Is Salix an Atheist?

[ChristineM]

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, 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.

Perhaps a little atheist, a little agnostic, a little pantheist and 100% Salix (note : no comment on fashion).

Be who you are.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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, 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.

If you believe in Brahman and lean towards pantheism then isn't that Advaita? I would lean towards calling you that rather than pantheist or atheist. Its a form of monotheism.

 

[Shantanu]

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, 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.

Have you ever felt the need to communicate with your 'nondual God' or is that a madness too far for you to contemplate?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Have you ever felt the need to communicate with your 'nondual God' or is that a madness too far for you to contemplate?

Did you mean commune or communicate? If the latter, no.

And I wouldn't consider it madness of one did. But IMO, it does little more than satiate one's ego.

 

[Shantanu]

Did you mean commune or communicate? If the latter, no. And I wouldn't consider it madness of one did. But IMO, it does little more than satiate one's ego.

You know it all obviously.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You know it all obviously.

I know that I know nothing.

 

[Jollybear]

"Awareness of" implies a dichotomy of "I/other," which is duality. I'll just stick with the definition I gave above.

I dont understand yet.

When i think of conciousness i think of awareness. Awareness is to be aware of things around us.

How are you using it?

 

[Shantanu]

I know that I know nothing.

You are aware of the questions, that is enough in my honest opinion.

 

[Koldo]

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.

As far I get it, you believe that pretty much everything that is generally regarded to exist is a consequence of a certain consciousness. That's theism in a nutshell.

 

[atanu]

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.

IMO.

Actually, I think that with this view, eventually you yourself will reveal your Lordship over your nature (mind), as happened to the Buddha, or with any Self realised sage.

Timelessly such a one exists. We are hiding the one reality with many cloud like minds. A knower of the non dual reality cannot be separate from that reality and hence such a knower must exist timelessly (since time is the domain of mind while the seer is timeless).

There is Lord of Ego -- without beginning.

Now you decide.

 

[Quintessence]

...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.

To my mind, the solution is to deprogram yourself in part by recognizing that it represents a cultural bias instilled by Abrahamic (classical monotheist) conceptions of the sacred. Put another way, the only reason why we believe "theist" implies "belief in a supreme being that interacts with its creation" is because classical monotheism dominates our culture. You've got to unlearn what your culture has insisted "god" has to mean since it doesn't represent the spectrum.

Not going to say it's easy. Based on my own experiences, I'd say those of us growing up in Abrahamic-normative cultures don't process we're thinking inside that box at all. It colors our thinking of other cultural paradigms too, without our awareness. It's why I went from an early Catholic upbringing to a "religion and theism are stupid" angtheist during my teens. Couldn't think outside of a box I didn't even know was there. I basically had to start with "everything that I was told about god is wrong and a lie" as a starting point to get out of the box. Then you start spinning it in the positive by defining what the sacred is to you. What do you want god to be for you?

To me, the more important dimension of theism isn't "belief in" but "practice of" because that's what adds substance and depth. I've found that a more useful way of thinking about a distinction between theism and non-theism (or more accurately, deifying versus not deifying something). One can marvel at a beautiful sunrise regardless of whether or not one deifies the phenomena of sunrises. But only the theist will engage in the practice of worship while witnessing a sunrise - an invocation to Eos for instance. Recognizing the importance of praxis was one thing that helped me get out of the Abrahamic-normative box I'd been thinking in too. I started seeing theism as more about what you do and not about what you believe.

At any rate, I've rambled long enough. Not sure if any of this is useful or helpful, but there are the thoughts of the moment.

 

[Windwalker]

There is no anthropomorphic god as such in my view, only Nirguna Brahman/the Absolute, which is pure consciousness as mentioned in the OP.

What about Satchitananda? That's not an anthropomorphic god.

 

[Kirran]

Well, @SalixIncendium.

A couple years back, and further back, I used to think about atheism and theism, and while I was in no way carried away over it I would always say I was a theist. The idea of atheism even perhaps made me mildly uncomfortable here and there, maybe a little like you're instinctive unsureness about the word 'theism'.

