0

Both. All That Is/Tao/the balance/God is impersonal and beyond human language to describe it. Through symbolism and myth, we make it personal. We personify that which is beyond us in order to understand it better. But personifcations (i.e. gods and goddesses along with ritual) lose their vital symbolism when we make them literal. We lose sight of what these things are supposed to represent. This is what "idolatry" consists of. The literalization of concepts that are supposed to be fluid. Therefore you worship an image rather than unveiling the meaning behind it.

If by nature you mean EVERYTHING that there is, then yes.
As for external intelligence, intelligence itself is a human concept that we apply to things. It is not applicable to the Tao/All That Is/the Balance/God.

No, it's both. I believe as I do because it makes the most logical and emotional sense to me. My beliefs nourish both mind and heart, not choosing one over the other.

My two cents,
Tangie

TruthPrevails

Tangeilis,

I was a theist once. Looking back, it was only a necessity at that point in time to fill in the gap between what is known and the awe of what is unknown. Fortunately i have now been able to wean-off being a theist.

It is the nature of our intellect is not to accept any gaps or blanks as anwsers, if necessary, the intellect will invent an answer (even a white lie) for you, driven by the primal need to ensure survival of the self and the specie. Basic survival cannot cope with ambiquities and cross-roads and your intellect provide you answers (right or wrong) to make decisions and take actions.

Actually it is your mind(in it's whole depth) that speaks not the world, and the intellect will provide the nearest answers to fill in any gap to complete the picture.

The father of all gap of all is the God-of-the-Gap. For whatever reasons whether it is fear or no fear, the God-of-the-Gap will fill up the smallest to biggest chasm of human uncertainty.

The intellect will make an attempt to objectify that gap and manifest it as something.. whatever that is... i.e God. This result in theism, an obvious necessity to the majority of humanity since it started to the current age.

But i see theism waning and many are weaning of it as our intellect and other cortical faculties develop higher.

I note you do not see God as a personal deity. Since you are speaking of the TAO, All-that-is and Buddhism, it would appear that you would have no problem to transit to atheism (not the militant kind).
There is no god in the TAO and the TAO cannot be named. Higher levels of buddhism is atheistic.

Being atheistic is just being realistic in accordance to what IS, instead of being a subliminal slave of our intellect. As the Buddhist says, there nothing out there. Identity of a self or bigger self is just an illusion lied to us by the ego and intellect and that is not appropriate for the future to come.

In the future, humanity will face planetary-wide and galactical-wide problems not just global warming, local pollution, terrorists, etc. Theism will not be able to handle such complex problems where humans need to work as a specie not an individual, race or nations. Note specie awareness.

Atheism is a threatening word to the majority and rightly so as it invoke the millions-years old instinct of fight or flight in the majority of humans. It is unfortunate that word atheism started on the wrong foot since the 16th century and it only convey threats. It is not easy for most to see through this black veil of atheism to understand what it really is. (A)theist is just freeing yourself from the bondage of being theist.

There are atheist at the extreme end of the spectrum and they are hell bent toward militancy especially against fundamentalitics theist. Most of these atheists are ex-theist who felt cheated by organized religions. Fortunately i am not inclined to such form of atheism.

If you must be a theist, then do so. If the opportunity arises, make an attempt to develop the higher cortical levels of your brain and one will spontaneously be wean-off theism.

JEST2ASK

:wave: Tangie wonderfully written if I believed in fate or personal deities I would be convinced that you are an agent of destiny ... So much of what you posted speaks directly to me and my inner struggles ... Of course you have articulated those thoughts and emotions in a manner I never could ... :notworthy


The only minor little difference is your choice to use the label theist ... unfortunately for me Theists & Deists invokes some personage that directs or directed nature ... However then you brillantly dealt with that

JEST2ASK

I am still somewhat in the growth stage of making the committment .. it is not easy to leave ...




I agree it definitely seems an inherent flaw



Could it not also be because much of the theistic community is hostile to atheists ... and the miltancy is driven by simple survivial instincts ...

Unfortunately a US / Them mentality is also very human ... instead of true tolereance and co-existence ...

