Why I believe in God? [Archive] - Page 4 - Literature Network Forums

YesNo

09-07-2011, 04:38 PM

He said that the universe's beginning was the inevitable result of physical laws. He said that God is not needed in order to explain how the universe came to be. When a theologically oriented philosopher makes statements about cosmology that directly contradict the opinion of the world's foremost cosmologist ... doubts are raised in my mind.

And I honestly don't think you can have it both ways. If infinity is impossible then God cannot be infinite.

We still don't know for certain what happened yet. The experiments going on in Switzerland with the particle accelerator are going to reveal a lot more about our universe in the coming years.
If it is just a matter of picking sides in a culture war I think Craig has the better odds of being right. At the moment, the evidence is all on his side.

I don't know what this God is that is implied by the beginning of the universe. All I know is something started it outside of space and time and that involved a choice. It might be some demi-god for all I know. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than a demi-god and that our consciousness is related to it somehow.

I agree that we will no doubt learn more and I'm all in favor of further experimentation and creating alternate scenarios that we could try to test. The last time I looked they hadn't found the Higgs boson so there might be some shakeup in the quantum mechanics community should they announce that it likely doesn't exist. I don't know what that would have to do with this current discussion, but a lot of our knowledge is still in flux.

What I liked about Craig's contribution is that he helped clarify some of the issues related to the question. I didn't think Smith did as good of a job with it and he seemed a bit desperate, but by participating in the discussion Smith did help Craig to clarify his position.

Darcy88

09-07-2011, 07:26 PM

If it is just a matter of picking sides in a culture war I think Craig has the better odds of being right. At the moment, the evidence is all on his side.

I don't know what this God is that is implied by the beginning of the universe. All I know is something started it outside of space and time and that involved a choice. It might be some demi-god for all I know. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than a demi-god and that our consciousness is related to it somehow.

I agree that we will no doubt learn more and I'm all in favor of further experimentation and creating alternate scenarios that we could try to test. The last time I looked they hadn't found the Higgs boson so there might be some shakeup in the quantum mechanics community should they announce that it likely doesn't exist. I don't know what that would have to do with this current discussion, but a lot of our knowledge is still in flux.

What I liked about Craig's contribution is that he helped clarify some of the issues related to the question. I didn't think Smith did as good of a job with it and he seemed a bit desperate, but by participating in the discussion Smith did help Craig to clarify his position.

I don't know how you can say that all the evidence is on Craig's side when his conclusions on cosmology flatly contradict those of the world's most renowned cosmologist. I simply can't get past that.

I can't even take him seriously anyway. Arguing that Christ's resurrection can be considered objective historical fact and proof of God's existence?

It comes down to the authority of a theologian dabbling in science versus that of the world's most renowned cosmologist in addition to the overwhelming majority of the remaining cosmologists, nearly all of whom are atheists.

Its not a culture war - its science. If the science was on Craig's side then the cosmologists would be ranged alongside him as well. As it stands they are not.

YesNo

09-07-2011, 10:48 PM

I don't know how you can say that all the evidence is on Craig's side when his conclusions on cosmology flatly contradict those of the world's most renowned cosmologist. I simply can't get past that.

I can't even take him seriously anyway. Arguing that Christ's resurrection can be considered objective historical fact and proof of God's existence?

It comes down to the authority of a theologian dabbling in science versus that of the world's most renowned cosmologist in addition to the overwhelming majority of the remaining cosmologists, nearly all of whom are atheists.

Its not a culture war - its science. If the science was on Craig's side then the cosmologists would be ranged alongside him as well. As it stands they are not.
I'm actually not interested in what Craig might have to say about Christianity and so far Christianity has not come up in what I have read. Nor does authority play any role in this for me.

The empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning--from nothing--under 14 billion years ago is what is crucial, not someone's religious beliefs or their status in their field. An atheist faced with the Big Bang has to find an explanation for how it could have occurred by chance, not by choice. It is as simple as that. Craig, however, doesn't have to do anything but challenge any such explanation they might come up with. That is why the evidence is all on his side. Amusingly, it is evidence many atheists themselves collected and accept.

Darcy88

09-07-2011, 11:22 PM

I'm actually not interested in what Craig might have to say about Christianity and so far Christianity has not come up in what I have read. Nor does authority play any role in this for me.

The empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning--from nothing--under 14 billion years ago is what is crucial, not someone's religious beliefs or their status in their field. An atheist faced with the Big Bang has to find an explanation for how it could have occurred by chance, not by choice. It is as simple as that. Craig, however, doesn't have to do anything but challenge any such explanation they might come up with. That is why the evidence is all on his side. Amusingly, it is evidence many atheists themselves collected and accept.

Hawking does have an alternative. As I keep saying, he can account for the universe's origin without relying on this notion of choice. I take the opinion of the world's leading cosmologist to be of greater import than that of a theologian/philosopher.

Authority is central here. On matters of medicine I would consult the doctor, not the engineer.

G L Wilson

09-08-2011, 03:00 AM

I think that there is something in the Bible which says in effect not to argue with a fool lest you look the fool.

YesNo

09-08-2011, 08:13 AM

Hawking does have an alternative. As I keep saying, he can account for the universe's origin without relying on this notion of choice. I take the opinion of the world's leading cosmologist to be of greater import than that of a theologian/philosopher.

Authority is central here. On matters of medicine I would consult the doctor, not the engineer.
It looks like we have different personalities. I don't trust authority. I don't even trust a medical doctor, although I will listen to a doctor's opinion if the need arises. There may be need for a second opinion.

The alternatives I'm aware of from Craig's listing are (1) the "oscillating universe", (2) the "chaotic inflationary universe" which leads to a multiverse, (3) the "vacuum fluctuation universe" and (4) the "quantum gravity universe" which I think is the one you are referring to that Hawking promotes. According to Craig, and I agree, (1), (2) and (4) all still have a universe with a beginning, and therefore need a creator God. They just move around the beginning from a Big Bang singularity to a point in a deeper past, hopefully hiding it.

(3) is the only real alternative. The claim is that there exists an eternal vacuum out of which our universe popped by chance. If that vacuum really is eternal and made no choice then our universe should have popped out long ago. Why is our universe so young? Why did the eternal vacuum wait so long?

Are there any other alternatives?

None of the four alternatives mentioned above is anything more than an opinion or speculation. None of them have any evidence like the cosmic background radiation that validates the Big Bang to support it. If any of them did, there wouldn't be four opinions. There would be only one.

To avoid choice a cosmologist needs something eternal that cannot make a choice, but which can also cause a Big Bang. Prior to the evidence for the Big Bang, a cosmologist could say the universe itself was eternal and brush the issue of beginnings aside. That is no longer possible.

MarkBastable

09-08-2011, 08:45 AM

I think that there is something in the Bible which says in effect not to argue with a fool lest you look the fool.

I doubt anyone will argue with you about that.

Darcy88

09-08-2011, 12:29 PM

It looks like we have different personalities. I don't trust authority. I don't even trust a medical doctor, although I will listen to a doctor's opinion if the need arises. There may be need for a second opinion.

The alternatives I'm aware of from Craig's listing are (1) the "oscillating universe", (2) the "chaotic inflationary universe" which leads to a multiverse, (3) the "vacuum fluctuation universe" and (4) the "quantum gravity universe" which I think is the one you are referring to that Hawking promotes. According to Craig, and I agree, (1), (2) and (4) all still have a universe with a beginning, and therefore need a creator God. They just move around the beginning from a Big Bang singularity to a point in a deeper past, hopefully hiding it.

(3) is the only real alternative. The claim is that there exists an eternal vacuum out of which our universe popped by chance. If that vacuum really is eternal and made no choice then our universe should have popped out long ago. Why is our universe so young? Why did the eternal vacuum wait so long?

Are there any other alternatives?

None of the four alternatives mentioned above is anything more than an opinion or speculation. None of them have any evidence like the cosmic background radiation that validates the Big Bang to support it. If any of them did, there wouldn't be four opinions. There would be only one.

To avoid choice a cosmologist needs something eternal that cannot make a choice, but which can also cause a Big Bang. Prior to the evidence for the Big Bang, a cosmologist could say the universe itself was eternal and brush the issue of beginnings aside. That is no longer possible.

Personality has nothing to do with it. It comes down to whether in a scientific debate you would side with the world renowned expert or with the dilettante. Craig is first and foremost a theologian. He shouts his bias from the roof-top. It is absurd to place his scientific conclusions in the same class as Hawking`s, a man widely considered to possess one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. And you can go beyond Hawking - hardly a credible cosmologist would categorically state that the universe began by choice. My previous objections still stand(no infinite God, no mind beyond time and space) but they are not necessary to reiterate considering the plain fact that the science and scientists are against Craig on this.

Is it not possible that Stephen Hawking the quantum cosmologist has a better handle on cosmology than William Lain Craig the theologian/philosopher? I have a hard time even calling him a philosopher. A Christian philosopher would be more accurate. Theologian would be the most accurate. Scientific authority? I think not.

G L Wilson

09-08-2011, 01:28 PM

Personality has nothing to do with it. It comes down to whether in a scientific debate you would side with the world renowned expert or with the dilettante. Craig is first and foremost a theologian. He shouts his bias from the roof-top. It is absurd to place his scientific conclusions in the same class as Hawking`s, a man widely considered to possess one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. And you can go beyond Hawking - hardly a credible cosmologist would categorically state that the universe began by choice. My previous objections still stand(no infinite God, no mind beyond time and space) but they are not necessary to reiterate considering the plain fact that the science and scientists are against Craig on this.

Is it not possible that Stephen Hawking the quantum cosmologist has a better handle on cosmology than William Lain Craig the theologian/philosopher? I have a hard time even calling him a philosopher. A Christian philosopher would be more accurate. Theologian would be the most accurate. Scientific authority? I think not.

Darcy88, why are you wasting your time with the fool?

Darcy88

09-08-2011, 10:45 PM

Darcy88, why are you wasting your time with the fool?

I don't think YesNo is a fool. Craig is a very persuasive individual. He's a sophist of remarkable skill. Add to this an aspect of wishful thinking and you've got the recipe for credulity.

Why do I persist in this argument? Because Craig is emblematic of a pernicious movement that in America is attempting to have creationism taught as science in public schools. Its been rebranded as "Intelligent Design," dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb and presented to people as legitimate science.

Also, I can't stand it when people try to take the faith out of faith, when they think they can believe without making any leap. Its dishonest.

The irony is that there's nothing I'd personally like more than some compelling evidence of God's existence.

YesNo

09-09-2011, 08:19 AM

I don't think YesNo is a fool. Craig is a very persuasive individual. He's a sophist of remarkable skill. Add to this an aspect of wishful thinking and you've got the recipe for credulity.

Why do I persist in this argument? Because Craig is emblematic of a pernicious movement that in America is attempting to have creationism taught as science in public schools. Its been rebranded as "Intelligent Design," dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb and presented to people as legitimate science.

Also, I can't stand it when people try to take the faith out of faith, when they think they can believe without making any leap. Its dishonest.

The irony is that there's nothing I'd personally like more than some compelling evidence of God's existence.
Thanks for responding, Darcy88. These discussions allow each of us to think through our positions. That is all. There is no winning or losing in these arguments.

I don't know much about Craig, but I assume if I learned more he would claim that the something that made a choice triggering the Big Bang was Jesus or Yahweh. He probably wouldn't think it was Vishnu or Rama or Krishna or some generic dimension of consciousness where choices could be made. However, I don't think this cosmological argument does more than show something outside the universe made a choice. It leaves the issue wide open to any religious development, not just Christianity.

Also Craig isn't the one who gave me the basic idea. I've had it already. Craig just added details, both philosophical and scientific, that I was not aware of. Previously, I thought the Big Bang was part of an endless cycle of beginnings and endings until I found out that it was a more radical beginning than I had imagined. So don't blame Craig. He is expressing ideas that reasonably arise when someone understands what the evidence of the Big Bang actually means.

My own view is that I think there is a dimension of consciousness outside but permeating the universe of matter and energy that explains our consciousness, explains near-death and shared-death experiences and explains general "paranormal" experiences that people have. It is these experiences that I am more interested in. The realization that the universe had a radical beginning from nothing only confirms it.

laidbackperson

09-18-2011, 03:08 PM

Though I have seen much to make me believe there might very well be a God, I couldn't prove it. And though I have seen much that would leave me to believe there isn't a God, I couldn't prove that either. There for Agnosticism seems to make sense.
:beatdeadhorse5:

What you say is very true and both believers and non-believers face this question. But then have you wondered what makes the believers stick with God.
I think a real believer has two traits:
First is humility. It comes from a clear belief that there is a benevolent Power far superior to him/her and his/her success is not solely due to him/her but also due to God’s grace. Hence success does not enter his/her head. I can also add here that a person with humility, ( believer or non-believer) will not rant unnecessarily and insult others, but quietly take his /her option, after trying to see both sides of a coin in all matters.
Second trait is acceptance of all bad, tragic events, out of their control, as God’s will. This quality enables him/her face the rough of the world and get up on his/her feet after he /she has been thrown to ground.
And from where he /she gets these traits.
I think It is a type of wisdom that comes from God’s grace and your personal experiences in life begin to supplement it.
I will just narrate one experience of believers (Mind you, getting true humility is still a long journey for them) which I know from close quarters.
Husband and wife go for their regular 30minutes evening walk, locking their house from front, leaving behind their teenage daughter who was studying for exams in upper room.
Just three minutes later wife gets a call on her cell phone from her sister that some relatives will be coming to their house in an hour. Instead of continuing the walk, she decides to return home, another reason for which being was she also started having a headache. She is back in house in total time less than five minutes.
In this short time a stalker who must have been watching the set up for quite some time has got inside the house with a duplicate key.
Seeing the door open the wife is angry at the daughter thinking she has been casual and calls out angrily to her from down.
The stalker unable to go out from the front door, runs up through the shocked daughter’s room, opens her balcony door and runs away jumping in the neighboring house terrace.
Anything could have happened that day.
Believers will call it God’s grace, non-believers can call it a lucky chance.
P.S. : The stalker was not caught but he would not make another attempt.

cafolini

09-22-2011, 04:04 PM

Brett Cottrell

09-23-2011, 02:53 PM

My dog Tico is dyslexic, so he prays to the Dog. I, for one, believe him.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mym2t67GGQM/TnydGXG1XAI/AAAAAAABJt4/YG7vaP91E18/s1600/Steelers%2BDog.jpg

Vonny

09-23-2011, 10:27 PM

My dog Tico is dyslexic, so he prays to the Dog. I, for one, believe him.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mym2t67GGQM/TnydGXG1XAI/AAAAAAABJt4/YG7vaP91E18/s1600/Steelers%2BDog.jpg

Dogs know. He's beautiful.

BienvenuJDC

09-24-2011, 02:31 AM

As far as religion and any of its branches go, I think you may believe or disbelief anything you wish safely, so long as you don't confuse the belief or disbelief with knowledge. Confusing it is not safe unless you are a good hypocrite.

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you are saying, but I don't agree with your blanket statement about Belief and knowledge.

Vonny

09-24-2011, 03:05 AM

osho

10-01-2011, 01:01 PM

YesNo

10-01-2011, 11:33 PM

What is God? Is your belief God? Is what you have learned from your scriptures or what you have heard from your elders God?

Our knowledge of God cannot go beyond these peripheries. Our knowledge of God is our environment's impression on us and nobody can experience anything beyond the realities one is surrounded by his environment.

Do you have any real experience? Does your post here make people convinced about the existence of God? This is a very subtle domain, unearthly and unexplained
I agree with the part I put in bold, assuming I understood it.

