Author Topic: We are all one... (Read 4282 times)

Waldron · « **on:** July 28, 2015, 10:14:58 am »

...but something doesn't make sense.
Searching, one finds that all religions exist for the same purpose, to guide us back to our source. We are here to evolve and go back to Him/It/Her, but we were sent here just to get back?
One thing that summarizes well this line of thought is the documentary “One”, I thought it was very good, but left me this question. It doesn’t make much sense to think that the purpose of our lives is to learn to go back to what we originally belong since we were sent here out of the Source’s own will.

Any thoughts?

Redfaery · « **Reply #1 on:** July 28, 2015, 10:25:14 am »

Quote from: Waldron;177883

...but something doesn't make sense.
Searching, one finds that all religions exist for the same purpose, to guide us back to our source. We are here to evolve and go back to Him/It/Her, but we were sent here just to get back?
One thing that summarizes well this line of thought is the documentary “One”, I thought it was very good, but left me this question. It doesn’t make much sense to think that the purpose of our lives is to learn to go back to what we originally belong since we were sent here out of the Source’s own will.

Any thoughts?

Well, it doesn't make much sense because it's not true.

It's certainly not true in Buddhism, which has no creator deity, so there is no "source" to go back to.

carillion · « **Reply #2 on:** July 28, 2015, 10:32:07 am »

Quote from: Waldron;177883

...but something doesn't make sense.
Searching, one finds that all religions exist for the same purpose, to guide us back to our source. We are here to evolve and go back to Him/It/Her, but we were sent here just to get back?
One thing that summarizes well this line of thought is the documentary “One”, I thought it was very good, but left me this question. It doesn’t make much sense to think that the purpose of our lives is to learn to go back to what we originally belong since we were sent here out of the Source’s own will.

Any thoughts?

For a non-religious person who doesn't believe in a 'source' (or indeed, deity or some kind of 'designer' ) or 'purpose', it's not question that would ever trouble one's mind.

RecycledBenedict · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2015, 10:49:06 am »

Quote from: Redfaery;177884

Well, it doesn't make much sense because it's not true. It's certainly not true in Buddhism, which has no creator deity, so there is no "source" to go back to.

Which is mostly true about South Asian Buddhism (which have four not yet liberated and awakened creator deities, all of them of no use to reach liberation), but less so about Japanese and Tibetan Buddhism.

According to Saicho, the introducer of Tendai Buddhism in Japan, Buddha Nature is inherent in everything, but not yet manifested in most. Since Zen, Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms all splintered from Tendai in the 12th and 13th centuries, the view is rather widespread within Japanese Buddhism.

In the Tibetan Buddhist worldview there is the Adi Buddha under several different names.

Redfaery · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2015, 10:52:13 am »

Quote from: FraterBenedict;177886

Which is mostly true about South Asian Buddhism (which have four not yet liberated and awakened creator deities, all of them of no use to reach liberation), but less so about Japanese and Tibetan Buddhism.

According to Saicho, the introducer of Tendai Buddhism in Japan, Buddha Nature is inherent in everything, but not yet manifested in most. Since Zen, Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms all splintered from Tendai in the 12th and 13th centuries, the view is rather widespread within Japanese Buddhism.

In the Tibetan Buddhist worldview there is the Adi Buddha under several different names.

Except that the Buddha-nature spoken about by Saicho didn't create the Universe or human beings, and so isn't the Source usually spoken of by Universalists.

RecycledBenedict · « **Reply #5 on:** July 28, 2015, 10:57:03 am »

Quote from: Redfaery;177887

Except that the Buddha-nature spoken about by Saicho didn't create the Universe or human beings, and so isn't the Source usually spoken of by Universalists.

No no. I agree. Definitely not a Creator, at least not in the general use of the word. If the word 'nature' wasn't a philosophical minefield within Buddhism, I would have suggested 'a common nature', but that is not exactly the best choice of words for several reasons.

Faemon · « **Reply #6 on:** July 28, 2015, 11:06:02 am »

Quote from: Waldron;177883

Searching, one finds that all religions exist for the same purpose, to guide us back to our source.

Not necessarily. Some religions are more about coexisting with other people in life, others might be about alleviating suffering, others might be about personal empowerment, others might be a herald of challenge and conflicts to transform, others might be about immersion, others might be about release, and many might not even include that there exists any such source or that it's possible to return.

