliefs of religion.

Because spirituality seems to be seated in the right brain

Spirituality is actually seated in the thymus (what the Greeks called thymos, the Mind),...religion is seated in the 'parietal lobe', ie:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

all followers of the religions of the Book are immoral, or merely deluded? Your sweeping generalizations seem rather intolerant.

Not immoral, but absolutely deluded. My intent however was that followers of the Abrahamic religions cannot realize Enlightenment,...not under any circumstance,...until they let go of their beliefs, at which time they are no longer Christian, etc.

As for morals, a Buddhist once said, and I agree:

"Morality can only be imposed from without when we are asleep. Morality is nothing but a deep suppression. We can not do anything while asleep,...we can only suppress.
Through morality we become false,...we will not be a person, but simply a "persona" - just a pseudo entity.
Only a dishonest person clings to morality.
A moral person is concerned with ideals - how we should be, what we should be, how to be convenient to society,...and thus inconvenient to ourself.
The preachers have convinced the whole world that "we are sinners". This is good for them, because unless we are convinced, their profession cannot continue. Religion is built on us being sinners, on our inferiority complex,...they have created an inferior humanity.
Love is not concerned with our so-called morals, our social formalities, etc. Love is neither concerned with immorality, it makes no difference between a thief and a saint. Immorality comes from the disturbed mind of morality. Love is amoral.
Morality and concepts concerning moral behavior are irrelevant for love.
Morality is basically condemning. We are never the ideal so we are condemned. Every morality is guilt-creating. Love does not condemn.
Of necessity, every morality creates hypocracy. Hypocracy will remain with morality,...it is part of it - like a shadow. This will look paradoxical because moralists are the men who condemn hypocracy the most, and yet they are the creators of it.
Hypocracy cannot disappear from the earth unless morality disappears. They exist together as two sides of the same coin. Morality gives us the ideal and we are not the idea; that is why the ideal is given to us. Then we start feeling that we are wrong, and that this wrongness is natural, it is given to us, we are born with it, born with sin. We cannot transform it, only suppress it,...that is easy.
But what can we do. We can create a false face; we can pretend to be something we are not. This saves us; allows religion to save us. Then we can move more easily in society - more conveniently.
Inwardly we have to suppress the real because the unreal can only be imposed only if the real is suppressed. So our reality goes on moving downward into the unconscious and our unreality becomes our conscious. Our unreal part becomes more dominant and the real recedes back.
We condemn the real and we enforce the unreal, because the unreal is going to be helpful in an unreal society and the unreal is going to be convenient. Where everyone is false, the real is not going to be convenient. And thus, in the vicious cycle, we train our children to be false".

:)

[DoWalker]

This is my first experience with this type of website. If I'm messing up the "quote within a quote" thing, please forgive me; I'm learning as I go.

"For most Buddhists, Buddhism is an extension of teachings from Siddhartha. Siddhartha taught, and correctly so, that attachment to the idea of a god renders enlightenment impossible."

Attachment to the idea of a God does not preclude the existence of one, just as attachment to the idea of love does not preclude its existence. We're trying to eschew attatchments, not deny the existence of that which might exist; that would make us nihlists.

"On the contrary,...logically, a god, as defined by through any accepted dictionary (websters, oxford, etc) can easily be PROVED false,...that is, disproven."

Let's leave out Webster for a second, and go with my personal beliefs. Call me self-centered, but that's where my concern lies. Let's ignore the outmoded "God-as-an-old-man-in-the-clouds" bit, and think instead of a vast ocean of loving energy, existing below/beyond the perception of living beings. This energy exists within all of us; it is what animates us. (Call it Chi, Ki, The Force, whatever.) It did not create, so much as emit, the cosmos. When we die, we return to this energy, to extend the metaphor, as droplets, and are born again just as rain is. (I know, the metaphor is getting tired -- I'll let it rest, now.)

So I throw down the gauntlet, my friend. I promise to open my mind to logic. Can you prove this conception of God false?

"Spirituality is actually seated in the thymus (what the Greeks called thymos, the Mind),...religion is seated in the 'parietal lobe', ie:
[URL=http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html]"

Oh, and thanks for the website. Mia culpa. Undergrad Psych. is a ways behind me. Here's a bit from the site:

--When the right hemisphere of the brain, the seat of emotion, is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere, the seat of language, is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates a "sensed presence."--

Does this mean that if a neurologist removes my skull cap and pokes my brain, and I feel nauseous and dizzy that the Tilt-a-Whirl was just a figment of my imagination?