Slight derail ... why would so called family values groups be threatened by who an auto manufacture targets in their advertising ...


P.S. Like the name TruthPrevails :thumbs: just not sure it always wins out ..

Worldtraveller

Hi tangi, great post.

When you say you 'worship' the balance that is called the Tao, etc., what exactly does that mean? My studying and meditation has led me to believe/feel the what is described by the tao is not an entity, or any kind of conciousness that can appreciate 'worship' in the sycophantic sense at all.

If you mean the rituals and practices you do to attune yourself to your inner voice, and thereby attempt to 'commune' (for lack of a better word, language i so limiting here..) with the universe, then I think I get what you mean, but I woudln't use the term worship, because to me that carries a bunch of negative connotations. (Not saying it's the wrong word...it's just the wrong word for me.)

I agree that "Logic alone doesn’t explain the path an individual takes from cradle to grave on this planet. " I also say that the opposite is true. Feelings and emotions without logic and critical introspection are possibly even more self destructive. It's the balance that is critical.

One of my biggest beefs with many of the new agey type beliefs is the 'stop thinking and feel' mentality. I think to be complete, one must do both. For me, the thinking part is easier, and the feeling part takes more work. My wife has the opposite problem (but she's much better at thinking and expressing logical thought, than I am at expressing intuitive/feeling).

I also think that there is great symbology in religion (many religions) and I particularly liked to read about the different world beliefs from different time periods. (I recommend Joseph Campbell if you haven't already read his work.) I too, share the native american roots (Apache) and find a certain beauty in nature that many can't see, and I have an affinity for certain places from both my childhood and adulthood.

I would not call myself a theist though. To me, that implies a conciousness. I think the shinto beliefs also echo mine very closely, but again, it doesn't imply a conciousness to the univeerse and things. Theism over-anthropomorphizes the universe, IMO, and is arrogant. I think a reason for it is that the symbology of thinking about the universe in terms of human intelligence and consiousness makes it easy to grasp, but there is such a thing as over-simplifying.

Frankly, the best analogy I've seen, campy as it may be, is the Force, from Star Wars. Also, Peirs Anthony's "Viscous Circle" (that's not a typo) is an even better, more in depth description that closely aligns with my beleifs.

I believe that there is a grand unifying force that provides the 'life-force' of the universe. Whether we are ever able to determine what this is (grand unified theory) or not is questionable. But I don't think it has a conciousness, it is totally impersonal, just like gravity doesn't care what it does...it just is.

Cheers,
Lane

0

You state that it is my mind that speaks. I disagree with this. This planet is alive. It is a living organism with myriad parts that breathe and dance to their own mechanisms. Does it speak in human language or sing human songs? Certainly not, but it still has a voice. A powerful one that echoes in every inch of it. It makes its own music. It possesses its own sounds. Now if we were living on a barren husk of rock, perhaps I would agree with you. But we don't.
If this qualifies as “God of the Gaps�? to you, then so be it. But I have never wavered in saying “I don’t know�? nor have I ever stated here that I hold an ultimate truth that can answer all questions in the universe. I am still seeking.
What you have posted is certainly just one of many interpretations that one can have of the teachings of the Buddha. But I am not a Buddhist. Nor am I a Taoist. My studies focus on Religion, Mythology and Symbology across the entire spectrum of their history. I do not subscribe to any one set of doctrine, dogma or belief. I subscribe to my own.
Secondly, what makes you assume that I haven’t made the transition to atheism before or studied the “higher levels�? of Buddhism? Has my OP stated this or is this a “gap�? that your intellect has imposed upon me?
In your opinion.
The one unifying thread that we all have is that we are human. We lose sight of that in our effort to name and compartmentalize our species. We discourage growth of humanity through division by nothing more than terminology that fails to acknowledge that each of us bleeds the same, that we are born and we die.
Until humanity recognizes each and every person as HUMAN first, there will never be an ideology that will handle all of the complex problems that we will face, atheistic or otherwise.
Blessings to you on your path, my friend, but it is really condescending to treat a differing worldview as if it is a drug that to be weaned off from. I have always stated, To each his own. I don’t presume to think that my worldview is somehow more enlightened than anyone else’s. It is simply my own.

