Proof for God's Non-Existence

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, earl!

Thank you for your response! I wanted to be sure you did not feel I was ignoring you, but I am quite overwhelmed on a number of levels. Not least your response,

Originally Posted by earl

Don't have to worry about losing a "personality"... who we take ourselves to be. "I'm a this, not a that,etc."

OK, I'm trying to follow...

The Buddhist path is in part about discovering that none of those parts of what you take to be "you" is definitive of you and further on the meditative journey as a result of changes in perception and accompanying emoptional reactivity, we find ourselves less pushed about by our less noble impulses-what hesychastic Christians called the "passions."

I think I followed pretty well up until "what you take to be 'you' is definitive of you," after which, frankly, I got lost. It sounds to me like not taking ourselves too seriously, not letting the naysayers convince us we cannot.

We become more truly ourselves in that we then tend to live lives of less fear, hostility, and craving-so much of our behaviors as we get to know ourselves we discover is motivated/based in such things.

I think I generally agree.

Ultimately, we learn to stop creating self "concepts" altogether.

OK, if I am following, when we learn to overcome our mental shackles, we can grow.

Buddhism has a well-developed ethical system;

I did not in any manner mean to imply Buddhism does not have an ethical system. I believe Buddhism to have a very well-defined ethical system. Which is why I knew that the words and the meaning of those words to me conflicted with my understanding. Even so, I still have trouble fully grasping the concept that "every action is good" (or something like that).

but from the Buddhist sense of overcoming self then-or to be enlightened-implies that one is acting with great wisdom and compassion and if one isn't in that moment one definitionally is acting from some as yet "self-based" view.

Very well, I think I see where you are coming from. Of course, if I understand correctly, one needn't be Buddhist to be acting with great wisdom and compassion.

Their are plenty of "individual" characters in Zen lore.

I am unlearned in Buddhism, I know next to nothing. I know even less of Zen.

As to that "force" thing-sounds kinda Star Wars doesn't it? But that's not what I meant by that. Just that I can't refer to "Buddha Mind/enlightenment as a "thing" or entity. Then again I obviously think it's a mistake to think of "God" that way, too.

OK. If I recall correctly, I believe that point of the conversation had something to do with spirit communing (my words here). To which I expressed my reservations.

Anyway, just thought I'd give you a bit more info to clarify that part of the Buddhist thing I was getting at. Have a good one, Earl

Thank you very much for the effort, earl! I realize I have a long way to go to understand Buddhism. You, Vajradhara and Devadatta have all gone a long way to helping me understand, but there are some bridges I am as of yet unwilling to cross. I suppose that is just my "self." Even so, I appreciate the effort. With time and patience, perhaps I will get it figured out.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


i was thinking about this last night... and i thought that perhaps i could try another explanation for the Buddhist view of self.

by and large (and i am being somewhat loose and general) what Buddhism is refering to as the "self" is what most western hemisphere beings would call the "ego".

thus, becoming "self-less" in Buddhism is, in a sense, becoming "ego-less".

perhaps that helps?

metta,
~v

[earl]

Juantoo-I sometimes use the term "mistaken identity" for the "self" in Buddhism. Self concepts are comprised of sets of various beliefs we have about ourself and how it is in relationship to an other. So, for eg whether we think of ourselves in glowing terms or dark ones, we define ourselves by concepts re who we think we are. Now, just for the next 5 minutes, take note: what different thoughts go through your head? what different feelings or sensations? How long do they last? what do they change into? Now, what is the "essence" of you that remains forever unchanged? Can't be thoughts, they're always changing. Can't be feelings, they're always changing. Mistaken identity is hanging onto beliefs re who we are that are built up of shifting sand, thus the old standard useful zen koanic question to ask oneself,"Who" is experiencing right now? Generally, speaking our less noble impulses come out of this knot of mistaken identity. So, when Buddhists traditionally speak of enlightened behavior, they are speaking of one who has seen through/overcome that knot of self and, by doing so, largely transcended these ignoble impulses. The well developed Buddhist ethical system exists as guidelines for those 99.9999% of us who haven't gotten to the point of being able to naturally behave with the ethical impeccability of a Buddha. As for "communing with the Spirit," Buddhist don't generally put it in those terms. Rather, they might say that enlightened individuals are simply manifesting Reality in each word and deed. Hope this is somewhat clarifying, Earl

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by earl

Juantoo-I sometimes use the term "mistaken identity" for the "self" in Buddhism. Self concepts are comprised of sets of various beliefs we have about ourself and how it is in relationship to an other. So, for eg whether we think of ourselves in glowing terms or dark ones, we define ourselves by concepts re who we think we are. Now, just for the next 5 minutes, take note: what different thoughts go through your head? what different feelings or sensations? How long do they last? what do they change into? Now, what is the "essence" of you that remains forever unchanged? Can't be thoughts, they're always changing. Can't be feelings, they're always changing. Mistaken identity is hanging onto beliefs re who we are that are built up of shifting sand, thus the old standard useful zen koanic question to ask oneself,"Who" is experiencing right now? Generally, speaking our less noble impulses come out of this knot of mistaken identity. So, when Buddhists traditionally speak of enlightened behavior, they are speaking of one who has seen through/overcome that knot of self and, by doing so, largely transcended these ignoble impulses. The well developed Buddhist ethical system exists as guidelines for those 99.9999% of us who haven't gotten to the point of being able to naturally behave with the ethical impeccability of a Buddha. As for "communing with the Spirit," Buddhist don't generally put it in those terms. Rather, they might say that enlightened individuals are simply manifesting Reality in each word and deed. Hope this is somewhat clarifying, Earl

Some skillful teaching, Earl.