[vicente]

Hey DoWalker, I don't pay much attention to "messing up" with forum functions. The content of your posts expresses your views quite well.

as attachment to the idea of love does not preclude its existence.

Attachment to the idea of love or a god does indeed preclude love for the attachee, and the impossibility of enlightenment for the believer in god(s).

Let's ignore the outmoded "God-as-an-old-man-in-the-clouds" bit, and think instead of a vast ocean of loving energy

First, until dictionaries (which are revamped pretty regularly) alter the accepted definition of god, I have to use the accepted definitions.

God defined (websters unabridged):
1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).
2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).
3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).
4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol (conditions).
5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (condition).
A very handsome man (condition).
A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).

The Source of us is Unconditional. Just as one cannot bring the past into the Now, for such would negate the Now,...a condition cannot enter the Unconditional, or the Unconditional would no longer be Unconditional.

a vast ocean of loving energy

Any idea of a "loving energy" is an oxymoron. Energy is a product of the preceived separation from Source. Energy is not real, nor does it exist. Energy is always conditional, whereas the essence of love is Unconditional.

So I throw down the gauntlet, my friend...Can you prove this conception of God false?


I cannot prove that god is not in someway synonymous with energy,...but I can can show that the Source of us does not arise from energy. Such is a very basic Vajrayana Buddhist teaching, ie:

Tilopa's Mahamudra Instruction to Naropa in Twenty Eight Verses

1.Is space anywhere supported? Upon what does it rest?
Like space, Mahamudra is dependant upon nothing;
Relax and settle in the continuum of unalloyed purity,
And, your bonds loosening, release is certain.

2.Gazing intently into the empty sky, vision ceases;
Likewise, when mind gazes into mind itself,
The train of discursive and conceptual thought ends
And supreme enlightenment is gained.

3.Like the morning mist that dissolves into thin air,
Going nowhere but ceasing to be,
Waves of conceptualization, all the mind's creation, dissolve,
When you behold your mind's true nature.

4.Pure space has neither colour nor shape
And it cannot be stained either black or white;
So also, mind's essence is beyond both colour and shape
And it cannot be sullied by black or white deeds.

5.The darkness of a thousand aeons is powerless
To dim the crystal clarity of the sun's heart;
And likewise, aeons of samsara have no power
To veil the clear light of the mind's essence.

6.Although space has been designated "empty",
In reality it is inexpressible;
Although the nature of mind is called "clear light",
Its every ascription is baseless verbal fiction.

7.The mind's original nature is like space;
It pervades and embraces all things under the sun.

8.Be still and stay relaxed in genuine ease,
Be quiet and let sound reverberate as an echo,
Keep your mind silent and watch the ending of all worlds.

9.The body is essentially empty like the stem of a reed,
And the mind, like pure space, utterly transcends
the world of thought:
Relax into your intrinsic nature with neither abandon nor control -
Mind with no objective is Mahamudra -
And, with practice perfected, supreme enlightenment is gained.

10..The clear light of Mahamudra cannot be revealed
By the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises
Of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka;
The clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals.

11.By harbouring rigid precepts the true samaya is impaired,
But with cessation of mental activity all fixed notions subside;
When the swell of the ocean is at one with its peaceful depths,
When mind never strays from indeterminate, non-conceptual truth,
The unbroken samaya is a lamp lit in spiritual darkness.

12.Free of intellectual conceits, disavowing dogmatic principles,
The truth of every school and scripture is revealed.
Absorbed in Mahamudra, you are free from the prison of samsara;
Poised in Mahamudra, guilt and negativity are consumed;
And as master of Mahamudra you are the light of the Doctrine.

13.The fool in his ignorance, disdaining Mahamudra,
Knows nothing but struggle in the flood of samsara.
Have compassion for those who suffer constant anxiety!
Sick of unrelenting pain and desiring release, adhere to a master,
For when his blessing touches your heart, the mind is liberated.

14.KYE HO! Listen with joy!
Investment in samsara is futile; it is the cause of every anxiety.
Since worldly involvement is pointless, seek the heart of reality!

15.In the transcending of mind's dualities is Supreme vision;
In a still and silent mind is Supreme Meditation;
In spontaneity is Supreme Activity;
And when all hopes and fears have died, the Goal is reached.

16.Beyond all mental images the mind is naturally clear:
Follow no path to follow the path of the Buddhas;
Employ no technique to gain supreme enlightenment.

17.KYE MA! Listen with sympathy!
With insight into your sorry worldly predicament,
Realising that nothing can last, that all is as dreamlike illusion,
Meaningless illusion provoking frustration and boredom,
Turn around and abandon your mundane pursuits.

