2019/09/28

Life in the Light: the challenge of belief and language for 21st century Quakers | The Australian Friend

Life in the Light: the challenge of belief and language for 21st century Quakers | The Australian Friend

Life in the Light: the challenge of belief and language for 21st century Quakers

/0 Comments/in  /by 
Print pagePDF pageEmail page

Geoffrey Ballard, Canberra Regional Meeting

This article stems from the workshop looking at the non-traditional Quaker colours, that I co-facilitated with Peter Williams at the 2015 YM Summer School.
We attended a Share and Tell session on Non-Theism at the 2014 YM, our first Yearly Meeting. It was great to be among people who shared a range of views, were open to non-traditional beliefs, and wanted to have a conversation about Quaker beliefs. As a follow-up to that session, Peter volunteered to develop a proposal for a Quaker survey, to find out more about Australian Quakers and what they believe, the final results of which are now available. So now we have some data (that can be found on the Quaker website), none of it at all surprising perhaps, but interesting nonetheless.
I introduced the Summer School with these words:
Almost at the same time as the experience of George Fox and the founding of the Religious Society of Friends, Isaac Newton, in 1665, discovered that light is made up of many colours. Like light, 21st century Quakerism is made up of a spectrum of beliefs (colours).
In religion and science, views have changed since the 17th century. Since Fox and Newton’s views on religion, we have had the religious views of scientist Albert Einstein, and now Stephen Hawking; as well, religious thinkers, from the Christian tradition, like Selby Spong, Don Cupitt, Karen Armstrong, and non-theistic Quaker David Boulton, express various views on current religious thought. Their thinking has evolved.
No doubt there are Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist thinkers as well as Humanists who could add much to this arena.
What do you think and believe? The challenge of the Quaker survey was to think about the “god” word. Is Quakerism Christianity without beliefs? Is it Humanism within a Christian culture? Is Quakerism Humanistic Christianity? Does it matter what Quakers believe? I have heard some Quakers say “no” to the last question.
In essence, 62% of Australian Friends believe in “G/god”, 13% do not, and 25% are uncertain or unable to answer. Of those who believe in “G/god”, most describe this term as The Inward Light, A Life Force or Spirit, and not a being. Those who do not believe in “G/god” have developed a range of alternative words to substitute when traditional religious terms are used. Words are metaphors so it is important that when they are used we understand their common meaning so that we can communicate.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by the holy Ghost, Born of the virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell, The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, The holy Catholick Churche, The Comunion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, The resurrection of the body, And the life everlasting. Amen.
From the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
Is this the God that George Fox believed in?
Can I make a bold assertion and say that most 21st century Australian Quakers do not believe in this God, and that most people would see Quakers as non-theists if a conversation took place. David Boulton says,
Nontheism … is …the absence of any belief in a deity or deities, in the existence of God (where ‘existence’ is understood in a realist, objective sense), and especially belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler. (p.6, Godless for God’s Sake, edited by David Boulton)
Some Quaker nontheists have wholly abandoned ‘God language’ and hope for a progressive relinquishment of such language within the Society. Some choose not to use the word ‘God’ themselves but are happy to “translate” it when it is used by other Friends in written or spoken ministry or in conversation. Some have no problem using traditional Quaker Godspeak – “God”, “that of God”, “the Spirit”, “the divine”, ‘”the inner light” – understanding these hallowed and resonant terms metaphorically, symbolically, poetically, instrumentally, signifying the sum of our human values, the imagined embodiment of our human ideals, the focus of our ultimate concern: no more, but, gloriously, no less than all that makes up the wholly human spirit. (p.7-8, Godless for God’s Sake, edited by David Boulton)
Unfortunately experience is so hard to put into words. Yet we need to use words to communicate. As my husband pointed out to me: trying to describe beautiful music to another person is almost impossible. It has to be experienced. Yet everyone will experience something different. When I first heard Mimi and Rodolfo express their love for each other in La Boheme, tears came to my eyes. Someone else may be left without any emotional reaction, or a different reaction.
Quakers are experimental and experiential. They don’t accept being told, or behaving according to a formula. Quakers are bit like cats. Ever try herding cats?
So what is the problem? Quakers have meetings for “worship”. Some would call them just meetings, or meetings for silence and stillness, or meetings for contemplation and insight. And when you look on the Australian Quaker website, and start reading the material, a different picture is revealed about Quaker belief, at odds with the results of the Quaker survey. ‘God’ language is used that needs explanation for good communication. Making assumptions can lead to big misunderstandings.
For example, at the end of a press release by the YM Clerk, put out after the 2015 YM, it states:
About Quakers: ………Quakers believe everyone is endowed with something of the divine; and one can strengthen awareness of it and obedience to it by silent worship, mutual support and activity together, and by trying to live according to our testimonies……
I believe this statement is not a true reflection of all Quakers in Australia in 2015. If the statement had said: Most Quaker believe….. then it would have used inclusive language and been accurate.
This is the challenge for 21st century Quakerism. How to describe Quakerism that allows for the many colours of belief, at the same time not denying the historical Christian tradition, but using inclusive language that does not exclude those who are non-theist. Advices and Queries is a very useful tool for meditation and reflection, but for many non-theists it has many roadblocks because of the language used and the assumptions made about modern day Quakers.
It is often said that Quakers believe that there is something of God in everyone. They don’t, you know! Many do, but not all. And that is after a conversation to decide what is your experience or definition of God.
What would George Fox, with a 21st century mindset, say about Quakers now? Would he say, “Of course we believe in God – make it very clear to everyone”. (Which God would that be George?) Or would he be saying. “We are many years past the age of Enlightenment. We have scientific discoveries and understanding about the Universe. Update!” In the recent film The Theory of Everything, Stephen Hawking says in one of the opening scenes, to Jane, his future wife, that he is a cosmologist. “What’s cosmology?” she asks, and he responds, “Religion for intelligent atheists.”
How do Quakers now present themselves to the world as people of many colours (beliefs)? How do Quakers speak about themselves to each other? How can a theist and non-theist listen and accept each other, without the fear of change and a loss of historical tradition and heritage?
In particular, the current language, especially in written form, is not inclusive of all Quakers today. Diversity can bring strength, but Quakers must drag themselves into the 21st century, and truly represent the makeup of all members.
In 1656 the elders at Balby released Quakers from complete adherence to original writings, (“the letter killeth”), as is seen in other religious traditions, and established the principle of “continuing revelation”. The challenge is to make the principles and the practice of early Quakers meaningful to us by using language and practices that are relevant in the context of today’s culture.
I am not rejecting the use of religious language. I am asking for relevant and inclusive language.

