Whats Psychology got to say about God
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I see what you're saying fela, but that only applies if you subscribe to the (imo false) doctrine of "hard" determinism - the idea that presents G-d as a puppet master who controls everyone - someone you can conveniently blame for all your problems and all the evil you cause to people because he's in ultimate control of what you do ...
I think that if you know there is someone out there who you know has given you the freedom to make your own decisions, and someone who wants you to be decent and good to other people and respect yourself, who you really don't have an excuse not to listen to, then you have a good reason to act in that way ...
i don't believe one should be "scared" of G-d and i am not ... because i know that whatever i do he will still love me - so i try my best to be a decent person, not because i'm worried about the consequences or motivated by going to "heaven", but because i want to do something good for its own sake ...
I don't think we can all be G-d because we are not perfect, we are only human. There are loads of contradictions in that attitude, because it's all very well saying "oh we're all G-d," but then it also absolves you of moral responsibility, because you regard yourself like that, it means that you have the power to determine your own morality if that makes any sense
and decide what's right, and what isn't ... if you think you are that higher being or that you take the place of G-d then you're not really accountable to anyone except yourself . it's true that G-d created us in his image and so we have to become as much like he is, as possible, and that essentially means to live up to the ideal that you described ... so maybe we're saying the same thing but in different ways
Sid's Snake
New Member
frogwoman said:ecause it's all very well saying "oh we're all G-d," but then it also absolves you of moral responsibility,
Well, not really. Because if we are all God and we are lucky enough to be able to recognise that, then we quite naturally respect the divinity we see in each other's and everyone's eyes.
Sid's Snake
New Member
frogwoman said:
Well, there is nothing really to achieve anyway really; because we're absolutely perfect as we are. Only it can take a lifetime to realise that fact.
( And, obviously, I'm not implying in any way I have. Just that this is how I believe things are. And some people do. )
Sid's Snake said:The awful thing is fela, I actually agree with you
Despite being entirely won over by your good natured enthusiasm I still think the way you put it just makes it sound a little too, well, simple.
Its a bit like walking into the House of Commons and saying, "look fellas, I've got this blinding idea - let's all love each other! Coz we're basically alright. All we need is a big fat spliff, some quality time in a hammock, a bit fo a think - oh, and a residence in some earthly paradise..."
Maybe its just me
Why's it awful?!!
As for it being simple, well, sometimes it seems simple, sometimes it seems quite the opposite. Then i remember the polar opposites (i call it duality, but i know that's a term that exists with its own meaning, so i can't really call it that here) that drive our energies and understandings.
Until we can do something it seems difficult, but once mastered, and however long it took to master, it can then seem as simple as abc.
I'd like to reply to the other posts later, but off to commune with a bit of nature and a golf ball...
ZWord said:
In reality, there is no God. I know i've said we are God, but that is to help illustrate that there is no God that we've been told about.
If we are we, then we have no need to be God. I said we are, only in as far as we need to take responsibility for our own actions and cease blaming what happens in our lives on others or other actions. Upon realising this, freedom becomes known to the individual.
And freedom to me is the highest achievement of what the miracle of being a human can be.
But going back to your question there, if, for arguments sake, there are 6 billion people in the world, how many realities (consciousnesses if you like) are there?
My answer is six billion and one. But the more we subscribe to the (universal) one, the less we are our own individuality.
To sum up thus far:
there is no God as we've been told there is from history
we need this knowledge to liberate ourselves from dependence on others
we then take responsibility for our own lives, blame and shame and guilt are purged
we are fully aware of our ego and its demands
we are then capable of the love that fromm talks about, ie where one loves for the action of loving, not for the object of our love, not to satisfy our ego
God is actually not needed, hence we need to let him die off from our own consciousness. Perhaps it's a red herring to say we become God, it's not important really.
Sid's Snake said:
And by then it's too bloody late!
I agree, there is nothing for us to achieve, and we are perfect if we just simply accept life and what it gives us, what it does to us, and who we happen to be.
I will also add that once this kind of understanding has occurred, fear disappears. Especially the ultimate fear, that of death. Fear of death blocks the living of life.
frogwoman said:
I start to feel unsure when i read of labels like 'determinism'! They muddy the waters for me.
That description of God is the one that needs cancelling out. It is the God that we pray to, the God people question when evil or bad luck has occurred - eg genocide, or a tsunami.
ZWord said:
Maybe we can converge here...
