Brahman

[Joshpantera]

Bhim, I wonder what you're aspiring to believe in? 

 

That a little Blue Boy literally exists or something to that effect? An elephant headed humanoid figure exists in real time? What do you mean by believing in the Gods of Hinduism? 

[Joshpantera]

Joshpantera: Thank you for explaining. Now that you have gone into more detail, I see where you are coming from. Perhaps I am still a shade more literalistic when it comes to reincarnation, but I totally understand and agree that mystery is at the heart of existence.

It seems to me that with reincarnation the mythology calls for it and so people play into. Like the Dali lama for instance. People expect a certain thing and so that expectation is played into. That's why I draw a parallel with Christians and heaven. The concept of heaven clearly evolved over time. It became more complex with time. We can see the human imagination at work developing a concept of the after life.

 

Turning to Eastern religion don't we find the same?

 

Life and death is a great big mystery and so people began thinking about it and trying to conceptualize some organized system of after life with a great deal of intent on their part. And over generations the concept evolves. Hinduism spins off Buddhism and then much later in the west Judaism spins off Christianity. One ethnic religion in the east is consciously re-worked and re-conceptualized into something that can become a world religion and proselytized, and then coincidentally the same thing happens in the west with Alexandria Egypt playing a large role in the changing of ethnic Judaism into world Christianity.

 

Both of these religious evolution's are addressed to the mystery of life and death.

 

But if it's truly a mystery that we do not understand fully in concrete or absolute terms, then how can the symbolism of the mythologies be taken as literal truth? It seems that the only literal truth in the matter is the statement "I don't know." Or maybe, "I don't know but what if it's like this or that?"

 

In this way heaven and hell, reincarnation, the Egyptian or Tiben books of the Dead, etc. etc. are at best a metaphor for a mystery that transcends all conceptualization - conscious conceptual designs outlining and drawing attention to something that can not be conceptualized. 

 

When that's misunderstood then it seems people tend to think that it's their obligation to try and prove these mythological conceptual designs as literally true. But if they're wrong, which I'm sure you agree everyone speculating could well be completely wrong evenly across the board, then doesn't that sort of do an injustice to spirituality in some way to go on about speculation as if were hard fact? 

 

Isn't it good enough and perfectly spiritual to face head on the fact that we just don't know and not go beyond the fact of the matter?

 

That's essentially atheist and agnostic oriented spirituality.

 

I don't think those are even necessarily bad words with respect to a well grounded spiritual outlook.

 

I accept open armed whatever that mystery turns out to be, whether an extension of consciousness or dissolving into an absolute lack of consciousness altogether. To put all my eggs in one basket is to mislead myself in some way it would seem. So get the sense that I have to accept all possibilities regardless of what I want it to be, at least that's what's happened in my own deconversion experience.  

 

Growing up in one of the most literalistic and fundamental sects of non-mainstream Christianity has given me good reason to thoroughly question all angles of literalistic interpretation of mythological imagery - whether eastern or western.  

[Deva]

Joshpantera: I completely agree with your last paragraph. I do question literal interpretations, but at the same time, I see people on the materialistic side not doing so. I don't want to start anything, but it just seems illogical. There is literalism everywhere.

 

I suspect strongly that life continues on into another form, somehow. What makes up the "consciousness" is more than what is confined to the brain. I can't prove it, no, but holding it out as a very strong possibility helps me in life, I think. An idea that helps you in life is not to be ignored or discarded without a lot of consideration.  I cannot discard it.

 

The Dalai Lama obviously dumbs Buddhism down for a western audience, mostly in his books, but in a lot of his speeches as well. However, I read a book he wrote in 1962 that was not dumbed down and was very complex. Also look at his speech on the Noble Truths, which I think is on YouTube. He is a very smart man; and for him, reincarnation is not the literal form that most people take it to be. He talks about "emanations" and not souls just going into another body, like Hindus would.  He said somewhere that he thought he was an emanation of his predecessor, but others were as well. I think you would find him very much in agreement with your position on it.

 

I would mostly agree with your position, but I would also remind you that metaphor points to something real. There is this idea that "oh, its just a metaphor" like its a total falsity.  That is a mistaken interpretation. It is almost like saying "oh, that is just a myth, " as in, why bother, it is something false. If you thought of it that way Joseph Campbell would say you were wrong.

