Philosophy Now Forum

Skip wrote:What dictionary are you using?

I used multiple standard dictionaries to make my own definitions based on an intuitive understanding. Really, instead of four possible expressions of a single definition, they are four separate definitions that are possible. I don't even know if they are right, just that they are possibly right, based on other dictionaries, and my own basic understanding. Sense the question is whether there is anything worthy of it, only the second two possibilites remain.

3. Supreme Devotion
4. Super-Reverence

There is nothing about these two that seems to dictate an answer. So now, in order to answer the question, 'is there anything worthy of worship?' I suggest we move on to asking 'what might the proper objects of these be?'

The dictionaries I used were quite clear on who/what the object of worship is. They make no bones about it. In the earlier, American one: God. And the US ian culture contained only one generally acknowledged entity with that name - the Protestant Christian version of biblical Jehovah. The later, English one is more liberal in acknowledging gods and goddesses of all traditions. But they still assume that we all know what a deity is.

Having all that cultural baggage built right into one's language means being unable to start from scratch in defining objects of worship.
You can't disinherit your heritage; can't un-know what you've absorbed from your social matrix.

But you can certainly choose to reject certain aspects of it.

Only some of the definitions say what the object is, or that the object is a deity, or that it is the Christian God. Clearly this question might end up providing insight into the nature of dieties. Let's not get distracted. Again, the question is: "what might be the proper objects of supreme devotion and super-reverence?" How about a baby for the first, and the Buddha for the second?

Babies drip at far too many orifices. Buddha is another people's heritage.
I'm going with the giant redwood....
... but it will have to settle for fraternal handshake; no sacrificial saplings.

Skip wrote:Babies drip at far too many orifices. Buddha is another people's heritage.
I'm going with the giant redwood....
... but it will have to settle for fraternal handshake; no sacrificial saplings.

Or oaks. At least it might rein in the tree-hating morons.

Is there anything worthy of worship?

Yes, I am, now get over it and bow down.

I do not want to be worshipped by ants (something vastly inferior to me). Something would be very wrong with me if I did. Similarly, I do not think God wants to be worshipped by humans (something vastly inferior to him/her*)
* It is blasphemous to assign gender (a biological concept) or even him/her to God. Unfortunately, using "it" isn't right either. Our language is archaic when applied to God.

Buddha is not a God. He was an enlightened human, like Socrates.
Buddhism is not a religion. It has nothing to do with God. One can be an atheist Buddhist or a theist Buddhist. Similarly, one can be an atheist car mechanic or a theist car mechanic. Buddhism =There is no self.
Nirvana is not about the afterlife. It is about NOW. The realization that there is no self to suffer.

raw_thought wrote:I do not want to be worshipped by ants (something vastly inferior to me). Something would be very wrong with me if I did. Similarly, I do not think God wants to be worshipped by humans (something vastly inferior to him/her*)

If I let the ants off Sunday school, and promise never to bite a god, should I meet One, would the ants refrain from stinging me?
If deals like this don't work, what's the point of religion?

raw_thought wrote:Buddha is not a God. He was an enlightened human, like Socrates.
Buddhism is not a religion. It has nothing to do with God. One can be an atheist Buddhist or a theist Buddhist. Similarly, one can be an atheist car mechanic or a theist car mechanic. Buddhism =There is no self.
Nirvana is not about the afterlife. It is about NOW. The realization that there is no self to suffer.

Well, in which case, I've scheduled you for extensive root canals tomorrow, sans anaesthetic. You'll be fine. There is no you.

Oh, and I'll rename you to raw_nerve, should you make it through.

Your atoms are constantly being replaced. Also, "you" are an infintestimal slice of spacetime. The present moment is infinitesimal.

That root canal is still gonna hurt something awful.

raw_thought wrote:Buddha is not a God. He was an enlightened human, like Socrates.
Buddhism is not a religion. It has nothing to do with God. One can be an atheist Buddhist or a theist Buddhist. Similarly, one can be an atheist car mechanic or a theist car mechanic. Buddhism =There is no self.
Nirvana is not about the afterlife. It is about NOW. The realization that there is no self to suffer.

Nirvana and oblivion are the same thing. There is no afterlife. Nothingness is being sought. An end to (re)birth. The now is desire and suffering.

If what you are saying is true, that the now is desire and suffering and since it is true that the NOW is infinitesimal, then desire and suffering are infinitesimal!
Nirvana is Samsara!

For the record, it is possible to enjoy pain. With enough devout practice I think I could master that sh!t. Now, if I did, and I could teach it to others, would I be worthy of supreme reverence?