When is it appropriate to share your religious faith with others?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

SG,

We discussed,

"How do you figure Prakriti is a confused Purusha? → That's the impression I get from my (by no means complete) study of Samkhya philosophy. (It seems that part of the interaction involves a struggle over the identity or mind...)"

→ One way to look at it is to use the Buddhist analogy that everything is consciousness. According to this idea, a brick wall is nothing more than solidified consciousness. (That is certainly the way I see it.) Even spirit and matter are nothing more than forms of consciousness.

You used the phrase, "a struggle over the identity or mind." The way I see it, technically, that is what happens. However, I see the struggle as being positive, not negative. Compare this to a person raising a child — sure, it is a hassle, but it is worth it. In the same way, it was a hassle for pure consciousness to 'create' our universe, but it was worth it.

That might be a healthy way to look at it. The more frenzied spirit vs matter struggle that we sometimes see turn nasty could then be seen as analogous to using the child as a pawn in a nasty divorce.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Hey, sorry, Path, for reposting the definition of faith. I was cooking lunch while composing my post, and didn't see your definition at the time.

No problem- I think we used different dictionaries... so it just underscored the point.

[Nick the Pilot]

SG,

Please give me an example of a frenzied spirit vs matter struggle that we sometimes see.

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Re-evaluating the facts would include admitting whether a theory has proof or not, would it not?



Where does it say anywhere that faith is a suspension of reason?






From dictionary.com

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
[Origin: 1200–50; ME feith < AF fed, OF feid, feit < L fidem, acc. of fidés trust, akin to fīdere to trust. See confide]

I am faithless. (pretty much lol.)

To share your religion, opinions, and belief faith isn't needed.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

SG,

Please give me an example of a frenzied spirit vs matter struggle that we sometimes see.

There are some on this thread of entrenched materialism denying anything spiritual, or you could also picture entrenched spiritualism that claims that the material is just an illusion (which is not really represented in this thread.)

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I am astounded by the idea that Prakriti (manifested Mulaprakriti) wants to keep Purusha imprisoned.

Good to see you again Nick. Yes, that is an interesting way to put it. But maybe not quite accurate.

Prakriti is sometimes referred to as blind primordial energy, but that's not totally true either because it has inherent "Modes of Nature" that reliably react in certain ways in the presence of Parusha.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I'm no expert in this area, but I think that the explanation is that it is really Purusha mistakenly identifying itself with Prakriti that causes Purusha to be imprisoned. However, if you look at it from the 'mistaken identity's' point of view, it would appear that the "Prakriti identity" (the confused Purusha) wants to imprison the spirit so it can continue to evolve.

From the Gita: Bhumi (earth), Ap (water), Anala (fire), Vâyu (air), Kha (ether), mind, intellect, and egoism: thus is My Prakriti divided eight-fold.

Since mindal and egoic function are ascoauired with Prakriti , one would expect that it is the mindal-egoic aspects of Prakriti that are confused, so it's a case of Prakriti being confused.

It seems that apart from animating and illuminating Prakriti , Purusha doesn't do much and doesn't get sufficiently involved in the evolutionary realm to get caught up in its entanglements and illusions.

[Nick the Pilot]

seattlegal,

You said,

"...you could also picture entrenched spiritualism that claims that the material is just an illusion (which is not really represented in this thread.)"

→ As a matter of fact, I do see the physical universe as just an illusion. So that makes me the very person you are looking for!

I agree that there are some people out there who are pure materialists and do not believe in anything spiritual. And, there are "entrenched spiritualists" who live in a cave and refuse to have anything to do with our dog-eat-dog world. However, I want to say that there is a third group, of which I am a member. Yes, we see the physical universe as just an illusion, but we realize that we are temporarily here in this physical world for a reason, and we need to take advange of being here. Indeed, my belief system tells me that we cannot achieve Enlightenment or Nirvana (two very different things) until we master living in the physical world (and stop trying to live in a cave).

One more thought: For people who do not see the physical universe as just an illusion, I always ask them what it is going to be like when they no longer have a physical body (after they die). The way I see it, the answer to that question inevitably leads a person to consider the idea that the physical universe as just an illusion.

[Nick the Pilot]

Netti-Netti

You said,

"Prakriti is sometimes referred to as blind primordial energy, but that's not totally true either because it has inherent "Modes of Nature" that reliably react in certain ways in the presence of Parusha."

→ That is why I like the idea that Mulaprakriti is the source of Prakriti. Yes, there are various forms of Prakriti. But Mulaprakriti, the source of Prakriti, has no form nor attributes.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

seattlegal,

You said,

"...you could also picture entrenched spiritualism that claims that the material is just an illusion (which is not really represented in this thread.)"

→ As a matter of fact, I do see the physical universe as just an illusion. So that makes me the very person you are looking for!

I agree that there are some people out there who are pure materialists and do not believe in anything spiritual. And, there are "entrenched spiritualists" who live in a cave and refuse to have anything to do with our dog-eat-dog world. However, I want to say that there is a third group, of which I am a member. Yes, we see the physical universe as just an illusion, but we realize that we are temporarily here in this physical world for a reason, and we need to take advange of being here. Indeed, my belief system tells me that we cannot achieve Enlightenment or Nirvana (two very different things) until we master living in the physical world (and stop trying to live in a cave).