Children of the Light
Come in all ages and sizes
One shape does not fit all.
Haiku by Margaret Woodward
Further reading
Books and articles
Bolton David (ed) 2009. Godless for God’s sake. Nontheism in contemporary Quakerism. Dales Historical Monographs; Hobsons Farm, Dent UK;
Epstein, Greg M. 2010 Good without God. What a billion nonreligious people do believe. HarperCollins: New York, NY.
Geering, Lloyd 2002  Christianity without God.  Polebridge Pess, California. 
Vosper, Greta 2012. Amen. What prayer can mean in a world beyond belief. HarperCollins: Toronto;
Maguire, Daniel C. 2014 Christianity without God. Moving beyond the dogmas and retrieving the epic moral narrative. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.
Harris, Sam 2014. Waking Up. A guide to spirituality without religion. Simon & Schuster: New York, NY
Holloway, Richard 1999.  Godless morality.  Canongate Books, Edinburgh.
Cressin, Os 2014. Quaker and naturalist too. Morning Walk Press: Iowa City, IA.
Raymo, Chet 2008. When God is gone everything is holy. The making of a
religious naturalist. Sorin Books: Notre Dame IN.
Rush, David 2002. They Too are Quakers: A survey of 199 nontheist
Friends. Available at http://universalistfriends.org/pdf/rush.pdf
Wright, Michael (2014). Being Quaker now. A different way of being open
for transformation. Available at: http://www.nontheist-quakers.org.uk/documents/Being_Quaker_now.pdf
Websites
Nontheist Quakers. Nontheist Friends Network for British Quakers of an atheist, agnostic or nontheist persuasion interested in modern theology. http://www.nontheist-quakers.org.uk/index.php
Quaker Universalist Voice. A forum for exploring diverse spiritual paths.
http://universalistfriends.org/
Sea of faith network http://www.sofn.org.uk/ “Exploring and promoting religious faith as human creation”
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

儒教 - Wikipedia

儒教 - Wikipedia



近代[編集]

