Atheism is a Religion

Originally Posted by winter light

From the practice end of things I think Jung is very different from the eastern teachings. My extremely crude summary of the eastern teachings, based on how I see people promoting them, seems to come down to denial of the world. Either the world as illusion or the world as irrelevant in comparison to some ultimate divinity of gods and people. Or in comparison to some ultimate future bliss that one chases.

From the Eastern non-dual approach it's more or less the spiritual equivalent of theoretical and experimental physics, the difference being the experiments are carried out within.

It's not about some ultimate reality in a different place or time but right here and right now under our very noses. It's about realizing that, hence Self-realization, Awakening and ultimately Enlightenment.

It's about realizing we are Divinity itself and if that's the case for me it is for everyone else so how could I possibly dismiss reality as unreal in the deepest and truest sense? Delve deep enough into physics and one finds what we perceive as objective reality ain't all it's cracked up to be and there's a much more fundamental reality somewhere deep below the surface. It's why some of the founders of quantum mechanics were intrigued by Eastern non-dual philosophy. So was Tesla and he even attended lectures by none other than Swami Vivekananda at the Vedanta Society of New York.

Then there's Oppenheimer's famous quote. He wasn't devotional but apparently he found it a useful and interesting philosophy.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/manh...rt-oppenheimer

As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”. It is, perhaps, the most well-known line from the Bhagavad-Gita, but also the most misunderstood.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Camera, lensball and more landscape than I know what to do with I think. But for the first hour or so I can leave thinking behind for a while, I think that will be good.

Photography ? a great hobby, yep, too much thinking is what got me into trouble over a number of years, use to get the old blade out and not longer after I would be in the mental ward, so peaceful now without all that garbage churning through my head.

[winter light]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

From the Eastern non-dual approach it's more or less the spiritual equivalent of theoretical and experimental physics, the difference being the experiments are carried out within.

It's not about some ultimate reality in a different place or time but right here and right now under our very noses. It's about realizing that, hence Self-realization, Awakening and ultimately Enlightenment.

First I'll say I agree about reality being all about here and now. And I'm happy when I see the eastern teachings being framed clearly in that light.

And regarding that "I have become destroyer of worlds" quote from the Gita that Oppenheimer said . If you have not yet seen the movie "Fat Man and Little Boy" it is very good and highly recommend it. The whole backstory with Oppenheimer in the middle.

Athiesm is really a perspective not a religion. I cannot question that perspective just because I see it differently. Instead I need to somehow integrate that into my reality as another valid perspective. I believe in the strength of multiple perspectives. And try to see lack of tolerance on my part to be a weakness overall to be overcome. While at the same time holding the validity of my own perspective. Cognitive dissonance is a rule for me. Paradoxes are gateways to more refined spiritual truth.

The parallels between eastern non-dual and science are there. I see them as both suffering from offering complex models that do not represent the truth. And they both also have some implied dogma that gives them too much authority so that they cannot be questioned. Two peas in a pod. But like some kind of cartel they have organized their domains carefully so that insures mutual survival. And then everyone takes similarity of models to be evidence of proof of truth. That however goes not work for me because there is some bait and switch of the models for reality that they both do.

In both cases I was a true believer in their cause. The search of truth. The understanding of the universe and the meaning of life. But when I found their models fell short I felt betrayed. And very much alone instead of more connected to the mainstream. Both systems promote themselves as saviors against the ignorance of the world. To be followed without question. And defenders of science consider it reasonable that one should face ridicule and contempt if one does not agree.

Science indeed has clear parallels to a religion. And I see it with dogma that has no tolerance for perspectives that violate their model. Worse, they embrace paradoxes as truth. Paradoxes have no place in science. Then they say happily, "Isn't science weird". Um no, the weird part is that it claims to be based on self-consistency and yet lays foundations on paradoxes and no one questions that paradoxes are evidence that their model has become broken. Along with the humility that requires one to create a new model.

Somewhere in the last century infallibility of science was embraced so that the model can only fail upwards. Just one more refinement, one more particle, and a theory of everything is just around the corner. Always building on what came before no matter what. Never questioning that maybe a wrong turn occurred. And worse, accepting multiple incompatible theories to co-exist in the same infallible way.

