Pantheism was the ideology of all Indo-European faiths.
There was no reason for them to even discuss pantheism because they could not in their wildest imagination believe in anything else but a pantheistic universe.
To discuss pantheism, you need an alternative opposite, like panentheism, to compare with.
But panentheism, the idea that God dwells outside of physical existence, did not exist until the Egyptians developed the idea. It was an alien idea to the Indo-Europeans, which is why Hinduism is Pantheist too.
But the Egytians pased the idea on to the Babylonians and the Jews which gave birth to the Abrahamic faiths.
The Indo-Europeans never took on this idea.
Ushta
Alexander
2009/9/14 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -
Dear Mehran,
Please don't mix science with metaphysics! There is nothing to prove, simply because this is a question of (personal) taste. So either you're attracted to pantheism or the idea that there was The Almighty Creator sitting above the clouds far, far away and spying on us.
In the media Zoroastrianism is still that primitive proto-Christian faith that invented god and the devil, heaven and hell, the immortal soul and the like: monotheism at its most primitive! This is what anyone who's ever heard of Zoroastrianism thinks about our philosophy. There are translations that support this interpretation. But we're encouraged to use our own minds and draw conclusions based on our aesthetic judgment. Personally, I'm much more attracted to evolutionist and pragmatist reasoning. I don't need monotheism to make my day.
So why not focus on what we have in common? It's the ethical imperative: to maintain a constructive mentality even in a hostile environment, to adapt a co-creative attitude towards existence, to have good thoughts, speak good words and do good things in life. This is what matters the most, since we can't verify theories: we can only observe the effects of how theories are being applied. Where does this leaves us? Whether one chooses pantheism or panentheism doesn't really matter at all.
Ushta, Dino
1 kommentar:
I find this discussion about "joy" interesting, because as science progresses and we understand more on a cosmic and micro cosmic level...Pantheism is going to choose us. We are not going to choose pantheism as comfortable "belief" ...but as a concept that enhances our existence on many levels. One of the only things that stands in the way of many experiencing "joy" is the fear of the unknown, and leaving the path of habituation and that which is comfortable.
In discussions of "joy"...from the position of neurophysiology, you can desire or even state all the good "joy" producing thoughts and words you want, but if you do not have the right kind of brain chemistry (certain levels of endorphins and serotonin)...you are not going to feel any "joy" no matter what you do or think. Experiencing "joy" is not something that occurs outside the brain. Just take out a few brain cells or work with people who have suffered brain damage, and you will see the change in their personalities...in which in some cases, they no longer have the neurological substrate to feel any "joy."
Most Judeo-Christian sects attempt to construct and train its believers to only respond to certain conditions to experience "joy." Being an experiential "thinker" is not one of them. To wit: Joy in the religious sense is to be in communication with "god" whatever that is defined as by the church. VooDoo elicits joy by banging on drums, going into trance states, and being possessed by the demon of your choice. And so on.
Ergo, "joy" can either be intrinsic to one's neurological, and genetics...or it can be a conditioning through religion and culture. But, in all cases, it takes brain cells to experience "joy."
For me...an intellectual conversation where I am exposed to true reality, is just as joyful, or maybe more so, than eating a box of chocolates...whereby, I get the same biochemical/neurological reaction.
Skicka en kommentar