アヘン戦争の敗北により西洋の科学技術「西学」を導入しようという洋務運動が興った。洋務派官僚の曽国藩は朱子学を重んじて六経のもとに宋学・漢学を兼取することを主張し、さらに明末清初の王夫之を顕彰して実学の必要を説いた。張之洞は康有為の学説に反対して『勧学篇』を著し、西学を導入しつつ体制教学としての儒教の形を守ることを主張している。

孔教運動[編集]

一方、変法自強運動を進める康有為は、『孔子改制考』を著して孔子を受命改制者として顕彰し、儒教をヨーロッパ風の国家宗教として再解釈した孔教を提唱した。康有為の孔教運動は年号紀年を廃して孔子紀年を用いることを主張するなど従来の体制を脅かすものであったため、清朝から危険視され『孔子改制考』は発禁処分を受けた。変法派のなかでも孔教運動は受け入れられず、これが変法運動挫折につながる一つの原因となる。しかし、辛亥革命が起こると、康有為は上海に孔教会を設立して布教に努め、孔教を中華民国の国教にする運動を展開した。彼らの運動は信仰の自由を掲げる反対派と衝突することとなり、憲法起草を巡って大きな政治問題となった。その後、1917年、張勲の清帝復辟のクーデターに関与したため、孔教会はその名声を失うことになる。康有為が唱える孔子教運動には、弟子の陳煥章が積極的に賛同し、中国及びアメリカで活動している。この他に賛同した著名人として厳復がいる。

現代[編集]

新文化運動[編集]

1910年代後半になると、争いを繰り返す政治に絶望した知識人たちは、文学や学問といった文化による啓蒙活動で社会改革を目指そうとする新文化運動を興した。雑誌『新青年』を主宰する陳独秀・呉虞・魯迅らは「孔家店打倒」をスローガンに家父長制的な宗法制度や男尊女卑の思想をもつ儒教を排斥しようとした。一方、雑誌『学衡』を主宰する柳詒徴・呉宓・梅光迪・胡先驌ら学衡派は、儒学を中心とする中国伝統文化を近代的に転換させることによって中西を融通する新文化を構築することを主張している。
清末から隆盛した今文学派による古典批判の方法論は古籍に対する弁偽の風潮を興し、1927年、顧頡剛を始めとする疑古派が経書や古史の偽作を論ずる『古史弁』を創刊した。顧頡剛は「薪を積んでいくと、後から載せたものほど上に来る」という比喩のもと、古史伝承は累層的に古いものほど新しく作られたという説を主張し、堯・舜・禹を中国史の黄金時代とする儒教的歴史観に染まっていた知識人に大きな衝撃を与えた。さらに銭玄同は六経は周公と無関係であるばかりでなく孔子とも無関係である論じ、孔子と六経の関係は完全に否定されるに到った。

中華人民共和国時代[編集]

マルクス主義的無神論を掲げる中華人民共和国が成立すると、「儒教は革命に対する反動である」として弾圧の対象とされた。特に文化大革命期には、批林批孔運動として徹底弾圧された。多くの学者は海外に逃れ、中国に留まった熊十力は激しい迫害を受け自殺したといわれる。儒教思想が、社会主義共和制の根幹を成すマルクス主義とは相容れない存在と捉えられていたためとされる。なお毛沢東は三国志を愛読し、曹操をとりわけ好んだといわれるが、曹操は三国時代当時に官僚化していた儒者および儒教を痛烈に批判している。

再評価と「儒教社会主義」[編集]

だが、21世紀に入ると儒教は弾圧の対象から保護の対象となり再評価されつつある。
孔子を、その思想を別論として、国際的に著名な教育者と評価し、2004年、中国国外の大学などの教育機関と提携し、中国語や中国文化の教育及び宣伝、中国との友好関係醸成を目的に設立した公的機関を孔子学院と名付け世界展開を進めている。また、2005年以降、孔子の生誕を祝う祝典が国家行事として執り行われ、論語を積極的に学校授業に取り入れるようになるなど儒教の再評価が進んでいる。文化大革命期に徹底的に破壊された儒教関連の史跡及び施設も近年になって修復作業が急速に行われている。
ほかにも改革開放が進む中で儒学や老荘思想など広く中国の古典を元にした解釈学である国学が「中華民族の優秀な道徳倫理」として再評価されるようになり国学から市場経済に不可欠な商業道徳を学ぼうという機運が生まれている。国家幹部は儒教を真剣に学ぶべきだという議論も生まれている[12]。
ダニエル・A・ベル(Daniel A Bell)北京清華大学哲学教授によれば、近年、中国共産党は「儒教社会主義」または新儒教主義(宋の時代にもあった）を唱えている[13]。
Posted by at