When theoretical science got to happily justify being 95% wrong and replace that with dark matter and energy, which cannot be measured or detected, another fudge factor, I was done and I got off the bus. I realized it was time to question and find my own way. Yes we have achieved technology. But that is manipulation of matter and does not really require truth. You just optimize the outcome for a desired end. And in the case of science, pretend that the desired end must be true, because it can be reproduced. But that is not actually what truth is. Instead the end becomes the end and the circle is complete.

It's about realizing we are Divinity itself and if that's the case for me it is for everyone else so how could I possibly dismiss reality as unreal in the deepest and truest sense? Delve deep enough into physics and one finds what we perceive as objective reality ain't all it's cracked up to be and there's a much more fundamental reality somewhere deep below the surface. It's why some of the founders of quantum mechanics were intrigued by Eastern non-dual philosophy. So was Tesla and he even attended lectures by none other than Swami Vivekananda at the Vedanta Society of New York.

Agree with the wave side of quantum theory. The probability side I feel is a mistake.

Schrödinger was so furious with the accepted quantum theory that he said he wished he had nothing to do with it. His model of the cat was I think meant do be a caustic joke at the logic being sold. Instead it became more evidence of how science embraces paradoxes. And sold to the mainstream as evidence that if I do not see the bear in the woods there is no bear until I see it. And multiverses, ouch. But easily understood as wave overlap but nonsense when applied to personal choices. Quantum mechanics by way of statistics is a mathematical model, not a description of how matter functions.

Then there's Oppenheimer's famous quote. He wasn't devotional but apparently he found it a useful and interesting philosophy.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/manh...rt-oppenheimer

As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”. It is, perhaps, the most well-known line from the Bhagavad-Gita, but also the most misunderstood.

Originally Posted by winter light

Likewise to what Jung said regarding two translations of the east. Similarly, it was like there were two translations of Jung's descriptions of experience. One as a model with lots of terminology, and the other as a discipline of awareness and personal growth through mystical experiences.

Since you mentioned Alan Watts, him and Jung had a conversation where Jung reminded him that he was a Westerner, Jung says himself that Westerners might find it impossible to understand the Eastern mind, and that he retranslated the Atman not just by language but by understanding/consciousness. Language and consciousness are interlinked. Jung was a scientist first and a scholar of - what seems to be - Advaita Vedanta second.

One of the reasons I looked to Jung was because I wanted MY understanding and not just the parroting, I wanted to know what 'makes me tick'. Sometimes having the right motivation and example helps.

I don't think the Eastern approach is denial and that doesn't seem to come through. If you look at Western thought - these forums do the trick - then it's Western consciousness that's in denial and I often wonder if that's more personality issues than Spirituality.
"I am not mind, intellect, thought, or ego;
Not hearing, taste, smelling or sight;
Not ether or earth, fire or air
I am the soul of Knowledge and bliss,
I am Shiva, I am Shiva (Shankara 81).

Read More by Katinka Hesselink: http://www.allconsidering.com/2013/atma-self-jung-advaita/"
That sounds more like na-eti na-eti or neti-neti (not this, not this) to me, where the layers of the onion are pulled back one-by-one until the heart is found. I use that myself sometimes. Denial certainly comes through in the forums though, that's very obvious but then I think that once you fully understand yourself as Shiva/the soul you're more accepting of being human. What they have there is what Jung would call 'individuation' or the undifferentiated consciousness of the self, whereas if you are a Spiritual being that is the differentiated consciousness of the ego - you're differentiating yourself from yourself and redefining yourself to suit not understanding but agenda/denial. If you are Atman and therefore Brahman then what follows is an extension/manifestation of Atman/Brahman and not something you should run away from. "All That Is" is all that is and not all that is Spiritual.

Saying that psychology has no part in Spirituality is denial, especially when the ancients that so many revere so obviously knew the human mind so in intimately.

