Is Salix an Atheist?

[stvdv]

I go back and forth on whether I'd label myself an atheist or a pantheist.

Personally for me it is not about "Am I a theist or an atheist?"

For me it is about "Who Am I". No need for a box to put myself in.

As a person I do have a bit of all Religions and Atheism.

 

[Windwalker]

Not in my understanding. Satcitananda is truth, consciousness, bliss. I don't think Satcitananda necessarily has a correlation with or is exclusive to Saguna Brahman. One can experience Satcitananda without recognizing anthropomorphic deities.

Of course. Yes. One can experience God, without recognizing anthropomorphic deities as well. I would be one of those.

I never said or even implied that Saguna Brahman is not really Brahman. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I did.

Based upon what you said here from post 1 in this thread:

I recognize Brahman as Absolute Reality, of which I, through the Atman, am the same. However, I recognize Brahman only in It's Nirguna aspect (without qualities), and do not recognize or have the need to recognize a Saguna aspect (with qualities), so while I see the avatars/messengers/gurus/sages as enlightened beings, I do not recognize them as deities.

To which I said that Saguna Brahman, God with qualities is Satchitananda. Being, Consciousness, Bliss are qualities. It is comparable to "God is Spirit", "God is Light" and "God is Love", or as I say in my "Religion" section of my profile, "Love, Light, and Life". Satchitananda. To embrace that, moves beyond anthropomorphic deities. Enlightened beings, are not gods. They are enlightened humans, manifesting these qualities of the divine, or Saguna Brahman.

From a quick Wiki search on Saguna Brahman, "close to the concept of immanence, the manifested divine presence." That is what fits my experience of the divine, which generally does not include any strict anthropomorphic forms.

As I see it, Saguna Brahman is an aspect of Brahman that exists to facilitate human understanding of Brahman.

Yes. It is the highest Radiance of the Formless, manifesting into all form. That can include a deity image if one desires, but it is in its Essence, beyond that.

 

[Milton Platt]

I go back and forth on whether I'd label myself an atheist or a pantheist. I'm interested what the forum membership's take on this might be.

For those who don't know, I identify as a nondualist, essentially Advaita Vedanta minus the formal education and some slight variations on views.

I recognize Brahman as Absolute Reality, of which I, through the Atman, am the same. However, I recognize Brahman only in It's Nirguna aspect (without qualities), and do not recognize or have the need to recognize a Saguna aspect (with qualities), so while I see the avatars/messengers/gurus/sages as enlightened beings, I do not recognize them as deities.

So essentially my view of 'God' is Nirguna Brahman, or the Absolute, which, while the observer or witness of Maya, is not an active participant or the decision maker in 'temporal' affairs. In other words, I view God/Brahman/Absolute as pure consciousness.

One might first think I'd be a theist of sorts, because I believe in something greater the human perception, but where I struggle with the word is that it implies a supreme being that interacts with its creation, which is not at all my view.

Pantheist might work, as everything I perceive in temporal reality the illusion of Maya, which, while an illusion, is indeed Brahman. But there's that root word, 'theist,' that gives me pause.

So what do you, the fine members of RF, consider my view to be? Is Salix an atheist, a pantheist, or something else entirely? I'll answer any questions that might help you to clarify my worldview.

It all,boils down to how younwant to define the word “god” doesn’t it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ok...so....is God aware of us?

It depends how you perceive "us." If you are talking about our minds and our bodies, our temporal selves, that, as I said, is illusory. If you are talking about our true nature, that's the same as Brahman (God), so there is nothing to be aware of.

 

[SalixIncendium]

To which I said that Saguna Brahman, God with qualities is Satchitananda. Being, Consciousness, Bliss are qualities. It is comparable to "God is Spirit", "God is Light" and "God is Love", or as I say in my "Religion" section of my profile, "Love, Light, and Life". Satchitananda. To embrace that, moves beyond anthropomorphic deities. Enlightened beings, are not gods. They are enlightened humans, manifesting these qualities of the divine, or Saguna Brahman.

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It all,boils down to how younwant to define the word “god” doesn’t it?

Yes and no. For me personally, yes. But in attempting to communicate my worldview to others, I and those others would need an agreed upon definition of 'god' for them to understand my views.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Personally for me it is not about "Am I a theist or an atheist?"

For me it is about "Who Am I". No need for a box to put myself in.

As a person I do have a bit of all Religions and Atheism.

That's great...for you. But how would others understand who you are as it relates to your philosophical/religious position?

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes and no. For me personally, yes. But in attempting to communicate my worldview to others, I and those others would need an agreed upon definition of 'god' for them to understand my views.

no, for me, I would need your definition to understand your world views. Whether others use the same definition is not important to establishing your world view.

You are going the long way around the barn. Just explain your version of god and your world view..... whether others agree does,not affect what it is.

 

[SalixIncendium]

no, for me, I would need your definition to understand your world views. Whether others use the same definition is not important to establishing your world view.