日本の儒教 - Wikipedia

日本の儒教 - Wikipedia



明治以降[編集]

明治時代になると、1885年に当時の文部卿森有礼によって、儒教的な道徳教育を規制する命令が出された。だが、元田永孚ら宮中の保守的な漢学者の影響によって、1890年制定の教育勅語などに儒教の忠孝思想が取り入れられ、奨励された。

現代[編集]

渋沢栄一は『論語と算盤』を著し、『論語』を拠り所に倫理と利益の両立を掲げる「道徳経済合一説」という理念を打ち出し、近代経済と儒教思想の融合を図ったが、広く普及することはなかった。また、戦前戦後の日本の政財界に隠然とした影響を与えた安岡正篤は、正統的な儒教思想の後継であるかが検証が必要であるが、公的には儒教をその思想の基礎とする陽明学者と称した。
儒教を宗教として捉える研究者は少数派であるが、学術研究において儒教の本質を宗教としてとらえる道を開いたのは、山下龍二・加地伸行である[3]。山下は天地鬼神や祖先への祭祀を儒教の中心に据え、加地は宗教を死を語るものと定義して祖先崇拝を儒教の本質としている。ただし、こうした儒教への解釈については池田秀三などから批判が寄せられている。
上記のように当初から学問として紹介された日本では宗教として意識されることは少なく、道徳的・文化的な影響も韓国ほど強くはない。一方、『論語』の一節や朱子学の教えが引用されることは多く、道徳や倫理の古典として受け入れられている。特に『論語』は日本語訳や解説書が多数刊行されているなど人気が高い。
Posted by at

Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia



Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia



Nontheistic religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Part of a series on
Irreligion

Irreligion[show]

Atheism[show]

Agnosticism[show]

Nontheism[hide]

Criticism of religion
Secular humanism
Freethought
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Ignosticism
Inconsistent revelations
Invisible Pink Unicorn
Nontheistic religions
Pantheism
Parody religion
Post-theism

Russell's teapot
Theological noncognitivism
Transtheism

Naturalism[show]

People[show]

Books[show]

Secularist organizations[show]

Related topics[show]

Irreligion by country

v
t
e


Nontheistic religions are traditions of thought within a religious context—some otherwise aligned with theism, others not—in which nontheism informs religious beliefs or practices.[1] Nontheism has been applied[by whom?] to the fields of Christian apologetics and general liberal theology, and plays significant roles in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. While many approaches to religion exclude nontheism by definition, some inclusive definitions of religion show how religious practice and belief do not depend on the presence of god(s). 

For example, Paul James and Peter Mandaville distinguish between religion and spirituality, but provide a definition of the term that avoids the usual reduction to "religions of the book":

Religion can be defined as a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing.[2]


Contents



Buddhism[edit]

The Buddha descending from Trāyastriṃśa Heaven. Palm leaf manuscript. Nalanda, Bihar, India

The gods Śakra (left) and Brahmā (right)
Existence of gods[edit]
See also: God in Buddhism

The Buddha said that devas (translated as "gods") do exist, but they were regarded as still being trapped in samsara,[3] and are not necessarily wiser than we. In fact, the Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods,[4] and superior to them.[5]

Since the time of the Buddha, the denial of the existence of a creator deity has been seen as a key point in distinguishing Buddhist from non-Buddhist views.[6] 

The question of an independent creator deity was answered by the Buddha in the Brahmajala Sutta. The Buddha denounced the view of a creator and sees that such notions are related to the false view of eternalism, and like the 61 other views, this belief causes suffering when one is attached to it and states these views may lead to desire, aversion and delusion. At the end of the Sutta the Buddha says he knows these 62 views and he also knows the truth that surpasses them.

Metaphysical questions[edit]

On one occasion, when presented with a problem of metaphysics by the monk Malunkyaputta, the Buddha responded with the Parable of the Poison Arrow. 

When a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, his family summons the doctor to have the poison removed, and the doctor gives an antidote:[7]

But the man refuses to let the doctor do anything before certain questions can be answered. The wounded man demands to know who shot the arrow, what his caste and job is, and why he shot him. He wants to know what kind of bow the man used and how he acquired the ingredients used in preparing the poison. Malunkyaputta, such a man will die before getting the answers to his questions. It is no different for one who follows the Way. I teach only those things necessary to realize the Way. Things which are not helpful or necessary, I do not teach.

