the question of religion
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
All I can say is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Being close minded to religion is as bad as any form of ignorance. This site is supposed to be about a “High Existence” as in a “Higher Existence”. I’m not here to argue over life preferences. I have no disdain for religion, it inspires more good works than it does bad and the bad are usually extremist sects of any given religion anyways. Even atheism has extremist members.
@nicktett, No no, I am not playing with semantics. I am being quite literal when I say that God is existence — not just a single feeling of happiness, but the collective whole of everything in our universe as well as everything beyond that. In addition, I am saying that this God is sentient and conscious of his own existence. The beauty seen in the sentient knowledge of that pure existence is the bliss. Not lame at all.
You see God as a tool for man, a cruch or drug that we use to cope with life or as an explanation for unanswered questions. For some naive people, that may be true, but again, ask an educated thinker, and there’s a different belief involved. I’m sure you’ve heard this, but science is not opposed to religion. The dicodomy is all in your mind. You have faith in science to the exclusion of all else, while I see science as a means to an end — that end being to understand our reality. Again, a shift in perspective would show you that science is based on a system of practical knowledge for understanding the world’s phenomena, while religion is a system based in understanding God. Both systems have several effects. For example, scientific discoveries have led to huge technological advancements. In the same way, the quest to understand God has led to the formation of morality for whatever reason. These systems are not essentially at odds, and they can be absolutely harmonized.
If you say that man was evolved from simpler life, does it make it any less of God’s work? God isn’t just some idea that religion labels anything that isn’t known. God is the known and the unknown. You think that by explaining natural phenomena, you have made God smaller and smaller, but this is foolish. The understanding of natural phenomena adds a richness to the actions of God in a way that simple and blind belief cannot.
You say that a flux of atoms interacting with each other is science. I say you’re right, but it is caused by God.
As for your question to my statement, its not purely circular. Its linear.
The natural world came from God. Man came from the natural world. Religion came from Man. Therefore, Religion came from God.
All those “isms,” i.e. theism, deism, pantheism, panintheism, henitheism, etc. are all different perspectives of a single observation. I hold them all to be true in one sense or another, and I may employ a belief central to any of their philosophies to convey my viewpoint.
@tigerturban, Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Osho die mentally insane?
No offense, but I believe that you can tell a lot about a man’s philosophy by how well it applies when faced with death. Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleister Crowley, and many others were brilliant minds too, but they died in rather unpleasant ways.
Forgive me if that isn’t true — my uncle really digs that guy and told me his whole life story lol
@vivekhash345, what you’re saying makes sense except your opinion relies on the preposition that god exists, which cannot be proven.
First, what you are saying is semantics. You say God is the collective whole of everything in the universe and beyond. All this means is that when you reference the universe and beyond that you name that signified thing ‘god,’ whereas I name it ‘the universe and beyond.’ How come that additional ‘layer’ needs to be put on the universe?
Second, you say “God is sentient and conscious of his own existence.” How come? Where did you ascertain this knowledge? Why is this any more true than my conjecture that the universe is a tortoise’s brain and that knowledge brings us bliss? Or that the universe is a simulation?
That’s really the core of my belief. I’d love to hear your perspective on these two ideas – I’ll be very open to trying to understand what you are trying to say. Additionally, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to explain your own beliefs :)
@vivekhash345, Osho became corrupt in the latter part of his life. Despite it all he is one of only two individuals whose entire works have been committed to the Parliament in New Delhi.
you can read witness account of his controversial life here: http://meditation-handbook.50webs.com/osho2.html
“Enlightenment is not something you own; it is something you channel.
Whatever term you use for the phenomena of enlightenment, it is scientifically accurate to say that no human being has any power of their own. Even the chemical energy of our metabolism is borrowed from the sun, which beams light to the earth, which is then converted by plants through photosynthesis into the food we eat. You may get your bread from the supermarket, but the caloric energy it contains originated from thermonuclear reactions deep in the center of a nearby star. Our physical bodies run on star power. Any “spiritual” energy we channel also comes from far beyond, from all sides of the universe, from the complete TES (Time-Energy-Space), from beyond the oceans of galaxies, and onto infinity. No human being owns the Atman, and no one can speak for the TES.
