That’s what makes it so dumb. It’s the philosophical equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming to drown out tough questions.
Well, we have a different approach then. I do not believe that it could “yet be true”. But, in the same way that I could discuss the various attributes of spiderman, I can still have a conversation with those who are trying to scale walls in leotards.
Hi Ucc,
Yes, I see your model. I was raised in it. You see, from my pov, throwing off religion and all the knowing isn’t being trapped, but exactly the opposite. I see those in fundamentalist religion, christian or otherwise, to be the ones who are trapped. It comes mostly from my understanding of the limitation of our perspectivival point at any given moment, and the limit of language to reflect the reality of God in any but the most vague way. My view of the ineffable isn’t constrained by the myoptic pov of religion. I have no problem with the metaphors that allow us to speak of our spiritual experiences in saying God is like… But to say God is… is putting God in a human-made box, and so ineffable isn’t being stalled, but a realization that God can’t be chained to human knowing.
There certainly can be. But I do see a difference. I truly see the self as a measurement of self within all that is. The religious point of view usually, but not always, includes the creation of those saved and those not saved. This is the inclusive/exclusive concept we’ve discussed before. I don’t see my position as egotistical, but rather as un-ego as is possible for a poor practicioner as myself… In no way am I suggesting that there aren’t other pov’s. And that is perhaps the only point I wish to to pursue. From my pov, it is the religious who are locked into egotism in that exclusive argument again. Look at the last 10 posts and ask yourself, who is trying to tell everyone their rightness or wrongness? Who is putting God in a box? Who are the knower’s? Not just for themselves, but for others as well?
Hopefully you can see that this same statement could easily be made about those religious as well. The only possible exception is demonstration, and that is the fertile ground for discourse: how should we act out upon the world? If we should ever manage to stop telling God who, how, and what he is, perhaps we could begin discussing the how shall we live questions.
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
Superiority.
Disprove that statement.
Even you admitted there is nothing showing intent. Don’t come back with one of the typical responses. I request historically based proof that Matayama Gautama created the religion of Buddhism or that he left formal instructions to institutionalise his words into a formal religion. Only that will show that I am wrong and he had direct, knowable intent to destroy wisdom by creating a religion.
That is backpedalling to save face. Try a new tactic, it’s not working. There is a requisite of believability that you are failing, or you do not understand the linguistic context of using sarcasm effectively.
You directly insulted my position, which is mine of intellectual perspective, which is a facet of identification of my person.
You judgementally called me stupid, and it is posted as such.
Again, you are backpedalling to save face.
As far as intent, you claim openly to know my intent, tentative’s intent, NickA’s intent, without refutation. Yet you claim no one else is allowed or capable of doing this, but apparently you are, from your own words.
Sanctimonious, self-righteous, egoistic, defamatory, judgemental, and bigotted. If these are the calling cards of Christianity, no thank you, you can have it all to yourself.
Personally, from my readings, there was never any of these traits written about Y’Shua, anywhere, to my knowledge. I have to wonder what version of the Bible you take your learning from, because it is not represented within that text to my knowledge. But then again, we are all incapable in your sight, so perhaps you could elucidate our lack of knowledge in this area.
Tentative
Yes Indeedy. I certainly know you feel this way.
Everybody. Everybody in this thread. That you can make these two statements in the same post and apparently not see that is extremely disconcerting. I know I can't persuade you to see this, so I'll leave it alone.
No, not at all. The very nature of a body of religious doctrine, especially in the case of a historical religion (as opposed to a mystery or mystical religion) is that is creates a model that explains things. Tthat it explains things very well or not very well at all is extremely important when it comes to how appealing that religion will be. For example, see in my response to Omar how I employ God's personhood, God's aims, and the Fall from Grace to answer his questions. Now what I'm making are assertions, but they form a coherent model to operate in. The actual proof is left to things like experience and natural theology- so I agree that religious systems cannot be proven. But they can be tested.
By contrast, instead of offering an explanation, you seem to be saying that no explanations are possible, and to condemn (in your own way) those who think they have a good explanation. So there's a vast difference there.
I think the question I asked you earlier was very important, but I also know it was very poorly phrased. I’ll ask you again, another way:
Is there any certain (or merely very likely) knowledge, available to everyone equally, that should lead a person to realize that exclusivity in religious matters is a mistake?
I don’t have to disprove it. You made it and it is clearly spurious unless you are very very old.
I never claimed to know the intent of Buddha, therefore I don’t have to prove anything.
Honestly, it’s like talking to a child. Again and again, you take my obviously sarcastic or humerous comments literally (hey, are you a fundementalist?), while others seem to have no problem. Do you seriously think I was being anything other than sarcastic when I said…
I for one am glad that someone here knows the real intentions of a long dead historical figure. You two must have been really close.
