Definitions

[JLMACN]

I did not know all the different definitions that come along with different belief systems. Here are some I thought I would give:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Nature of Religious Experience
Monism: the view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance, that God and Nature is one organic whole with no independent parts. Everything is divine and fully participates in divinity.

Dualism: the view that ultimate reality consists of two irreducible elementary substances, that God and Nature are two separate realities, one Creator the other Created.

Religious systems are often products of fundamental a priori assumptions. Eastern religions tend to be monistic, whereas western religions tend to be dualistic. Properties of the various religious systems extend from deductive reasoning of these a priori assumptions. Thus, elements that are logical in one system are often are illogical in the other system.

Ultimate Reality ("God") may be:


a. transcendent: existing outside of or beyond the universe or material world
b. incarnate: the embodiment of a deity or spirit in some human or earthly form
c. immanent: present in the universe or material world

Religious Systems
The system within which ultimate reality exists may be based on the principle of:


theism: belief in the existence of god or gods as the creative source of humankind and the world; a Being or an Entity, often having a personal relationship with the world and humankind.

polytheism: belief in or worship of a plurality of gods. Such gods may be equal in power, presiding over various functions of the natural world, or organized in some type of hierarchy of gods, or ranked by the importance of their function in society.

monotheism: the belief in but one God who is the creative source of humankind and the world.

henotheism: the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods. At one time thought to be the interim stage between monotheism and polytheism, though this idea cannot be substantiated. However, henotheism is the more common state as henotheistic systems are most often ordered hierarchically, and strict monotheism must by logic deny all other independent spiritual entities.

animism: the attribution of conscious life to nature or natural objects.

nontheism: in many monistic systems, "God" or whatever word one may use, is a changeless yet fluid, unity that cannot be described in any way because "it" is not a Being or an Entity, but rather an impersonal "Force" or a "Power."

pantheism: doctrine that equates gods with the elemental forces and laws of the universe. First defined by the Roman Stoic Philosophers, such gods are free from passion and subject to the natural laws of the universe. In the 18th century, French philosophers rationalized the Judeo-Christian God with Newtonian physics to create deism (see deism below).

deism: an 18th century religious/intellectual movement in Europe and America that posited belief in the existence of a Creator of the universe that operates on natural laws and denies interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe or any personal involvement with humankind. The legacy of deism is Intelligent Design Creationism. Others however saw deism as "practical atheism."

atheism: disbelief in the existence of deity or the doctrine that asserts through proof that there is no deity.

agnosticism: the belief that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable. Agnostics usually are non-dogmatic, that is, they belong to no religious institution or adhere to no set of religious rules.

syncretism: the combination of different forms of belief or practice, often found in multicultural or consumer oriented societies, or produced by means of colonizing indigenous peoples. Religious ideologies become more fluid due to the belief that underlying all the various religions is one God manifested in many different ways.

 

[2-0-NINE]

I was too when I took it last semester! I actually strengthened my faith even more. He would play off the ignorance of the students, including me. No matter how prepared I came he would always seem to be a step higher matching me like a chess match. I hope you enjoy that class, the main objective for the teacher is to ALMOST ALWAYS play devil's advocate, unless he's teaching with bias.

My teacher Dr. Olson happened to be a Methodist Christian but always made sure when I answered his question he would be ready to combat my response with fallacies and shit.

 

[C-MOB]

i like the last two religious systems...

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Monism: the view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance, that God and Nature is one organic whole with no independent parts. Everything is divine and fully participates in divinity.

In Sanskrit this is called advaita...

Dualism: the view that ultimate reality consists of two irreducible elementary substances, that God and Nature are two separate realities, one Creator the other Created.

And this is called dvaita.

A hybrid form of these philosophies is called dvaitadvaita or 'achintya bheda bheda tattva' which means, 'inconceivably one and different, simultaneously'. God is simultaneously one with and distinct from His energies. In other words, although there are comparative differences, the two are ultimately one. It is not possible to separate the energies/powers from an all-energetic/all-powerful being.

Religious systems are often products of fundamental a priori assumptions. Eastern religions tend to be monistic, whereas western religions tend to be dualistic. Properties of the various religious systems extend from deductive reasoning of these a priori assumptions. Thus, elements that are logical in one system are often are illogical in the other system.

Except in the case of dvaitadvaita where the two systems are reconciled. And both dvaita (dualism) and advaita (monism) philosophies are part of the original eastern religious/philosophical system. Different texts focus on different levels of philosophical realization and thus schools have arisen that promote only the dvaita or only the advaita side of the coin.