Cheers.

[earl]

OK-now thought I'd do a "scandalous" riff on the skandas-where my imaginative, heretical quasi-theistic bent comes to play. in Buddhist thinking a "person" is mage up of aggregate parts called skandhas-matter, feeling or sensation, perception, thoughts, and consciousness. Buddhism asserts that these formations come into play and change with changing causes and conditions; being impermanent, and not independent of these causes & conditions they do not "ultimately exist," then as an independent entity. Further, it is usually those skandhas that create our sense of "self." Bit like peeling back the layers of an onion-this part relates to that part, etc. til we get to the core of an empty/fullness that is ineffable. There there seems to be a no-thing-ness in which things are "created" in almost ex nihlo fashion, (a sentient watcher underneath and within all those layers) though here Buddhism merely asserts the stopgap karmic cycles of causes & conditions. That may somewhat describe the why, but no more really a fulfilling explanation than standard theistic ones that proclaim creation ex nihlo from an unfathomable God. In both cases the finger of logic points back to an "openness" of Mystery that may be accessible to the intuitive power of an awakened mind, but certainly otherwise is ungraspable. It has always fascinated me that this no-thing-ness at the core of us seems to bear certain existential, ontological similarities to the unknown God of apophatic mysticism some try to know. Well enough riffing for now. Take care, Earl

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for your post.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i was thinking about this last night... and i thought that perhaps i could try another explanation for the Buddhist view of self.

by and large (and i am being somewhat loose and general) what Buddhism is refering to as the "self" is what most western hemisphere beings would call the "ego".

thus, becoming "self-less" in Buddhism is, in a sense, becoming "ego-less".

perhaps that helps?

I'm afraid it doesn't really help. As I recall, beginning on one of the first pages of my psych 101 course is Freud's use of the term "ego," in conjunction with the terms "super-ego" and "id." Which, in rather general terms, compose the personality. Ego specifically, is that part of the personality we allow others to see. I recall having this discussion with the prof, in that the manner in which I see the term used outside of psych is not consistent with Freud.

In my experience, "ego" seems to be used like a club or curse word by certain individuals. "You egoist brute!" Which is really funny to me, in that it is another's ego expressing such things. In other words, it seems to me one of the ultimate "pot calling the kettle black" scenarios I can think of. Not only does every person have an ego/personality, but to ridicule someone for having one is, how can I say politely?...not very educated.

Perhaps this is where and why I struggle with this, in that I very much equate ego with personality, therefore to do away with it is not only impossible (for a healthy individual), if it could be done it would leave a "vegetative-like" personality (no offense to anyone).

Now, I have no problem with some of the things earl pointed to, what I might be more inclined to call something like "healthy thinking." It is correct that self-defeating thoughts in our internal dialogue can conquer us before we begin. So in that regard I agree, that to box ourselves with thoughts like "I am dumb, I am ugly, I am clumsy, I am lonely," can make us conform to an unreality, which would then create a new reality for us. We make ourselves dumb, etc., in order to "live down to" our unhealthy thoughts.

The converse of this is that we can also lift ourselves with "self-appreciating" thoughts, not in the sense of untoward pride, but in believing in our abilities and potential. Overcoming fear is a big step in this direction, because with fear we are afraid to even begin to try. When we overcome fear, we at least make the attempt. Then, if we fail (still without fear), we examine our failure to figure what went wrong and try again until we succeed. This is not doing away with ego as I understand it, it is rearranging it to a successful/wise paradigm.

I suspect in the end we are really saying the same thing, after reading the last few posts. Perhaps not, in which case I am willing to reconsider...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, earl!

I agree with Devadatta, this is a big step forward.

Originally Posted by earl

Juantoo-I sometimes use the term "mistaken identity" for the "self" in Buddhism. Self concepts are comprised of sets of various beliefs we have about ourself and how it is in relationship to an other. So, for eg whether we think of ourselves in glowing terms or dark ones, we define ourselves by concepts re who we think we are.

I believe I have no problem with this, as I explained in my previous post to Vajradhara. This describes what I understand as "internal dialogue" and how it affects our way of projecting our psyche out towards others through the use of personality.

what is the "essence" of you that remains forever unchanged? Can't be thoughts, they're always changing. Can't be feelings, they're always changing. Mistaken identity is hanging onto beliefs re who we are that are built up of shifting sand, thus the old standard useful zen koanic question to ask oneself,"Who" is experiencing right now?