Quote

We are here to evolve and go back to Him/It/Her, but we were sent here just to get back? It doesn’t make much sense to think that the purpose of our lives is to learn to go back to what we originally belong since we were sent here out of the Source’s own will.

Why take a bath if you're just going to get dirty again? Some people like baths.

Other explanations I've heard was that Source is lonely or bored or even ignorant (in a divine way, too abstract maybe in wisdom,) and splitting off and having experiences solves that. But put the Legos back in the box so that you don't step on them.

I never really jived with that idea of a grand scheme of things, either. On a small scale, getting another go sounds all well and good sometimes.

Redfaery · « **Reply #7 on:** July 28, 2015, 11:17:58 am »

Quote from: FraterBenedict;177888

No no. I agree. Definitely not a Creator, at least not in the general use of the word. If the word 'nature' wasn't a philosophical minefield within Buddhism, I would have suggested 'a common nature', but that is not exactly the best choice of words for several reasons.

Dude...*facepalms* EVERY word is a minefield in Buddhism. Want to see something fun? Go into a Buddhist forum and drop the word "reality." You'll get the users flaming each other in NO TIME. Right Speech be damned!

Darkhawk · « **Reply #8 on:** July 28, 2015, 12:38:13 pm »

Quote from: Waldron;177883

Searching, one finds that all religions exist for the same purpose, to guide us back to our source. We are here to evolve and go back to Him/It/Her, but we were sent here just to get back?
[...]
Any thoughts?

Starting from a false premise produces inconsistent results.

Altair · « **Reply #9 on:** July 28, 2015, 01:15:40 pm »

Quote from: Waldron;177883

...but something doesn't make sense.
Searching, one finds that all religions exist for the same purpose, to guide us back to our source. We are here to evolve and go back to Him/It/Her, but we were sent here just to get back?
One thing that summarizes well this line of thought is the documentary “One”, I thought it was very good, but left me this question. It doesn’t make much sense to think that the purpose of our lives is to learn to go back to what we originally belong since we were sent here out of the Source’s own will.

Any thoughts?

As the other responses have pointed out to various degrees and in various ways, your error is in overgeneralizing about all religions. The idea of returning to the source is a common theme among many religions, however.

Famed astronomer Carl Sagan put one possible answer in secular terms: “We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” In other words, we had to differentiate from the source (whatever you deem that to be) so that, through our experiences, the source can figure itself out. Our existence is an act of looking in the mirror and pondering the reflection.

That's the way I like to think of it, anyway.

Another way to think of it, if you're familiar with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine--The changelings (the Founders of the Dominion), liquid beings, existed as one pool (the Great Link)...but they sent bits of themselves out as individuals to learn about the universe around them, so that they could eventually rejoin the one pool, their knowledge becoming a part of the Great Link as a whole.

And if you've never seen Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, that probably explains nothing!

Jainarayan · « **Reply #10 on:** July 28, 2015, 01:25:50 pm »

Quote from: Waldron;177883

...but something doesn't make sense.
Searching, one finds that all religions exist for the same purpose, to guide us back to our source. We are here to evolve and go back to Him/It/Her, but we were sent here just to get back?
...

That's not true in Ásatrú, i.e. Germanic Heathenry. While it's true there's a large degree of pantheism, that is, everything has a divine spark and source, we don't return to anything. We are who and what we are: individuals.

RecycledBenedict · « **Reply #11 on:** July 28, 2015, 01:56:37 pm »

Quote from: Redfaery;177891

Dude...*facepalms* EVERY word is a minefield in Buddhism. Want to see something fun? Go into a Buddhist forum and drop the word "reality." You'll get the users flaming each other in NO TIME. Right Speech be damned!

Yes. I can imagine. If I remember correctly now, Sarvastivada Buddhism maintained a sort of common sense realism view on reality, while most other schools problematised this in a higher or lower degree, partly because of the Prajnaparamita literature, partly because of Nagarjuna. Theravadins like to see themselves as representatives of 'original Buddhism', but they read the sutras through the eyes of Buddhaghosa, which make that self image (no pun intended) hard to defend. Since no sutra was written down before 100 BCE (and the Mahayanists started that trend, which is probably a little bit counterintuitive for us westerners), it is hard to know which parts of the sutras (if any) that correctly reflects the teachings of Siddharta himself, and then comes the problem of how to interpret them correctly: Layer upon layer of history – which however illustrates the teaching about impermanence. It is impossible to take a bath in the same river twice.

