True, most Buddhists believe in no soul and wish to ultimately, achieve Nirvana. However, there are also different paths that a Buddhist can take in their quest to reach Nirvana.The most obvious issue with mentioning Buddhism in a post regarding the many sides of God is that Buddhism, properly conceived, lacks a God belief. Buddhism is a non-theist religion, with many minor god's added to it. However these gods are not gods in the sense that Thor, Yahweh, or Allah are gods, rather they are the equivalent of medieval fairies. The Buddha is revered almost as a god in many cases, but he is not meant to take the place of one. It makes no sense to include Buddhism into this discussion because of this.
I would also like to make two points before moving on. First of all a further explanation of Buddhism, to the best of my ability. Buddhists believe there is no self, this is because all things are in a constant state of flux. One minute I'm hungry, the next I'm not, one minute I'm comfortable, the next I'm not. This is why desire causes suffering. When one tries to grab a hold of things that are not still, they are bound to miss the mark, make mistakes, have only fleeting longings. This is why the cessation of desire, and thus the self, leads to Nirvana which is not the absence of being, but rather non-being. I cannot describe Nirvana other than to say it is unchanging. It would be like a frog explaining dry land to tadpoles, everything is only a negation, but they cannot understand the full picture. I believe this is why you said they don't believe in the western conception of a soul, and why they want to achieve Nirvana. But this is important as I continue my argument.
Second of all you speak of multiple paths to "salvation" as a way to say that their God has multiple sides. All roads lead to Rome in a sense, I'd like to come back to this.
Hinduism: Hinduism holds belief in God. And in Shiva. And in Kali. And in Ganesha. And in Kurma. The list goes on and on. So, how can a Hindu say they believe in God and still worship Shiva, Kali, Ganesha and Kurma? Here's the thing- God has all of those faces; he is all of them at the same time. And they dedicate themselves (generally) to one of these Gods/Goddesses that they feel the most connected with in a way to better communicate with God. Truly, God is more along the lines of a d100 here.A d350,000,000 is more like it. I'd like to note that here you say that God has multiple sides because we all experience God in different ways. In Hinduism God can be experienced in as many deities as people could conceive. Paths to Brahmin could be radically different (even through pleasure), though they all had the same goal.
Paganism: Now, look at what I just talked about with the Hindus. A lot of those same basic ideas can be put into explaining the Pagan ideals. In this case, the "supreme spirit" (for lack of a better name) is split into two separate entities: both male and female. After all, everything on this world has an opposite, why shouldn't the deities? They appear in many forms, from Aradia to Athena to Brighid for the Lady and Dagda to Thor to Mars for the Lord. This does not mean that there are thousands of different Gods and Goddesses running around up in the Summerlands. Rather, they are part of the Goddess or the God themselves, showing different sides of the same person. Think about how people are: they don't just have one face.When I first read a book on Neo-Paganism (what you describe is a postmodern construct) this concept intrigued me. Mostly because I was reading Karl Barth at the same time. Reading about Jesus Christ descending "Perpendicularly from above" and then reading about an "unknown God" most definitely perked my interest as a Christian. Nevertheless, I suppose my main comment here is twofold. First, as I stated you are describing Neo-Paganism, not Paleo or Meso. Secondly I would like a good reason why you seem to claim that the Jewish God Yahweh is a form of Dagda.
But I'd like to note that once again you state that all gods are manifestations of the Divine, the difference here being is that Neo-Pagans see gods in a duality.
Father. Son. Holy Ghost. Most Christians believe that they are all part of the same entity, known either as God or THE LORD. This also lends credence to the idea that God is like a d20. Christians believe in one God and only one God. "I am THE LORD your God, and you shall have no other gods before me" (Commandment number one). If this is the case, then they couldn't pray to The Father AND the Son AND the Holy Ghost. God's own commandment would prevent that. Hence, the belief that they are all part of the same entity. What a delightful d3.Trinity, three persons one divine essence. I would argue that the Trinity is vastly different than, say, the Hindu conception. By my understanding in Hinduism one is experiencing God in many forms, however in Christianity these are the forms in which God IS. It has nothing to do with God having to appear as such because we can't comprehend him. That is what Jesus Christ was for. It is not that God acts as different persons at different times, that's a heresy in the Christian Church. Rather the idea is that God exists as three persons, and those three persons are all equally God. It's a very complex concept that I'm sure I am not expressing well at all.