[Joshpantera]

I think you would find him very much in agreement with your position on it.

Yeah, perhaps so. I'm sure that some one at his level has a much deeper understanding than what some of the dumb down content may disclose. 

 

"I would mostly agree with your position, but I would also remind you that metaphor points to something real. There is this idea that "oh, its just a metaphor" like its a total falsity.  That is a mistaken interpretation. It is almost like saying "oh, that is just a myth, " as in, why bother, it is something false. If you thought of it that way Joseph Campbell would say you were wrong."

 

Yes there is such an idea going around that "oh, its just a metaphor" and therefore completely false in certain atheist circles. And Campbell would certainly disagree.

 

The vast majority of what I've written is running parallel to some of Campbell's greatest work on mythology. For instance what I've said about the transcendent and how it all relates to the link in the opening post of the thread. Brahman is not "God." That was a very good point in the article. It's pointing to beyond all concepts, including the concept of God. Campbell tried to describe this as a transcendent energy consciousness. But then also went further to say that even that is a concept, so we're looking at transcending even that. 

 

"Is he or is he not? Neither is nor is not!" 

 

I love this stuff. I thrived on it for years. It really helped me get mythology into perspective. 

 

A is you and X is the mystery of existence and A = X. 

 

Basically, any name or concept that we ever utter or conceive of is at the very best a metaphor for a mystery that goes beyond all conceptualization. Brahman, a metaphor for the non-dual transcendent. YHWH, a metaphor for the non-dual transcendent. Reincarnation, a metaphor for the non-dual transcendent. That's where becoming "transparent to the transcendent" comes into the picture. 

 

As for consciousness, I've thought on this a lot. You know at times I've fallen into a state of focus where I think back to my earliest memories as child and then further. By further I mean it can seem as if there was never a time when I was not conscious in some way, in some form. It's as if I've always been around. And I have always been around as long as I'm considering the fact that existence itself has always been around and I am necessarily an aspect of that eternal presence of the fabric and structure of mere existence. I've only began in the sense of forgetting about the fact that I've arisen right out of the fabric and structure of mere existence which has always been and will always be. I didn't really pop up out of thin air ex-nihilo, nor did the universe itself. Something gives rise to something which gives rise to something which will always give rise to something. That lesson is described in the link to Brahman in the opening post. There is no creation ex niliho of either the universe, the world, or our own personal existence for that matter. 

 

I do think that consciousness goes all the way down. There seems to be a primitive awareness from the bottom up which becomes more refined as a central nervous system evolves. It seems to bring a primary consciousness ingrained into the whole of nature into greater focus through specific living creatures like ourselves. So I see consciousness as possibly eternal and continuous experiencing varying levels of focus ranging through all aspects of the material universe from living creatures to sub-atomic particles. Reincarnation seems to point toward the reality of existing in a realm where everything is constantly recycled, where energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely transforms from one form to another. And energy and consciousness are perhaps two aspects of the exact same thing: 

 

 

 

The Power of Myth:

 

 

"I have a feeling that consciousness and energy are the same thing somehow. Where you really see life energy, there's consciousness. Certainly the vegetable world is conscious.  ...We have today to learn to get back into accord with the wisdom of nature and realize again our brotherhood with the animals and with the water and the sea.

 

The transcendent is unknowable and unknown. God is transcendent, finally, of anything like the name "God." God is beyond names and forms

 

. . . . The mystery of life is beyond all human conception . . . . We always think in terms of opposites. But God, the ultimate, is beyond the pairs of opposites . . . . Eternity is beyond all categories of thought . . . . God is a thought. God is a name. God is an idea. But its reference is to something that transcends all thinking. The ultimate mystery of being is beyond all categories of thought.

 

When you see that God is the creation, and that you are a creature, you realize that God is within you, and in the man or woman with whom you are talking, as well.

 

There's a transcendent energy source . . . . That energy is the informing energy of all things. Mythic worship is addressed to that. That old man up there has been blown away. You've got to find the Force inside you. [Your life comes] from the ultimate energy that is the life of the universe. And then do you say, "Well, there must be somebody generating that energy?" Why do you have to say that? Why can't the ultimate mystery be impersonal?"

 

There are two ways of thinking "I am God." If you think, "I here, in my physical presence and in my temporal character, am God," then you are mad and have short-circuited the experience. You are God, but not in your ego, but in your deepest being, where you are at one with the non-dual transcendent."