18.Cut away involvement with your homeland and friends
And meditate alone in a forest or mountain retreat;
Exist there in a state of non-meditation
And attaining no-attainment, you attain Mahamudra.

19.A tree spreads its branches and puts forth leaves,
But when its root is cut its foliage withers;
So too, when the root of the mind is severed,
The branches of the tree of samsara die.

20.A single lamp dispels the darkness of a thousand aeons;
Likewise, a single flash of the mind's clear light
Erases aeons of karmic conditioning and spiritual blindness.

21.KYE HO! Listen with joy!
The truth beyond mind cannot be grasped by any faculty of mind;
The meaning of non-action cannot be understood in compulsive activity;
To realise the meaning of non-action and beyond mind,
Cut the mind at its root and rest in naked awareness.

22.Allow the muddy waters of mental activity to clear;
Refrain from both positive and negative projection -
leave appearances alone:
The phenomenal world, without addition or subtraction, is Mahamudra.

23.The unborn omnipresent base dissolves your impulsions and delusions:
Do not be conceited or calculating but rest in the unborn essence
And let all conceptions of yourself and the universe melt away.

24.The highest vision opens every gate;
The highest meditation plumbs the infinite depths;
The highest activity is ungoverned yet decisive;
And the highest goal is ordinary being devoid of hope and fear.

25.At first your karma is like a river falling through a gorge;
In mid-course it flows like a gently meandering River Ganga;
And finally, as a river becomes one with the ocean,
It ends in consummation like the meeting of mother and son.

26.If the mind is dull and you are unable to practice these instructions,
Retaining essential breath and expelling the sap of awareness,
Practising fixed gazes - methods of focussing the mind,
Discipline yourself until the state of total awareness abides.

27.When serving a karmamudra, the pure awareness
of bliss and emptiness will arise:
Composed in a blessed union of insight and means,
Slowly send down, retain and draw back up the bodhichitta,
And conducting it to the source, saturate the entire body.
But only if lust and attachment are absent will that awareness arise.

28.Then gaining long-life and eternal youth, waxing like the moon,
Radiant and clear, with the strength of a lion,
You will quickly gain mundane power and suprem enlightenment.
May this pith instruction in Mahamudra
Remain in the hearts of fortunate beings.


:)

[todd]

I cannot prove that god is not in someway synonymous with energy,...but I can can show that the Source of us does not arise from energy. vicente
Any idea of a "loving energy" is an oxymoron. Energy is a product of the preceived separation from Source. Energy is not real, nor does it exist. Energy is always conditional, whereas the essence of love is Unconditional. vicente

If energy does not exist, then what does, Vicente? Please answer with your own opinion here.
From what you say above I think you make a confusion between energy and potential energy. I can imagine that you may be right in only one hypothesis - space and time do no exist, so there is an impossibility do define a referential in our 4 dimensions. More than this, I think you actually mean no dimensions at all.
I suppose you are aware of all the new theories starting with the Quantum ending with M- theory, and you know about all the fight on energy/mass. If we just resume to Einstein, then no energy equals no mass, only absolute void, no space, no time. I think your whole point here resumes to one straight answer:
There is no God, then the only thing you can say for certain is: “I AM“, whatever I means.
Even if only YOU exist, and you’re your own God, that still means that God exists.

When the right hemisphere of the brain, the seat of emotion, is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere, the seat of language, is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates a "sensed presence."-- DoWalker

There is a girl on this world that has a hemisphere of her brain removed, still alive, still herself...

[DoWalker]

I think both of you have misunderstood me. Perhaps that is my own fault; let me try to rectify it.

I am not suggesting an energy in the Physical sense. If spiritual energy were like light, or electromagnitism, it could be both proved and measured. I only use the term "energy" for lack of a better word in English. I am referring to Ki. I've not yet come upon a satisfactory English translation of the Eastern concept of Chi/Ki.

In Physics, the Theory of Everything postulates that gravity, electromagnitism, minor and major nuclear forces are all somehow linked. That comes to mind whenever I think about the "univeral spiritual energy" idea.

[vicente]

If energy does not exist, then what does, Vicente?

Light. Light is the proof that no god exists.

:)

[sahyo]

:lol:

[todd]

"If energy does not exist, then what does, Vicente? "

Light. Light is the proof that no god exists

And your "light" is too deep for our superficial "darkness"?

[vicente]

And your "light" is too deep for our superficial "darkness"?

The Unconditional Still Light that is proof that no god exists, is neither light nor darkness,...I'm speaking of the fulcrum upon which duality (light and dark) effects its motion.

:)