Redfaery · « **Reply #12 on:** July 28, 2015, 02:04:00 pm »

Quote from: FraterBenedict;177901

Yes. I can imagine. If I remember correctly now, Sarvastivada Buddhism maintained a sort of common sense realism view on reality, while most other schools problematised this in a higher or lower degree, partly because of Nagarjuna. Theravadins like to see themselves as representatives of 'original Buddhism', but they read the sutras through the eyes of Buddhaghosa, which make that self image (no pun intended) hard to defend. Since no sutra was written down before 100 BCE (and the Mahayanists started that trend, which is probably a little bit counterintuitive for us westerners), it is hard to know which parts of the sutras (if any) that correctly reflects the teachings of Siddharta himself, and then comes the problem of how to interpret them correctly: Layer upon layer of history – which however illustrates the teaching about impermanence. It is impossible to take a bath in the same river twice.

Well, from what I understand modern Theravada is an outgrowth of a school that is as old as the schools that would become the Mahayana, but whether the Pali canon is closer or not to what the "historical Buddha" taught (and this phrase is a hot-button) is a source of major controversy.

And duuuuude....try getting a group of Buddhists to come to a consensus about the concept of "self."

Darkhawk · « **Reply #13 on:** July 28, 2015, 02:04:39 pm »

Quote from: Faemon;177889

Some religions are more about coexisting with other people in life, others might be about alleviating suffering, others might be about personal empowerment, others might be a herald of challenge and conflicts to transform, others might be about immersion, others might be about release, and many might not even include that there exists any such source or that it's possible to return.

I actually tend rather towards the opinion that the important part of religious life is the part that's about life: dealing with other beings, alleviating suffering, personal strength, transformation, and so on.

The more emphasis someone's individual religious practice (or a religion as a whole, but I've noticed this varies more within religions than between them) puts on theoretical/subjective stuff - whether that's "the Source" or "the Afterlife" or "the next life" or "heaven and hell" or "relationships with god(s)" or other abstractions - the more likely I've found it that those people will justify blowing off matters of living, getting on with others, and doing good in the world or even ignore the harm they do because it doesn't matter compared to the real stuff their religious practice values.

If there is a Source to return to (and I'm sure that many religions at least have something that can be massaged into claiming that if someone wants to see it, even if it's totally askew of the religion in practice and its priorities) that may matter someday - for some mystical paths, for after one is dead - but it doesn't have any relevance to now, so, y'know, whatever. Prioritising that over now is the sort of life-denying transcendentalism that I have no particular use for.

RecycledBenedict · « **Reply #14 on:** July 28, 2015, 02:21:25 pm »

Quote from: Redfaery;177902

Well, from what I understand modern Theravada is an outgrowth of a school that is as old as the schools that would become the Mahayana, but whether the Pali canon is closer or not to what the "historical Buddha" taught (and this phrase is a hot-button) is a source of major controversy.

And duuuuude....try getting a group of Buddhists to come to a consensus about the concept of "self."

Since the Pali language didn't exist until 100 or 200 years after the time of Buddha, and since the historical Buddha must have spoken another prakrit language, none of the written versions of the sutras can be a verbatim record. In some parts of the Indian sub-continent his teaching was preserved in Pali (so in the Tamraparniya school, of which Theravada is a daughter school), in some parts (Sarvastivada school) his teaching was preserved in Sanskrit and in some parts (Dharmaguptaka school) his teaching was preserved in Gandhari. Some sutras are preserved in all three of the languages with a common oral, not written, source.

The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

News:

Recent Posts

Author Topic: We are all one... (Read 4282 times)

Waldron

We are all one...

Redfaery

Re: We are all one...

carillion

Re: We are all one...

RecycledBenedict

Re: We are all one...

Redfaery

Re: We are all one...

RecycledBenedict

Re: We are all one...

Faemon

Re: We are all one...

Redfaery

Re: We are all one...

Darkhawk

Re: We are all one...

Altair

Re: We are all one...

Jainarayan

Re: We are all one...

RecycledBenedict

Re: We are all one...

Redfaery

Re: We are all one...

Darkhawk

Re: We are all one...

RecycledBenedict

Re: We are all one...

Related Topics

Who's Online

Please Donate!

Shop & Support TC

In Memoriam

Cauldron Staff