One of the discussions that crop up once in a while is the discussion of the ego. The word 'ego' was coined by Freud and picked up by Jung, and it's largely Jung's work that is the basis of psychology and psychoanalysis. My question is, in the context of a forum where psychology is a swear word, what are the reasons Spiritual people - and often those that put themselves forward as pillars of Eastern philosophy/religion use the word 'ego' and psychoanalyse? What are the reasons there has never - to my awareness anyway - been a thread on Ahamkara? Interestingly enough, in the context of Ahamkara the ego is a kara or 'invented thing' that their "I/ego" is made from. That to me is beyond strange, especially when self-awareness is primary in Spirituality. it's bonkers, it's not Spirituality. That's denial.

Ultimate realities are the nature of reality itself, they don't change and therefore when you understand the ultimate reality then you know you've hit the mark. Everyone has the same underpinning of understanding and there's no question, although hat may vary is a personal interpretation but that's accepted. In Western Spirituality "All That Is" isn't and that's not Spirituality that's a cognitive aberration. Using the word 'Spiritual' as a prefix is creating the separation that isn't supposed to exist and so it becomes not a 'pure' Spirituality but a *******isation of Spirituality and..... things that are taboo because they're not Spiritual but they are really. As in psychology.

Jung promotes the kind of personal growth that suits the Western mind but Eastern Spirituality promotes the kind of personal growth that suits the Eastern mind. That's the big difference. If you look at Eastern religion and Western religion they're actually not too far apart. In Advaita Vedanta we are Atman and therefore Brahman. which is similar to the teachings of Jesus and the Gnostics. Jesus was a Gnostic, not a Christian. Another school of Vedanta (can't remember which one) says that we are not Atman and the Atman is more akin to the Higher Self, while Brahman is 'up there' like the Christian God. Christianity is the game-changer in Western culture. Where it differs is in the consciousness, The East looks for the mature/background of consciousness while the West seeks objects. In the East All That Is is kind of like the ocean and everything in it, while in the West it's God.

The Gods were personifications for the most part, of forces of nature or what is deemed to be true and virtuous and that theme is pretty much world-wide. Each culture had its own but the basis was the same. Call them archetypes of conscious if you like but the only difference is that one is external and the other is internal. The kingdom of heaven being with or without, being Atman and therefore Brahman...... Being quantum capable if Brahman is the Unified Universal Field and we're talking quantum theory here.

You did know that Spirituality and schizophrenia both light up the same areas of the brain, so do you want to tell me about those voices? And we can't run away from who and what we are.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I disagree with you. What happens when you give up controlling and being angry? Do you give up what caused the anger or the need to control or do you simply shut it down for the interim? If you don't deal with the root causes - in Spiritual parlance become self-aware/introspective like Buddha said you should do - then it doesn't change and the causes remain. Later on you become even more controlling or angry and the situation remains unresolved - it becomes a bone of contention.

Yes, Buddhist philosophy underpins the meditation which deals with purification and overcoming sorrow, and mindfulness primarily deals with body and mind. It is somewhat different to the Western psychoanalytical angle, but psychology nonetheess.

The meditation journey is quite subtle because it doesn't really lead from the unenlightened past to the enlightened future. The journey starts from the gross physical and solid aspect (or as it is) and moves toward subtle dynamic aspects while attention remains present now.

There are deeper causes we are not fully aware of because the mind isn't sensitive enough to perceive the subtle levels where the cause is active, so it is quite delusionary to think the issue of anger and mental agitation in general is an 'easy fix. It takes training to hone the mind so it is capable of detecting the subtle origins of disturbance - or indeed to be conscious of that very delicate balance.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by winter light

First I'll say I agree about reality being all about here and now. And I'm happy when I see the eastern teachings being framed clearly in that light.

And regarding that "I have become destroyer of worlds" quote from the Gita that Oppenheimer said . If you have not yet seen the movie "Fat Man and Little Boy" it is very good and highly recommend it. The whole backstory with Oppenheimer in the middle.