My two cents,
Tangie

0

Worship is the appropriate term for me, however. It doesn't matter whether or not the Tao/All That Is/the balance isn't an entity that can appreciate worship. Appreciation implies that I am doing what I do to gain some sort of recognition or special favor. I follow the path I do because I choose to.
It matters to me that I do it. That's all that is necessary.
I do commune with my inner voice and with nature, but I also worship All That Is. This is why I call myself a theist: because I choose to worship.
Which is why my path is the Middle Road, a balance between mind and heart.
Yes, but in some of these teachings, the point is to get you to acknowledge your feelings without restricting them. To become conscious of what feeling entails. Going through therapy, for example, the focus is to get in touch with repressed feelings that have not been acknowledged throughout one's life and come to terms with them.
So while I agree with you that one must do both, I do think that sometimes we have to get in touch with our inner selves and feelings to even start that journey.
Same scenerio with my husband and I. With us, he's the atheist and I'm the theist. It works out.
I have Seminole and Sioux blood. Joseph Campbell is also one of my favorite reads. I'm currently reading his Oriental Mythology, among other things right now.
To me, a worldview implies having made a choice to view the world in a particular manner. I think the only arrogant mentality/philosophy is the one that refuses to be flexible in the face of a fluid existence.
I agree, which is why I say that gods and goddesses are symbolic representations.

My two cents,
Tangie

Yahzi

After the patient dies, it's a little late for the doctor to realize he should have relied on scientific trials instead of intuition.

In my case, it is the rules I set out for myself. I follow certain procedures in determing what is or is not true. These procedures have been shown to be very reliable. And when I get to a place where my procedures can't help, then my procedure is to not think I have an answer.

The objection I have with your system is there seems to be no point at which your system requires you to say, "Whoa... I have no clue." Given that you have freely acknowledged the limits of reason, not having a limit on your system seems... unwise.

It looks an awful lot like once you run out of reason, you get to just make things up. How does your system protect you from just making things up and confusing that with actual knowledge? Where are the checks and balances in your system?

Except that is not true. What you choose to do with your life does affect me. I'm not advocating against freedom; I am just reminding you of responsibility. It's a pretty small planet.

Yes, but that doesn't mean buying lottery tickets is as effective as working to pay your bills.

But without the verification, it would have been worthless speculation.

I'm not objecting to intuitive leaps, but you seem to be objecting to the necessity of verifying them afterwards. I suspect this is really the heart of most of the objections here (hence the "how would I see if they were connected to reality" comments).

Intuition is necessary; but without verification, it is at best amusing speculation and at worst tragic catastrophe. We like your intuitive process (after all, we all think in symbolic and intuitive ways at least part of the time), but we are concerned about your lack of concern for verification.

mrzyphl

The planet is a living organism? You do know that the Gaia hypothesis has been thoroughly and totally debunked, don't you?
Has the Earth recently given birth to a baby planet while I was away on Alderon 5?:Cheeky:

Worldtraveller

Let me emphasize what Yahzi so eloquently said here. It illustrates what I was trying to say earlier about what bothers me about the "don't think, just feel" mentality with so many new agey beliefs.

If it were, 'Think, but be sure you use your feelings too", I would be ok with it. Far too many people get to the don't think part, and never start again!

You mentioned intuition and quantum theory. Well, intuition also gave us ether theory. This is where Yahzi's point becomes even more important. Without that verification and testing of the other, rational side, intuition is lessened (it's not useless, as some may assert), just like pure reason and logic won't always yield the best results.

I don't advocate that everyone's opinion is as good as the next. For some (very few) things, that is true, but in many, many situations, logic, reason and cold hard facts are the only thing that matters in the end.

My job is to make sure aircraft are safe to fly. Do you think that my feelings matter if a wing falls off? I felt it was safe, but maybe if I'd run that simulation I would have known better.

(Don't get me wrong tangie, I don't lump you into this category, you, like my wife, exhibit what seems to be a healthy mix of both feeling/intuition, and logic/reason. That's a rare thing, in my experience.)

Cheers,
Lane