Your reaction at that time is one that we need to be, first, wary of, and second to teach ourselves to cease doing. That is judging others. The God we've been told about never judges, he just accepts. If we achieve that in life, where we cease to judge others or ourselves, if we just accept, then we in effect become the God we've been told exists.
No?
And to me that explains why it's rare that people can become this God, because society has manipulated our brains to judge. From judging lies only negative energy. And negative energy belongs to emotional attachment.
I guess in a nutshell, it's all about the ego, and whether we recognise that the ego is what causes all misery in our lives.
By killing off God, we kill off our ego.
Sid's Snake
New Member
fela fan said:
fela you're such a nit.
why do you keep coming out with buddhist thought thats been around 2500 years, yet talk about it as if its just occured to you dozing in a tropical hammock. 
Sid's Snake said:fela you're such a nit.
Problems of time and space here.
I'm not coming out with anyone else's thoughts or thinking, just my own. What i might be saying in the here and now, on this particular space of urban75, doesn't relate to the readers when or where i first thought of something.
As it happens my hammock years ended in 2000, nowadays i have the mountains to consult. I've barely read any psychologists or philosophers in my life, just in the last few months have i been reading fromm.
You may agree that all your post does is reflect your reaction to the words i posted up and to who you are, rather than on my thinking or when it came about.
All i'm doing is posting up my thoughts at any one time as and when i come to urban, and depending upon any existing threads that hold my interest.
This is consistent with my postings on this thread, not that being consistent is necessarily a good thing. I don't care who else thought before me what i think today. Often i don't have a clue until people tell me that what i'm saying is what so and so said.
I am a nit, no probs! I am whatever anyone wants me to be. After all, all i am is a mirror into those that react to me. Everyone else in the world is just a mirror for me to see who i really am. Same for everyone.
My language and my thinking is AUTHENTIC mate!! I am me, and that's all i'm going to be forevermore until the day i die. It's fun. I say whatever i want to say, not what i think others want to hear. Whether it coincides with what the great buddha said is of no concern to me.
Anyway, in closing this post, tell me what you think the difference is between 'buddhist thoughts' and what the buddha thought... look forward to your thinking on this poser.
Sid's Snake
New Member
fela fan said:
No difference whatsoever, its a Western distinction, currently an obsession of Christology, applied in an Eastern and Buddhist context. And consequently pretty meaningless. Like trying to measure water by weighing it.
Or, to put it another way, we are all buddha anyway - so we should know.
Stop being lazy
fela, I get a distinct 'whatever hes on I want some' feeling from your posts. I recommend going to the Thai Tourist Board and getting some commission
Sid's Snake said:No difference whatsoever, its a Western distinction, currently an obsession of Christology, applied in an Eastern and Buddhist context. And consequently pretty meaningless. Like trying to measure water by weighing it.
Or, to put it another way, we are all buddha anyway - so we should know.
Stop being lazy
fela, I get a distinct 'whatever hes on I want some' feeling from your posts. I recommend going to the Thai Tourist Board and getting some commission
Ah but mate, there's a crucial difference, and a clue lies in your saying that 'it's a Western distinction'. I know nothing of this distinction but:
the difference is that buddha was buddha, and did his own thinking according to his own life and context. Being a wise man, others wanted a bit of it. Fair enough.
Nowadays people talk of buddhist thinking as being this or that, and many will subscribe to it as a way of living, or just simply to say what his thinking was.
We can be our own buddha, but we cannot be the original buddha. We can either be ourselves, or we can try and be like someone else, try and think and act like someone else. The latter is missing the point of life. The former is essential to achieve our uniqueness, our individuality, our freedom.
So thinks me any road. I hope i've been clear enough with my choice of language. It's why i don't have a lot of time for what so and so is supposed to have said. Maybe it will work for me, maybe not. Maybe i'm doing/saying the same, maybe not. Getting out into the guts of life and collecting one's own experiences is the path i've been alluding to in this thread. Not following this _ist or that _ism.
Having said that, it's great to find out what wise people through the ages have said, it helps us on our own path. The trick though is in deciding who was wise...
Sid's Snake said:fela, I get a distinct 'whatever hes on I want some' feeling from your posts. I recommend going to the Thai Tourist Board and getting some commission
I wish i'd had commission for all the good stuff i've written about thailand and all the recommendations i've given people down the years. I'd not be working now, and then i'd have perfect freedom just about all the time.
Vast amounts of holiday and not having to work is the kind of freedom i want too. I'm working on it...
Sid's Snake
New Member
fela fan said:We can be our own buddha, but we cannot be the original buddha.