And there you have it, the d20 Religion theory. When you think about it,it does make sense.I'm sorry, but I don't follow. Your argument, as I understand it, is that Buddhism teaches that there are multiple paths to Nirvana, Hinduism teaches there are multiple forms of God, Neo-Paganism teaches that there are multiple forms of God which exist in duality, Christianity has the doctrine of the Trinity, ergo God has multiple sides which are all equally valid. This is poor reasoning. For one, you chose two faiths which believe the same thing you do as part of your argument. You picked Christianity because of its Trinitarian nature, but chose to ignore Judaism and Islam because of their focus on the oneness of the divine. Seeing as Islam perceives Allah as a d1, what does that have to say to your argument?
You bring up Buddhism, despite its nontheism, because it teaches there are multiple roads leading to Nirvana. I would wish to hijack this point by saying that if there is one God behind all religion then clearly that single God is trying to bring us to him or her or it. That single God would supply us with a single goal that it wants us to attain, but when we look at various religions we see very different gods and very different goals. Take for instance Buddhism, which teaches that life is always changing, is an illusion, and is to be defeated by achieving Nirvana. However Christianity, for example, teaches something entirely opposite to Buddhist teachings, according to Jesus Christ he is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" we are told that Jesus came to earth so that we "may have life, and life more abundantly." Christianity says that what is good in this life, will be found in the next. Buddhism says that this life, while it may have its pleasures, is to be abandoned for something wholly other. These two things cannot coexist.
Wicca, for instance, teaches we are put on earth to learn a lesson (at least this is my understanding) and we will be reincarnated again and again until we learn that lesson. While it retains the teaching of reincarnation found in Buddhism, the reasoning is entirely different. It is different than Christianity, it is different than Islam, it is different than Hinduism. Salvation in Wicca is to live a good life and learn what you are sent to learn. Salvation in Islam is submission to Allah. Salvation in Judaism is God's intervening grace. Salvation in Hinduism is becoming one with Brahmin. Salvation in Buddhism is Nirvana. Salvation in Christianity is Christ. These multiple roads cannot coexist, they cannot be compromised. We are talking about essential tenets. One of them has to be wrong regarding salvation. One of them has to turn their devotees away from The Divine.
I am reminded of an old Jainist parable. There were a group of blind men that came in contact with an elephant. One of them felt its tail and said "The elephant is long and twisty!" Another felt its side and said, "No it's large and immobile." Still another felt it's trunk and said, "No it's like a hose!" That is how we act when coming into contact with God without sufficient revelation. What is to be remembered when listening to this parable however, is that in order to tell it someone had to see the whole elephant. And that whole elephant does exist and can be perceived.
The trunk becomes the whole, the side becomes the whole, and the tail becomes the whole. You can't tell religions "you're all looking at one part!" For example, if all I knew of the elephant was the tail, then how could I in fact perceive the full elephant? I would think of it as tail like. If I only knew of the trunk, I would think of the elephant as trunk like. So let's say that different religions exaggerate different portions of The Divine, in that case if I only knew you as a hand I couldn't communicate with you. You couldn't help me much at all, why, you'd have to show me your full self some how.
4 comments:
Also, to add to what Keljeck's said, Buddhism can't really be generalized. As some of you may already know, Gautama Buddha, the most well known Buddha but certainly not the first, did not allow any of his followers to write down anything of what he spoke. I think the reason given is because he felt words could not translate the truth of what he spoke.
Anyways, when he did eventually die, his followers began immediately writing down all they could remember, yet no one could remember any one thing the same way, which started the 32 or so original schools of Buddhist thought. Granted this is a greatly simplified explanation of what I remember reading a while back, so feel free to double check on that lol.
But the thing I'm trying to say here is I don't think you can really generalize with religion, because just at the individual level beliefs or lack thereof could be radically different even in the same religious group.
Salvation to Wicca isn't lead a good life and you're saved. There is more to it than that, though it depends on the specific path one is following.
I know, that's why I said that it is to lead a good life AND learn what it is for us to know. Whatever we have been sent down to earth to do.
Unless I am mistaken? That's what Raymond Buckland wrote in his Complete Book of Witchcraft. I am only writing from memory right now however, I don't have the book with me to double check.
No, you're right. He did write that. *is looking now*. Oh, and good job, by the way. I liked your arguments.
Post a Comment