There are people who have had mystical experiences. There are people who have had near-death experiences. There are people who have had shared-death experiences, where they see or experience a loved one who recently died. There are people who have had other paranormal experiences. These are all experiences that come from the environment and can lead to a knowledge of God or something beyond what we normally take to be the space-time matter-energy reality that some people claim is all that is real.

osho

10-02-2011, 06:33 AM

I agree with the part I put in bold, assuming I understood it.

There are people who have had mystical experiences. There are people who have had near-death experiences. There are people who have had shared-death experiences, where they see or experience a loved one who recently died. There are people who have had other paranormal experiences. These are all experiences that come from the environment and can lead to a knowledge of God or something beyond what we normally take to be the space-time matter-energy reality that some people claim is all that is real.

Your ideas are moving me and I immensely second your opinion, for we all are whether it is the community of scientists, philosophers, thinkers, spiritualists or the common man, all are very mystified and no logic will prove to say there is power or no power beyond our understanding. The universe is mysterious and physics cannot fathom the depth of the mystery or even they cannot have theories.

Both theism and atheism is nonsense and their conclusion never convincing. I do not mean this is an agnostic idea. I do not want to theorize this mystery and I am satisfied by calling it a mystery and whether I call it so or do not do so or theorize, or analogize or hypothesize this will always remain a mystery

mazHur

10-06-2011, 04:58 PM

Why should we believe in God?
Here is an answer from Christian viewpoint.

''"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."the Bible

Not so long ago a school district here in the United States was ordered by a judge to remove stickers from biology text books that said that evolution was a theory, not a fact.

How interesting in this so-called day of diversity that we allow evolution to be taught as fact but are not allowed to teach that there might be another way to look at life—including Intelligent Design—even if not God!

Even Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, said a century and a half ago, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

And as Chuck Colson said, "And Darwin didn't know nearly as much as we do about the sophistication of the signal processing from the eye and the nose."3 Not to mention the miracle of birth and millions of other miracles that we live with every day of our life. Even our little dog that is so bright and so loving absolutely amazes me.

In life we pretty much hear what we want to hear and turn a deaf ear to what we don't want to hear. We also see what we want to see and turn a blind eye to what we don't want to see. Belief is basically the same and not based on rational thinking. It's based on choice. Generally speaking, we believe what we want to believe, what we are most comfortable with, and what we choose to believe.

True, none of us has ever seen God and many use this as an excuse not to believe in him. I can't see electrons either, but every time I turn on my light switch, I see the evidence of electrons in action. I can't see radio waves either, or TV signals that come from satellites, or the wind, but I see and hear the evidence of their existence continually.

The fact is if we want to "see" God, we will because the evidence of his existence is everywhere we look. But if we don't want to see him, we won't.

Again, it is choice, not chance, that not only determines our belief in God but also our eternal destiny. So choose wisely. Your life depends on it. Eternity awaits us all.'' (source: ACTS)

cafolini

10-06-2011, 05:33 PM

Your ideas are moving me and I immensely second your opinion, for we all are whether it is the community of scientists, philosophers, thinkers, spiritualists or the common man, all are very mystified and no logic will prove to say there is power or no power beyond our understanding. The universe is mysterious and physics cannot fathom the depth of the mystery or even they cannot have theories.

Both theism and atheism is nonsense and their conclusion never convincing. I do not mean this is an agnostic idea. I do not want to theorize this mystery and I am satisfied by calling it a mystery and whether I call it so or do not do so or theorize, or analogize or hypothesize this will always remain a mystery

I agree with Osho completely about the inevitability of mystery no matter what. It has no resolution other than true mystery. All tolerance for other people's beliefs or disbeliefs part from that position of awareness of inability to know the ultimate conclusive answer.

Delta40

10-06-2011, 05:48 PM

cafolini

10-06-2011, 05:57 PM

I agree that there is no reason to exclude the theory of creation from schools. It's embedded in humankind's history. I wrote to my kids school about this but met with a tentative response that a school was not a place for politics!

I would accept a history course on religion in school. But it would have to be taught as history, not as religion. As religion it would have to be taught in contrast to religions not chosen for the course and, as such, a boring and damaging imposition on the freedom of religion.
Furthermore, a history course on religion would have to have a lot of variety so as not to be biased toward one side or the other. I don't think there would be enough teachers capable of giving such a class. If religion is to be genuine, thousands of belief and disbelief systems would have to be exposed. A very difficult task.

Delta40

10-06-2011, 06:08 PM

cafolini

10-06-2011, 06:17 PM

I don't believe the theory of creation is about teaching religion. I appreciate that it may be a difficult task but schools are prepared to teach kids about other cultures. Why not throw cultural theories of creation into the mix?

To be fair, you would have to teach many courses as electives. Far too many. Even at a university level they would be far too many.
There are more than 4000 religions in the world. In the United States alone there are more than 300 denominations in monotheism alone.

Delta40

10-06-2011, 06:29 PM

lol. I don't care enough about the subject to keep debating it, only to say that the theory of creation is a worthwhile topic.

cafolini

10-06-2011, 06:35 PM

lol. I don't care enough about the subject to keep debating it, only to say that the theory of creation is a worthwhile topic.

One of the most interesting religions exists on the basin of the Orinoco in Venezuela. The natives there, being black, clain that after creating the world, God saw a lot of bad people and punished them by turning them white.

usman.khawar

10-25-2011, 05:57 AM

Why should we believe in God?
Here is an answer from Christian viewpoint.

In life we pretty much hear what we want to hear and turn a deaf ear to what we don't want to hear. We also see what we want to see and turn a blind eye to what we don't want to see. Belief is basically the same and not based on rational thinking. It's based on choice. Generally speaking, we believe what we want to believe, what we are most comfortable with, and what we choose to believe.

True, none of us has ever seen God and many use this as an excuse not to believe in him. I can't see electrons either, but every time I turn on my light switch, I see the evidence of electrons in action. I can't see radio waves either, or TV signals that come from satellites, or the wind, but I see and hear the evidence of their existence continually.

The fact is if we want to "see" God, we will because the evidence of his existence is everywhere we look. But if we don't want to see him, we won't.

Again, it is choice, not chance, that not only determines our belief in God but also our eternal destiny. So choose wisely. Your life depends on it. Eternity awaits us all.'' (source: ACTS)

Awsome...

AOA Mazhar.. i would say that one can find God through rational mind as well. and infact i beleive rational mind ,whose base is strong argument and logic, is one who can only recogonize lord.

evidences everywhere , yes u r right , strongest argument is quran. full with scientific facts, prove one fact wrong rationaly and get rid of Lord. this suggestion is for those who think that they have rational mind.

mazHur

10-25-2011, 07:33 AM

One of the most interesting religions exists on the basin of the Orinoco in Venezuela. The natives there, being black, clain that after creating the world, God saw a lot of bad people and punished them by turning them white.

sounds quite funny yet it may be true. Bad people have been stated in other literature as well to have been turned into elephants and monkeys,etc. This statement cannot be set aside on the mere basis that it doesn't have proof. It is also clear from the belief in Awagon, ie from the theory of reincarnation.
By what other name would you call ''animism'??

osho

11-03-2011, 11:17 AM

I cannot feel the types of personal gods most religions have faiths in. My God if any is universal. My God is all pervasive and does not care whether prayed or not.

I do not believe the God in heaven. There is nothing called heaven or hell. This is just an idea, an invented idea. God is much subtler than what we understand. The cohesive force that keeps the planets moving and the earth revolving comes from that force and I do not have to name it as Jesus or any other things.

My God does not live in temples. God lives only in understanding and the ones we come upon in societies are ideologically warring Gods

cafolini

11-03-2011, 11:45 AM

osho

11-03-2011, 12:20 PM

I believe in pistachio parfait.

It is really interesting caf

cafolini

11-03-2011, 01:29 PM

It is really interesting caf

Ah, yes. But I disbelieve in strawberry shortcake.

Scheherazade

11-03-2011, 01:34 PM

Ah, yes. But I disbelieve in strawberry shortcake.Just want to point out that your disbelief in it does not make the strawberry shortcake any less existent or tasty, Cafolini.

cafolini

11-03-2011, 01:40 PM

Just want to point out that your disbelief in it does not make the strawberry shortcake any less existent or tasty, Cafolini.

I fully agree with that. Neither does it make it stop being a three-dimensional occurrence when it comes to tasty. Good point.

MarkBastable

11-03-2011, 01:43 PM

Just want to point out that your disbelief in it does not make the strawberry shortcake any less existent or tasty, Cafolini.

Well, yeah - except that strawberry shortcake was invented by Emily Penn-Fulwell in her 1897 novel The Road to Marianneville, and was only then actually made real by the Elbury Confectionery Company of Westfield, Mass, who marketed it as a sort of comestible tie-in to the book.

In other words, a storyteller made it up and readers made it real. Like God.

Scheherazade

11-03-2011, 01:49 PM

In other words, a storyteller made it up and readers made it real. Like God.Except that you cannot see, smell, touch or taste God (nor digest for that matter) ... Which is more reason to believe, I guess.

cafolini

11-03-2011, 01:54 PM

Except that you cannot see, smell, touch or taste God (nor digest for that matter) ... Which is more reason to believe, I guess.

Or disbelieve. As you please. No doubt. And when it comes to reason, I'll make it plural. Again on bull's eye.

expressionism

11-03-2011, 03:12 PM

I think it's a good thing that there is God. But a lot of harm can be done if we misunderstand Him. That's why I like how Apostle John described God as love, and how the Gospels of Christ tell us to reach out to God by faith in His grace. I think this is a well of grace for us and for our lives.

The problem of evil can be really huge though. Sometimes I speak with christians from poor places and how hard and difficulty they have it. They often can't afford a doctor, must contend with litte food and a cold home. I don't think I could handle it if I had to live such a life. I feel burdened already, and I'm living in a western place.

But I suppose one must just look for how even poor people often retain their happiness. I think God can make us happy even in bad circumstances. And happiness is much better than grim survival. Even dying in happiness is preferable to living but being bitter, I think.

mazHur

11-03-2011, 08:39 PM

[
QUOTE=osho;1086036]I cannot feel the types of personal gods most religions have faiths in. My God if any is universal.

One way or the other almost all religions (except agnostic) universally believe in the same God, by whatever name they call it. As you say your God is universal then He falls in the same domain.

My God is all pervasive and does not care whether prayed or not.

That's your point of view. Whether you pray Him or not will not make him any difference because he is 'without need'. Apart from praying to Him, He ordains better way of worshipping Him by caring and loving His Creation.
God says demolishing Ka'aba is not as bad as harming someone. For a God of such attributes one has to be grateful to Him for His kindness and love for us. If you don't thank people how can you deem to thank your Lord???All depends on your outlook.

I do not believe the God in heaven. There is nothing called heaven or hell. This is just an idea, an invented idea. God is much subtler than what we understand. The cohesive force that keeps the planets moving and the earth revolving comes from that force and I do not have to name it as Jesus or any other things.

Jesus may not be minding the business of the Universe but Someone surely is. Force, yes, force that you are alluding to doesn't come of itself unless someone had Created it. Can you tell me who is the CReator or Causator of that Force??? I call Him God, and you??
Heaven and Hell may be sybolic but they tend to mean that every person would be accountable for his actions. I don't believe putting all the blame on Jesus for ridding us of our sins. No, why should he??? at least I would be guilty of bad conscience if i put the blame of my sins on anyone else, including Jesus.

My God does not live in temples. God lives only in understanding and the ones we come upon in societies are ideologically warring Gods

Yes, God doesn't need splendid edifices to live in. But people do need a ''proper place'' to offer their thanks (prayers) to Him, in this case worship edifices of all sorts. As you need a cozy corner to find relaxation so do worshippers need a comfortable corner to offer their thanks or prayers to God.

cafolini

11-03-2011, 09:27 PM

You got a well-deserved deluge, Osho.

Mutatis-Mutandis

11-03-2011, 09:49 PM

If the OP read what was previously here, my apologies. I got threads mixed up.

Big Dante

11-05-2011, 05:12 PM

Going to a Catholic School that contained about one actual Catholic in it my religion teacher once said something along the lines of. "I believe in a soul because music can touch it."

Obviously never went to a Michael Jackson concert.

But seriously, I liked what he was saying yet; no.

Chris1991

11-19-2011, 03:33 PM

mazHur

11-19-2011, 04:46 PM

Paulclem

11-19-2011, 08:46 PM

I am a believer also , I don't even remember a time in my childhood not believing , i think nature is the best example , everything is in a balance ,i have some insects in artificial ember(bought for educational purpose) and watching the scorpion how beautiful the design is,nothing chaotic the exoskeleton design so simetric so perfect, the diversity of the fauna and many wild creatures have a design that is not chaotic , a talent for something is another proof , greatest artists create from stone perfect imitations of life, musicians create a sound that resonates with your soul
If you know where or how to look you can find enough proof

Is everything in a balance, and what does that mean? Global warming, third world poverty and animal extinction suggests that nature is not in balance. Also the appreciation of beauty is so subjective. A beautiful meadow is one way of looking at a natural landscape, but if you look closer you see a field where animals and insects are eating each other and suffering.

I remember the hymn "All Things Bright and Beautiful" which continues "All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful, the Lord God made them all."
It's a nice song, but the message grates. Life for humans and animals is not nice a lot of the time.

mazHur

11-19-2011, 09:23 PM

Is everything in a balance, and what does that mean? Global warming, third world poverty and animal extinction suggests that nature is not in balance. Also the appreciation of beauty is so subjective. A beautiful meadow is one way of looking at a natural landscape, but if you look closer you see a field where animals and insects are eating each other and suffering.

I remember the hymn "All Things Bright and Beautiful" which continues "All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful, the Lord God made them all."
It's a nice song, but the message grates. Life for humans and animals is not nice a lot of the time.

The idea behind everything being in balance is that 'mother nature keeps everything in balance' through the instrument of Life and Death. Nature maintains 'variety' which in fact is the beauty of this universe. If all things were equal there would be no Variety, nothing to choose from. Nature is amazing indeed and seems 'cruel' but it has its own 'priorities' which must not amaze anyone. If there weren't poor who would work for the rich?? If there was no day who would survive the night?? This change of weathers, this global warming, this big fish eating the small fish, etc are all mechanisms of Nature. Nothing to be amazed or surprised at. Variety, yes variety, is the beauty of this Creation, this Universe!

paulanderson114

11-22-2011, 12:53 PM

I have faith in god.He listens to our prayers he is almighty our savior.

Chris1991

11-22-2011, 05:27 PM

mazHur

11-22-2011, 05:35 PM

Ecurb

11-22-2011, 08:25 PM

in beauty i meant how well the "design" is , how beautiful placed are the exoskeleton plates on the scorpion, what i mean is that i see a certain order to these characteristics ,they do not look random

global warming third world poverty and animal extinction are caused by human hands , and extinctions happened before humans, climate changed before humans,what we see today are consequences of our actions

If you take the letters "c", "t" and "a" and arrange them in every possible ways, it won't be long before we spell, "cat". It would not be fair to assume that it would be impossible to spell cat through random arrangement of the letters. In fact, it happens 1/6 of the time that the letters are randomly arranged.

In sexual reproduction, genes are distributed randomly (50% of each parent's genes). However, the extent to which they become widely distributed in the population is not random. It is the product, over time, of natural selection. So the patterns we see are NOT “random”, although the process through which they evolved involves some randomness.

cafolini

11-22-2011, 10:19 PM

Hey guys, leave something for imbalance. So much balance is unbalanced.

mazHur

11-23-2011, 02:39 AM

If you take the letters "c", "t" and "a" and arrange them in every possible ways, it won't be long before we spell, "cat". It would not be fair to assume that it would be impossible to spell cat through random arrangement of the letters. In fact, it happens 1/6 of the time that the letters are randomly arranged.