If you think there's a difference you don't understand
Sid's Snake
New Member
fela fan said:
You've had more than enough
If you meet the buddha fela, Kill him.
( But you have to meet him first )
Sid's Snake said:You've had more than enough
If you meet the buddha fela, Kill him.
( But you have to meet him first )
I can't kill a man who was born 2549 years ago! He's well dead man. Accordingly i'm not expecting to meet him any time soon.
Whereas, so the literature and common belief will have us think, God is still well and truly alive.
And i probably/certainly have had too much over my time, but it's too late now, the path is paved with beer and i like that kind of path. I mean, what the fuck can you do with gold...
A bit of work now, followed by some golden liquid to bring the day nicely to a close.
[I am ego]
[I am God]
What does that mean? Dunno. I'll work it out tomorrow. But i think we have to choose one, we cannot be both.
Sid's Snake
New Member
fela fan said:
Not for everyone, fela, not for everyone.
Sid's Snake said:Not for everyone, fela, not for everyone.
Yeah, okay conceded! In fact now you say that, i think of my girlfriend who more than a few times has said 'up to buddha', and i say 'no, he's long since dead', but that's not a good enough answer for her!
I guess coz buddhism has no God, buddha is their equivalent God. Still the belief of the omnipotent one, the all overseeer of life, the ruler of fates...
oh well. No freedom for buddhists either then. In fact no freedom for any _ists...
Sid's Snake
New Member
fela fan said:
Shakyamuni Buddha was not "God, " or even "the Christ" in the way that Christianity thinks it. Shakyamuni was a Hindu Prince who became disatissfied with the existing practices of his religion.
He meditated constantly, observed the then current ascetic practices of dedicated Hindus, but decided they were insufficient to solve the great matter of birth and death and the extinction of suffering.
He decided to go it alone, adapting to his own style. He started to eat and drink in moderation but not to let up on what became an increasingly intensive meditation programme.
One day he sat under the Bodai tree and decided he would not rise until he was fully enlightened.
When he did rise, he had, Buddhists believe, experienced full enlightenment. And, necessarily, as Shakyamuni became enlightened, it penetrated throughout the cosmos. The whole world became enlightened with him as the cosmos pentrated him. Animals and birds, rocks and mountains.
Nothing was, afterwards, the same.
What your girlfriend may mean when she says 'up to buddha' is not "up to a diety in the sky," but up to the nature of the buddha that arose with the Buddha's enlightenment. A nature which had previously existed as potentiality in Shakyamuni himself, but which now extended beyond his body, as the earth became, in a way, the buddha's entire body exetended - mortal and immortal, limited in time and space, yet unlimited in time and space and inextinguishable.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Sid's Snake said:
But we're not. I see what you're saying but we're just not, and to say that we are implies that the human race in general, cannot be improved upon. it implies a kind of dangerous arrogance, since if you are totally perfect then there is no need to reflect upon your actions, and there is no higher authority than ourselves and humanity in general. i don't go along with that, because sometimes you have to do things which most people won't go along with or won't see how it benefits them, for the good of the planet or what will eventually become good in the long term.
it also means that we become complacent towards our own existence. if we believe we're totally perfect, then it means that we don't have to make efforts, we don't need to improve ourselves further and strive to be better people.
but why would you want to realise it? if we are perfect it means that we have nothing to work towards, and there is basically no point to us doing anything, to want to change anything about ourselves and the way we do things, the way we think, or about the world in general.
this is a bit of a crude analogy i know but would you say that someone like Bush, or Hitler, or a paedophile, was perfect? and if not, then why? because if we, humans, are perfection, and yet these people aren't, then it somehow implies that through their evil actions and their evil nature they are somehow less than human, and that is a dangerous road to go down, since it separates people who are irreparably bad from the rest of humanity, and suggests that normal people could never be like this ...
we're responsible to G-d and
fela said:
you know what i mean
I agree, its a false doctrine ...... but not with this bit:
what's wrong with that, though? people can find good things and make the best of their situation, no matter what has happened, and G-d provides them with the strength to do that, even if they don't actually know it or believe in Him ...
the world is a dangerous, and often an evil, terrifying place, but it's like that for a reason, so that we ourselves would try and strive for goodness, and not have to rely on G-d to sort out the problems of the world, we have to do it ourselves ... without evil in the world, we wouldn't have a sense of what was right or wrong, and there's always a way in which evil can be turned around to produce good ... and the fact that evil exists means that eventually we can turn the world into something infinitely better - you can't "love good and hate evil" if you don't know what they are, and if you accept things unquestioningly as would undoubtedly happen if there wasn't any evil in the world ...
religion shouldn't be a crutch though ... it's so much more than that ...
does that make any sense?
fela fan said:
Well, I do think your views are inconsistent. But the problem is they're not really views, they're doctrine. And I reckon you've swallowed the doctrine whole.