 

I wonder if the Dali Lama understands the metaphor of reincarnation in similar terms? 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Bhim, I wonder what you're aspiring to believe in? 

 

That a little Blue Boy literally exists or something to that effect? An elephant headed humanoid figure exists in real time? What do you mean by believing in the Gods of Hinduism? 

Hi Bhim, let me throw this out there.  The former head of the board of the place where I used to teach told me that she does not believe in God but believes in ritual.  Her family background is Russian Orthodox.  Would keeping the commandments, participating in ritual, having a sense of tradition satisfy your aspiration, do you think?

 

And/or, do you aspire to altered states of consciousness?  I think of much that Antlerman has written on here in the past, though he hasn't been as active lately.  Antlerman is very open to consciousness and its expansion but, like Josh, sees literalism as a function of an undeveloped person and group.  (I am guessing you do not aspire to literalism!)

 

Just some thoughts... 

[Deva]

Joshpantera:  Do you ever have the conviction that no matter what happens to "you" in this world, that the ultimate part of you (for lack of better terminology) is never affected? I do. I know there are different levels or whatever.

[Joshpantera]

Joshpantera:  Do you ever have the conviction that no matter what happens to "you" in this world, that the ultimate part of you (for lack of better terminology) is never affected? I do. I know there are different levels or whatever.

In the type of focus I've been trying to describe, yes. I'm at peace with the mystery of life and death for that type of reason. 

[Bhim]

Hi all.  Sorry I haven't been around a few days.
 

Bhim, I wonder what you're aspiring to believe in? 
 
That a little Blue Boy literally exists or something to that effect? An elephant headed humanoid figure exists in real time? What do you mean by believing in the Gods of Hinduism?

 
I wish I had a specific goal in mind.  Belief in a supernatural God would be good, for starters.  The belief you stated (which I'm guessing was intended as rhetoric) is of course sufficiently absurd that no one I'm aware of believes it; for example the depiction of Sri Krishna as blue is an artistic tool used by Hindu iconographers.  If there were a real Krishna, he likely wouldn't have been blue.
 
Yet your question is worth discussing.  What, indeed, do I mean when I say I'd like to believe in the Gods of Hinduism?  When reading Hindu mythology, I'm not quite sure what sort of objective existence the religious figures are meant to have.  Some view these stories as intended to teach moral and ethical lessons.  Others believe these Gods are "real."  But you rarely find someone trying to dig up artifacts from the Vedic period or making Christian-like claims about "eyewitnesses" to various stories whose written accounts can be trusted. In fact, Scripture isn't an essential component in Hinduism.  I know Hindus whose religious practice consists entirely of worship at home and in temples, and who don't bother reading any Scriptures at all.
 
To at least give you some semblance of an answer, I suppose I aspire to the belief that if/when I pray, there's something on the other end that's listening.
 

Hi Bhim, let me throw this out there.  The former head of the board of the place where I used to teach told me that she does not believe in God but believes in ritual.  Her family background is Russian Orthodox.  Would keeping the commandments, participating in ritual, having a sense of tradition satisfy your aspiration, do you think?

 
Interesting story.  This is essentially a description of an atheist Jew, but I wasn't aware that such a thing is possible in Christianity (I am aware that many people functionally behave this way, but that's a whole other discussion).  I should be clear that in Hinduism there aren't any "commandments," but I see what you're getting at.  This is in fact what I do right now, i.e. practicing rituals at home and in public.  And for the moment I'm quite satisfied with my approach to religion.  I do feel that without some element of actual belief though, something may be missing from it.  Hence my aspiration for belief.
 

And/or, do you aspire to altered states of consciousness?  I think of much that Antlerman has written on here in the past, though he hasn't been as active lately.  Antlerman is very open to consciousness and its expansion but, like Josh, sees literalism as a function of an undeveloped person and group.  (I am guessing you do not aspire to literalism!)
 
Just some thoughts...

 

I'm not so interested in altered states of consciousness.  My personal approach to religion is more philosophical than experiential, I suppose.  And altering one's state of consciousness seems a lot like just getting high (something I don't do), but forgive me if I'm speaking out of complete ignorance here.

