On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Dan Minette wrote: > > silly. (To believe in God, but not actually have any particular beliefs > > about God, is nothing more than an emotionally reluctant non-theism or > > agnosticism.) > > One belief that most theists I know of have about the divine is that it > transcends human explanations.
And yet very few theists (in the west, anyway) are unwilling to tell you that they know the will of God...at least to a useful first-order approximation. :-) What's the difference between saying "the divine transcends human explanations" and "That which cannot be explained we call 'divine' by default?" > Further, there is recognition of the same > territory covered by different traditions. For example, the 'Gita has one > of the best descriptions of the Christian Walk that I have ever read. Granted...but if the development of similar practices do not require similar cosmic theologies, that suggests to me that the practice endures not because it relates us to God but to ourselves (for whom God is only a metaphorical stand-in). > No, but any single concept of the divine is bound to be limited and flawed > : as seeing through a glass, darkly. However, we can see each other as > fellow travelers. I don't doubt that you and I could come up with religions > that are so anathema to my way of thinking, that I cannot see them as > fellow travelers with myself. However, our "Faiths Together" group has > member churches from a very wide range of theists, and we do see a lot of > commonalty. > > Further, I think the commonality is in area that non-theists would deny > exists, so it is very hard to talk about. I failed to explain: I'm using "non-theist" to describe an atheist who thinks that the various religious and spiritual traditions do have something to offer and are worth studying, but who does not believe in an independent, personal creator-god. I want to draw a distinction between the that manner of thinking and the reactionary atheism that treats all religion as anathema. Frankly, I suspect you're not giving the non-theists of the world enough credit with the above statement, so I'm curious just what it is you think a non-theist is incapable of understanding. > Let me give one example. > Anthony de Mello is a Jesuit who grew up in India and studied spiritual > techniques at a Zen monastery for years. He has written books on Eastern > techniques for Christian spirituality, as well as collections of mystical > stories from many different traditions. The theology is clearly different, > but the spirituality is very similar. See my comment above. If the practice - if spirituality - can succeed without being linked to a *specific* theology, why not junk the theology? (I recently finished an interesting book called "Spirituality for the Skeptic" by an old prof of mine named Robert Solomon. He basically argues that the attitudes that characterize positive spirituality can be distilled from theism and enjoyed without belief in any particular religion or in God. He's preaching to the converted in my case, but I like the way he sets things out.) > >All talk about the divine and about good and bad, but > > the nature of the Ultimate, and how one realizes it, differ, and many > > Ultimate Truths have no room for a God along the Christian model. > > But, what if there is but one Ultimate Truth, and many partial > understandings of that Truth? What if the "partialness" of any one understanding is caused in part by that understanding's dependence on a belief in a particular God or gods? What if the naming and defining of God is among the things that stop the mind from appreciating some grander Truth? "If you see Buddha walking on the road, kill him." > > If one must believe in God to open the book, then you've basically just > > kicked Buddha out of the "theist" club. > > But, there is a clear recognition of the divine by many Buddhists. From > what I understand, Buddha accepted the existence of gods, demigods, karma, > reincarnation, etc. I have not studied Buddhism enough to be sure of the > details of the theology. My understanding is limited, but afaik the gods and demigods associated with Buddhism are of the polytheistic type - subordinate to nature and often manifestations of the psyche - and just as subject to karmic law as any human being. In other words they are of an entirely different concept from the creator/lawgiver God of Christianity which stands outside of and prior to nature. They are also rather disposable - one does not pray to them or depend upon them (although some Buddhist sects teach dependence on bodhisattvas such as Amida Buddha, this was not the Buddha's original teaching). The Buddha's attainment of enlightenment was achieved without the assistance or intervention of any divine being - that's a huge part of what makes Buddhism Buddhism. (After all, everybody already is a divine being anyway - the trick is learning to see it.) I think it's also why Buddhism blends well with other religions: God/gods are actually rather irrelevant, and so they can be adapted or worked around as circumstances dictate. As for karma and rebirth (NOT reincarnation - they are different concepts), these are non-theistic doctrines and do not rely on the existence of a God for their functioning. They are more like laws of nature (the nature of consciousness) outlining cause and effect. It looks like morality (judgement) in action, but it's not (not in the Christian sense, anyway): it's impersonal, even a bit mechanical in character, and it doesn't reflect the will of any deity. Good works and faith (in the Christian sense) won't help you achieve Nirvana, only practice. (Which is another distinction: laws of karma can be discerned by means of disciplined observation of the mind, and they don't derive from revelation.) As for rebirth/reincarnation: reincarnation suggests a transmigration of souls, in which Buddhists do not believe. (There is no soul or self - cf the doctrine of selflessness - which means the absence of a self as such, not charity - one of the Buddha's key teachings.) Rebirth is more like a recycling of consciousness. I don't know quite how to draw the distinction, but everything I've read about Buddhism insists there is one. In any event, this too is a largely mechanical process and does not involve any deity's will. Simply to say that Buddhism uses language that invokes the divine is not to show that the concept of a god, or of the divine, used in Buddhism corresponds to the concept of God exhibited in western theism. They don't, to my knowledge, except for when the word "divine" is used in a sort of generic and unspecific sort of way. Christian divinity ceases to be without God. Buddhist divinity is nothing more or less than nature and existence itself - there might be small "g" gods, generally borrowed from the culture in which Buddhism is practiced, but without them the world would still be a divine illusion. > But, I'm guessing that the theology is not really > critical; its awareness of the grace around us...to use Christian terms. > There has to be a reason that one of the greatest Christian mystics of the > 20th century was very comfortable studying in a Buddhist monastery. Maybe because he's more Buddhist than Christian? I went to a bunch of web sites that describe his teaching, and it looks as though Christian theology gets redefined quite a bit in his works. Which I like, incidentally, but I bet there are lots of more traditional Christians who would look askance at it. (Christianity doesn't handle mysticism well, IMO.) But again, if theology isn't critical, why should theism be? Buddhist theology is an oxymoron anyway: Buddhism isn't about God. (Except, again, in the generic and unspecific sense in which the word "God" is applied to anything spiritual.) > Huh? All that is required is the assumption that they are talking about > the same divine we are. Now, when I describe things, I definitely do it in > a Christian context. But, that doesn't mean that I think I can reduce > Hinduism to Christianity or Buddhism to Christianity. Rather, I believe > that the Hindu prays to the same God I do, and the Buddhist, when she > meditates, is in commune with my God. What is the difference between this attitude and the "reduction to Christianity" I originally mentioned? If it is not a reduction to Christianity, what is the difference between this attitude and the recognition that any given theism is inherently false, the equivalent of mistaking an elephant's toenail for the whole beast? > Where did you get that the divine was immoral to Buddha? There are still > actions that result in good and bad karma. Amoral, not immoral. Karma is described as a moral law, but it is a law that applies to the physical and mental, not the "divine," which is beyond categories of good and evil (and self and other, and being and nonbeing, etc.). Contrast this to the Christian God, whose business is to be Good and to engage in moral arbitration. The Buddhist notion of the divine is above such stuff. > I think part of it, is that non-theists deny the existence of that which > the theists are talking about, and so see superficial differences; while > theists see the underlying similarities. This particular nontheist, he hopes, sees both similarities and differences and thus draws the common-sense conclusion that theism as such isn't really necessary for spirituality as such. When theists say anything useful, its because they're talking about stuff that anybody can experience without reference to God. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) "Two bits, four bits, six bits, a peso. If you're for Zorro, stand up and say so!" _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