Ultimate Reality ("God") may be:


a. transcendent: existing outside of or beyond the universe or material world
b. incarnate: the embodiment of a deity or spirit in some human or earthly form
c. immanent: present in the universe or material world

It is important to note that a., b. and c. do not necessarily contradict each other, which is what achintya bheda bheda tattva explains. For example, incarnation doesn't negate transcendental nature. The common misconception is that for the Ultimate Reality (Paratattva) to take "earthly" form means that it has become subject to the duality of self and body that exists for us conditioned souls. In fact, an absolute God's self and body are one and the same. Whereas we die and the body remains to rot in the ground (or get cremated), God's self and body are Sat-chit-ananda - eternal, full of knowledge and bliss.

Religious Systems
The system within which ultimate reality exists may be based on the principle of:


theism: belief in the existence of god or gods as the creative source of humankind and the world; a Being or an Entity, often having a personal relationship with the world and humankind.

Achintya bheda bheda tattva also applies to the concept of multiple dieties under the heading of supremacy. Actually, the supreme being is one but this oneness does not negate variegatedness. Simultaneously one and many. In Christianity this philosophy is exemplified in the concept of the Holy Trinity wherein we have one supreme being who is understood in 3 aspects of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In Vedanta (aka Hinduism) there are innumerable aspects, incarnations and expansions of Paratattva (the Supreme Absolute Truth) that are all one and the same Supreme Being.

polytheism: belief in or worship of a plurality of gods. Such gods may be equal in power, presiding over various functions of the natural world, or organized in some type of hierarchy of gods, or ranked by the importance of their function in society.

And if one considers it for but a moment, one will come to the conclusion that pretty much all religions can be counted as "polytheistic". One who believes in "gods" who preside over different functions of the natural world and one who believes in angels as explained in Judeo-Christian texts are categorically the same. The former simply calls them "gods" whereas the latter does not, which is obviously nothing more than semantics. Moreover, if we cease calling them "gods" then we will automatically throw out the term polytheism, which shows the semantical nature of it all to begin with. If I decide to call the guy who lives down the street the god of lawnmowing, then I guess I am a theist. If I decide to then call another person down the street the god of bicycle shorts then I guess now I am a polytheist. I think we can all see the absurdity in this. The only actual distinction in considering oneself a theist concerns deity (or deities) that constitute the Supreme Absolute Truth, or Ultimate Reality, as you put it. There is no significant distinction between lesser "deities" and greater men.

monotheism: the belief in but one God who is the creative source of humankind and the world.

Yes.

henotheism: the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods. At one time thought to be the interim stage between monotheism and polytheism, though this idea cannot be substantiated. However, henotheism is the more common state as henotheistic systems are most often ordered hierarchically, and strict monotheism must by logic deny all other independent spiritual entities.

What herein constitutes substantiation? Also, the existence of spiritual entities other than the supreme one (or whatever one is worshipped) does not automatically mean that they act independently.

animism: the attribution of conscious life to nature or natural objects.

Ideally a form of God-consciousness equiposed toward all things. It is an extension of the realization that there is oneness between God and His energies, i.e. Isavasyam idam sarvam - "everything is owned and controlled by God".

nontheism: in many monistic systems, "God" or whatever word one may use, is a changeless yet fluid, unity that cannot be described in any way because "it" is not a Being or an Entity, but rather an impersonal "Force" or a "Power."

Yes. This is called impersonalism. In Vedanta there is the Mayavadi school of thought that merges God and energy into one homogenous whole. As well, Buddhism is considered Sunnyavadi in that it does practically the same thing, but amounts that Supreme Whole to a state of void.

pantheism: doctrine that equates gods with the elemental forces and laws of the universe. First defined by the Roman Stoic Philosophers, such gods are free from passion and subject to the natural laws of the universe. In the 18th century, French philosophers rationalized the Judeo-Christian God with Newtonian physics to create deism (see deism below).

Most cases of polytheistic systems other than those referring to the Paratattva can be classified as such.

deism: an 18th century religious/intellectual movement in Europe and America that posited belief in the existence of a Creator of the universe that operates on natural laws and denies interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe or any personal involvement with humankind. The legacy of deism is Intelligent Design Creationism. Others however saw deism as "practical atheism."

Practical atheism is accurate given that such an alleged theistic belief would fall short of any practice.

atheism: disbelief in the existence of deity or the doctrine that asserts through proof that there is no deity.

Right.

agnosticism: the belief that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable. Agnostics usually are non-dogmatic, that is, they belong to no religious institution or adhere to no set of religious rules.