In sexual reproduction, genes are distributed randomly (50% of each parent's genes). However, the extent to which they become widely distributed in the population is not random. It is the product, over time, of natural selection. So the patterns we see are NOT “random”, although the process through which they evolved involves some randomness.

You seem to miss the 'survival of the fittest' factor!!

osho

11-23-2011, 03:39 AM

in beauty i meant how well the "design" is , how beautiful placed are the exoskeleton plates on the scorpion, what i mean is that i see a certain order to these characteristics ,they do not look random

If you do not consider them random who knows the intelligence behind the order of things? Your religious gurus or the scriptures invented by some fictitious pundits? Your source of all what you call cosmic or divine design is cultivated by someone. You are hard wired to believe their notions from the time you started questioning in awe and wonder

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 04:46 AM

osho

11-23-2011, 04:55 AM

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 05:12 AM

Thank you, Osho. :)

mazHur

11-23-2011, 05:34 AM

mazHur

11-23-2011, 05:37 AM

You sound wise and I second your thoughts and you presented better what I myself wanted to say. Yes as you said we have cults springing up one after another. In this eon we have Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and the like and all these cults are likely to die out the way so many did in the past and another will come up with new cults and thoughts and we are simply dancing in the dark dungeon

These are not 'cults' nor they are dancing in the 'dark dungeon'. When you look in the mirror you only see your own face.

You cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone. that is too arrogant to say that.

osho

11-23-2011, 07:21 AM

These are not 'cults' nor they are dancing in the 'dark dungeon'. When you look in the mirror you only see your own face.

You cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone. that is too arrogant to say that.

We do not know our destiny and in fact I do not want to count on the ideas promulgated by religious theorists and do not want to draw upon scriptural sources and in fact I want to investigate if possible on my own without superstitiously relying on some stale thoughts.

I want to carve out my own way without groping for someone or some religious trashes.

You can say I am spiritual or materialistic I do not care. I do not want to revert to the idea already scientifically proved baseless.

mazHur

11-23-2011, 07:28 AM

We do not know our destiny and in fact I do not want to count on the ideas promulgated by religious theorists and do not want to draw upon scriptural sources and in fact I want to investigate if possible on my own without superstitiously relying on some stale thoughts.

I want to carve out my own way without groping for someone or some religious trashes.

You can say I am spiritual or materialistic I do not care. I do not want to revert to the idea already scientifically proved baseless.

I think, in that case, you ought to stick to 'pure sciences' to satisfy your feelings. However, I don't think this world grew out of nothing....because even in science you ''need a seed for a tree to sprout'!! What is your 'seed' re this universe?? None so far....

osho

11-23-2011, 07:43 AM

I think, in that case, you ought to stick to 'pure sciences' to satisfy your feelings. However, I don't think this world grew out of nothing....because even in science you ''need a seed for a tree to sprout'!! What is your 'seed' re this universe?? None so far....

We can keep on asking eternally and we can say God is the reason behind everything. What is behind the God that makes everything possible. Another God will emerge and there will be a series of Gods. Whose God is capable of holding this expanding / contracting? universe. If that God exists our mind or brains cannot fathom the depth of the design engineered by that God and I do not to look to religious thoughts to indoctrinate my minds and act foolishly. I want to think independently. I want to explore on my own.

I do not want to side with any pre-thought and believed facts and these facts are based on some primordial imaginations and fears. That lead us to our savagery mindsets and I do not want to reverse the course of science.

Galileo had staked his life and was called heretic and today we worship his ideas and not the idea of the one who launched a campaign against his thoughts. You and I talk here on the Internet because those few scientists voiced against those outworn primitive philosophies

mazHur

11-23-2011, 08:08 AM

We can keep on asking eternally and we can say God is the reason behind everything. What is behind the God that makes everything possible. Another God will emerge and there will be a series of Gods. Whose God is capable of holding this expanding / contracting? universe. If that God exists our mind or brains cannot fathom the depth of the design engineered by that God and I do not to look to religious thoughts to indoctrinate my minds and act foolishly. I want to think independently. I want to explore on my own.

I do not want to side with any pre-thought and believed facts and these facts are based on some primordial imaginations and fears. That lead us to our savagery mindsets and I do not want to reverse the course of science.

Galileo had staked his life and was called heretic and today we worship his ideas and not the idea of the one who launched a campaign against his thoughts. You and I talk here on the Internet because those few scientists voiced against those outworn primitive philosophies

Homo sapiens are past Galileo days...but now the style of 'scientific savagery' rules the world. You are free to believe in anything but it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth.

MarkBastable

11-23-2011, 08:55 AM

it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth.

Yes it is. Ideas can't be harmed. They can't be damaged or destroyed. They should be constantly tried, deconstructed, battered and generally undermined.

The problem comes when people identify so closely with an idea that they believe that an attack on the idea is an attack on themselves. This is a mistake. However, it's a mistake that's often made by those who think that their idea is not merely the truth, but that it deserves a capital T.

mazHur

11-23-2011, 09:25 AM

Yes it is. Ideas can't be harmed. They can't be damaged or destroyed. They should be constantly tried, deconstructed, battered and generally undermined.

The problem comes when people identify so closely with an idea that they believe that an attack on the idea is an attack on themselves. This is a mistake. However, it's a mistake that's often made by those who think that their idea is not merely the truth, but that it deserves a capital T.

as many 'ideas' as there are minds! The number of planets keeps increasing.......
Go through Aesop's fable: Father, son and donkey.

MarkBastable

11-23-2011, 09:42 AM

as many 'ideas' as there are minds! The number of planets keeps increasing.......
Go through Aesop's fable: Father, son and donkey.

Well, yes. Exactly. That's why no truth has a capital T.

cafolini

11-23-2011, 10:37 AM

These are not 'cults' nor they are dancing in the 'dark dungeon'. When you look in the mirror you only see your own face.

You cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone. that is too arrogant to say that.

What do you mean they are not cults? What do you mean by "you cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone?" Ridiculous. The only thing Osho is not seeing is that they already died where the action is. They are all in a museum already and as he says, many are still victims of the mental vestiges they left lingering in the dungeons.

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 12:15 PM

These are not 'cults' nor they are dancing in the 'dark dungeon'. When you look in the mirror you only see your own face.

You cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone. that is too arrogant to say that.

It's more arrogant to claim to know the actions, intentions, and the mind of a god or "creator." In doing so people make themselves into little gods, or spokesmen for their deity and, recognizing that the deity is invisible and unproven in reality, "believers" are anything but "grown up and sensible." Whimsy and mythology have nothing to do with making sense. You say people aren't in sociocultural bondage, but I'll bet you wear clothes from time to time. Clothing and religion are man-made habits. There isn't a logical argument against what I just said. Please don't tell me people simply wear clothes and worship nonsensical sky men because they are adults. Having matured beyond that point, that argument can only be considered preposterous and a waste of time.

Furthermore, if it wasn't a fear based notion, a lot more people would just relax and never once consider a space giant watching their every action. They wouldn't witness the slow torturous death of an infant with cancer and call it "God's will" or "God's plan." If you don't like the term "defense mechanism," I'll amend it to "coping mechanism." If anyone disagrees with that, then what is the point or benefit of fostering such delusion?

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 12:21 PM

Yes it is. Ideas can't be harmed. They can't be damaged or destroyed. They should be constantly tried, deconstructed, battered and generally undermined.

The problem comes when people identify so closely with an idea that they believe that an attack on the idea is an attack on themselves. This is a mistake. However, it's a mistake that's often made by those who think that their idea is not merely the truth, but that it deserves a capital T.

That's brilliant. You should be a famous person, Mark.

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 12:31 PM

I'm going to beat my analogy to death by simplifying it.

Your parents put clothes on you from birth, and you've still got clothes on as an adult.

Tribal parents kept their children mostly naked from birth, and those children grew up with a general tendency to remain mostly naked.

Parents or society put religion on you from birth, and you still have it on you.

That's what sociocultural means. There isn't some logic that can deny you have been influenced by other people. Following that, you have zero ways of knowing whether you have been influenced by gods.

Ecurb

11-23-2011, 01:00 PM

You seem to miss the 'survival of the fittest' factor!!

"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are almost identical. I don't like saying, "survival of the fittest" because it suggests (to the naive) that "survival" and "fitness" are the key elements in natural selection. They aren't. Male Black Widow spiders spread their genes most effectively by failing to survive, and impoverished, third worlders are spreading their genes more effectively than rich Americans (who, by some definitions, might be more "fit").

Ecurb

11-23-2011, 01:15 PM

It's easier to pick a fake thing to believe in than it is to have your mind ripped apart by questions that don't have definitive answers. Religion is a defense mechanism. It is certainly not proven by individual beliefs. It's born out of fear and sociocultural tradition. People cling very stubbornly to their norms.

The sky could open up and a giant talking silk worm could speak aloud to tell us that he's not a god and never was. He could say he never had sway in our personal lives, but that he simply spun the delicate strands of string holding our reality together. He could say there are lots more creatures like him and none of them have any idea who or what started it all, or what the point was. All of these ridiculous nonsense things I just made up could happen, and the masses would still call it a divine act from their loving lord and savior Jesus Christ.

My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain. It's not important what the story is or what the rules are, as long as it's popular. Debunk one cult and another will spring up, possibly a worse one.

In a later post, Varenne, you call religion a socio-cultural phenomenon. But here you use a reductionist explanation for religion – it’s a “defense mechanism” or psychological phenomenon. Of course, religion could be both. But the reductionist explanation seems trivial and silly (to me). Why do people “need” “definitive answers”?

Varenne says:

“My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain. It's not important what the story is or what the rules are, as long as it's popular. Debunk one cult and another will spring up, possibly a worse one.”

This is not only rude, but silly. Faith may or may not be “soothing for the fragile brain” and it may or may not soothe the powerful mind. Methinks Varenne protests too much, and makes wild assertions she cannot support. How is the notion of eternal damnation (as just one example) “soothing”?

Varenne goes on in the same vein:

Furthermore, if it wasn't a fear based notion, a lot more people would just relax and never once consider a space giant watching their every action. They wouldn't witness the slow torturous death of an infant with cancer and call it "God's will" or "God's plan." If you don't like the term "defense mechanism," I'll amend it to "coping mechanism." If anyone disagrees with that, then what is the point or benefit of fostering such delusion.

Of course this paragraph assumes that there must be some psychological “point or benefit” to religion. Why? Because it is a “delusion”, and therefore explicable only as a psychological defense mechanism, according to Varenne.

Good grief! Isn’t this a literary discussion board? Is our attraction to the “delusions” of fiction only explicable through our “fragile brains'” inability to accept reality? Just as intelligent Christians must cringe reading the opinions of Literalists and Fundamentalists, I cringe reading the arguments of new atheists like Varenne, with their rude attacks and unsupported neo-Freudian theories.

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 01:34 PM

What wild assertions did I make?

Why do people need definitive answers? Beats me. Ask religious people. I say religion is a defense mechanism because that's what it looks like. If people aren't doing it because it feels good, why are they doing it at all?

What part of what I said was rude? I didn't make anything personal. There are groups of people who get offended if they are not placated. They call it "respecting personal beliefs." I do respect the rights of the religious to their beliefs, in exactly the same way I respect the happy joy joy feeling Santa Claus gives to kiddos. For me, it can only be placating because I cannot genuinely give over to nonsense. You seem to see something wrong with both placating and NOT placating

So, you have called me rude, but you have in no way demonstrated how I have been rude. I apologize if I hurt your feelings. As you said, religion can be both sociocultural and a defense mechanism. It's not born of genetics and that has been proven many times over. If the unfamiliarity of psychological terms offends, I suggest taking psych courses. Happy Holidays. Love love.

Ecurb

11-23-2011, 01:52 PM

You didn't hurt my feelings (since I'm an atheist), except inasmuch as I hate to see my own position (atheism) so badly defended.

This statement is rude, "My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain." You are implying (incorrectly) that religion is for juvenile people with "fragile brains". This is both rude and obviously incorrect. Many of the world's greatest thinkers have been religious.

Varenne continues: "Why do people need definitive answers? Beats me. Ask religious people. I say religion is a defense mechanism because that's what it looks like. If people aren't doing it because it feels good, why are they doing it at all?"

It's strange that Varenne is unable to recognize the irony of her statements here. Who is it that "needs definitive answers"? The religious person? Or Varenne, who offers a "definitive answer" to the complicated question of why people are religious because "that's what it looks like". Well, maybe people believe in God because "that's what the world looks like" to them.

I do agree with Varenne about the socio-cultural aspect of religion. Many people believe in God for the same reason I believe in Darwinism -- it's the accepted reality of their parents and other people they respect and trust. That's how all of us come to learn things -- not through doing all the experiments ourselves, nor through reasoning from First Principles, but by accepting the “knowledge” of those we respect and trust. As G.K. Chesterton once said, “You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.” It’s easy to recognize the social aspect of knowledge in other people. Perhaps we should learn to recognize it in ourselves, as well.

(Sorry if I was rude, Varenne.)

cafolini

11-23-2011, 02:01 PM

When she says "babies" she could be talking about people that never grew up.

JuniperWoolf

11-23-2011, 02:13 PM

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 02:19 PM

I wasn't badly defending atheism. There is no reason to defend atheism. I might speak up for myself if you say you hate the type of atheist I am, because you don't know me or my "type" of atheism. My type of atheism is simply that I don't have faith in deities. If you hate that type of atheist, that's your issue and it doesn't bother me. I don't think you're rude. No offense taken.

I'm not unable to recognize irony. Are you, as an atheist person, unable to recognize that modern religion is in contradiction to the physical world? There seems such a strong opposition to criticism of religion, that I have to wonder what type of atheist would be so angry when they suspect someone of condescending. It may have escaped notice, but I was trying to give people an excuse for what I would consider to be completely inexcusable behavior if it were to come from me instead. I have an understanding that I don't know it all and CAN'T know it all. Religious people clinging to a specific religion do not have that understanding. I am trying to be nice by calling them naive. If they are not naive, it's a far more malicious insanity. I think it would be much more "rude" of me to call them insane.

People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool. That's nice. I don't think they could handle not having faith, and I think they would tell you the same thing. They need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs). It should make no atheist rise to their defense simply because this atheist does not need that sort of sustenance. I hope I have made myself clear.

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 02:21 PM

When she says "babies" she could be talking about people that never grew up.

Exactly right. Thank you, cafolini. :)

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 02:29 PM

I have also said nothing of the intelligence of Christians. Being naive and having delusions doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid. I used to be Christian. I don't think I was stupid then. I simply hadn't outgrown that attachment. If that's offensive, I don't know how to avoid offense.

Ecurb

11-23-2011, 02:41 PM

When she says "babies" she could be talking about people that never grew up.

Of course she was. The notion that religion is childish is, however, both insulting and incorrect.

Varenne continues in her former vein:

I'm not unable to recognize irony. Are you, as an atheist person, unable to recognize that modern religion is in contradiction to the physical world? There seems such a strong opposition to criticism of religion, that I have to wonder what type of atheist would be so angry when they suspect someone of condescending. It may have escaped notice, but I was trying to give people an excuse for what I would consider to be completely inexcusable behavior if it were to come from me instead. I have an understanding that I don't know it all and CAN'T know it all. Religious people clinging to a specific religion do not have that understanding. I am trying to be nice by calling them naive. If they are not naive, it's a far more malicious insanity. I think it would be much more "rude" of me to call them insane.