Do you think that I thought it likely that you and Buddha were best buddies?
I called your position stupid. If you have difficulty understanding my posts then I suggest you read them again.
What are you talking about? I think you need to drink less caffine. Why would I care about your intent? You say stuff. When I disagree with the stuff you say, I say stuff back. Where does my judging your intent come into it?
OK.
Was Jesus self-righteous when he said…
Matthew 23
27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
Hi Ucc,
I guess I truly don’t see. From my perspective, my position is just mine alone. I don’t know for anyone else, mostly because I can’t, but in a larger sense, I don’t have any desire to do so. To take a position ‘against’ those who would know for me is simply a reaction to their intrusion into my space. Is that egotistic? Well, if you want to define it that way.
It is the uncertainty that should lead one to question the exclusive nature of religion. It really comes off our apriori assumptions doesn’t it? I have to return to earlier discussion we have had about knowing. If there is a difference in understanding I think it is in those assumptions. For some, there is only the known and the unknown (but knowable) For others (me) there is the known and the unknown(but knowable) of that which is manifest, and then there is the sensed but unknowable that encompasses the manifest and metaphysical sphere as well.
As to the specific issue of whether religious exclusiveness is a mistake, one only has to look at the violence perpetrated in the name of God in the last two thousand years. God is on our side. Death to the unbelievers…
tentative
Well, you may have a point here- I don't know the circumstances of your life very well. What intrusions into your space are you referring to? Are the people you are taking a position against threatening your family, trying to take away your rights and privledges by force, things like that?
If by ‘intruding into your space’, you just mean people saying stuff you’d rather not hear on TV, or occaisionally voting in ways you personally don’t agree with, I have to stick to my guns on this, though.
Do the problem people you have in mind actually have this uncertainty, or do you mean they should be moved by the uncertainty they see in others?
Then of course you're being judgemental and taking a side, and I no longer see how you can fail to notice it. You've stated here that religious exclusiveness is a mistake, and that this is a fact that should be manifest to everyone. While everybody else's spiritual claims are personal, subjective, and unverifiable, you've claimed the grounds of objectivity and common-sense for yourself. I could just as easily say that man's fall from grace, and need for a Savior is manifest and obvious- and I'd actually have more people side with me, as odd as that sounds.
As to how this relates to the Ineffable God, you've pointed out the failings of religious exclusion several times now as way of showing the superiority of your view. I myself question the relevance!
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
Yawn, typical. “I say you’re wrong, but offer no proof as none is to be found, but still you’re wrong because I said so”.
Learn how to debate. You haven’t a leg to stand on, so you poorly attempt dismissives to avoid responsibility for your refutation.
Not true. I said there was nothing showing proof of intent by Gautama to institute his wisdom as a formal religious dogma. You refuted that claim by saying that I had to know his intent to make that claim. Then proceeded to say, and I quote:
Both of which were directed at this commentary by me:
Notice how I make no claim to knowing Gautama, just issuing rhetoricals of known facts about the person.
I’ll reserve what I think about you as it does not pertain to the conversation. I will reiterate however, your sarcasm is still poor and lacking because the humor is absent, which makes the sarcasm ineffectual at best. Remember, we aren’t supposed to issue statements of intent about others unless we have direct knowledge of person and can ask them about their intent. So directly, what you “thought” or “intended to think” is outside my realm of observable stimuli.
You can backpedal all you like, it’s your choice. When you attack a person with inflammatory language, i.e. “stupid”, you can proffer an intent upon the context you placed it in, but that doesn’t make it necessarily accurate, unless you are forcing me to accept your intent without direct observable knowledge of your person. Which would be breaking with your own rule about “knowing intent”.
Strange. Earlier, you were very heavily concerned with intent, especially mine, now you say you have no interest in anyone’s intent whatsoever.
Do you even know what you are saying, or is your method just spray and pray and hit enter?
I’ve seen the more accurate version of these passages, and no he wasn’t, he was speaking of their known perfidy, and that is called justifiable, not self-righteous. Self-righteous is to take a position of superiority over others through assumptions and misinformation. I hardly think Y’Shua was any of those things, perhaps angry, but not assumptive or misinformed.
I really don’t see what the fuss is over intent. It seems that the intent of both Jesus and Buddha was to deal with the human condition of sleep. Awakening and re-birth as they appear in stages are really the same IMO. I experientially appreciate the value of the Holy Spirit on my path. I don’t really find it absent in Buddhism but only becomes necessary once a person is more advanced and begins to notice that they cannot follow the teaching…
For whatever reason, Buddha awoke. Then he acquired monks and disciples and began teaching for the sake of others. So some of the wealthy helped out with the building of monasteries…
What is the problem? The intent to spread the word is completely logical. Naturally, as with esoteric Christianity, the methods or techniques must remain hidden for the sake of others unprepared that could easily do more harm to themselves than good. So intent within the teaching becomes vague but the intent to help both the individual and humanity is shared by both teachings as it should be.