Christianity[edit]
Main articles: Secular theology and Christian atheism

A few liberal Christian theologians, define a "nontheistic God" as "the ground of all being" rather than as a personal divine being. John Shelby Spong refers to a theistic God as "a personal being with expanded supernatural, human, and parental qualities, which has shaped every religious idea of the Western world."[8]

From a nontheist, naturalist, and rationalist perspective, the concept of divine grace appears to be the same concept as luck.[9]

Bust of Paul Tillich

Many of them owe much of their theology to the work of Christian existentialist philosopher Paul Tillich, including the phrase "the ground of all being". Another quotation from Tillich is, "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."[10] This Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God. He does not think of God as a being that exists in time and space, because that constrains God, and makes God finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself.


Nontheist Quakers[edit]

Logo of the Society of Nontheist Friends
Main article: Nontheist Quakers

A nontheist Friend or an atheist Quaker is someone who affiliates with, identifies with, engages in and/or affirms Quaker practices and processes, but who does not accept a belief in a theistic understanding of God, a Supreme Being, the divine, the soul or the supernatural. Like theistic Friends, nontheist Friends are actively interested in realizing centered peace, simplicity, integrity, community, equality, love, happiness and social justice in the Society of Friends and beyond.


Hinduism[edit]
Main article: Atheism in Hinduism

Hinduism is characterised by extremely diverse beliefs and practices.[11] In the words of R.C. Zaehner, "it is perfectly possible to be a good Hindu whether one's personal views incline toward monism, monotheism, polytheism, or even atheism."[12] He goes on to say that it is a religion that neither depends on the existence or non-existence of God or Gods.[13] More broadly, Hinduism can be seen as having three more important strands: one featuring a personal Creator or Divine Being, second that emphasises an impersonal Absolute and a third that is pluralistic and non-absolute. The latter two traditions can be seen as nontheistic.[14]

Although the Vedas are broadly concerned with the completion of ritual, there are some elements that can be interpreted as either nontheistic or precursors to the later developments of the nontheistic tradition. The oldest Hindu scripture, the Rig Veda mentions that 'There is only one god though the sages may give it various names' (1.164.46). Max Müller termed this henotheism, and it can be seen as indicating one, non-dual divine reality, with little emphasis on personality.[15] The famous Nasadiya Sukta, the 129th Hymn of the tenth and final Mandala (or chapter) of the Rig Veda, considers creation and asks "The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. /Who then knows whence it has arisen?".[16] This can be seen to contain the intuition that there must be a single principle behind all phenomena: 'That one' (tad ekam), self-sufficient, to which distinctions cannot be applied.[17][18]

It is with the Upanishads, reckoned to be written in the first millennia (coeval with the ritualistic Brahmanas), that the Vedic emphasis on ritual was challenged. The Upanishads can be seen as the expression of new sources of power in India. Also, separate from the Upanishadic tradition were bands of wandering ascetics called Vadins whose largely nontheistic notions rejected the notion that religious knowledge was the property of the Brahmins. Many of these were shramanas, who represented a non-Vedic tradition rooted in India's pre-Aryan history.[19] The emphasis of the Upanishads turned to knowledge, specifically the ultimate identity of all phenomena.[20] This is expressed in the notion of Brahman, the key idea of the Upanishads, and much later philosophizing has been taken up with deciding whether Brahman is personal or impersonal.[21] The understanding of the nature of Brahman as impersonal is based in the definition of it as 'ekam eva advitiyam' (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1) - it is one without a second and to which no substantive predicates can be attached.[22] Further, both the Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads assert that the individual atman and the impersonal Brahman are one.[23] The mahāvākya statement Tat Tvam Asi, found in the Chandogya Upanishad, can be taken to indicate this unity.[24] The latter Upanishad uses the negative term Neti neti to 'describe' the divine.