People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool. That's nice. I don't think they could handle not having faith, and I think they would tell you the same thing. They need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs). It should make no atheist rise to their defense simply because this atheist does not need that sort of sustenance. I hope I have made myself clear.

First of all, the notion that “religious people clinging to a specific religion (do not have the understanding that they don’t know it all and can’t know it all)” is naïve, silly and ridiculous. “For who can know the Mind of God?” asks the Bible, rhetorically. Christians accept that God is ineffable, and for Varenne to unfairly accuse them of being know-it-alls is ridiculous.

Varenne goes on to claim that religious people are either naïve or insane. Good one! This is both rude, and an ad hominem argument. It is belied by the fact that many religious people are obviously sane, and very sophisticated (although, like the rest of us, they may be wrong about some things).

Varenne continues with her reductionist “explanation” of religion: “People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool.” Does she have any evidence for this? Of course not. Instead, she is merely spewing some psychological mumbo-jumbo. She claims the religious, “need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs).” But if the religious are either naïve or insane, why should we accept their opinion? Doubtless some religious people do say they need their faith to sustain them, but they also say that Jesus was the incarnation of God. Why does Varenne accept their (naïve or insane) opinion in the one case, but not in the other?

So, Varenne, you HAVE made your position clear. Unfortunately, it is you (not the religious) who are naïve and unsophisticated. By “explaining” a complicated, rich, human tradition as a manifestation of the psychological neediness of a naïve or insane group of emotionally immature babies, you have reduced one of the luminous achievements of mankind -- a tradition from which ethical wisdom, artistic beauty, and literary glories have sprung – to a trivial psychological defense mechanism for the juvenile.

I don’t buy it.

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 02:50 PM

JuniperWoolf

11-23-2011, 03:14 PM

"Atheist" is a noun. Ecurb isn't an atheist.

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 03:43 PM

It's also an adjective, Juniper. I've read some opinions that say it is ONLY an adjective, but I agree that it's a noun too because it's a label. It's been used in the descriptive form for a long time; "atheist leanings." Thank you for mentioning that though.

MarkBastable

11-23-2011, 03:59 PM

"Atheist" is a noun. Ecurb isn't an atheist.

Hang on. Run the grammatical logic of that past me.

If it's a noun, why can't it take the indefinite (or indeed, definite) article. Why is he not an atheist?

Ecurb

11-23-2011, 04:04 PM

It's not an achievement, it's a hindrance. You've gone on such a rabid attack of me, Ecurb. You're not atheist, man. It's obvious. I have never heard of an atheist person worshipping religion so stringently. What is your motivation? To convince people that religion has been wonderful for mankind? I wholeheartedly disagree. If you love it so much, why are you atheist? I'm genuinely curious.

I would hardly call my attack "rabid". You (not I) are the one who began insulting people in this thread.

Religion consists of myth, ritual and belief (among other things). It seems to me that those who participate on a literary discussion board would at least see the value of myth -- if not of ritual or belief. After all, myth is the foundation of literature -- or, at least, of history, fiction, and poetry. If religion is naive, childish, and needy, does that mean literature is naive, childish and needy?

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 04:22 PM

mazHur

11-23-2011, 04:57 PM

"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are almost identical. I don't like saying, "survival of the fittest" because it suggests (to the naive) that "survival" and "fitness" are the key elements in natural selection. They aren't. Male Black Widow spiders spread their genes most effectively by failing to survive, and impoverished, third worlders are spreading their genes more effectively than rich Americans (who, by some definitions, might be more "fit").

We are talking about Humans......
'survival' and 'fitness' are not the same as Natural Selection which is mainly concerned with adaptation and changes in physique. "Survival of the fittest"
as I get is,. is females looking for Alpha males for good propagation of genes.

The analogy drawn by you is fallacious in that it relates more to 'economic factors' than evolution. An ant can reproduce more than an elephant and even fell it!!

mazHur

11-23-2011, 05:03 PM

Well, yes. Exactly. That's why no truth has a capital T.

As the saying goes, When confused over a matter take the easier route'' Or ' when faced with a difficulty opt for a smaller error over the bigger one'....
Unfortunately, the non-God believers are doing none.

mazHur

11-23-2011, 05:06 PM

Yes it is. Ideas can't be harmed. They can't be damaged or destroyed. They should be constantly tried, deconstructed, battered and generally undermined.

The problem comes when people identify so closely with an idea that they believe that an attack on the idea is an attack on themselves. This is a mistake. However, it's a mistake that's often made by those who think that their idea is not merely the truth, but that it deserves a capital T.

I think when someone attacks a 'faith' he is doing the same as hurling an atom bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima without realizing that living ones live below!! And that's not fair!!

mazHur

11-23-2011, 05:11 PM

It's more arrogant to claim to know the actions, intentions, and the mind of a god or "creator." In doing so people make themselves into little gods, or spokesmen for their deity and, recognizing that the deity is invisible and unproven in reality, "believers" are anything but "grown up and sensible." Whimsy and mythology have nothing to do with making sense. You say people aren't in sociocultural bondage, but I'll bet you wear clothes from time to time. Clothing and religion are man-made habits. There isn't a logical argument against what I just said. Please don't tell me people simply wear clothes and worship nonsensical sky men because they are adults. Having matured beyond that point, that argument can only be considered preposterous and a waste of time.

Furthermore, if it wasn't a fear based notion, a lot more people would just relax and never once consider a space giant watching their every action. They wouldn't witness the slow torturous death of an infant with cancer and call it "God's will" or "God's plan." If you don't like the term "defense mechanism," I'll amend it to "coping mechanism." If anyone disagrees with that, then what is the point or benefit of fostering such delusion?

Nothing convincing from your side...just arguing for the sake of argument.

I live in an apartment for years and don't know who my neighbors are. I haven't even seen or met any!! Does that mean there are no neighbors in my block?? Similarly, God is known through His signs....manifestations. No one has seen Him yet His existence is felt. You therefore got no reason not to believe His existence.

billl

11-23-2011, 05:15 PM

Hang on. Run the grammatical logic of that past me.

If it's a noun, why can't it take the indefinite (or indeed, definite) article. Why is he not an atheist?

Varenne had posted "ECurb isn't atheist" and juniper seems to be suggesting that "ECurb isn't an atheist" would be better. Varenne then defends her usage of it as a modifier (an "attributive noun", that is, which is different than an adjective, so everyone here is at least a little right in the end).

EDIT: to be fair to Varenne, I was just now able to find one online dictionary that listed "atheist" as an adjective as well, so it looks like the bleeding of an attributive noun convention into the category of full-blown adjective is underway.

mazHur

11-23-2011, 05:19 PM

let alone semantics. get to the point.:)

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 05:24 PM

Thanks, Billl. I love opportunities to improve my English. Your input is much appreciated. :)

cafolini

11-23-2011, 05:24 PM

I think when someone attacks a 'faith' he is doing the same as hurling an atom bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima without realizing that living ones live below!! And that's not fair!!

That was very funny, mazHur. Ridiculously funny.
And Ecurb, you are a fountain of disinformation. But I wouldn't get entangled with you if I were her.

Ecurb

11-23-2011, 05:33 PM

We are talking about Humans......
'survival' and 'fitness' are not the same as Natural Selection which is mainly concerned with adaptation and changes in physique. "Survival of the fittest"
as I get is,. is females looking for Alpha males for good propagation of genes.

The analogy drawn by you is fallacious in that it relates more to 'economic factors' than evolution. An ant can reproduce more than an elephant and even fell it!!

I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes -- an ant can reproduce more than an elephant, if it's the right kind of ant. Some ants can't reproduce at all (or is that Bees?). What does that have to do with anything I've ever written?

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 05:34 PM

mazHur

11-23-2011, 05:38 PM

I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes -- an ant can reproduce more than an elephant, if it's the right kind of ant. Some ants can't reproduce at all (or is that Bees?). What does that have to do with anything I've ever written?

I was pointing out to the fallacious analogy given by you concerning reproduction rate between the rich Americans and the poor Asians.

As the Arabian Nights says: A poor man sleeps peacefully all night while a rich man cannot because the former has nothing to lose but................reproduce more and more and that too speedily!!:)

Ecurb

11-23-2011, 05:40 PM

At times it is. Obviously, that does not detract from its enjoyment, a point I made.

Again, who did I insult? It's not an insult to say that taking mythology seriously is naive. By your thinking, all naive beings should feel insulted simply because they are naive.

Yes, it is an insult to say someone who "takes mythology seriously" is naive. I'll grant that it is not an EFFECTIVE insult, because I'm sure that almost every serious poster on these boards (including me) "takes mythology seriously".

To return your insult, I'll only say that anyone who DOESN'T take mythology seriously is naive. I prefer the sophisticated approach, and take not only mythology, but also fairy tales, novels, and epic poems seriously.

mazHur

11-23-2011, 05:41 PM

cafolini;1091674]That was very funny, mazHur. Ridiculously funny.

Funny for the Lady lioness (or lion) sad for the poor dead deer!:)

MarkBastable

11-23-2011, 05:42 PM

I think when someone attacks a 'faith' he is doing the same as hurling an atom bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima without realizing that living ones live below!! And that's not fair!!

Oh, get a grip.

mazHur

11-23-2011, 05:45 PM

mazHur, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm not the one with something to prove. You're asserting that there is a god and clear evidence of a god, so the burden of proof lies with you, sugarplum. I'm not worried about it either way. I'm aware of reality and what humans are capable and incapable of knowing about the history of the universe at this point. I'm aware that additional evidence could present itself in the future. As of now I have never met a deity. No one I know has met a deity. Deities don't seem able to interact with the physical world, if they do exist. That makes me reasonably certain that you haven't met deities either, and can't truthfully assert that they factually exist. I agree with you on one point, however, there's nothing worth arguing here.

The only way to meet a deity is first to taste the flavor of Death!
BTW deities are not interested in meeting anyone...they don't need to.they are too busy-just as all and sundry like me cannot meet even the human President of a country!!

We can only visualize 'deity' through'' His manifestations and signs just as you can predict a storm by looking at the sky or racing wind!!

Ecurb

11-23-2011, 05:46 PM

I was pointing out to the fallacious analogy given by you concerning reproduction rate between the rich Americans and the poor Asians.

As the Arabian Nights says: A poor man sleeps peacefully all night while a rich man cannot because the former has nothing to lose but................reproduce more and more and that too speedily!!:)

"Fallacious analogy"? My observation wasn't "fallacious" and it wasn't an "analogy". Other thant that, you're probably right. "Fitness" has a special meaning in evolutionary biology:

Fitness
Definition

noun

(1) (biology) A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.

(2) A relative measure of reproductive success of an organism in passing its genes to the next generation.

(3) The relative ability of an individual (or population) to survive, reproduce and propagate genes in an environment.

Varenne Rodin

11-23-2011, 06:53 PM

Yes, it is an insult to say someone who "takes mythology seriously" is naive. I'll grant that it is not an EFFECTIVE insult, because I'm sure that almost every serious poster on these boards (including me) "takes mythology seriously".

To return your insult, I'll only say that anyone who DOESN'T take mythology seriously is naive. I prefer the sophisticated approach, and take not only mythology, but also fairy tales, novels, and epic poems seriously.

I meant, and I think this was clear, that it is either naive or insane to take mythology so seriously that it becomes a person's perceived reality. I can safely say that a lot of the posters here do not seriously believe we are ruled by Greek gods. They don't think centaurs are roaming the woods near their houses. They aren't out on quests to kill dragons and ogres. I love the Dark Tower series, but I don't think I'll stumble upon magical doors into other dimensions, or be held prisoner by a talking psychotic train, or have mystical sex with a shape-shifting demonic apparition. Sure, it sounds thrilling, but I would never expect anyone to respect those crazy ideas if I thought they were real and wanted to act them out. I would expect them to laugh and think me a weirdo.

The steam has gone out of my argument though. I've been cooking and talking about delicious veggie feasts over on the vegetarian holiday manners thread. Now all I can think about is the fantastic dinner I have planned for family and friends tomorrow. I forfeit all of my remaining battle points for this round to you, Ecurb. Many happy returns. :D

Ecurb

11-23-2011, 07:45 PM

Have a good Thanksgiving!

osho

11-24-2011, 06:03 AM

mazHur

11-24-2011, 08:31 AM

[QUOTE]Is it necessary to believe and pray?

Why should God need our service and prayer?

God does not want us to do anything for Him, only you suffer from that idea.
As for prayer, friends 'pray' for success and prosperity to their friends and loved ones; they wish nice things to other people. If someone does not believe in 'praying' or 'wishing' well to others he is infact something out of this world.... a weird non-human being perhaps. Similarly, one prays to God for no charge!! It's not necessary that He grant you all you wish or pray for.
Praying or wishing well to someone is like thanking them and needless to say a 'thankless person' is not the sign of a good personality.

Buddhism believes in self-torture to get rid of sufferings. Other religions such as Islam and Christianity teach struggle and love and hold one's life as a trust to God. Suicide is haram in Islam and perhaps other religions too and is a sign of cowardice and hopelessness. If 'to pray' to the Supreme being for goodness for self or others is bad then 'to hope' is no better.

You have foolishly invented your personal Gods since you want to have a distinctiveness to identify yourself with. Your idea of God has divided the world and that ended up in the break of so many wars and the world is threatened more by the idea of God and religion than without them.

Are you wise enough to call the billion believers fools?? That is an insult to them. Wars are not the result of 'religion' alone- lust and greed for domination and power is.

If you think disinterestedly and detachedly you will keep mind from the idea of God

Who do you have for succor?? Social security? pension? servility to rules and laws of land? allegiance to your family and country?? wealth and power?? Knowledge and wisdom?? You lose all these things with time.....and finally you feel the brunt of not praying or wishing ........

cafolini

11-24-2011, 10:54 AM

YesNo

11-24-2011, 12:38 PM

I do not think prayer is something that helps us. We are told to renounce everything to God and this is a form of servility.

If you think disinterestedly and detachedly you will keep mind from the idea of God
I agree with mazHur's comments on prayer.

Personally, I find mantra recitation helpful. I suspect this could be called "prayer". Basically, it keeps the mind focused on words that have been repeated so often they come to mind immediately like the lyrics of a song one recently heard. Although I think there are personal benefits in doing this, it is not a just a self-help activity. It works because it is directed to an Other.

If I had to be servile to anything, I would prefer that to be the highest God I could imagine. Religious stories help me imagine a higher God than money, pleasure, or fame. These petty Gods are just not good enough for me. One problem with atheism, among other things, is that it leaves these petty Gods as the only ones available for the imagination.

mazHur

11-24-2011, 03:24 PM

It is true that prayer and hope are one and the same, but they don't have anything to do with religion objetifying them. The world is already innundated with prayer for betterment without any need for religion.

Who do you pray to?? Who do you wish by ?? Without 'Faith' no prayer no wish can come true. Call it religion, faith, belief, soul, spirit, whatever, it ends up in 'Religion'...

A thief's 'religion' is stealing; a pick-pocket's is in ripping off pockets;
a generals is in martial matters; a politician's 'religion' is in how much he can fool people; a priest's faith is in his piety, fake or true. You ought to have a faith to hold you up in times of challenge and that faith is only provided by your FAITH OR RELIGION. Unless you have faith in your parents or friends you cannot be loyal to them nor ever pray or wish them good.

Inundation of prayers is just like habitually buying a million lottery tickets but no jackpot showing up. Prayers have to be ''genuine' ie from heart and soul. I have had many experiences of failed prayers as well as some successful ones....all depends on intentions and faith.