 

As you guessed I'm not interested in any sort of literalism.  But in my experience, literalism doesn't even exist in HInduism.  Like I said above, Scripture is viewed very differently than in Christianity.  The historicity of events with religious significance isn't of any theological importance.  Also, what I've read of the Vedas suggests they just wouldn't make sense if interpreted literally.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi all.  Sorry I haven't been around a few days.

 

Bhim, I wonder what you're aspiring to believe in? 

 

That a little Blue Boy literally exists or something to that effect? An elephant headed humanoid figure exists in real time? What do you mean by believing in the Gods of Hinduism?

 

  When reading Hindu mythology, I'm not quite sure what sort of objective existence the religious figures are meant to have.  Some view these stories as intended to teach moral and ethical lessons.  Others believe these Gods are "real."  But you rarely find someone trying to dig up artifacts from the Vedic period or making Christian-like claims about "eyewitnesses" to various stories whose written accounts can be trusted. ... [F snips some things from B's post]

 

Also, what I've read of the Vedas suggests they just wouldn't make sense if interpreted literally.

Thanks for your thought-provoking response, Bhim, and for your candor.  I realize it's hard for me to get out of the Christian mindset (even the Judaeo-Christian one) when looking at Hinduism.

 

Your phrase, "are meant to have," jumped out at me because it raises the further question, "meant by whom?"  The original authors?  Not sure if there were single authors of any parts of the Vedas.  What I've read in translation of the Bhagavad-Gita reads like the work of one or more single authors.  Anyway, you probably don't want to get enmeshed in literary critical wars over "the author."  But one can make a strong case that interpretation is an intentional enterprise in that it seeks to uncover someone's intent behind a text's formation and formulation.  The intended meaning of a myth...  as intended by a postulated community that generated the myth, or by a continuing tradition... or would there be many valid meanings, so that the "intent" is that of each recipient of the myth?

 

Don't bother answering if this goes too far afield.

 

cheers, F

 

------------------------------------------

 

Edited to add:

 

You may be interested in poking around on here, if you haven't discovered this site already:

 

http://www.indiamike.com/india/spirituality-and-religion-in-india-f54/music-and-meditation-t200997/4/#post1628689

[Joshpantera]

I only know of Hinduism as per filtered through Campbell's scholarship. And yes, he did say time and again that the historical interpretation of the mythological symbols is quite secondary to interpreting the symbols inwardly. It's not like Christianity where the focus is on what some one said or did (supposedly) centuries ago but rather how the symbols apply to your life inwardly in the here and now. But I was wondering if you zig zaged through Christianity and brought back the idea of literalism to Hinduism in your aspirations because it wasn't entirely clear to me. 

 

So then, Bhim, it sounds like you're more interested in believing that there's such a thing as a greater consciousness that you can communicate with on an inward level as per Hindu mythological metaphor. 

[Bhim]

Thanks for your thought-provoking response, Bhim, and for your candor.  I realize it's hard for me to get out of the Christian mindset (even the Judaeo-Christian one) when looking at Hinduism.

 

I can understand this.  Perhaps it's the reason I tend not to be able to find much common ground with Western atheists beyond our general distaste for Christianity (though this does cover a great deal of ground!).  I often find myself talking to a person who hates "religion" in general, only to find myself being asked to defend crusades and inquisitions.

 

 

Your phrase, "are meant to have," jumped out at me because it raises the further question, "meant by whom?"  The original authors?  Not sure if there were single authors of any parts of the Vedas.  What I've read in translation of the Bhagavad-Gita reads like the work of one or more single authors.  Anyway, you probably don't want to get enmeshed in literary critical wars over "the author."  But one can make a strong case that interpretation is an intentional enterprise in that it seeks to uncover someone's intent behind a text's formation and formulation.  The intended meaning of a myth...  as intended by a postulated community that generated the myth, or by a continuing tradition... or would there be many valid meanings, so that the "intent" is that of each recipient of the myth?

 

Don't bother answering if this goes too far afield.

 

That's a perfectly valid point.  I guess I'm presupposing the existence of some supernatural being who means for the text to be interpreted a certain way.  I don't know how many authors any particular Hindu text has.  And to be honest, I'm not sure Hindus care enough that any scholarship has been done to this end.  This lack of scholarship really goes to show that Hindus don't place a lot of emphasis on historicity, though.