Yep...

syncretism: the combination of different forms of belief or practice, often found in multicultural or consumer oriented societies, or produced by means of colonizing indigenous peoples. Religious ideologies become more fluid due to the belief that underlying all the various religions is one God manifested in many different ways.

(emphasis added)

One can find this philosophy through syncretism of multiple religions or one can find it within the scope of a single religious system such as Vedic religion. For those who are Personalists (i.e. believe in a personal, transcendental God) syncretism of multiple religions is potentially dangerous due to the fact that in most cases it is pushed by dint of mental speculation, which waters down the philosophy and thus places the Supreme Personality of Godhead in a position subordinate to a more impersonalist conception. Although Syncretists almost always come to such impersonalist conclusions, it does not logically follow that they must. The problem lies in the fact that most of the time the incentive for syncronizing religions is the desire to satisfy one's speculative appetite, gain followers and/or gain wealth, and so in order to do this they take all Personifications of God from various religions and place them all under the same impersonalist banner. In this way, less educated individuals of various religious traditions are attracted to a superficial sense of unity.

 

[JLMACN]

thanks for your add on.

5000

 

[C-MOB]

thanks for all the definitions... this is good reading...

 

[JLMACN]

its all good....

5000

 

[JLMACN]

The ancient religions of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia are very important for the study of religion because of their legacy. Many of the religions we are quite familiar with—Judaism and Christianity especially—were greatly influenced by them. Much of our mythology and religious ideology comes directly from these ancient civilizations. They are also important because they demonstrate how geography is directly connected to the formation of religious patterns.
Egypt fascinated the Greeks and Romans as much as they still do today. When the Greeks built the Parthenon they were keenly aware that the pyramids on the Giza plateau were already 2000 years old. Egypt was a place of great mystery where traditions of mummification, necromancy, and rites of the dead were ancient.

No culture in the ancient world believed in a significant life after death except the Egyptians. For Mesopotamians, Israelites, and Greeks one lived—and then one died. After death the soul of the deceased went to the Underworld (Greek Hades, Hebrew She’ol)—a dark, unhappy place, where they dwelt forever among the rich and poor, good and evil. There was no judgment of one’s soul based on any morality which gave someone a better, happier life in the world beyond. All such ideas came from Egypt. Discuss a few Egyptian beliefs, especially those revealed in the Book of the Dead.

Whereas Egypt created kind, benevolent gods—due to the annual flooding of the Nile which brought rich, arable land to the Delta, the gods of Mesopotamia were capricious—jealous and angry. This is due to the geography and weather of the area which produced fertile land often plagued by flood and sandstorms that would wipe out an entire crop in an instant. The first great civilization of Mesopotamia was Sumeria, at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates (where the Marsh Arabs still live today). Sumeria was plagued by frequent floods—and one great flood that destroyed it, as told in the Epic of Gilgamesh. This story is the origin of the Flood Story of Noah in Genesis. Recall that Abraham was born in the city of Ur in Sumeria. After Sumeria was destroyed, survivors migrated up the Euphrates to Babylonia (modern Baghdad), then into Syria, and then down the Orontes into the land of Cana’an. The story of Abraham is the story of this migration—although historically it took several centuries over many generations. Abraham is a mythic figure created from this collective memory.

The most important religious idea to come out of Mesopotamia is the “Doctrine of Divine Retribution.” It reveals that ALL reward and punishment are meted out in this life (remember, there is no belief in life after death). If you are righteous on earth, you will prosper on earth. If you are wicked on earth, you will be punished on earth—all at the hands of the gods. Discuss this concept and its implications. Discuss the advice the goddess Ishtar gives to Gilgamesh to comfort him about human mortality.

The ancient Greeks produced a pantheon of anthropomorphic gods. What the Greeks show us is the fact that we create gods in OUR own image, and not vice-versa. That is, the Greeks banquet, dance, sing, drink wine, have sex with women—and men. And so do the gods—only more so. When we study the personalities and attitudes of the Greek god, we are in reality studying the Greeks themselves. However, in the 6th century BCE the Greeks invented philosophy and began to observe the world and its workings. Rather than explaining things as arising from divine beings, they posited that the world operated on rational, eternal laws that could be understood by humans. Western “science” was born as a result. Discuss the implications of this movement on western civilization.
Lastly we come to the Romans, who were a very conservative and superstitious people. They practiced divination—the art of foreseeing the future through augury, the interpretation of portents and omens, most often the flight of birds or “reading” the entrails of animals sacrificed on the altar. We in America still practice augury on Groundhog Day. Discuss the nature and purpose of this annual event in terms of rites of divination. Can you think of any other rites of divination in any other religions you might know?