I agree with mazHur's comments on prayer.

Personally, I find mantra recitation helpful. I suspect this could be called "prayer". Basically, it keeps the mind focused on words that have been repeated so often they come to mind immediately like the lyrics of a song one recently heard. Although I think there are personal benefits in doing this, it is not a just a self-help activity. It works because it is directed to an Other.

If I had to be servile to anything, I would prefer that to be the highest God I could imagine. Religious stories help me imagine a higher God than money, pleasure, or fame. These petty Gods are just not good enough for me. One problem with atheism, among other things, is that it leaves these petty Gods as the only ones available for the imagination.

Great message, highly inspirational even for non-believers!! :hurray::thumbs_up

But who performs these miracles,

"People usually consider walking on water
or in thin air a miracle.
But I think the real miracle, someone should have told HanH!!
is not to walk either on water or in thin air,
but to walk on earth.
Every day we are engaged in a miracle
which we don't even recognize:
a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves,
the black, curious eyes of a child--
our own two eyes.
All is a miracle."

Thich Nhat Hanh
Vietnamese Bhuddist Monk, Author and Poet

Varenne Rodin

11-24-2011, 03:36 PM

It wasn't inspirational for this non-believer. It was ludicrous.

I loved your post, Osho. Everything you said made so much sense. Thank you.

mazHur

11-24-2011, 03:42 PM

It wasn't inspirational for this non-believer. It was ludicrous.

I loved your post, Osho. Everything you said made so much sense. Thank you.

sorry, that was not meant for you .... there are non-believers who might love the post and even if they confusedly don't that's their prerogative.

cafolini

11-24-2011, 04:29 PM

Who do you pray to?? Who do you wish by ?? Without 'Faith' no prayer no wish can come true. Call it religion, faith, belief, soul, spirit, whatever, it ends up in 'Religion'...

A thief's 'religion' is stealing; a pick-pocket's is in ripping off pockets;
a generals is in martial matters; a politician's 'religion' is in how much he can fool people; a priest's faith is in his piety, fake or true. You ought to have a faith to hold you up in times of challenge and that faith is only provided by your FAITH OR RELIGION. Unless you have faith in your parents or friends you cannot be loyal to them nor ever pray or wish them good.

Inundation of prayers is just like habitually buying a million lottery tickets but no jackpot showing up. Prayers have to be ''genuine' ie from heart and soul. I have had many experiences of failed prayers as well as some successful ones....all depends on intentions and faith.

You are getting better all the time. Ha!

ftil

11-24-2011, 06:39 PM

Is it necessary to believe and pray? I do not think prayer is something that helps us. We are told to renounce everything to God and this is a form of servility. We often like to behave slavishly since we crave security. Why people are not rebellious? The reason is they are afraid of being stranded. We like to comply with what we are told. My parents told me in my babyhood that there is a God and since we are Buddhists by birth and Buddhism if you make an advanced study of Buddhism God is not an important
issue the way Hinduism, Christianity or Islam accentuate it.

Why should God need our service and prayer? God must be indifferent to prayer or condemnation. We have a certain shape and size or idea or fabrication of God and we believe God resides in heaven and there is nothing called heaven and hell. These all are mythological tales. Today children read Harry Potter and it has so many imagined stories invented by J K Rowling. I have recently read Heart of Darkness, a very interesting and exploratory story written by Conrad and one of the characters in the novel finds himself in an African land and his stature there is likened to a God any religious community believes and the community who likes to worship that character like a God has in fact incarcerated him there and the rest of characters coming across him find the place and situation despicable.

God is not a person if God does exist at all. God is not something the way your scriptures have written about. The word God is not God or the idea you have imported from your Guru or book is not God. God if there is is this cosmic wholeness, pervasiveness and presence.

You have foolishly invented your personal Gods since you want to have a distinctiveness to identify yourself with. Your idea of God has divided the world and that ended up in the break of so many wars and the world is threatened more by the idea of God and religion than without them.

If you think disinterestedly and detachedly you will keep mind from the idea of God

It is interesting what you wrote about God. Madame Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophical Society, visited Tibet where she received her teachings. She had a very different idea about God.
Well, her God. :biggrinjester:

Excerpt from The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky — Vol. 2

VOL. 2, PAGE 233 HOLY SATAN.

The true esoteric view about “Satan,” the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled “The Secret of Satan,” to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford’s “Perfect Way.” No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader, and it is therefore quoted here at some length: —

“1. And on the seventh day (seventh creation of the Hindus),* there went forth from the presence of God a mighty Angel, full of wrath and consuming, and God gave him the dominion of the outermost sphere.†

2. “Eternity brought forth Time; the Boundless gave birth to Limit; Being descended into generation.”‡

4. “Among the Gods is none like unto him, into whose hands are committed the kingdoms, the power and the glory of the worlds:”

5. “Thrones and empires, the dynasties of kings,§ the fall of nations, the birth of churches, the triumph of Time.”

For, as is said in Hermes, “Satan is the door-keeper of the Temple of the King; he standeth in Solomon’s porch; he holdeth the key of the Sanctuary, that no man enter therein, save the Anointed having the arcanum of Hermes” (v. 20 and 21).

These suggestive and majestic verses had reference with the ancient Egyptians and other civilized peoples of antiquity to the creative and generative light of the Logos (Horus, Brahma, Ahura-Mazda, etc., etc., as primeval manifestations of the ever-unmanifested Principle, e.g., Ain-Soph, Parabrahm, or ZeruanaAkerne — Boundless Time — Kala)

VOL. 2, PAGE 234 THE SECRET DOCTRINE

33. “Satan is the minister of God, Lord of the seven mansions of Hades” . . . .
The seven or Saptaloka of the Earth with the Hindus; for Hades, or the Limbo of Illusion, of which theology makes a region bordering on Hell, is simply our globe, the Earth, and thus Satan is called —
33 “. . . . the angel of the manifest Worlds.”
It is “Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god,” and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity. For he is one with the Logos, “the first son, eldest of the gods,” in the order.

VOL. 1, PAGE 350 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.

The latter is, in the Chaldean Kabala, a pure abstraction; the Word or LOGOS, or DABAR (in Hebrew), which Word, though it becomes in fact a plural number, or “Words” — D(a)B(a)RIM, when it reflects itself, or falls into the aspect of a Host (of angels, or Sephiroth, “numbers”) is still collectively ONE, and on the ideal plane a nought — 0, a “No-thing.” IT is without form or being, “with no likeness with anything else.” (Franck, “Die Kabbala,” p. 126.) And even Philo calls the Creator, the Logos who stands next God, “the SECOND GOD,” and “the second God who is his (Highest God’s) WISDOM” (Philo. Quaest. et Solut). Deity is not God. It is NOTHING, and DARKNESS. It is nameless, and therefore called Ain-Soph — “the word Ayin meaning nothing.” See Franck “Die Kabbala,” p. 153. See also Section XII., “Theogony of the Creative Gods.” The “Highest God” (the unmanifested LOGOS) is its Son.

mazHur

11-24-2011, 06:52 PM

Paulclem

11-24-2011, 07:59 PM

Buddhism, as all know, had its origin in India. Irony of fate is that it has been almost wiped out of Indo-Pakistan and is extinct in its ORIGINAL form, the form that Mahatama Gautam Budh gave it. The present day great religion of Mahatama has been modified to suit various far eastern regions of the world.
If Buddha hadn't believed in God, his most ardent convert the Great Ashoka and Grand Chandra Gupt Mauria wouldn't have given up bloodshed without feeling scruples of the fear of Almighty! This should also be a food for thought for those who want to understand God!

Mazhur - I remember you saying things before about Buddhism and Ashoka that are patently untrue.

The Southern Buddhists of Sri Lanka, Burma and Vietnam claim that they preserve the original teachings in the Therevada in the books of the Tripitaka, whilst the Mahayana traditions claim that their teachings merely build upon the teachings of Gautama Buddha. The Therevada claims it is the original form, and there is no reason to say otherwise. the writings are even written in a form that suits the rendering of an oral tradition.

If Buddha hadn't believed in God, his most ardent convert the Great Ashoka and Grand Chandra Gupt Mauria wouldn't have given up bloodshed without feeling scruples of the fear of Almighty!

This is not in the Buddhist teachings. Ashoka stopped the campaign of his victorious armies after witnessing the suffering that was caused. He was moved by compassion and then became an iconic Buddhist practitioner, and created the Pillar of Ashoka, which was found by later archaeologists and proved that Buddhism was not a mere branch of Hinduism.

This should also be a food for thought for those who want to understand God!

What is food for thought is why you think it is ok to peddle this cod version of Buddhist history. I remember a post from last year you made claiming similar things. I don't see many Buddhists on here coming up with false histories of Islam, and I don't see why you should either.

Buddhism believes in self-torture to get rid of sufferings.
[PHP]

This is completely untrue. The Buddha's Path is the Middle Way - neither cultivating suffering, nor over indulging oneself. A quick and cursory read of The Life of the Buddha will confirm this. I also remember you claiming to have studied Buddhism before settling on Islam. I distinctly remember thinking that it was a balanced way of deciding upon a spiritual path. Now this. Either you didn't study it, or you did, but have decided to write untruths to people you think will not know. So which is it?

I found our previous conversation on the thread "Is God a projection of our thoughts" - page 9.

ftil

11-24-2011, 09:19 PM

This is completely untrue. The Buddha's Path is the Middle Way - neither cultivating suffering, nor over indulging oneself. A quick and cursory read of The Life of the Buddha will confirm this. I also remember you claiming to have studied Buddhism before settling on Islam. I distinctly remember thinking that it was a balanced way of deciding upon a spiritual path. Now this. Either you didn't study it, or you did, but have decided to write untruths to people you think will not know. So which is it?

I found our previous conversation on the thread "Is God a projection of our thoughts" - page 9.

Hm…..you can’t forget that Buddhism involves Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Tantric Buddhism. Within Hanayana or Mahajana we find many sets that differ in their doctrine. Tantric Buddhism also evolved over several centuries. We can’t have discussion about Buddhism without specifically referring to Hanayana, Mahayana, or Tantric. It would be the same mistake like making generalizations about Christianity. Within Christianity there are so many sects and denominations with distinct doctrines.

I think that to understand that subject requires years of intense study. :biggrin5:

BlackCat

11-25-2011, 12:25 AM

cafolini

11-25-2011, 12:34 AM

I believe in God because of the equilibrium that He brought to my life. I also believes in God because it was God who inspired me to learn all things possible. It was God who inspired me to study beauties of the world, to see the universe as a united singularity. I also believe in God because I study, and as subjective as it is because I can hear Him speak to my heart (no Schizophrenia :) )

Sometimes I believe in God because I have fun imagining all that I could not do.

Paulclem

11-25-2011, 02:35 AM

Hm…..you can’t forget that Buddhism involves Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Tantric Buddhism. Within Hanayana or Mahajana we find many sets that differ in their doctrine. Tantric Buddhism also evolved over several centuries. We can’t have discussion about Buddhism without specifically referring to Hanayana, Mahayana, or Tantric. It would be the same mistake like making generalizations about Christianity. Within Christianity there are so many sects and denominations with distinct doctrines.

I think that to understand that subject requires years of intense study. :biggrin5:

The three aspects of the path are not incompatible, but follow the Buddha's path. It's still the Middle way, but the emphasis of each differs. They are unlike Christianity in that the doctrines of each are not at odds. How does what I've said change according to the tradition?

It is interesting what you wrote about God. Madame Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophical Society, visited Tibet where she received her teachings. She had a very different idea about God.
Well, her God. :biggrinjester:

Excerpt from The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky — Vol. 2

Which part of these quotes did she get from Tibet? Tibet had been a Buddhist country for centuries then. It all reads like a re-interpretation of Christian doctrine and seems to have nothing to do with Buddhism.

Also, Madame Blavatsky has been associated with Spiritualists and the Spiritualist movement in the past. It is very different from Buddhist teachings.

ftil

11-25-2011, 04:40 AM

The three aspects of the path are not incompatible, but follow the Buddha's path. It's still the Middle way, but the emphasis of each differs. They are unlike Christianity in that the doctrines of each are not at odds. How does what I've said change according to the tradition?

Hm….I have been reading about Tantric Buddhism and I see many differences with Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism. To be honest, I didn’t know about Tantric Buddhism as I read Hanayana and Mahayana teachings. Buddhist tantric practice is classified as secret practice and it influenced by Hindu teachings. Interestingly enough, study of Tantrayana on west are in early stages. Those who study that subject made it very clear that there is still lots of secrecy even though there is a large number of tantric scriptures.

So, we may simplify Buddhist teaching to one doctrine…but then we will talk about New Age or pop version of Buddhist teachings. Secondly, Christianity doctrines within protestant church, for example, are not at odds as you said but there are differences like in Buddhism.

My point was that if we want to talk about Buddhism, we need to be very specific and aware of the limitations of our knowledge.

Which part of these quotes did she get from Tibet? Tibet had been a Buddhist country for centuries then. It all reads like a re-interpretation of Christian doctrine and seems to have nothing to do with Buddhism.

Also, Madame Blavatsky has been associated with Spiritualists and the Spiritualist movement in the past. It is very different from Buddhist teachings.

It would answer your question.

According to biographers, H.P. Blavatsky’s path laid to Tashilunpo monastery (near Shigatse). A book "The Voice of the Silence", published for the request of Panchen Lama IX in 1927 by Chinese society for Buddhism study at Peking, reports that H. Blavatsky during several years was studied in Tashilunpo and knew well Panchen Lama VIII Tenpay Vangchug. Blavatsky also confirmed her living at Tashilunpo and Shigatse. In a letter, she depicted her correspondent a solitary temple of Tashi Lama near Shigatse.
S. Cranston asserts that, according to H.P. Blavatsky, it is not known would she was at Lhasa in that time, but V. Jelihovsky affirmed the follows: "It is reliably that she (Blavatsky) sometimes was at Lhasa, capital of Tibet, and also at Shigatse, main Tibetan religious centre … and at Karakoram mountains in Kunlun Shan. Her living stories about this proved that for me many times".

According to the biographers, last period of her living at Tibet H.P. Blavatsky has conducted in the home of her Teacher Koot Hoomi (K.H.). He helps Blavatsky to get to several lamaseries where any European was not before her. In the letter from October 2, 1991 she wrote to M. Hillis-Billing that the house of Teacher K.H. "is in the region of Karakoram mountains beyond Ladakh which is at minor Tibet and related now to Kashmir. This is a large wooden building in China style looking like to pagoda located between lake and a nice river".
Researchers believe that just at this time (during living in Tibet) Blavatsky began to study the texts which later will come to the book "The Voice of the Silence".