The Void has no ambition or personality whatsoever, so Rajneesh could only speak for his own animal mind. The animal mind may want its disciples to “take over the whole world,” but the Void does not care because it is beyond any motivation. The phenomena we called Rajneesh, Bhagwan, and Osho, was only a temporary lens of cosmic energy, not the full cosmos itself.
Rajneesh, and the famous Greek-Armenian mystic George Gurdjieff, often used the power of the Atman for clearly personal gain. Both men used their cosmic consciousness to overwhelm and seduce women. Gurdjieff was ashamed of his behavior and vowed many times during his life to end this practice, which was a combination of ordinary male lust backed up by the potent advantage of oceanic super-mental power. Rajneesh went even further and used his channeled cosmic energy to manipulate masses of people to gain a kind of quasi-political status, and to aggrandize himself far beyond what was honest or helpful to his disciples. In Oregon, Rajneesh declared to the media that “My religion is the only religion!” Diplomacy and modesty were not his strong points.”
and yet still! “These brilliant insights will benefit all those who yearn for experiential
knowledge of the field of pure potentiality inherent in every human being.
This book belongs on the shelf of every library and in the home of all those
who seek knowledge of the higher self.”
- Deepak Chopra, author of Ageless Body, Timeless Mind; Quantum Healing and
Unconditional Life on Osho’s Book “From Medication to Meditation”
“Enlightened people like Osho are ahead of their times. It is good that more and more young people are now reading his works.”
- K. R. Narayanan, former president of India
“Through my friend Deepak Chopra I came across Osho’s books which gave me an
other deeper shift in my life. I regret I did not met him in person, and I feel sorry the US Government missed such an opportunity back in 86.”
- Madonna, Singer and Performer
We are taught from out very childhood to make a name in the world, to become famous, well-known, successful, a prime minister or a president, a Nobel prize winner – but somebody special, somebody. Every child is poisoned with the idea of being somebody, and the reality is we are all nobodies. And the reality is tremendously beautiful! Just being nobody brings such joy and ecstasy that one cannot even imagine it. Fame brings nothing. It is a very stupid game, very childish and immature.
My definition of real achievement is that which cannot be taken away by death. Anything that can be taken away by death is not a real achievement but only a pseudo achievement, toys to play with.
Become a nobody from this moment and enjoy the freedom that it brings. Become anonymous and see the joy! There is no worry, no anxiety. Because there is no ego you don’t feel hurt. Nothing can hurt you. Somebody can insult you and you can stand there watching and enjoying it because there is nobody inside you to feel hurt, there is nobody to be wounded. You can enjoy and laugh.
The day a man can enjoy and laugh while he is being insulted he has already attained something, he has become part of eternity. He has entered into the world of the immortals.
@nicktett, I believe that I can answer those questions.
“First, what you are saying is semantics. You say God is the collective whole of everything in the universe and beyond. All this means is that when you reference the universe and beyond that you name that signified thing ‘god,’ whereas I name it ‘the universe and beyond.’ How come that additional ‘layer’ needs to be put on the universe?”
Well, the extra layer of “God” is there because I believe that this God exists. God isn’t an idea or concept — God is a conscious, existent being who transcends both finite matter and infinite energy. Where is the evidence? Well, that is where direct experience comes into play. Whereas western religions are based on pure theory and belief, eastern religions stress practice for obtaining a direct experience with God — to see for yourself. In this sense, religion is the experiment by which God, the theory of theories can be tested and hopefully proven. Though science cannot prove God, I consider direct experience more valid, subjectively speaking.
“Second, you say “God is sentient and conscious of his own existence.” How come? Where did you ascertain this knowledge? Why is this any more true than my conjecture that the universe is a tortoise’s brain and that knowledge brings us bliss? Or that the universe is a simulation?”
This goes back to that direct experience thing I mentioned. I believe God to be everything and more, and to be sentient and conscious because my religion tells me so. I practice my religion in the hopes that I can one day experience this revelation for myself.
Your claim that the universe is a tortoise’s brain is certainly possible, but is it likely? When compared to my theory of God, which is more likely?
You cannot put all theories and claims on an equal footing. A man may say that gravity is caused by invisible dwarves who pull magical ropes to hold the world down, while another man may say that gravity is a bending of spacetime. Which is more likely?