One more thought: For people who do not see the physical universe as just an illusion, I always ask them what it is going to be like when they no longer have a physical body (after they die). The way I see it, the answer to that question inevitably leads a person to consider the idea that the physical universe as just an illusion.

Thanks for the info.
I was specifically interested in any sort of 'dysfunctional relationship' that might occur between Prakriti and Purusha. I recognize the 'mula' part of mulaprakriti as meaning 'root.' Perhaps such a dysfunctional relationship might parallel what is referred to as 'root of rottenness' or a 'root of bitterness' in the Hebrew scriptures? (Perhaps where mulaprakriti is not devoid of form or attributes, much like a hard drive that has had a bad reformatting?)

[mee]

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. HEBREWS 11;1

[Dawud]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

There are some on this thread of entrenched materialism denying anything spiritual, or you could also picture entrenched spiritualism that claims that the material is just an illusion (which is not really represented in this thread.)

I'll represent! This world is illusion... at least the solidity of it is illusion. Our bodies are 99.9% empty space... The only reason we can touch objects is because of electromagnetism. If it wasn't for electromagnetism, we'd fall right through the ground to the center of the earth. If you strengthen the electromagnetism on the surface of water, you can walk on it. I was thinking about that this morning, but of course I don't know how to do that. What you see as solid objects are clouds of energy consisting almost entirely of empty space. The world is but a show.... spirit is so much more real.

[Nick the Pilot]

seattlegal,

You said,

"I was specifically interested in any sort of 'dysfunctional relationship' that might occur between Prakriti and Purusha."

→ I see the relationship as devoid of any dysfunctionality. I am fascinated — why do you see such dysfunctionality?

"I recognize the 'mula' part of mulaprakriti as meaning 'root.'"

→ Think of a physical molecule. It can be broken down into atoms. Atoms can be broken down into protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons can be broken down into (I think they are called) quarks. I think the latest finding is that quarks, etc., can be broken into strings.

Physical matter can be broken down again, again, and again. Finally, we reach the "root-substance" that cannot be further subdivided in any way. This is Mulaprakriti. It is Mulaprakriti that is symbolized by Christians as the Blessed Virgin Mary, by Buddhists as Avalokiteshvara, and Hindus as Vach.

"Perhaps such a dysfunctional relationship might parallel what is referred to as 'root of rottenness' or a 'root of bitterness' in the Hebrew scriptures?"

→ I disagree. I see the basic Purusha-Prakriti (spirit-matter) polarity as a postive thing, or as a neutral thing. I am baffled by your seeing any negativity connected with it. It is this initial association of spirit with matter that Christians refer to as Original Sin — is this what you are referring to? (I see no reason to say such a polarity is sinful, no matter what the Abrahamic religions say.)

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dawud

I'll represent! This world is illusion... at least the solidity of it is illusion. Our bodies are 99.9% empty space... The only reason we can touch objects is because of electromagnetism. If it wasn't for electromagnetism, we'd fall right through the ground to the center of the earth. If you strengthen the electromagnetism on the surface of water, you can walk on it. I was thinking about that this morning, but of course I don't know how to do that. What you see as solid objects are clouds of energy consisting almost entirely of empty space. The world is but a show.... spirit is so much more real.

I love this way of thinking though I suspect we might approach it from different angles.

tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Or are you like the other Christians who never actually engage, but pretend to rhetorically only to snap their neck in at the last second?

CCS, Would the turtle snapping their neck into the shell... be like the one knocking on someone else's door, or like the one making rules of who can knock on their own door? I imagine the turtle with a sign on the shell that says something like, "NO Solicitors!"

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

seattlegal,

You said,

"I was specifically interested in any sort of 'dysfunctional relationship' that might occur between Prakriti and Purusha."

→ I see the relationship as devoid of any dysfunctionality. I am fascinated — why do you see such dysfunctionality?

"I recognize the 'mula' part of mulaprakriti as meaning 'root.'"

→ Think of a physical molecule. It can be broken down into atoms. Atoms can be broken down into protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons can be broken down into (I think they are called) quarks. I think the latest finding is that quarks, etc., can be broken into strings.

Physical matter can be broken down again, again, and again. Finally, we reach the "root-substance" that cannot be further subdivided in any way. This is Mulaprakriti. It is Mulaprakriti that is symbolized by Christians as the Blessed Virgin Mary, by Buddhists as Avalokiteshvara, and Hindus as Vach.

"Perhaps such a dysfunctional relationship might parallel what is referred to as 'root of rottenness' or a 'root of bitterness' in the Hebrew scriptures?"

→ I disagree. I see the basic Purusha-Prakriti (spirit-matter) polarity as a postive thing, or as a neutral thing. I am baffled by your seeing any negativity connected with it. It is this initial association of spirit with matter that Christians refer to as Original Sin — is this what you are referring to? (I see no reason to say such a polarity is sinful, no matter what the Abrahamic religions say.)

I was just asking questions. Thank you for your answers.