In 1927, one of the eminent explorers of Tibet and its philosophy W.Y. Evans-Wentz wrote in introduction to his translation of "The Tibetan Book of the Dead": "As concerning an esoteric meaning of forty ninth day of Bardo, please see about this in H.P. Blavatsky’s “The Secret Doctrine” (London, 1888, v.1, P.238, 411; v.2, p. 617,628). Late lama K.D. Samdup believed that in spite of malevolent critics of Blavatsky’s works, this author has undisputable proofs that she was well acquainted with the highest lamaist teaching, and for this she needs to get an initiation". Doctor Malalasekera, founder and President of the World Buddhist brotherhood, wrote about Blavatsky in a monumental "Buddhism Encyclopedia": "Her acquaintance with Tibetan Buddhism and also with esoteric Buddhism practices is indubitable". Thus, Japan philosopher and Buddhologist D. T. Suzuki supposes that

H.P. Blavatsky. 1876-1878
“ "undoubtedly Ms. Blavatsky somehow or other was initiated into deeper propositions of the Mahayana teaching".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky

She introduced the concept of Ascended Masters from whom she received her teachings.
The question that I ask who they really are and if they are so evolved why they need humans as a vehicle to transmit their knowledge. :biggrinjester:

http://www.answers.com/topic/ascended-master
Ascended Masters are enlightened beings whom many in the esoteric field believe have evolved beyond the need to reincarnate on earth and now act from a higher plane of existence to assist humans in their movement toward enlightenment and guide the race in its destined evolution. The concept of ascended masters was popularly introduced by Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, cofounder of the Theosophical Society, and described in some detail in her most important book, The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky taught that both individuals and the human race were engaged in an upward evolutionary process. At the same time, she pictured a hierarchy of Masters headed by a being known as the Solar Logos. Those masters at the lowest level of the hierarchy regularly interacted with humanity. The Masters El Morya and Koot Hoomi have had a special role in the formation and guidance of the society. One of the early members of the society, A. P. Sinnett, also received regular communications from the masters that became the basis of two important theosophical texts, Esoteric Buddhism and the Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett.
Together, the masters constituted the Great White Brotherhood. A number of the spiritual leaders from past history were pictured as members of the hierarchy. For example, the person known as Jesus, revered as the fountainheadof Christianity, is believed to hold the office of Maitreya in the hierarchy. The work of the masters was championed by Blavatsky's successor Annie Besant and her colleague Charles W. Leadbeater, whose works further elaborated upon the nature and work of the masters.
Blavatsky also introduced the idea of ascension as a goal for humans, a concept made central of "I AM" Religious Activity, an organization founded by Guy W. Ballard, who further developed theosophical concepts. Ballard taught that it was possible through following the disciplines of the movement, including vegetarianism, to so purify the self that the individual need not die but could ascend to the next level of conscious existence. Ballard's own untimely death necessitated some revision of that ideal, and the natural process of death was integrated into the understanding of the process of ascension. Ballard is now believed to have assumed a position as an ascended master, as has Mark Prophet, the founder of the Summit Lighthouse (now the Church Universal and Triumphant), a group similar to the "I AM."

mazHur

11-25-2011, 06:59 AM

Mazhur - I remember you saying things before about Buddhism and Ashoka that are patently untrue.

The Southern Buddhists of Sri Lanka, Burma and Vietnam claim that they preserve the original teachings in the Therevada in the books of the Tripitaka, whilst the Mahayana traditions claim that their teachings merely build upon the teachings of Gautama Buddha. The Therevada claims it is the original form, and there is no reason to say otherwise. the writings are even written in a form that suits the rendering of an oral tradition.

If Buddha hadn't believed in God, his most ardent convert the Great Ashoka and Grand Chandra Gupt Mauria wouldn't have given up bloodshed without feeling scruples of the fear of Almighty!

This is not in the Buddhist teachings. Ashoka stopped the campaign of his victorious armies after witnessing the suffering that was caused. He was moved by compassion and then became an iconic Buddhist practitioner, and created the Pillar of Ashoka, which was found by later archaeologists and proved that Buddhism was not a mere branch of Hinduism.

This should also be a food for thought for those who want to understand God!

What is food for thought is why you think it is ok to peddle this cod version of Buddhist history. I remember a post from last year you made claiming similar things. I don't see many Buddhists on here coming up with false histories of Islam, and I don't see why you should either.

Where did I 'compare' any religion with Buddhism??? False history of Islam??? When, where??

I live in the ancient Buddhist zone,,,,the Ghandara civilization, stupas all around but NOT a single Buddhist?? It is almost the same all over India! Buddhism been split into a myriad of sects or faces is no more the same as taught by the Great Buddha. It is favored, though in a different mode, more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant--the Hindu's and Jains. And that is a fact.

It is irony of fate that two of the greatest Kings of India namely Mauriya and Asoka lost their empires and dynasty AFTER they converted to Buddhism....
it was not only 'suffering' they caused that made them realize to opt for a new religion but they kinda attained Nirvana...or unification with God!

Buddhism in its Original form is almost history...what we see today is modifications of Buddhism...and Buddha teachings except his Eight Paths.

Basic teachings of almost all religion lay emphasis on 'morals' and 'way of living' so does Buddhism and I don't have any disagreement on that. The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION ...and doesn't condemn self-infliction which is not considered legitimate in other religions including Islam. FYI it is HARAM in Islam to commit suicide or kill anyone-it says : the Killing of one person is the same as Killing humanity. Well, if people do not comply with the tenets of their religion that cannot be the fault of their religion, any religion for that sake.

This is completely untrue. The Buddha's Path is the Middle Way - neither cultivating suffering, nor over indulging oneself. A quick and cursory read of The Life of the Buddha will confirm this. I also remember you claiming to have studied Buddhism before settling on Islam. I distinctly remember thinking that it was a balanced way of deciding upon a spiritual path. Now this. Either you didn't study it, or you did, but have decided to write untruths to people you think will not know. So which is it?

I found our previous conversation on the thread "Is God a projection of our thoughts" - page 9.

BTW which religion doesn't teach the middle way??? What if the adherents of a religion do not obey its tenets?? What if the teachings of a religion are adulterated and obliterated by human hands??

I am not a religious man...I talk from experience and practical observation.
Buddhism was a shift from Hinduism....It teaches peace to the extent of death which is NOT moderation. It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!

Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself. Dividing religious norms and scriptures into 'open' and 'secret' sections too isn't good...for it was for this reason that Martin Luther revolted.

In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea!

Paulclem

11-25-2011, 09:24 AM

Hm….I have been reading about Tantric Buddhism and I see many differences with Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism. To be honest, I didn’t know about Tantric Buddhism as I read Hanayana and Mahayana teachings. Buddhist tantric practice is classified as secret practice and it influenced by Hindu teachings. Interestingly enough, study of Tantrayana on west are in early stages. Those who study that subject made it very clear that there is still lots of secrecy even though there is a large number of tantric scriptures.

So, we may simplify Buddhist teaching to one doctrine…but then we will talk about New Age or pop version of Buddhist teachings. Secondly, Christianity doctrines within protestant church, for example, are not at odds as you said but there are differences like in Buddhism.

My point was that if we want to talk about Buddhism, we need to be very specific and aware of the limitations of our knowledge.

Tantric Buddhism is not a seperate form of Buddhism, but grows from the Mahayana. As such it follows the Buddha's path and extends it into practices such as medicine Buddha Practice. You therefore need a grounding in the teachings of The Buddha.

This practice is not necessarily secret, such as Vajrasattva practice. The secret practices include wrathful forms of the Buddhas such as Vajrayogina and Mahakala. They are secret because these practices utilise wrathful energy and sexual energy for the path. I must stress that the practices do not involve sexual acts, but are practiced by Monks and Nuns who are abstinent and must maintain their vows. They are secret because of misinterpretation and literalism. This has been a problem in the past.

I wasn't trying to simplify Buddhism. It isn't simple, and the accretion of cultures uponthe different forms add a lot of variety. But the core beliefs and principles remain the same throughout.

My point was to address Mazhur's false claims about Buddhism. Nowhere does it say that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering.

It would answer your question.

She introduced the concept of Ascended Masters from whom she received her teachings.
The question that I ask who they really are and if they are so evolved why they need humans as a vehicle to transmit their knowledge. :biggrinjester:

It doesn't answer my question. Where in that is there any sniff of Buddhism. There is a lot of name dropping of places, but I don't recall Madame Blavatsky being credited with any teachings that are anything like Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism.

Where did I 'compare' any religion with Buddhism??? False history of Islam??? When, where??

I live in the ancient Buddhist zone,,,,the Ghandara civilization, stupas all around but NOT a single Buddhist?? It is almost the same all over India! Buddhism been split into a myriad of sects or faces is no more the same as taught by the Great Buddha. It is favored, though in a different mode, more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant--the Hindu's and Jains. And that is a fact.

It is irony of fate that two of the greatest Kings of India namely Mauriya and Asoka lost their empires and dynasty AFTER they converted to Buddhism....
it was not only 'suffering' they caused that made them realize to opt for a new religion but they kinda attained Nirvana...or unification with God!

Buddhism in its Original form is almost history...what we see today is modifications of Buddhism...and Buddha teachings except his Eight Paths.

Basic teachings of almost all religion lay emphasis on 'morals' and 'way of living' so does Buddhism and I don't have any disagreement on that. The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION ...and doesn't condemn self-infliction which is not considered legitimate in other religions including Islam. FYI it is HARAM in Islam to commit suicide or kill anyone-it says : the Killing of one person is the same as Killing humanity. Well, if people do not comply with the tenets of their religion that cannot be the fault of their religion, any religion for that sake.

I specifically addressed your assertion that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering. They do not. The Middle Way was developed by The Buddha to counter the extremes of asceticism, and also the extremes of over indulgence. The Middle way is a specific path and not a generalisation that you can apply to general ethics practiced in other religions. It involves following the 8 Fold Path which is a Buddhist construct.

The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION

This is not what I was taking issue with, but since you bring it up, Buddhism teaches that you should act in the right way. If that include action - then act. If it requires inaction. Don't act.

Buddhism's view of suicide is that it is wrong. But the view of a person who does this is one of compassion.

Your assertion that Buddhism isn't practiced as it was originally intended is refuted by modern Buddhists in the Therevada tradition.

I'm also not impressed that you claim to come from that region. What has that got to do with anything? I also take issue that Buddhism was intended for any particular people - more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant- in your words. It is intended for anyone who wishes to practice it, and it is very clear on that - including Hindu untouchables and anyone else.

.

BTW which religion doesn't teach the middle way??? What if the adherents of a religion do not obey its tenets?? What if the teachings of a religion are adulterated and obliterated by human hands??

I am not a religious man...I talk from experience and practical observation.
Buddhism was a shift from Hinduism....It teaches peace to the extent of death which is NOT moderation. It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!

Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself. Dividing religious norms and scriptures into 'open' and 'secret' sections too isn't good...for it was for this reason that Martin Luther revolted.

In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea!

Buddhism is not a shift from Hinduism if you mean that it is a branch of it. I have no idea what you mean by peace to the extent of death. Perhaps you mean that it is better to die than to kill another person in anger. If you mean that then yes. it has high ideals.

It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!

You could look at this and say it was the greed and violence of the victorious.

Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself.

This is not a part of the Buddhist teachings. The Middle Way is.

In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea

Ok, but in my humble opinion, you should inform yourself about the basic tenets of a religion before you go pronouncing on it.

MarkBastable

11-25-2011, 10:47 AM

in my humble opinion, you should inform yourself about the basic tenets of a religion before you go pronouncing on it.

That's his humble opinion too...

Originally Posted by mazHur
it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth.

...apparently.

BlackCat

11-25-2011, 11:39 AM

this might come off a tad bit stupid and lazy, but what are y'all talking bout Buddhism?

usman.khawar

11-25-2011, 03:08 PM

I believe in God because of the equilibrium that He brought to my life. I also believes in God because it was God who inspired me to learn all things possible. It was God who inspired me to study beauties of the world, to see the universe as a united singularity. I also believe in God because I study, and as subjective as it is because I can hear Him speak to my heart (no Schizophrenia :) )

quite true but ur argument in favor of God may be express on wider canvas like this " its a supper beauty that this universe and all in btw is in perfect equlibrium"

isnt it ?

Paulclem

11-25-2011, 03:10 PM

this might come off a tad bit stupid and lazy, but what are y'all talking bout Buddhism?

Yes. No harm in asking.

BlackCat

11-25-2011, 03:11 PM

quite true but ur argument in favor of God may be express on wider canvas like this " its a supper beauty that this universe and all in btw is in perfect equlibrium"

isnt it ?

I'm not making an argument, that was just a reason why I believe in God. That would be why I present a subjective proof.

Paulclem

11-25-2011, 03:12 PM

That's his humble opinion too...

Originally Posted by mazHur
it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth.

...apparently.

Yes. I've referred to a previous conversation with Mazhur too. We've been here before, which makes me wonder why he's persisting in this.

BlackCat

11-25-2011, 03:14 PM

Yes. No harm in asking.

sorry, just too long though, just wondering what aspects of Buddhism you folks are on

Paulclem

11-25-2011, 03:16 PM

I was contradicting a posting that claimed that Buddhism advocated Enlightenment through suffering, which is at odds with the teachings.

BlackCat

11-25-2011, 03:20 PM

I was contradicting a posting that claimed that Buddhism advocated Enlightenment through suffering, which is at odds with the teachings.

which was why Buddha set out to seek a new path in the first place. However I kinda disagree with him

mazHur

11-25-2011, 03:21 PM

I was contradicting a posting that claimed that Buddhism advocated Enlightenment through suffering, which is at odds with the teachings.

maybe I've become old to get past discussion out of my mind:)
Will you please enlighten me about how Buddhism teaches us to get over our sufferings which other religions don't?

BlackCat

11-25-2011, 03:43 PM

maybe I've become old to get past discussion out of my mind:)
Will you please enlighten me about how Buddhism teaches us to get over our sufferings which other religions don't?

Can I offer my insight to this? I don't know every religions, but I can at least compare Buddhism to mine, Christianity.

In both religions, the founder (Jesus and Gautama Buddha) were tempted by demons. In Buddhism, upon tempted by the mara and his daughters, the Buddha did nothing to be distracted. Instead it was earth and heaven that instantaneously recognized the Buddha's sovereignty. Upon being tempted with the pleasures of the flesh, the Buddha simply ignored the daughters of Mara. This relfect a great aspect of Buddhism, which sees all things that take man out of his focus to Nirvana and enlightenment as illusions, and all efforts must be taken to ignore them altogether, to meditate, to take ascendence over your own body and mind.

In Christianity however is a different story. Jesus not only not ignore the Devil, he had an actual dialogue with him and rebuked the Devil with the Word of God. Jesus was not meditating, he was fasting, he experienced suffering in its rawest forms. There were no wipping and kneeling for hours, those were just the simplest forms of human weakness: hunger, fear, greed... Unlike the Buddha who ignored everything, Jesus gone through everything. This reflects the whole aspect of Christianity, which peach that the only way one can rise gloriously with Christ is to suffer like Christ.

Both faiths have great aspects and great truths, but to me simply to be like the Buddha is almost impossible. I am a Christian because to me Christianity and Jesus is more realistic, because I believe that man must evolve only through understanding the natures of his struggles.

:banana::banana::banana:

ftil

11-25-2011, 03:45 PM

Tantric Buddhism is not a seperate form of Buddhism, but grows from the Mahayana. As such it follows the Buddha's path and extends it into practices such as medicine Buddha Practice. You therefore need a grounding in the teachings of The Buddha.

This practice is not necessarily secret, such as Vajrasattva practice. The secret practices include wrathful forms of the Buddhas such as Vajrayogina and Mahakala. They are secret because these practices utilise wrathful energy and sexual energy for the path. I must stress that the practices do not involve sexual acts, but are practiced by Monks and Nuns who are abstinent and must maintain their vows. They are secret because of misinterpretation and literalism. This has been a problem in the past.

I wasn't trying to simplify Buddhism. It isn't simple, and the accretion of cultures uponthe different forms add a lot of variety. But the core beliefs and principles remain the same throughout.

My point was to address Mazhur's false claims about Buddhism. Nowhere does it say that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering.

I know enough about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted system it is. Please don’t forget that Buddhism like every other religions has evolved over time. I have read that the first tantric Buddhist texts appeared in India in the 3rd century and continued to appear until the 12th century.