Patañjali statue in Pantanjali Yog Peeth Haridwar

Classical Samkhya, Mimamsa, early Vaisheshika and early Nyaya schools of Hinduism do not accept the notion of an omnipotent creator God at all.[25][26] While the Sankhya and Mimamsa schools no longer have significant followings in India, they are both influential in the development of later schools of philosophy.[27][28] The Yoga of Patanjali is the school that probably owes most to the Samkhya thought. This school is dualistic, in the sense that there is a division between 'spirit' (Sanskrit: purusha) and 'nature' (Sanskrit: prakṛti).[29] It holds Samadhi or 'concentrative union' as its ultimate goal[30] and it does not consider God's existence as either essential or necessary to achieving this.[31]

The Bhagavad Gita, contains passages that bear a monistic reading and others that bear a theistic reading.[32] Generally, the book as a whole has been interpreted by some who see it as containing a primarily nontheistic message,[33] and by others who stress its theistic message.[34] These broadly either follow after either Sankara or Ramanuja[35] An example of a nontheistic passage might be "The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being," which Sankara interpreted to mean that Brahman can only be talked of in terms of negation of all attributes—'Neti neti'.[36]

The Advaita Vedanta of Gaudapada and Sankara rejects theism as a consequence of its insistence that Brahman is "Without attributes, indivisible, subtle, inconceivable, and without blemish, Brahman is one and without a second. There is nothing other than He."[37] This means that it lacks properties usually associated with God such as omniscience, perfect goodness, omnipotence, and additionally is identical with the whole of reality, rather than being a causal agent or ruler of it.[38]

Jainism[edit]
Main article: God in Jainism
Further information: Jainism and non-creationism

Jain texts claim that the universe consists of jiva (life force or souls) and ajiva (lifeless objects). According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents-soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion-have always existed. The universe and the matter and souls within it are eternal and uncreated, and there is no omnipotent creator god. Jainism offers an elaborate cosmology, including heavenly beings/devas, but these heavenly beings are not viewed as creators-they are subject to suffering and change like all other living beings, and are portrayed as mortal.

According to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation/Nirvana. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. If godliness is defined as the state of having freed one's soul from karmas and the attainment of enlightenment/Nirvana and a god as one who exists in such a state, then those who have achieved such a state can be termed gods (Tirthankara).

Besides scriptural authority, Jains also employ syllogism and deductive reasoning to refute creationist theories. Various views on divinity and the universe held by the vedics, sāmkhyas, mimimsas, Buddhists, and other school of thoughts were criticized by Jain Ācāryas, such as Jinasena in Mahāpurāna.


References[edit]