This was a topic of our discussion in my religions class. Just thought I would post it to give people something to talk about.

Stockton,
What do you make of the underlined part about Abraham?

ThaG,
What do you think about the part of the Greeks?
I told the class, thank God for the Greeks.




5000

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Philosophy existed before 6th century BCE, if not in Greece then elsewhere.

 

[HERESY]

You have any more links like that 916?

 

[iaoish]

The Greeks got it from the Indians if I am not mistaken...

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

All the Prabhupada videos I put up are from a youtube user named mukunda108: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=mukunda108

He tends to be a bit much on a conspiracy theory tip, but that aside he posts good videos.

 

[iaoish]

... youtube vid...

I see you are intrested in these kinds of wisdom. You should do a search in the video topic I posted 18 files of a man called Khrisnamurti I think you will find intresting.
Each file is about an hour interview with a Dr. Allan Anderson

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I watched a few of those actually...

He seems to be more or less atheist. Very different from the video I posted.

 

[HERESY]

All the Prabhupada videos I put up are from a youtube user named mukunda108: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=mukunda108

He tends to be a bit much on a conspiracy theory tip, but that aside he posts good videos.

thanks

 

[iaoish]

he is kind of athiest.. he wants to be free of ever theology (sp) which by itself is actually a theology aswell..

thought you'd might like it, all good!

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

He just doesn't go that far with the philosophy pertaining to God and the nature of the absolute platform. He is more concerned with his own idea of so-called human freedom.


Here are a couple excerpts from conversations with Srila Prabhupada (the man speaking in the video I posted) about J. Krishnamurti:


Room Conversation with Writer, Sandy Nixon - July 13, 1975, Philadelphia

Sandy Nixon: The aim of many spiritual paths is to find the guru within.
Prabhupäda: Within?
Sandy Nixon: The guru within. Is this different...?
Prabhupäda: Who says that, to find guru within?
Sandy Nixon: Um...
Jayatértha: Kirpal Singh, he’s one person who says that.
Guru däsa: Krishnamurti says that also.
Prabhupäda: So why does he come to teach? (laughter) This rascal, why does he come to teach? This is the answer. These things are spoken by rascals. He has come to teach, and he says, “Find out guru within.” Then why you have come to teach? Because people are not intelligent, they cannot catch him. He talks all nonsense, and they hear, that’s all.
Guru däsa: He also has written a book about “No books are needed.” (laughter)
Prabhupäda: So you can find out how rascal he is. Is it not? Do you admit or not? He writes book, and he says, “There is no need of books.” He has come to teach, and he says, “There is no need of teacher. Teacher is within.” Is he not a rascal?
Sandy Nixon: Well, they say... Those people...
Prabhupäda: No, first of all you answer my question. If he says contradictory things, is he not a rascal?
Sandy Nixon: Well, he’s contradicting himself.
Prabhupäda: Therefore he is a rascal. He does not know how to defend him.


Morning Walk - January 29th, 1977, Bhubaneshwar

Hari-çauri: Yes. That’s the same idea as Krishnamurti. You don’t need a guru, but he’s written thirteen books to tell everyone.
Prabhupäda: He has written thirteen books?
Hari-çauri: Something like that.
Bhägavata: At the end of his book he said, “When you’re finished reading it, throw it away.”
Prabhupäda: Hm?
Bhägavata: When you’re finished reading this book you should throw it away.
Hari-çauri: ’Cause you don’t actually need it.
Satsvarüpa: And that philosopher of this philosophy, Camus, he said, “Don’t try to lead me because I may not want to follow you, and don’t follow me because I am not capable of leading you. Just walk beside me and be my friend.” So he said by writing his books he was not trying to lead other people but just trying to free them from following falsely any absolute philosophy.
Prabhupäda: Then he has to follow you because by taking your instruction I shall stop following others; that means I’ll have to follow you. So what is the benefit? Instead of following others, I have to follow you? My following is there. That is not stopped.
Satsvarüpa: They claim they don’t want to be leaders, but actually they do.
Prabhupäda: That means rascal. What he says, that is contradictory. That means rascal.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

thanks

No problem. I've also got transcripts of every recorded Prabhupada lecture and conversation in a searchable database. If you're interested I can search for conversations regarding various topics.

 

[HERESY]

He is a rascal.

How can you say you don't need books and write 13, and say you don't need a teacher but tell someone to throw away the book? As soon as they have thrown it away they have thrown away independence and now follow him.

What is J. Krishnamurti's background?