Historians have identified an early stage of Mantrayana beginning in the 4th century, and argue that assigning the teachings to the historical Buddha is "patently absurd".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana

I have read that there is a lot of secrecy. I guess we read different scholars.

Secondly, don’t forget that Tantric Buddhism came from India. It is sexual in nature.You may create your own explanations why Tantric Buddhism is secret but I would rather stay with scholars who are committed to scientific study. Well, they have many questions......you have all the answers. :biggrinjester:

Finally, you may do some research about the abstinence of monks. I have posted on your tread a documentary video about sexual scandal of Soygal Rinpoche. You may say it that women who were sexually used by Rinpoche didn’t tell the truth. Well, my friend’s mother spent 3 years in Buddhist center in France. I remember saying her that it was a common knowledge that he was promiscuous. I didn’t know that he used his power of authority to do so……I thought that he was simply handsome and charming and women couldn’t resist. :lol:Unfortunately, it is not true at all.

So, we may ask many questions. For example, why Blavatsky who was initiated into mahayana esoteric teachings wrote that Satan or Lucifer was the only god.:reddevil:

mazHur

11-25-2011, 04:37 PM

Can I offer my insight to this? I don't know every religions, but I can at least compare Buddhism to mine, Christianity.

In both religions, the founder (Jesus and Gautama Buddha) were tempted by demons.
............ the flesh, the Buddha simply ignored the daughters of Mara. This relfect a great aspect of Buddhism, which sees all things that take man out of his focus to Nirvana and enlightenment as illusions, and all efforts must be taken to ignore them altogether, to meditate, to take ascendence over your own body and mind.

I have no doubt in that all founders of other religions too were tempted by demons. But they held to their ground of goodness.

[QUOTE]
Unlike the Buddha who ignored everything, Jesus gone through everything. This reflects the whole aspect of Christianity, which peach that the only way one can rise gloriously with Christ is to suffer like Christ.

Oh,no.Nobody wants to get up the cross like Jesus and why should he??
Why should we we hold Jesus responsible for our sins? Why should Jesus claimed to be God's son be made a scapegoat for others and crucified by his own father?? All this doesn't appeal to me.

As a Muslim I believe that their is only ONE GOD, a Unity. Every person is accountable for his own deeds, that there is a Day of Judgment; that a Muslim must believe in all holy Scriptures and Prophets, including Jesus and Moses; that a Muslim is forbidden to talk ill of any other religion; etc.
Many of the things of Islam 'resemble' Christianity and Judaism. Islam implores Muslims to constructive action .....struggle to end his sufferings.
Just meditating and rubbing one's head on the ground ain't not going to kill the butterflies fluttering in a hungry man's stomach!
As compared to Buddhism, the main difference is that Islam holds for action...the former sticks to rituals and secretive religious syllabi and is closer to Sufism.(ie mysticism).

I believe that man must evolve only through understanding the natures of his struggles.

a good pursuit ends in success..no doubt about it.

Paulclem

11-25-2011, 04:38 PM

I know enough about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted system it is. Please don’t forget that Buddhism like every other religions has evolved over time. I have read that the first tantric Buddhist texts appeared in India in the 3rd century and continued to appear until the 12th century.

I have read that there is a lot of secrecy. I guess we read different scholars.

Secondly, don’t forget that Tantric Buddhism came from India. It is sexual in nature.You may create your own explanations why Tantric Buddhism is secret but I would rather stay with scholars who are committed to scientific study. Well, they have many questions......you have all the answers. :biggrinjester:

Finally, you may do some research about the abstinence of monks. I have posted on your tread a documentary video about sexual scandal of Soygal Rinpoche. You may say it that women who were sexually used by Rinpoche didn’t tell the truth. Well, my friend’s mother spent 3 years in Buddhist center in France. I remember saying her that it was a common knowledge that he was promiscuous. I didn’t know that he used his power of authority to do so……I thought that he was simply handsome and charming and women couldn’t resist. :lol:Unfortunately, it is not true at all.

So, we may ask many questions. For example, why Blavatsky who was initiated into mahayana esoteric teachings wrote that Satan or Lucifer was the only god.:reddevil:

Please don’t forget that Buddhism like every other religions has evolved over time. I have read that the first tantric Buddhist texts appeared in India in the 3rd century and continued to appear until the 12th century.

Yes. I said it developed from the Mahayana teachings.

I have read that there is a lot of secrecy. I guess we read different scholars.

Yes there is secrecy about some Tantric prctices. I said that.

Secondly, don’t forget that Tantric Buddhism came from India.

Buddhism came from India, and so this follows.

It is sexual in nature.You may create your own explanations why Tantric Buddhism is secret but I would rather stay with scholars who are committed to scientific study. Well, they have many questions......you have all the answers.

We must be reading different scholars because I can assure you that Tantric buddhism is not about sex - the act with a human partner, but is a way of utilising sexual energy. It takes great training to practice Tantra. It has nothing to do with celebrity Tantric sex, and does involve vows which are karmically serious. Apart from the misapprehension of and literalisation of the teachings, there are Karmic repercussions for its misuse and abuse. The secrecy is to protect the teachings and those who would practice without a teacher or the proper training. Apparently it involves the development of personal power, and without the pre-requisite development of a stable Bodhicitta which focuses the efforts of the practitioner upon compassion for all beings, it can lead to bad results.

I haven't created my own answers to this despite your insinuation. It is from teachings and discussions I have had, and from the books I have read. I am not a practitioner of secret Tantra but I do know of it.

We all know about Sogyal Rinpoche. Unfortunate, but very human.

So, we may ask many questions. For example, why Blavatsky who was initiated into mahayana esoteric teachings wrote that Satan or Lucifer was the only god

She says she was initiated into Mahayana Esoteric teachings, but what evidence is there of that in her writings? What has Satan or Lucifer got to do with it? I don't give much credit to her or her writings, especially about Tibetan Buddhism. At the time Tibet was a closed country. For Western travellers it represented a land of mystery and magic, which reputation probably attracted her to the idea of it. Alexandra David-Neel really did travel to Tibet, and explains how difficult it was in Magic and Mystery in Tibet. Someone looking to that time would be better seved with that. If someone wanted to read about Tantra, there are more modern books written by real teachers.

BlackCat

11-25-2011, 04:51 PM

[QUOTE=BlackCat;1092317]Can I offer my insight to this? I don't know every religions, but I can at least compare Buddhism to mine, Christianity.

In both religions, the founder (Jesus and Gautama Buddha) were tempted by demons.
............ the flesh, the Buddha simply ignored the daughters of Mara. This relfect a great aspect of Buddhism, which sees all things that take man out of his focus to Nirvana and enlightenment as illusions, and all efforts must be taken to ignore them altogether, to meditate, to take ascendence over your own body and mind.

I have no doubt in that all founders of other religions too were tempted by demons. But they held to their ground of goodness.

Oh,no.Nobody wants to get up the cross like Jesus and why should he??
Why should we we hold Jesus responsible for our sins? Why should Jesus claimed to be God's son be made a scapegoat for others and crucified by his own father?? All this doesn't appeal to me.

As a Muslim I believe that their is only ONE GOD, a Unity. Every person is accountable for his own deeds, that there is a Day of Judgment; that a Muslim must believe in all holy Scriptures and Prophets, including Jesus and Moses; that a Muslim is forbidden to talk ill of any other religion; etc.
Many of the things of Islam 'resemble' Christianity and Judaism. Islam implores Muslims to constructive action .....struggle to end his sufferings.
Just meditating and rubbing one's head on the ground ain't not going to kill the butterflies fluttering in a hungry man's stomach!
As compared to Buddhism, the main difference is that Islam holds for action...the former sticks to rituals and secretive religious syllabi and is closer to Sufism.(ie mysticism).

I believe that man must evolve only through understanding the natures of his struggles.

a good pursuit ends in success..no doubt about it.

The purpose for Jesus suffering and death is to reconcile people to God, just as the Christmas carol said. He is the agnus dei, lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world through His sacrifice. This reveals an another character of Christianity. How can a man cleanses his own sins? The Jews first understood this through the teachings of Moses of making a scapegoat for their sins. Only something pure, innocent, can take away the sins of man. Just as only by putting your laundry in the washing machine can successfully take away the stains (that is if you use the right detergent). There is no point rubbing that dirty shirt to an another dirty shirt.

No one holds Jesus responsible for our sins, Jesus Himself declared to the be the lamb of God.

mazHur

11-25-2011, 05:04 PM

[QUOTE=mazHur;1092335]

The purpose for Jesus suffering and death is to reconcile people to God, just as the Christmas carol said. He is the agnus dei, lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world through His sacrifice. This reveals an another character of Christianity. How can a man cleanses his own sins? The Jews first understood this through the teachings of Moses of making a scapegoat for their sins. Only something pure, innocent, can take away the sins of man. Just as only by putting your laundry in the washing machine can successfully take away the stains (that is if you use the right detergent). There is no point rubbing that dirty shirt to an another dirty shirt.

No one holds Jesus responsible for our sins, Jesus Himself declared to the be the lamb of God.

Okay, that's your belief but makes little sense to me. I as a Muslim honor Jesus just like Muhammad..and every Muslim is bound to do that otherwise he is out of the religion.

BTW How far has the modus operndi you allude to Jesus has been successful till this date? any idea??

ftil

11-25-2011, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Paulclem

She says she was initiated into Mahayana Esoteric teachings, but what evidence is there of that in her writings? What has Satan or Lucifer got to do with it? I don't give much credit to her or her writings, especially about Tibetan Buddhism. At the time Tibet was a closed country. For Western travellers it represented a land of mystery and magic, which reputation probably attracted her to the idea of it. Alexandra David-Neel really did travel to Tibet, and explains how difficult it was in Magic and Mystery in Tibet. Someone looking to that time would be better seved with that. If someone wanted to read about Tantra, there are more modern books written by real teachers.

Well, you may not give a credit to her teachings and I don’t give it, either. However, I have spent some time to read her writings to make connections and to make up my mind. I don’t make any conclusions without studying a subject. So, how can you make your assumptions without knowing her work or reading her biography? You will find a lot of resource on that subject and I gave you a few links to begin with. I guess I wasted my time, didn't I? :p

Sorry, but it is silly to ask about the evidence. You have to find on your own answer and it will take time to do so. Rejecting it without studying …..let say is not scientific. Again, researchers made it clear that there is a lot secrecy and study of tantric Buddhism studies are in early stages. So, we definitely read different scholars.

Tantric Buddhism is not a seperate form of Buddhism, but grows from the Mahayana. As such it follows the Buddha's path and extends it into practices such as medicine Buddha Practice. You therefore need a grounding in the teachings of The Buddha.

If you take your time and study it, you may change your mind. I think that the difference between you and me is the fact that I don’t have any interest to defend any religious system but I seek the truth. We have not been told the truth about Hindu religion and there is a vast research on that subject. We have not been told the truth about Buddhism or Catholic religion, either.

Please, don’t forget that denying the truth always backfires at us. I don’t do that. :ihih:

BlackCat

11-25-2011, 07:03 PM

[QUOTE=BlackCat;1092343]

BTW How far has the modus operndi you allude to Jesus has been successful till this date? any idea??

I'm giving a reflection and my opinion, as well as defending my faith, I'm not on a marathon

Paulclem

11-25-2011, 08:06 PM

Well, you may not give a credit to her teachings and I don’t give it, either. However, I have spent some time to read her writings to make connections and to make up my mind. I don’t make any conclusions without studying a subject. So, how can you make your assumptions without knowing her work or reading her biography? You will find a lot of resource on that subject and I gave you a few links to begin with. I guess I wasted my time, didn't I? :p

Sorry, but it is silly to ask about the evidence. You have to find on your own answer and it will take time to do so. Rejecting it without studying …..let say is not scientific. Again, researchers made it clear that there is a lot secrecy and study of tantric Buddhism studies are in early stages. So, we definitely read different scholars.

If you take your time and study it, you may change your mind. I think that the difference between you and me is the fact that I don’t have any interest to defend any religious system but I seek the truth. We have not been told the truth about Hindu religion and there is a vast research on that subject. We have not been told the truth about Buddhism or Catholic religion, either.

Please, don’t forget that denying the truth always backfires at us. I don’t do that. :ihih:

I have no reason to read Madame Blavatsky as she has no relevance to Buddhism - which is what we were discussing here. I gleaned enough about her work in the past to throw doubt upon any assertions she might make about it. You did waste your time I'm afraid. I was acquainted with spiritualism and Madame Blavatsky in the past.

Sorry, but it is silly to ask about the evidence. You have to find on your own answer and it will take time to do so.

It was silly of me to ask you to qualify your reference to Madame Blavatsky in terms of Buddhism. You were the one who referenced her, not me, and I asked you to justify it. If you can't then fine. I'm not the one who brought her up in terms of this discussion.

I must say that it is an interesting technique you use to deflect any attempt to question your knowledge about a subject. -I'm not telling you anything - go and find out yourself.
It does leave what you say rather hollow though.

Again, researchers made it clear that there is a lot secrecy and study of tantric Buddhism studies are in early stages. So, we definitely read different scholars.

Again I said there is secrecy in Tantra for a reason, and you don't need to be a scholar to know that - just acquainted with Buddhism. Anyone can read about Tantra in general terms, so I'm not sure why you are referring to scholars anyway. This is from Wikipedia - hardly obscure.

Esoteric transmission
Three ritual implements: vajra, bell, and counting beads.
Main article: Esoteric transmission

Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book. Many techniques are also commonly said to be secret, but some Vajrayana teachers have responded that secrecy itself is not important and only a side-effect of the reality that the techniques have no validity outside the teacher-student lineage.[29] In order to engage in Vajrayana practice, a student should have received such an initiation or permission.

Reginald Ray writes that "If these techniques are not practiced properly, practitioners may harm themselves physically and mentally. In order to avoid these dangers, the practice is kept "secret" outside the teacher/student relationship. Secrecy and the commitment of the student to the vajra guru are aspects of the samaya (Tib. damtsig), or "sacred bond", that protects both the practitioner and the integrity of the teachings."[19]

The teachings may also be considered "self-secret", meaning that even if they were to be told directly to a person, that person would not necessarily understand the teachings without proper context. In this way the teachings are "secret" to the minds of those who are not following the path with more than a simple sense of curiosity.[30][31]

The esoteric transmission framework can take varying forms. The Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism uses a method called Dzogchen. The Tibetan Kagyu school and the Shingon school in Japan use an alternative method called Mahamudra.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana

If you take your time and study it, you may change your mind. I think that the difference between you and me is the fact that I don’t have any interest to defend any religious system but I seek the truth. We have not been told the truth about Hindu religion and there is a vast research on that subject. We have not been told the truth about Buddhism or Catholic religion, either.

If I take the time to study Buddhism? I have.

I am interested in getting the facts straight about Buddhism. Mazhur made some false claims about Buddhism on this forum, which I found to be completely against the teachings. You took it upon yourself to begin to question me on that topic too, and I hope I have answered you. Everything I've said about buddhism is truthful. if you see that as defending a religious system - fine. I'm not sure what you mean about the truth of Buddhism. All I am writing here is what I have read, seen and heard of the Buddhist path.

Please, don’t forget that denying the truth always backfires at us. I don’t do that.

What truth am I denying? Please elucidate.

maybe I've become old to get past discussion out of my mind:)
Will you please enlighten me about how Buddhism teaches us to get over our sufferings which other religions don't?

I wouldn't like to compare Buddhism to other religions in terms of which is better. I have no problem with your religion or anyones. I have a problem when false assertions are made.