Some of it comes from the book conversations with God. Which is a very appealing, feelgood book. But it's worth noting that the God who the author converses with is reported as saying that George Bush was a man of great wisdom and compassion, who would go down in history as a great leader.
God (as in a higher consciousness that has access to alll our individual consciousnesses) actually is needed, because if there is no God, the world you're delighting in is one of six billion competing egos, each thinking they're their own God, and trying to create/buy their own slice of heaven. (or do you manage it without money) And you think there won't be conflict, and you think one person's heaven won't be at the expense of someone else's.? ? ?
Psychologically I can understand the popularity of fela's views, particularly among westerners living the good life in Thailand and India. The view that everyone is their own God, and must take responsibility for their own life, allows one to be content, able to tolerate the spectacle of terrible poverty, and become immune to it, because, hey- it's all perfect really and everyone's on their own trip, and allows you to reject politics completely as a means for giving people a chance of freedom.
My general impression of the Osho commune in Pune, (and I say this without disrespect to Osho, who's great in some ways.) is that it was essentially a pick-up joint for the spiritually inclined. As far as I remember it was about 140 rupees to enter for the day, and more, if you wanted to participate in a lot of the activities. From a poor indian's point of view, 140 rupees at that time was quite a bit of money (I expect it still is.) My most distinct memory of the Osho commune in Pune, was walking past it, and seeing the scene of a bunch of well-fed westerners walking out of the ashram talking about their spirituality, and a thin wiry cycle rickshaw indian cycling past looking at them with a look of unfathomable bitterness on his face. And I couldn't help thinking that there was something fairly wrong here. I don't mean to say that this is you, fela, as I've no idea.
But once you accept the idea that Osho taught that you can only follow the spiritual path once you've dealt with the problem of what you live on, (as otherwise you'll be distracted by worries) then in this world you also accept that basically spirituality is just for a small elite club, who others serve. My own view is that all in all, this worldview has a lot in common with satanism.
Sid's Snake
New Member
frogwoman said:
These are all really good questions
Look, you're coming from a Christian point of view and I've been explaining what I understand by Buddhism.
There are points at which they converge, many Buddhists and Xtians say, in essence, they are indistinguishable; but the language, the conceptual framework, the vocabulary, are very very different; understanding breaks down fast.
The actual practice differs enormously. Many Christians, and some Buddhists, believe there is a gradual merit in good works and moral acts; the type of Buddhism I was refering to, would claim vehemently there is no merit.
I can't see the 'arrogance' to be honest. I think there's a certain humility in recognising that, no matter what you do or who you are, even if you're Hitler, you are no worse, or even better than anyone else
As to the question "why practice if we are all perfect." This is something like what is called a Koan, in certain buddhist traditions. A seemingly contradictory or even paradoxical problem or knot that cannot be resolved by rational thinking alone. Many people have spent whole lifetimes trying to work that one out - so don't expect some berk on the internet to try and answer it
Sid's Snake
New Member
oooo one last thought on that frogwoman
You said earlier, IIRC, you knew when you woke up in the morning "God would forgive" you, no matter what you do.
Well, what I am describing maybe something like that. You say that about yourself and then talk about Hitler, as if that were something different.
If you truly believe God will forgive you, no matter what you do. Then God will also forgive Hitler.
You said earlier, IIRC, you knew when you woke up in the morning "God would forgive" you, no matter what you do.
Well, what I am describing maybe something like that. You say that about yourself and then talk about Hitler, as if that were something different.
If you truly believe God will forgive you, no matter what you do. Then God will also forgive Hitler.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Sid's Snake said:These are all really good questions
Look, you're coming from a Christian point of view and I've been explaining what I understand by Buddhism.
yeah, and all your posts have all been really interesting too
i'm not a Christian, i'm a Jew, but then they basically adopted a lot of what we believe so its an easy mistake to make Yeah, i think all religions have the same concepts, but understood in different terms, and expressed in slightly different ways ... it's proof that we all basically want the same thing innit.
yeah unfortunately that's a problem in religious discussions isn't it...