I don’t see what the problem is.
Hello F(r)iends,
Tentative, strictly speaking, you are a fundamentalist and you advocate a fundamentalist religion. You can fight the label all you like, but you follow a religion and just because it happens to be a Dharmic one does not make it any less a religion. You, Nick, Uccisore, & Mastriani are all religious people and you all preach a fundamentalist perspective. Hell, even an atheist like me is strictly speaking a fundamentalist (though I would, of course, argue that I am not).
What’s the point of escaping fundamentalism only to reenter another religion with its own mantras and dogmas? The concept of the ineffable is just that: dharmic dogma. Simply put, the point is free will, the point is preference. From my perspective, believing in anything beyond what is plainly visible and observable by science is irrational…
[size=150]INTENT[/size]
I think that Buddha and Jesus existed. I think they were wise and spiritual men. I think they believed in their causes. I do not think that either man intended to create a religion–which wise/compassionate man would subject the world to another religion? I do, however, think that each of these men knew that their respective messages would be usurped by others and that these others would create religious institutions. Furthermore, I would argue that despite their understanding that this would occur, these men thought that their messages were important enough to relate to others… Why?
-Thirst
If I may interject for just a moment. What is observable by science is continuously changing, broadening even as the principles remain the same which means that understanding is deepening. What was once thought to be true and fixed now is no longer. Yet there is a constant in the universe, scientific laws do not change as new information is gathered, the laws are simply applied more completely. Therefore, your beliefs must also be changing, broadening. Surely? To accept limitations is indeed narrow minded. You yourself said:
Please continue.
A
Ucc,
This is going off track, so let’s review: The question is whether that which is, or God, is knowable and expressible in language, or whether the experiencing of that which is goes beyond words and concepts, and is ineffable; not expressible.
To repeat myself to the point of gagging, we may all say, “God is like…”. We may also say “I know who, how and what God is and he/she/it is…” - for ourselves.
If there is contention, it is whether one may say for or to another, your POV is wrong. This is supposedly an open discussion forum, or at least that seems to be the general view of the owner, the forum leader, and most of the staff members of ILP.
The crux of this discussion, which has taken place over the last 6 months or so in various forms and in multiple threads, is the willingness of any number of members to suggest they have penetrated the veil of the metaphysical realm and to attempt to force all discussion through their particular point of view. There is little or no consideration that others POV’s have any validity because they KNOW. They know for themselves and everyone else.
One more time, I am not attempting to take a counter position to what anyone else believes, but to the insistence that I am wrong and they are right. The issue of ineffable isn’t about the assumptions and conclusions of what any particular person believes, but that for every single person here, it is unprovable opinion and should be presented as such.
My views of what is “God” are mine, and I may even attempt to say “God is like…”, but it is my opinion only, and doesn’t negate your viewpoint in any way, unless I infer that somehow, you are wrong because I know I am right.
It might be useful to remember that we’re all talking about what is behind the green door, and no matter who or what is said it remains opinion.
thirst,
A nice piece of sophistry, but at least you caught yourself. 
I can only answer by saying that I’m trying to let a little light into the issue of those positions that would declare or imply knowing for others. What I am advocating is not advocating… 
Know whatever you like for yourself, but don’t know it for me. I am not trying to take a position, but rather a non-position with respect to your beliefs or anyone else’s beliefs.
True. But there are those who would say that “anything beyond” is rational, Both viewpoints are OK by me as long as the validity of my viewpoint isn’t dismissed in the discussions.
In my opinion, I would say that their ‘message’ was about understanding ourselves and our relationship to (dare I say it?) that non-rational or ineffable realm of our awareness.
LA,
As long as we are speaking of the manifest universe only, you are correct, but that wasn’t the point of this thread, was it?
No sweetie, it was an interjection.
A
Ahh, I see. One of those opinion thingys… 
That would be your opinion on my opinion…all this serious talk for a Friday afternoon! Nonsense…
I’m off to climb trees.
A
But that is… well, that’s irrational!
Oh dear. Do you think we should get the police?
A
Well, the police certainly see enough of the irrational. Jus tell 'em it’s all about the ineffable… 
Trees are ineffable?
A
Of course they are. Otherwise, why would you want to climb in them? Of course if there is a bee hive with a bit of honey up there…
Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston pie…