Showing papers on "Supreme Being published in 1966"
TL;DR: Buddhists often behave as if the Buddha appears to them as a powerful and omnibenevolent god, a supreme being who is still in some way present and aware as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Sinhalese Buddhists state that their religion was founded by the Buddha, who was a human being and is now dead. Cognitively this position is held by every Buddhist from the most learned monk to the most ignorant layman. Yet they usually behave as if the Buddha appears to them as a powerful and omnibenevolent god, a supreme being who is still in some way present and aware. (Perhaps we might say that cognitively the Buddha is dead, but affectively he is alive.) For instance, if assailed by dangerous demons a pious Buddhist will recite the qualities of the Buddha and thus keep any malevolent forces at bay. If asked to explain the apparent inconsistency, Buddhists say that the gods and demons are restrained by respect for the Buddha—but it is respect for his memory or for his doctrine, not for his active power. Moreover, Buddhists have dealings with the Buddha in which they behave as if he were at least numinously present; in particular, offerings are made before statues of the Buddha.
42 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a quasi-systematic affirmation of the impossibility of the properties and functions traditionally assigned to the Supreme Being, with a rather off-hand use of pseudo-scientific data, is presented, together with a simplified presentation of the Feuerbach-Marx argument from alienation.
Abstract: Because there is no God and the concept of God is but a pathological indicator of man’s alienation in an immoral society, contemporary Marxist-Leninist philosophers do not deem it necessary to pay much attention either to the demonstration of this non-existence or to the refutation of proofs to the contrary. Their attitude is a combination of ‘socialist indifference’ (it is destined to disappear, anyway) and ‘revolutionary activism’ (but, the Party requires that one fight it), and their mode of argumentation shows it. There are three principal areas of proof and disproof: the via negativa is made up of a quasi-systematic affirmation of the impossibility of the properties and functions traditionally assigned to the Supreme Being, with a rather off-hand use of pseudo-scientific data; the via positiva is a simplified presentation of the Feuerbach-Marx argument from alienation; the via negationis consists of counter-proofs, each of which is to counter one of the traditional philosophic proofs for the existence of God.
8 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The authors used the terms modern and traditional to describe two major cultural phases of Western civilization, i.e., the modern phase and the traditional phase, which they called "traditional" and "traditional", respectively.
Abstract: " modern " and " traditional" literary experience which I had better try to explain. I use the terms to describe two major cultural phases of Western civilization. The earlier phase, which I have called " traditional," I associate in the history of ideas with the notions that a Supreme Being created an ordered hierarchial universe built on immutable principles, that man's mind conforms in some objective way to the truth in things, that men can therefore " read " the common sense laws of nature which
1 citations