 

I only know of Hinduism as per filtered through Campbell's scholarship. And yes, he did say time and again that the historical interpretation of the mythological symbols is quite secondary to interpreting the symbols inwardly. It's not like Christianity where the focus is on what some one said or did (supposedly) centuries ago but rather how the symbols apply to your life inwardly in the here and now. But I was wondering if you zig zaged through Christianity and brought back the idea of literalism to Hinduism in your aspirations because it wasn't entirely clear to me. 

 

So then, Bhim, it sounds like you're more interested in believing that there's such a thing as a greater consciousness that you can communicate with on an inward level as per Hindu mythological metaphor.

Yes, I'd say that's a fair representation of what I believe.  As for bringing concepts from Christianity back into my original religion, I can't say for certain that I haven't done this at some level.  As I've said elsewhere though, I am regularly trying to purge any and all Christian thought from my mind.  If I do ever espouse any Christian beliefs, I hope that someone will point this out to me so that I can remove them from my thinking as well.  Christianity is indeed a pervasive poison that spreads through one's philosophy like leven (if you pardon the irony of that analogy), and is sometimes difficult to identify and eliminate.

[Joshpantera]

Oh my God facebook has become so bloody ignorant as of recently. As we're discussing historicity and literalism I have to let everyone know that nearly all of my SDA friends are posting shit about Syria as fulfilment of prophecy and they are actually saying things to the effect of "I'm not exactly sure where it fits in, but rest asured a close study of the Bible will reveal it!"

 

What fucking morons. But at the same time I'm watching something to the effect of what happened in early Christian origins unfold before my eyes in real time. According to sound scholarship early Christianity arose from people skimming through scripture trying to force fit prophecy. And it doesn't matter how botched up or apparently out of context this type of quote mining can be, all it takes is some pious moron to make an assertion and quote verses to support the assertion (no matter how ridiculous and out of context mind you) and sure as hell people will line up like sheep and spread it to no end. And it's especially interesting to see it unfold in real time as an analogy to the sort of thing that was taking place over 2,000 years ago at the birth of "Christianities."

 

Of course this thing in Syria will pass just like every other stinking middle east conflict has passed without prompting the end of the world as per Daniel and Revelation and these jackass literalists will find a clever way of side stepping all of the hype they're all posting now. I'm copying some of this hype in preparation to absolutely blast a few people on facebook after this thing is over and obviously nothing happens, again, and as per the usual.  

 

Is there anything in Hinduism that even remotely parallels this type of thing?

 

There may be some doomsday sects or something, I don't know for sure.

 

But I would think not, because I've gone to the trouble of looking into things like the great cycles of time and the Vedic Yuga's where there's really no hint of an end time, only endless cycles in an eternal sea of ever existence.

 

What's happening in Syria right now - as per the Vedic Yuga's - is simply what is to be expected of life in the Kali Yuga or Dwapara Yuga, depending on whether you're framing the Yuga's against the precession of the equinoxes or going with the larger cycles.

 

But either way, the forecast is that we're in dark age materialistic dominant times where wars and assorted nonsense are the norm. And eventually the higher Yuga's are suppose to bring advancement and with that greater knowledge, inner light, and therefore necessarily a more peaceful co-existence in humanity......

[Bhim]

Is there anything in Hinduism that even remotely parallels this type of thing?

As far as I know, there is no major school of thought in Hinduism in which modern events are read as fulfillments of any type of prophecy.  People will sometimes lament that evil existsi n the world because we live in the age known as Kali Yuga.  But end time fanaticism of the sort found in Christianity is, as far as I can tell, alien to Hinduism.

 

There is a concept of what might be called "prophecy," i.e. a person predicting a future event.  But in every case I can think of, it happens within the listener's lifetime.  For example, in Mahabharata when Karna tricks Bhishma into teaching him an incantation necessary to cause his arrows to strike their targets with certitude, Bhishma states that the one time Karna needs this ability it will fail him.  And of course that's how he dies.  In Christianity we have ridiculous cases of prophecies supposedly being fulfilled in Jesus, centuries after they were uttered.  That's something I haven't ever seen in Hinduism.

[directionless]

Bhim, sorry if you already covered this, but what do you see as the main differences between Hinduism and Buddhism?

 

Based on my very limited reading, I find Hinduism inspiring and I find Buddhism stale. I wonder if others feel the same way and what could explain the difference?

 

BTW: I don't mean to criticize Buddhism.