Then I just happened to stop ever thinking about atheism and theism, probably because it just didn't come up. When I remembered it again after a long stretch it was much clearer to me how the whole atheism-theism thing is just a particular habit of thinking or conceptualising that has emerged out of the Western intellectual tradition and is used there. But actually both are just some concept applied to people's beliefs, ways of thinking and experiences. There is absolutely nothing universal about theism/atheism, it's a divide which is bound to a particular cultural tradition. So I have no especial need to say I am either an atheist or a theist nowadays.

Anyway, that's just my own experience. What you feel works better for you is probably the best thing for you

A quick aside on the Saguna Brahman point: I didn't really get Saguna Brahman for a long time. But then at some point I started intuiting the synonymity of the object of contemplation with the Absolute in some kind of mysterious way. While also of course being the conceptual contents of consciousness also. Getting all into whatever culturally-received form or symbol of the Divine is obviously totally optional, but if you do get into it then it is totally real.

 

[Firemorphic]

A couple of differences here...

I view the Absolute as immanent rather than trancendent. If you'll recall, I see our temporal existence (Maya) as illusory.

There is no becoming of one with the Absolute. Atman is always Brahman, as a glass of water is to the ocean.

I know exactly what you mean here.

In the case of Islam, well there is the very Upanishadic notion in our own scripture that "wherever one looks, they see the face of God but none of the things we think we see are God itself"

The notion that the universe emanates from God, does lean us perhaps more towards the close notion of panENtheism....as there is only God and the universe but there are in fact several sects that have pantheistic conceptions of God (which is intriguing).

As with the Brahman/Atman synonymy, as through our Monotheism we lead to Monism (because of our theological opposition to deity entirely) but not so much the notion of mankind being "in the image of God" of Jewish/Christian scripture (taken very differently between both though).
A drop of water to an ocean, a grain of sand to a beach, I do understand the divine understanding of the self to the absolute within Hindu traditions (although interpretations do vary between traditions), it's a highly beautiful philosophy and in some regard, does leak into (whether directly or not) the Abrahamic esoteric traditions.
Because of a certain grounding within monism (at least, foundationally to Shia Islam specifically), it does open up the philosophical possibility to take the position of seeing the ultimate reality as a form of Monad (and this does reflect in many areas of our literature and art too) but then the transcendent aspect of God makes this the likely biggest distinction (wherein lies the self-revelatory nature of the absolute).

 

[SalixIncendium]

I dont understand yet.

When i think of conciousness i think of awareness. Awareness is to be aware of things around us.

How are you using it?

Awareness of is duality, which is a product of Maya. Awareness itself is nondual...simply being in its purest form as Satcitananda...truth, consciousness, bliss.

 

[Firemorphic]

I dont understand yet.

When i think of conciousness i think of awareness. Awareness is to be aware of things around us.

How are you using it?

I think the notable distinction is that consciousness itself doesn't necessarily mean sentience (hence animistic worldviews, which I relate to myself). Although, in other contexts the word "conscious" often is used in reference to "being aware of", such as "being socially conscious".

 

[SalixIncendium]

What about Satchitananda? That's not an anthropomorphic god.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

You had stated, "There is no anthropomorphic god as such in my view, only Nirguna Brahman/the Absolute, which is pure consciousness as mentioned in the OP." So I asked about Satchitananda because that is Saguna Brahman, or God with qualities, is it not? Yet one can call that God (Brahman) and it not be understood as an antrophorophic projection of the human ego upon the face of the divine. To me to say Saguna Brahman is not really Brahman, sounds like saying the rays of the sun are somehow not the sun because they are not the nuclear reaction at the core, at least in how I'm understanding this.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You had stated, "There is no anthropomorphic god as such in my view, only Nirguna Brahman/the Absolute, which is pure consciousness as mentioned in the OP." So I asked about Satchitananda because that is Saguna Brahman, or God with qualities, is it not?

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.

Yet one can call that God (Brahman) and it not be understood as an antrophorophic projection of the human ego upon the face of the divine. To me to say Saguna Brahman is not really Brahman, sounds like saying the rays of the sun are somehow not the sun because they are not the nuclear reaction at the core, at least in how I'm understanding this.

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.

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

 

[Jollybear]

Awareness of is duality, which is a product of Maya. Awareness itself is nondual...simply being in its purest form as Satcitananda...truth, consciousness, bliss.

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