I admit this is a very good question, to which I do not have a ready answer. My gut instinct is to respond "soul," but I am not quite sure that would be a correct answer.

Generally, speaking our less noble impulses come out of this knot of mistaken identity. So, when Buddhists traditionally speak of enlightened behavior, they are speaking of one who has seen through/overcome that knot of self and, by doing so, largely transcended these ignoble impulses.

Provided my interpretation across our different paradigms is anywhere close to correct, then I must agree with this concept.

The well developed Buddhist ethical system exists as guidelines for those 99.9999% of us who haven't gotten to the point of being able to naturally behave with the ethical impeccability of a Buddha.

A thought that occurred to me after I initially read this, is in the "divine within." As V explained "Namaste" being a salute to the divine within you, so too Christians seek to bring the divine within by "accepting Jesus 'to come into their lives'." I do think though, that at least in some of the fringe "spiritualists" I have read and heard, there is emphasis on inflating that divine within in order to essentially make themselves as gods. I do have great trouble with this aspect.

As for generally seeking the divine for understanding and guidance, that to me seems an inherent search, one we seem almost programmed to do. For some this is turned inward, for some this is turned outward, and some find a way to turn it off.

As for "communing with the Spirit," Buddhist don't generally put it in those terms. Rather, they might say that enlightened individuals are simply manifesting Reality in each word and deed. Hope this is somewhat clarifying, Earl

I am thinking we are on two completely different wavelengths with this. I can understand creating reality with word and deed, in effect Christianity even teaches the same. ("Do unto others...") What I was referring to with the "commune with spirit" comment really has no association with this concept, at least none I can readily draw from in my paradigm. I guess I need to return to my comment about "seeking." If I am guiding my life in a wise manner appropriate to "God," then I am "rewarded" with blessings (and obligations!) that if properly used lead to even greater rewards. God blesses those who apply themselves to His service.

My hesitance, is in purposely seeking these rewards (particularly at the exxpense of the obligations). If I go "looking" for a spirit guide, the one I get may not guide me correctly on the path, understanding that not all spirits are "good." Not only not good, but capable, especially to an untrained or inexperienced person, to masquerade as good when the reality is that spirit is not.

I am not sure this last part is clear, and I am a little uncomfortable even broaching the subject. But this in a nutshell is where I am at in this moment.

I know there is a line of thought among certain Christians of "let go, let God." For the very same reasons I just mentioned, I must disagree.

Thank you very sincerely. I think you do a great job in trying to bridge the gap between east and west in this. I am trying to understand. I am also comfortable in my paradigm, even though I know it has room to grow. Lots of room!

[earl]

Hi Juantoo. I'm panentheistic in orientation-God as very basis of our being and creation's being yet also beyond it. I remember reading somewhere recently that to deny God as being the very fabric of our being is to deny God's immanence while to deny God is also somehow outside of creation is to deny God's transcendence. Both to me make the most sense in a wonderfully paradoxical manner. Over-emphasis of either pole has its built-in dangers: denying immanence can induce an undue sense of estrangement from our very selves, believing we are not truly made in the image of God. Denying the transcendence of God can lead to very subtle ways of reinforcing our mundane limited sense of self when we have to in a way get over ourselves to both realize our deepest Being and find God, one of the advantages of a devotional form of spiritual practice. I like Meister Eckhart's quote about how his "isness" is "God's isness," speaking to how the very essence of his Being is in some way part of the isness of God- why I say we of course are not God, nor are we other than God, another fruitful paradox. Take care, Earl

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, earl!

I'm panentheistic in orientation-God as very basis of our being and creation's being yet also beyond it. I remember reading somewhere recently that to deny God as being the very fabric of our being is to deny God's immanence while to deny God is also somehow outside of creation is to deny God's transcendence. Both to me make the most sense in a wonderfully paradoxical manner. Over-emphasis of either pole has its built-in dangers: denying immanence can induce an undue sense of estrangement from our very selves, believing we are not truly made in the image of God. Denying the transcendence of God can lead to very subtle ways of reinforcing our mundane limited sense of self when we have to in a way get over ourselves to both realize our deepest Being and find God, one of the advantages of a devotional form of spiritual practice. I like Meister Eckhart's quote about how his "isness" is "God's isness," speaking to how the very essence of his Being is in some way part of the isness of God- why I say we of course are not God, nor are we other than God, another fruitful paradox.

I guess I haven't gone so far as to fully understand certain terminology in this regard. I have heard the term "panentheism" before, but you are the first to offer explanation. In some deep way I think I understand and agree, but I am not learned enough to converse intelligently on this. I believe this was particularly in response to my comment about "elevating" that piece of God within. Which I still stand by. There are a great many people out there that seek diligently and sincerely. You seem like one to me. There are others that pick and choose what seems good for a moment, and run off in all kinds of crazy directions making things up as they go. I have a problem with that. They may believe what they will, but frankly I think they are barking up the wrong tree. Misinterpretations abound, usually in cohort with some brand of self-righteousness. I am sure you have encountered the prophet (for profit?) syndrome in the course of your studies?