You are going the long way around the barn. Just explain your version of god and your world view..... whether others agree does,not affect what it is.

That's a great point. I appreciate you posting that.

 

[Windwalker]

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm never quite sure about the understanding of these things from the perspective of those more versed in Hinduism than I am, but from my understanding, along with my own experiences, as well as how I've come to understand other religious language to describe these metaphysical realities, Saguna Brahman really resonates with me, as that Divine Radiance, which is inseparable from the Infinite Unmanifest, or Nirguna Brahman.

I have experienced nondual states which contain both the manifest and unmanifest as a single Reality, and have come to see that one without the other, or one as "higher" than the other is strictly a dualistic way of looking at God, or the Divine Reality. To divide it up is only what our minds do to be able to talk about it in terms of differences. But it's all really the same thing, and we are all expressions of it in form. This then comes to Buddhism which says, "Form is not other than emptiness; emptiness is not other than form." The unmanifest and the manifest are one Reality.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm never quite sure about the understanding of these things from the perspective of those more versed in Hinduism than I am, but from my understanding, along with my own experiences, as well as how I've come to understand other religious language to describe these metaphysical realities, Saguna Brahman really resonates with me, as that Divine Radiance, which is inseparable from the Infinite Unmanifest, or Nirguna Brahman.

I have experienced nondual states which contain both the manifest and unmanifest as a single Reality, and have come to see that one without the other, or one as "higher" than the other is strictly a dualistic way of looking at God, or the Divine Reality. To divide it up is only what our minds do to be able to talk about it in terms of differences. But it's all really the same thing, and we are all expressions of it in form. This then comes to Buddhism which says, "Form is not other than emptiness; emptiness is not other than form." The unmanifest and the manifest are one Reality.

There are those whose nondual experience of ultimate Reality is exclusively unmanifest with a realization that the manifest is illusory, as in a such a way that the manifest in a dream is unmanifest to the dreamer.

Not sure if that's going to make sense to you. I wrote it and deleted it about four times. Such things are difficult to describe in words.

 

[Jollybear]

It depends how you perceive "us." If you are talking about our minds and our bodies, our temporal selves, that, as I said, is illusory. If you are talking about our true nature, that's the same as Brahman (God), so there is nothing to be aware of.

Ok....well.....different question now. Is God aware of the illusion if us?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ok....well.....different question now. Is God aware of the illusion if us?

God is pure consciousness...pure awareness. If you perceived all that was, all that is, and all that ever will be all in one instant, or more accurately, no instant (time part of the illusion), what purpose would 'of' serve?

 

[Jollybear]

God is pure consciousness...pure awareness. If you perceived all that was, all that is, and all that ever will be all in one instant, or more accurately, no instant (time part of the illusion), what purpose would 'of' serve?

Ok. I see now. Well, based on your answer i would definately not classify you as an atheist.

Different question. Did God have an origin?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ok. I see now. Well, based on your answer i would definately not classify you as an atheist.

Different question. Did God have an origin?

Origin implies a beginning. Again, it is my view that time is illusory.

 

[Jollybear]

Origin implies a beginning. Again, it is my view that time is illusory.

Ok....another different question.

Is God illusory like the universe is illusory?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ok....another different question.

Is God illusory like the universe is illusory?

No.

 

[Windwalker]

There are those whose nondual experience of ultimate Reality is exclusively unmanifest with a realization that the manifest is illusory, as in a such a way that the manifest in a dream is unmanifest to the dreamer.

Not sure if that's going to make sense to you. I wrote it and deleted it about four times. Such things are difficult to describe in words.

In actuality, nonduality does not deny or negate duality. To say emptiness in the only reality, is itself a dualistic statement. It's a subtle duality which says only "this" is real and "not that". It divides. Nagarjuna pointed this out.

Nonduality holds these seeming opposites as "unproblematic". It is Paradoxical in nature. While I have had experience of the Infinite Unmanifest, I have also tasted it's Radiance which is not other to it, nor anything that exists is separate or illusory. The only illusion was that of the mind that saw separation, the mind that divides Reality into true/false statements, such as "only the Unmanifest is real". This is not an easy thing to grasp intellectually. But it makes perfect sense from experience.

Every blade of grass, every molecule of air, all creation in its minute details and its grand expanses, all of it, is the body of the Divine Reality, which is both fully transcendent in its Infinite Unmanifest Source of all existence, and its immanence as you and I and every manifest form in all existence everywhere at all time past, present, and future held in the Eternal Now. Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman are not two. The rays of light from the sun are not other to the sun itself. It is the sun Manifesting. God Manifest is the Creation. That is the nondual.

 

[Jollybear]

No.

No.

So God is the ultimate reality and the universe is illusory?

 

[stvdv]

That's great...for you. But how would others understand who you are as it relates to your philosophical/religious position?

My Master always said "You are 3 persons: a)The one you think you are + b)The one others think you are + c)The one you really are"

They can pick any one they like, trying to understand me. Most stick to b) even if I explain a) or c).