Science was never about how the universe is, and was only ever about describing the universe in way it is experienced - the mathematical models are discriptions of that, and science really only deals with what can be described mathematically. Scientists understand the applications and the limitations of the various models so they don't 'believe' in it but they might philosophise about what their data implies. They apply several different models depending on what is most applicable, and across different fields of science - it just depends which model works best in a given task. They don't have a path to enlightenment, Gods, heavens, hells, perform rituals, wear costumes , or communicate with supernatural/paranormal or ancestral entities. Given the dissimilarities to religion are so many, the similarities far fewer, and the most recognisable characteristics non-existant, I think equating science with religion is a real stretch and misrepresents them both.

[Gem]

Atheism was never invented. People invented religions with Gods and identified with those imaginings. The word 'athiest' is not an affirmation as such, but a negation. It can have an identity structure attached, though, in which case it becomes problematic like religions for the same reason, but generally speaking, to say 'I'm atheist' is not an identity affirmation in the same sense as 'I'm a Christian' is. The former, with the suffix 'a', regards 'what I'm not', whereas the latter regards 'what I am'

Not only is this dissimilar, but directly opposed, so the charcteristics of religion and atheism can't reasonably be equated...

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

At this moment I feel like a butterfly being ginsu'd by a samurai, LOL!

The past few days I've been working on a rather intractable bug (really a major design flaw) buried deep in the bowels of a 30+ year old mess of a spaghetti coded program. .

Not so Spiritual after all, eh? Yeah, I remember when the 'real world' became so over-bearing that it became all-consuming with little respite or time for anything else. Peace of mind came at a cost but it was worth it in the end and I have no regrets, and the Universe seems to have rallied to my cause so.... Here's hoping you find the time to debug yourself.

Originally Posted by Gem

Science was never about how the universe is, and was only ever about describing the universe in way it is experienced - the mathematical models are discriptions of that, and science really only deals with what can be described mathematically. Scientists understand the applications and the limitations of the various models so they don't 'believe' in it but they might philosophise about what their data implies. They apply several different models depending on what is most applicable, and across different fields of science - it just depends which model works best in a given task. They don't have a path to enlightenment, Gods, heavens, hells, perform rituals, wear costumes , or communicate with supernatural/paranormal or ancestral entities. Given the dissimilarities to religion are so many, the similarities far fewer, and the most recognisable characteristics non-existant, I think equating science with religion is a real stretch and misrepresents them both.

True enough. Science is simply a method for advancing understanding of objective reality whereas religion/spirituality are methods for advancing understanding of subjective reality.

Both are just tools, means of exploration. Sometimes a model, even if not 100% true/accurate, is good enough to serve a purpose. Take Newtonian mechanics. We know relativity is more accurate however unless one is travelling at relativistic speeds or very close to an enormous gravity well the prior is good enough, for instance good enough to land a rover on Mars.

Any scientist worth his/her salt is champing at the bits to prove a long-standing and accepted model wrong, replacing it with an improved model that more accurately describes objective reality. A paradigm shift. A Nobel Prize.

I've stated before I see no inherent conflict between the two unless one attempts to apply one to the other.

Originally Posted by psychoslice

Photography ? a great hobby, yep, too much thinking is what got me into trouble over a number of years, use to get the old blade out and not longer after I would be in the mental ward, so peaceful now without all that garbage churning through my head.

I was involved in an accident that was no cause of mine, and it turned out to be a very Spiritual experience. I was also given cognitive behaviour therapy which dismantled the tired old frameworks and put me in control, so I'm not the victim of unseen forces that rattle around inside my skull. I make those forces work for me now. They also gave me an understanding of the reasons I tried to jump under a truck so many years ago, if you're going to do it might as well do it right. never did work out the physics of how I survived, either with the truck or the car accident. I was told that it was God's hand but why would God want an atheist like me to survive? Surely he'd prefer to have a word in my shell-like ear face-to-face, him being God and all, and make sure I had an eternal supply of marshmallows to toast.

I worked in mental health but never saw that side of a mental ward luckily, but that was enough for me. But my own experiences (I'm dissociative) and seeing others go through theirs certainly gives you a very different perspective. Seeing someone look at you and scream in abject terror as if you're the devil incarnate makes you think about how the brain/psychology creates your reality in a very different light.