Yeah - according to most understandings of Jewish teaching, there's more of a merit in "good works" than in faith itself. You're judged by your actions, not by what you believe, unless what you believe leads you to perform an evil act ... so someone who was an atheist and devoted their whole life to activism, or to helping others, would be looked upon, and rewarded, far more favourably by G-d than someone whose "religious" "convictions" led them to believe that all the infidels/gentiles/disbelievers/heathens/atheists must die, and to actually try and carry out what he believed to be G-d's plan ... and this is part of why Jewish teachings are unclear about the afterlife, so that one is good for its own sake, because you WANT to please G-d by being a good person, not because you'll get to "heaven" by doing so ... which is essentially a selfish motive.
Why isn't there any merit, though?
Do you mean in terms of being "morally good", or do you mean in terms of recieving a reward for them?
yeah, i get what you're saying. however, there's always a need to try and act decently, to improve oneself, and the idea that we dont need to change anything about ourselves does lead to a certain complacency.
i understand that. logic can't solve everything.
onemonkey
winmonkey
actual experimental research into the foundations of religious belief is fairly flimsy but lots of people are speculating on it in theory.. mostly from evolutionary psychology perspective as has been mentioned..
a summary of one approach here.
Pascal Boyer said a similar thing about the mechanisms except his conclusion was that belief in God was the by-product of other useful human traits..
for example, we have what might be called a hyperactive agency detection device.. the strong tendency to infer a conscious agent behind unexplained events.. it's a useful type of jumpiness to have.. you are more likely to live if you assume that rustle in the forest is a tiger rather than just the wind..
you end up applying the same reasoning to thunder etc.
this goes hand in hand with our strong teleological bias.. tendency to look for the reason behind everything.. great for figuring out that planting seeds leads to crops.. bit less effective when concluding that illness is caused by offending the ancestors.. but if you have the former cause and effect reasoning, it's likely you'll have a few superstitions too.
God ain't dead yet.. but we are working on it
a summary of one approach here.
Pascal Boyer said a similar thing about the mechanisms except his conclusion was that belief in God was the by-product of other useful human traits..
for example, we have what might be called a hyperactive agency detection device.. the strong tendency to infer a conscious agent behind unexplained events.. it's a useful type of jumpiness to have.. you are more likely to live if you assume that rustle in the forest is a tiger rather than just the wind..
you end up applying the same reasoning to thunder etc.
this goes hand in hand with our strong teleological bias.. tendency to look for the reason behind everything.. great for figuring out that planting seeds leads to crops.. bit less effective when concluding that illness is caused by offending the ancestors.. but if you have the former cause and effect reasoning, it's likely you'll have a few superstitions too.
God ain't dead yet.. but we are working on it
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Sid's Snake said:
Well, yeah, he would. but that doesn't mean that consequences wouldn't follow, if i did something terrible, because forgiveness doesn't mean that you will get away with everything.
yeah, i see what you mean now ...
yeah, he would, i guess, and that's what a lot of people have difficulty with in our religion, because there's no way of knowing whether someone like that would have to suffer in eternal torment. what i was saying was that we can't separate ourselves by the assumption of "perfection" from someone like Hitler, because he could have been any one of us if you see what i mean.
G-d still loved him despite what he did and that's what makes what he did even more horrendously bad, because he had the choice not to do what he did, he had plenty of opportunities to stop, and he didn't, and all through his life he was treated exactly the same way in terms of G-d's judgement of his actions as any other human, but he elevated himself above the whole human species, and took on the power of G-d for himself, as though he could decide what was moral and who deserved life and death. the fact that G-d still treated him like anyone else, still forgave him, makes what he did even more awful, because if G-d had never loved him anyway and created him to be the epitome of evil, then he could be almost excused for his actions ...
he was simply evil, but that doesn't mean that the same rules don't apply to him that apply to everyone else, and if G-d forgives people in general then of course he will forgive a person like that. what im saying is that you can't separate evil people from good, because at the end of the day we are all in the image of G-d and it is our choice whether to try to live up to those standards, or not. we're not always gonna succeed, and plenty of good people can do really evil things, which is why you can't really make that distinction.
i guess what you're saying is similar to what i'm saying, in a way, because someone like that has the potential to be a good person and live a virtuous life, they just choose to ignore it, but that doesn't mean they don't have that potential. underneath it all he was still a little child, still a confused and angry person without any real friends, and those are reasons right there why G-d would forgive him ... without in any way negating the fact he was evil and overlooked what G-d wanted ...
so yeah, he, and other evil people, would be forgiven. that doesn't mean that we have to do it ourselves, or that he would be rewarded for anything.
do you get what i mean, or am i talking bollocks?
Similar threads
