How do the Buddhist concepts of Dhamma-Vicaya and Pratityasamutpada relate to Panaentheistic skepticism?

Dhamma-Vicaya - Understanding Nature - This means to adopt an objective, scientific approach to understanding the causal relationships between various phenomena.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Bud鈥?/a>





Pratityasamutpada - Dependent Origination - Essentially the Cosmological Argument which includes a view of interdependent cause and effect for all things in the universe.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_o鈥?/a>





Panaentheism, (pan-ay-en-thee-izm), the belief that the universe is sacred and everything is related into a oneness. There are no beliefs or preclusions from beliefs in the system about deification, creation, conscious design, after life, universal consciousness, etc. It is held that life is sacred, existence is sacred, and all parts of the universe are sacred.|||I was watching PBS yesterday afternoon. Interesting program about asian religions - and it compared many religious sects that have evolved from Buddhism / Hinduism /Sikh - and a bit on christianity that was not very fairly represented - especially by the fundamentalist evangelical christian who said that it is a christian's responsibility to revere all religions. (who-da-thunk-it?). Still, if it comes on again, it is well worth watching.





I like the concept of interdependent cause and effect in Pratityasamutpada. I loved yesterdays representation of Jain (Jainism? - Jain Dharma). Close to my beliefs.





I would question one part of your panenteist definition. If everything is sacred, then is anything sacred? Does the use of the word "sacred" cause one to forget that he/she is also sacred in this context? I think that I might prefer the word divine - because I am a powerful being - embued with the powers of the divine (gods).





Ultimately, they are so close that there isn't a lot to waste time arguing about. All recognize the divinity of our fellow beings and our self as one. (If I remember correctly)





Then again, I'm still not sure if I use the word Panentheist correctly. Is it consistent with a multi-dimensional reality as I think it is?





Glad to see tht you weren't raptured on the 21st. World is a better place for it.|||Buddha lived at a time in India when the general belief was polytheism. Buddha did not deny the existence of these gods but said it was not necessary to rely on them for liberation from samsara as these beings too were trapped within the beginningless wandering. He realised that it was our own wrong views, wrong intentions and wrong actions that kept us immersed in samsara through dependent origination. Panentheism and Pantheism arose later in a response and through a deeper understanding of Buddhist knowledge. In Mahayana and Vajrayana a form of Pantheism is used as a "skillful means" to liberation from samsara.|||Understanding something and believing in something are two different concepts To understand something you need to know about it and it's properties, to believe in something you only need need to know what it is called, not anything else, like if it is a real thing or a made up thing, or is it a good thing or a bad thing, is it human or is it spiritual, is it necessary or just a bother??? Delusional god worshipers do not even know if there is a god or not, but i know no gods or devils exist anywhere outside of ones properly inculcated mind!!!|||Well, I'm guessing, but I have spent some time with these ideas in the past.



My thought would be that if all is one, and that one is sacred, then it's only sensible to understand how things work together in the interactions taking place within the one. The idea is that the sacred is not beyond the here and now, so the study of science *is* the study of the sacred.



P.S. - As you say, no Deity required.|||This sounds like a homework question, work it out yourself