In the same way, you could say that the universe is a tortoise’s brain or spaghetti monster instead of the effect of a sentient, superconscious being who pervades everything, but which of the views is more plausible. While I’ll admit that there is no scientific proof to verify any of these claims at present, I trust that science will slowly find out the same truth in its own way and with its own methods of skepticism.
@tigerturban, Yes, I see. I hate Nietzsche and everything he stands for, but I can’t help but quote him and admire aspects of his philosophy — even if his philosophy led to a destructive lifestyle which led to syphilis which led to insanity and death.
In a spiritual sense then, Osho was a failure. No cosmic consciousness would work through the animal mind, nor can he be said to have always existed in the void. However, I must admit that his statements are very powerful. I like the one about energy and also the one about pseudo-accomplishments.
A part of the problem is that he may have been trying to be a rebel, to have something new to say, and to shock people. Nietzsche would have called him the Dionysiac madman, the ecstatic reveller. He danced the abyss like many others. Crowley did the same, and he had some very interesting things to say as well. However, when a man is willing to break social norms, it can lead to independence and a strong will, but it can also lead to decadence and a lack of moral fiber. The words of such decadent people, even if they are wise, are like poison dropped in nectar.
It’s man-made. There is no observable evidence and no testable statements made in religion to consider it a part of the natural world. I think if God exists and intervenes in our world then we should be able to prove a presence because physical entities would be changed based on his will. If he does not intervene, then there is no proof for his existence beyond what our minds can conjure up and claim as proof. If it’s a ‘matter of faith’ then there are an infinite number of things that we can have a ‘matter of faith’ in – each one as probable as god. I can faithfully believe in unicorns, elephants that determine my destiny and the sentience of pencils – none of these can be disproved. The fact that people born in Christian societies are likely to become Christians and those born in Hindu societies likely to become Hindu, etc. show that your belief is a function not of free-thought or divine intervention; rather, your belief is a function of what adults in your society agree to make believe in. Why is Santa different than a Christian God? It’s a fairy-tale told to make people feel better about themselves. To claim that anyone has knowledge of what happens after death is ridiculous – that doesn’t mean that you err on the side of there being God because there is more evidence that sentience is a result of brain structure and that brain structure (proteins, enzymatic activities) stop at death and the atoms that make up our body decay back into the universe (which to me is WAY more beautiful and intriguing than religion/god).
Religion, the organization of systems of belief, definitely is man-made. I always wonder if, in modern society, if religious influences were removed then would people still come to the conclusion that there is god? Or would they follow a more humanistic way of living still following moral codes? Organization of people around a God is a good and easy way to manipulate the masses (See: Karl Marx, rhetoric used against US and against terrorists in the “War on Terror”) and to otherize whole groups of people.
I would check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZgT1SRcrKE
If you do end up looking at the rebuttals against this piece (which there are some) then please read the answer to the rebuttals.
First, how does your direct experience show you that there is a sentient and conscious being who transcends energy and matter? This is a claim without any backing beyond reference to personal experience. There are an infinite amount of feelings each person can feel – if someone’s personal experience (mind) tells them to kill someone, then that’s god under your interpretation because you can’t tell someone their direct experience/connection with god is wrong/impossible. Further, the alternative of science -is- experience – it’s just experience that’s observed between all individuals and systemically organized and thoroughly checked.
” I believe God to be everything and more, and to be sentient and conscious because my religion tells me so.”
Second, you believe in God because your religion tells you so and you believe in religion because it was created by God. Why is this not circular? What a priori reason do you have to accept God/religion? When you direct experience is called into question (see above), then what other justification do you have?
Third, “You cannot put all theories and claims on an equal footing. A man may say that gravity is caused by invisible dwarves who pull magical ropes to hold the world down, while another man may say that gravity is a bending of spacetime. Which is more likely?” Space-time is more likely. How do we know this? The systemic evaluation of how the universe works through science. We can’t put those theories on equal footing because one of them (space-time) is a model that describes our observations/experimental data we collect from the world while the other model (dwarves) doesn’t fit in with our theoretical framework. This is a false analogy to god because, as you said, god comes from direct experience and there is no way to compare direct experiences between individuals. A belief in Zues/Posieden is no more or less foolish than a Christian God precisely because there’s no way to compare my direct experience with Zues and yours with a Christian god. On what grounds can you compare two separate religious beliefs if they are based on direct experience?