Complementary science and religion

[godnotgod]

The Supreme Consciousness in whose mind the universe is projected has no need for a physical body Himself, in fact there is no way that you can objectify the Supreme Consciousness. To us He is a complete mystery that is inaccesible to our limited minds. In that sense the Supreme Consciousness can never be an anthropomorfic projection. Nevertheless for the sake of philosophy He is linguistically objectified and it matters not how you address It/Him/Her because He is purely Subject anyhow and not in any way objectifiable (you can only "know or reach" Him by going through your own subject within rather than without). In fact our individual subject is already part of the Ultimate Subject or Supreme Consciousness but we are only under the illusion that we are separated or isolated from things we perceive as being "outside".

The difference between the buddhist and the hinduistic approach is merely one of method or approach. However unobjectifiable the Supreme Consciousness is, it is easier to get rid of the illusion of separation by falling in love with It/Her/Him, serving It/Her/Him and closely associating with this Supreme Consiousness despite the fact that the Supreme Consciousness cannot be objectified.

This is done by using a vehicle, the vehicle of a personification of a kind that is already much closer to or even "one" with the Supreme Consciousness, such as an elightened (tantric) teacher. Your association with this teacher is treated like the association with the Supreme Consciousness, for That is the real Teacher. In tantra no distinction is made between the Teacher and the Goal, the Supreme Consciousness. By associating with the Teacher or the Goal your individual consciousness eventually loses its feeling of separateness and merges with the Goal. The process to bridge this gap between the limited consciousness and the Limitless Consciousness is called mysticism and you bridge the gap by following a (tantric) cult, a certain spiritual life style.

The cult that Jesus started seems to also have been a tantric-mystic cult, not a Buddhist one because love or devotion for and serving the realised Master was part of this cult.

Anything other than Brahman is not real. So any subject/object split is purely illusory, a product of the mind. The only true reality being 'Tat tvam asi'. Brahman is beyond all dualities, and therefore is neither subject nor object. To refer to Brahman as Subject in any manner is to create Brahman as an object..

The goal is the realization of divine union, or yoga, which is already the case. Man has never been separated from Brahman not even for an instant. That separation is only a play of Brahman. The only way to realize union is via "the cessation of all of the activities of the mind", as Patanjali has stated in his Yoga Sutras.

'Thou Art That': there is nothing else. The rest is maya.

There is at least one Buddhist sect that involves devotion to the Buddha in a manner similar to that of Christianity. I believe it is Pure Land Buddhism.

 

[Marcion]

To refer to Brahman as Subject in any manner is to create Brahman as an object...

It is not and I explained to you why. Something that is entirely Subject can never be called an object or part of the objective world. He is the Dreamer and the dreamed universe at the same time, there is nothing outside Him and yet He has no boundaries or form.

Nevertheless, in Tantra one may accept the Guru as being one with this purely subjective Brahma in the form of Taraka Brahma. But the Guru is not to be seen as a human jiiva.

 

[godnotgod]

It is not and I explained to you why. Something that is entirely Subject can never be called an object or part of the objective world. He is the Dreamer and the dreamed universe at the same time, there is nothing outside Him and yet He has no boundaries or form.

Nevertheless, in Tantra one may accept the Guru as being one with this purely subjective Brahma in the form of Taraka Brahma. But the Guru is not to be seen as a human jiiva.

There cannot be a Subject as an absolute. In order to conceive 'Subject', you have automatically implied 'object'. The better term would be 'The Absolute', 'the which of which there is no whicher'.

Also, you are giving this Brahma a gender, which personifies 'him' as being anthropomorphic. Brahman is attributeless, without gender or form. But out of the formless comes all form, which is Brahman, manifesting itself as 'form'.

 

[Marcion]

There cannot be a Subject as an absolute. In order to conceive 'Subject', you have automatically implied 'object'. The better term would be 'The Absolute', 'the which of which there is no whicher'.

Also, you are giving this Brahma a gender, which personifies 'him' as being anthropomorphic. Brahman is attributeless, without gender or form. But out of the formless comes all form, which is Brahman, manifesting itself as 'form'.

The only reason that I call Him Subject is because He can only be found as an extension or expansion of my individual I-feeling or individual subject (which I experience as a relative reality, I have no wish to deny it).

I do not call Him Subject because I would suppose there is anything objective with that Subject.
The reason why I speak of 'Him' is because I can express love for or relate to that Ultimate Subject in whichever way I want and I choose it this way. But 'It' would suit me just as well.

If it is your own wish to not in any way personally relate to that Supreme Consciousness or to see it just as 'Void' or 'Emptyness' then that is your personal choice.
That is what most Buddhists do I believe, but I am not a buddhist, it does not appeal to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For instance, the Catholic Church claims to acknowledge evolution, and yet the evolution it acknowledges is not the evolution of the sciences. The Church's "evolution" assumes purpositive changes over time. The sciences insist there is no purpose to evolution.

The Catholic Church also insists on monogenism - the idea that all of humanity descended from a lone male-female pair of the first "true humans." Speciation just doesn't work this way.

... but this disagreement with the science is way subtler than creationism, so people tend to overlook it.

 

[godnotgod]

The only reason that I call Him Subject is because He can only be found as an extension or expansion of my individual I-feeling or individual subject (which I experience as a relative reality, I have no wish to deny it).

I do not call Him Subject because I would suppose there is anything objective with that Subject.
The reason why I speak of 'Him' is because I can express love for or relate to that Ultimate Subject in whichever way I want and I choose it this way. But 'It' would suit me just as well.

If it is your own wish to not in any way personally relate to that Supreme Consciousness or to see it just as 'Void' or 'Emptyness' then that is your personal choice.
That is what most Buddhists do I believe, but I am not a buddhist, it does not appeal to me.

An individual 'I-feeling' is not Brahman; it is your individual I-feeling, a personal view. But Brahman is beyond all personal views, which is why the jiva ultimately merges with Brahman, and 'becomes' Brahman. All personal identity is lost, as the drop merges with the vast sea. The consciousness of Brahman is supreme because it is limitless and infinite. 'I' is limited and finite, bound to Time, Space, and Causation.

I relate to Brahman in that I understand that I am merely a manifestation of Brahman, a play of Brahman. When the drama is over, the masks are removed, and the character that is 'I' is no more. In keeping with Buddhist thought, this 'I' is empty of inherent self-nature, and so is Brahman. IOW, what Brahman does is in reality, all a Big Act, the divine play of lila and maya. Brahman is neither subject nor object. The dissolution of this split occurs when it is realized that you are none other than Brahman. All else is simply maya.

Because Brahman is empty of self-nature, it can be Everything, not limited by a finite self called 'I', the condition of 'self and other', a duality, the true Reality being 'Tat tvam asi'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I’m saying here is not about what people think. It’s about what people do.

But “what people do” is informed and influenced by what they believe. Eventually for everyone, there’s going to be overlap - and therefore potential conflict - between religious beliefs that motivate action and what science says about how things really are.