  1. ^ Williams, J. Paul; Horace L. Friess (1962). "The Nature of Religion". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Blackwell Publishing. 2 (1): 3–17. doi:10.2307/1384088. JSTOR 1384088.
  2. ^ James, Paul; Mandaville, Peter (2010). Globalization and Culture, Vol. 2: Globalizing Religions. London: Sage Publications. p. xii-xiii.
  3. ^ John T Bullitt (2005). "The Thirty-one planes of Existence". Access To Insight. Retrieved 26 May 2010. The suttas describe thirty-one distinct "planes" or "realms" of existence into which beings can be reborn during this long wandering through samsara. These range from the extraordinarily dark, grim, and painful hell realms to the most sublime, refined, and exquisitely blissful heaven realms. Existence in every realm is impermanent; in Buddhist cosmology there is no eternal heaven or hell. Beings are born into a particular realm according to both their past kamma and their kamma at the moment of death. When the kammic force that propelled them to that realm is finally exhausted, they pass away, taking rebirth once again elsewhere according to their kamma. And so the wearisome cycle continues.
  4. ^ Susan Elbaum Jootla (1997). "II. The Buddha Teaches Deities". In Access To Insight (ed.). Teacher of the Devas. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. Many people worship Maha Brahma as the supreme and eternal creator God, but for the Buddha he is merely a powerful deity still caught within the cycle of repeated existence. In point of fact, "Maha Brahma" is a role or office filled by different individuals at different periods." "His proof included the fact that "many thousands of deities have gone for refuge for life to the recluse Gotama" (MN 95.9). Devas, like humans, develop faith in the Buddha by practicing his teachings." "A second deva concerned with liberation spoke a verse which is partly praise of the Buddha and partly a request for teaching. Using various similes from the animal world, this god showed his admiration and reverence for the Exalted One.", "A discourse called Sakka's Questions (DN 21) took place after he had been a serious disciple of the Buddha for some time. The sutta records a long audience he had with the Blessed One which culminated in his attainment of stream-entry. Their conversation is an excellent example of the Buddha as "teacher of devas," and shows all beings how to work for Nibbana.
  5. ^ Bhikku, Thanissaro (1997). Kevaddha Sutta. Access To Insight. When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be... That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.
  6. ^ B. Alan Wallace, Contemplative Science. Columbia University Press, 2007, pages 97-98.
  7. ^ Nhat Hanh, Thich (1991). Old Path White Clouds: walking in the footsteps of the Buddha. Parallax Press. p. 299. ISBN 0-938077-26-0.
  8. ^ A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born, ISBN 0-06-067063-0
  9. ^ Kaufman, Arnold S. "Ability", The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 60, No. 19
  10. ^ Tillich, Paul. (1951) Systematic Theology, p.205.
  11. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 17.
  12. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 51.
  13. ^ R. C. Zaehner, (1966) Hinduism, P.1-2, Oxford University Press.
  14. ^ Griffiths, Paul J, (2005) Nontheistic Conceptions of the Divine Ch. 3. in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion by William J Wainwright, p.59 . Oxford University Press US, ISBN 0-19-513809-0
  15. ^ Masih, Y. A comparative study of religions, P.164, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2000 ISBN 81-208-0815-0
  16. ^ O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger, (1981)The Rig Veda: An Anthology of One Hundred Eight Hymns (Classic) Penguin
  17. ^ Collinson, Diané and Wilkinson, Robert Thirty-Five Oriental Philosophers, P. 39, Routledge, 1994 ISBN 0-415-02596-6
  18. ^ Mohanty, Jitendranath (2000), Classical Indian Philosophy: An Introductory Text, p:1 Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0-8476-8933-6
  19. ^ Jaroslav Krejčí, Anna Krejčová (1990) Before the European Challenge: The Great Civilizations of Asia and the Middle East, p:170, SUNY Press, ISBN 0-7914-0168-5
  20. ^ Doniger,Wendy, (1990) Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions,P. 441, Merriam-Webster, ISBN 0-87779-044-2
  21. ^ Smart, Ninian (1998) The World's Religions P.73-74, CUP ISBN 0-521-63748-1
  22. ^ Wainwright, William J. (2005) Ch.3 Nontheistic conceptions of the divine. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion p.67 OUP, ISBN 0-19-513809-0
  23. ^ Jones, Richard H. (2004) Mysticism and Morality: A New Look at Old Questions, P. 80, Lexington Books, ISBN 0-7391-0784-4
  24. ^ Brown, Robert L, (1991) Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God, SUNY Press, ISBN 0-7914-0656-3.
  25. ^ Larson, Gerald James, Ch. Indian Conceptions of Reality and Divinity found in A Companion to World Philosophies By Eliot Deutsch, Ronald Bontekoe, P. 352, Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-21327-9
  26. ^ Morgan, Kenneth W. and Sarma, D S, Eds. (1953) Ch. 5. P.207 Hindu Religious Thought by Satis Chandra Chatterjee, The Religion of the Hindus: Interpreted by Hindus, Ronald Press. ISBN 81-208-0387-6
  27. ^ Flood, Gavin D, An Introduction to Hinduism,(p.232) CUP, ISBN 0-521-43878-0
  28. ^ Larson, Gerald James,(1999) Classical Samkhya, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, ISBN 81-208-0503-8
  29. ^ Feuerstein, Georg (1989), Yoga: The Technology of Ecstasy, Tarcher, ISBN 0-87477-520-5
  30. ^ King, Richard (1999) Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, p:191, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-0954-7
  31. ^ Clements, Richard Pauranik, Being a Witness in Theory and Practice of Yoga by Knut A. Jacobsen
  32. ^ Yandell, Keith. E., On Interpreting the "Bhagavadgītā", Philosophy East and West 32, no 1 (January, 1982).
  33. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 45, 98, 115, 136.
  34. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, pages 47, 51.
  35. ^ Flood, Gavin D, An Introduction to Hinduism, (pps 239-234) CUP, ISBN 0-521-43878-0
  36. ^ Swami Gambhirananda, (1995), Bhagavadgita: with the Commentary of Sankaracharya, Ch. 13. Vs. 13, Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta ISBN 81-7505-150-7
  37. ^ Richards, John, Viveka-Chudamani of Shankara Vs 468.
  38. ^ Wainright, William, (2006), Concepts of God, Stanford Encyclopedia of Religion
  39. ^ Charles Brough (2010). The Last Civilization. p. 246. ISBN 1426940572. Deism and pan-deism, as well as agnosticism and atheism, are all Non-Theisms.
  40. ^ "Satanic Temple: IRS has designated it a tax-exempt church". AP NEWS. 25 April 2019. Retrieved 30 July 2019.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)