The basic idea in Buddhism is that life is suffering - as exemplified in the Four Noble Truths, and The Buddha offers us the path to escape from this world of samsara into Enlightenment. There's no quick fix. Lives must be lived. The path must be followed.

In both religions, the founder (Jesus and Gautama Buddha) were tempted by demons. In Buddhism, upon tempted by the mara and his daughters, the Buddha did nothing to be distracted. Instead it was earth and heaven that instantaneously recognized the Buddha's sovereignty. Upon being tempted with the pleasures of the flesh, the Buddha simply ignored the daughters of Mara. This relfect a great aspect of Buddhism, which sees all things that take man out of his focus to Nirvana and enlightenment as illusions, and all efforts must be taken to ignore them altogether, to meditate, to take ascendence over your own body and mind.

The struggle that The Buddha experienced upon the night of his Enlightenment has been described as with Mara - The Buddhist Satan, but the nature is very different, and so I'm afraid your comparison isn't valid.

The illusion that is Mara - the Lord of Death - is the illusion of this samsaric world. it wasn't that the Buddha ignored Mara and his demons, but that he saw their inherently illusory nature. He perceived Emptiness - the ultimate nature of reality.

BlackCat

11-25-2011, 08:50 PM

so Buddhism believes that things are illusory in nature?

ftil

11-25-2011, 08:53 PM

I have no reason to read Madame Blavatsky as she has no relevance to Buddhism - which is what we were discussing here. I gleaned enough about her work in the past to throw doubt upon any assertions she might make about it. You did waste your time I'm afraid. I was acquainted with spiritualism and Madame Blavatsky in the past.

Hm…if you were acquainted with Blavatsky's teachings, you should have known about her connections with Tibet and Buddhism. Secondly, you have asked me which part from The secret Doctrine I have quoted Blavatsky got from Tibet. I hope that you know how unrealistic your question was.

I must say that it is an interesting technique you use to deflect any attempt to question your knowledge about a subject. -I'm not telling you anything - go and find out yourself.
It does leave what you say rather hollow though.

Please, don’t project your issues upon me. I haven’t said anywhere that I was the authority on Buddhism, On the contrary, I have said that I have enough knowledge about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted Buddhism is. You may consider the purpose of discussion to impress people with knowledge. I don’t do that. As I said, I have more questions than answers and I value scholars who have the same approach to studying a subject. I am not interested in those researches who know all the answers. :biggrinjester:

Again I said there is secrecy in Tantra for a reason, and you don't need to be a scholar to know that - just acquainted with Buddhism. Anyone can read about Tantra in general terms, so I'm not sure why you are referring to scholars anyway. This is from Wikipedia - hardly obscure.

Again, we have a very different approach to studying a subject. I am not interested in pop Buddhism. I have quoted from Wikipedia as I didn’t have time to find quotes from other books. I have too many books on my lists to read. Different proprieties. :biggrin5:

What truth am I denying? Please elucidate.
Well, I will leave it for you to find the answer.

Food for thought.

Confucius: “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance"

MarkBastable

11-25-2011, 10:45 PM

Confucius: “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance"

"Real advice consists of avoiding the tendency to coin trite little paradoxes." Charles de Russon

ftil

11-25-2011, 10:57 PM

"Real advice consists of avoiding the tendency to coin trite little paradoxes." Charles de Russon

"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."

Albert Einstein

:wink5:

mazHur

11-26-2011, 04:13 AM

Several kinds of Buddhism, Buddhists:

1. Resident Buddhist
2. Tibetan Buddhism
3. Pure Land Buddhism
4. Orthodox Buddhism
5. Zen Buddhist
6. Theravada Buddhist

Which kind are we discussing about?? Since it doesn't seem to believe in God, does it matter we researched more on this religion?

Paulclem

11-26-2011, 04:37 AM

Hm…if you were acquainted with Blavatsky's teachings, you should have known about her connections with Tibet and Buddhism. Secondly, you have asked me which part from The secret Doctrine I have quoted Blavatsky got from Tibet. I hope that you know how unrealistic your question was.

Please, don’t project your issues upon me. I haven’t said anywhere that I was the authority on Buddhism, On the contrary, I have said that I have enough knowledge about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted Buddhism is. You may consider the purpose of discussion to impress people with knowledge. I don’t do that. As I said, I have more questions than answers and I value scholars who have the same approach to studying a subject. I am not interested in those researches who know all the answers. :biggrinjester:

Again, we have a very different approach to studying a subject. I am not interested in pop Buddhism. I have quoted from Wikipedia as I didn’t have time to find quotes from other books. I have too many books on my lists to read. Different proprieties. :biggrin5:

Well, I will leave it for you to find the answer.

Food for thought.

Confucius: “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance"

I asked you to show if there is anything in Blavatsky's teachings that refers to Buddhism. You quoted something that has no connection to Buddhism. It's up to you to justify what you say.

Please, don’t project your issues upon me. I haven’t said anywhere that I was the authority on Buddhism, On the contrary, I have said that I have enough knowledge about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted Buddhism is. You may consider the purpose of discussion to impress people with knowledge. I don’t do that. As I said, I have more questions than answers and I value scholars who have the same approach to studying a subject. I am not interested in those researches who know all the answers.

Presumably I am the one referred to who has all the answers, but you seem to ignore my questions to you. I ask you to provide backup, which you don't. I don't think I have an issue. It is natural and normal to ask for someone to justify what you say. I mention your technique because I have seen you use this on the forum to stop any questioning of your sources.

Your very different approach to the subject seems to include obscure references to a Spiritualist and unknown scholars. I have referenced what I said to Wikipedia which demonstrates the commonality of the views I expressed as an example. What have you actually demonstrated in your posts to me except to question the truth of what I am saying, my inferior scholarship, and the extent of my knowledge?

Also, why do you put smilies when what you say is rather cutting?

MarkBastable

11-26-2011, 05:16 AM

"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."

Albert Einstein

:wink5:

"The world is full of morons who think that 'serious' and 'funny' are mutually exclusive. Don't be one of them." Ellen Faustinelli

ftil

11-26-2011, 06:12 AM

"The world is full of morons who think that 'serious' and 'funny' are mutually exclusive. Don't be one of them." Ellen Faustinelli

“God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.”

~ Voltaire

MarkBastable

11-26-2011, 08:39 AM

“God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.”

~ Voltaire

"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

mazHur

11-26-2011, 10:04 AM

"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Ignorance is bliss :)

MarkBastable

11-26-2011, 10:10 AM

Ignorance is bliss :)

We'll take your word for it.

mazHur

11-26-2011, 10:13 AM

We'll take your word for it.

I am not an authority. Why make a 'hero' of me??:shocked:

cafolini

11-26-2011, 02:08 PM

Paulclem

11-26-2011, 02:58 PM

I like the duelling quotations. Should it have a theme tune?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

mazHur

11-26-2011, 03:39 PM

Blavatsky might have thought like I do that the postulation of God is the truly atheistic act of civilization. Hence Satanic.

Collin Wilson, the Occult makes a nice account of adepts and imposters, including info about Blavatsky. And, BTW, OCCULT is not a religion at all!!

ftil

11-26-2011, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Paulclem:

Your very different approach to the subject seems to include obscure references to a Spiritualist and unknown scholars. I have referenced what I said to Wikipedia which demonstrates the commonality of the views I expressed as an example. What have you actually demonstrated in your posts to me except to question the truth of what I am saying, my inferior scholarship, and the extent of my knowledge?

You didn’t provide a list of your scholars either. But I would never ask you to do so because I know how big that subject is. BTW, have you ever considered that fact that people may use library. Did you really expect that I would waste my time to go to the library to pick books to quote certain researchers? Hm…I thought that we were mature adults. :brow:

Again, since you didn’t hear me, I said that I have enough knowledge to know how complex Buddhism is and I didn’t claim that I was the authority.
Well, you may feel that I have questioned your knowledge. Let me explain it again. I have questioned it it because you have tried to simplify Buddhism. Secondly, you have tried to intimidate another member that he didn’t study that subject. Thirdly, I know that you studied it but I didn’t know that you view yourself as a Buddhist scholar. You have to accept that we choose whom we call a scholar or not. :wink5:
I absolutely agree with Dalai Lama as he said that if we want to choose a spiritual teacher, we need to know him and observe him very carefully for 12 years” I hope that it will help you not to be defensive.

Finally, I have noticed in our previous discussion that you made assumptions without reading a book or checking references based on which the author wrote his book. I have a very different approach to study. I don’t make assumptions without reading a work.

The problem is that we can’t find the platform based on which we may build our discussion. I have questions, you have all the answers. In other words, I question everything. I don’t have any authority that I would blindly accept without questioning. I have done that and I don’t do it anymore. :biggrin5: When we accept a belief, we close our minds and stop seeking alternative explanations. Secondly, I am not interested in exoteric knowledge for masses. Through centuries, gods cults in ancient Egypt, Greece, or Mysteries of Mithra, for example, had esoteric knowledge only for priests and initiated. Nothing has change as Buddhism today has also esoteric knowledge. I ask why they have the knowledge only for initiated. I don’t ask you that question as you have already answered it and I was not satisfied with the answer.

I asked you to show if there is anything in Blavatsky's teachings that refers to Buddhism. You quoted something that has no connection to Buddhism. It's up to you to justify what you say.

Hm…you still didn’t get why I said that your question was unrealistic. She was initiated into esoteric knowledge of Mahayana. I read that she didn’t reveal her teachings she received in Tibet. So, how would I or anybody else know what esoteric teachings she received? Wikipedia mentioned that researchers believe that just at this time (during living in Tibet) Blavatsky began to study the texts which later will come to the book "The Voice of the Silence". I haven’t read it so that I can’t make any comments.

Why don’t we leave our discussion here and accept that we have the rights to disagree.

Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.

Thomas Jefferson

Paulclem

11-26-2011, 06:32 PM

You didn’t provide a list of your scholars either. But I would never ask you to do so because I know how big that subject is. BTW, have you ever considered that fact that people may use library. Did you really expect that I would waste my time to go to the library to pick books to quote certain researchers? Hm…I thought that we were mature adults. :brow:

Again, since you didn’t hear me, I said that I have enough knowledge to know how complex Buddhism is and I didn’t claim that I was the authority.
Well, you may feel that I have questioned your knowledge. Let me explain it again. I have questioned it it because you have tried to simplify Buddhism. Secondly, you have tried to intimidate another member that he didn’t study that subject. Thirdly, I know that you studied it but I didn’t know that you view yourself as a Buddhist scholar. You have to accept that we choose whom we call a scholar or not. :wink5:
I absolutely agree with Dalai Lama as he said that if we want to choose a spiritual teacher, we need to know him and observe him very carefully for 12 years” I hope that it will help you not to be defensive.

Finally, I have noticed in our previous discussion that you made assumptions without reading a book or checking references based on which the author wrote his book. I have a very different approach to study. I don’t make assumptions without reading a work.

The problem is that we can’t find the platform based on which we may build our discussion. I have questions, you have all the answers. In other words, I question everything. I don’t have any authority that I would blindly accept without questioning. I have done that and I don’t do it anymore. :biggrin5: When we accept a belief, we close our minds and stop seeking alternative explanations. Secondly, I am not interested in exoteric knowledge for masses. Through centuries, gods cults in ancient Egypt, Greece, or Mysteries of Mithra, for example, had esoteric knowledge only for priests and initiated. Nothing has change as Buddhism today has also esoteric knowledge. I ask why they have the knowledge only for initiated. I don’t ask you that question as you have already answered it and I was not satisfied with the answer.

Hm…you still didn’t get why I said that your question was unrealistic. She was initiated into esoteric knowledge of Mahayana. I read that she didn’t reveal her teachings she received in Tibet. So, how would I or anybody else know what esoteric teachings she received? Wikipedia mentioned that researchers believe that just at this time (during living in Tibet) Blavatsky began to study the texts which later will come to the book "The Voice of the Silence". I haven’t read it so that I can’t make any comments.

Why don’t we leave our discussion here and accept that we have the rights to disagree.

Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.

Thomas Jefferson

Are you trying to get in the last word on this note? I will reply.

As I said earlier, everything I have said is is common knowedge to Buddhists and easily referenced. There's no need to reference any scholars. Even the stuff on secret Tantra is on Wikipedia.

Why would I expect you to go to the Library. I asked - since you quoted her - if you could support your reference to Madame Blavatsky in your assertion that she had knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism. An explanation would do. The quote from Blavatsky - as i said - does a lot of name dropping but demonstrates no knowledge of Buddhism.

I question the authority of people who spread incorrect ideas about Buddhism. The thing with Mazhur is, he had made the selfsame point last year. Why would he repeat an untruth about another religion? You weren't party to that discussion, but you can read it on the thread I referred to in my post to him.

Well, you may feel that I have questioned your knowledge. Let me explain it again. I have questioned it it because you have tried to simplify Buddhism.

I don't think I have. All the Buddhist schools are built on the original teachings. It might be a surprise, but they are consistent in this.

Let me just say that I am not a Buddhist scholar, but I have studied it. I've been talking about the basics which can be checked by anyone.

I absolutely agree with Dalai Lama as he said that if we want to choose a spiritual teacher, we need to know him and observe him very carefully for 12 years” I hope that it will help you not to be defensive.

I don't know what you mean by this. I am aware that Spiritual teachers need to be tested. If you are suggesting that I consider myself a teacher, then I don't.

Finally, I have noticed in our previous discussion that you made assumptions without reading a book or checking references based on which the author wrote his book. I have a very different approach to study. I don’t make assumptions without reading a work.

Would you care to elucidate what assumptions I have made? You keep on saying how you never do this, or follow the truth etc etc, without actually providing anything of substance. This discussion began about Buddhism - Tantra and what the relationship is between the three aspects and different schools. You don't seem to be talking about this, but merely using this discussion to question - not what I say, but my ethics of study, my integrity and whether or not I actually am truthful in my replies. Do you want to continue to discuss Buddhism, or do you want to go on trying to criticise my ...integrity?

mazHur

11-26-2011, 07:22 PM

[QUOTE=Paulclem;1092648]

I question the authority of people who spread incorrect ideas about Buddhism. The thing with Mazhur is, he had made the selfsame point last year. Why would he repeat an untruth about another religion? You weren't party to that discussion, but you can read it on the thread I referred to in my post to him.

If you think I am incorrect please let me know where?? Start with telling the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism which can possibly aid to its better understanding as well as help someone convince about it for a possible 'conversion'.

I still hold on to my idea that Buddhism is a ''passive' kinda religion disfavoring ACTION and laying more stress on mysticism, rituals, esoteric and occult.

ftil

11-26-2011, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Paulclem:

Would you care to elucidate what assumptions I have made? You keep on saying how you never do this, or follow the truth etc etc, without actually providing anything of substance. This discussion began about Buddhism - Tantra and what the relationship is between the three aspects and different schools. You don't seem to be talking about this, but merely using this discussion to question - not what I say, but my ethics of study, my integrity and whether or not I actually am truthful in my replies. Do you want to continue to discuss Buddhism, or do you want to go on trying to criticise my ...integrity?

Why don’t you read your response about Kalachakra Tantra. We might have had an interesting discussion if you took your time to read that book. Please don’t make assumptions that I criticize your integrity. How can I do that if I don’t know you????? I raised a question how could you make assumptions about the author or about the website that posted that book without reading it and checking the references the author provided. Please, don’t make more assumptions. :devil:

Are you trying to get in the last word on this note? I will reply.

I am not trying to get a last word. I just don’t see any reason to continue our discussion. We have the rights to disagree. It is you who have the need to convince that you are right and others are wrong. :brow: I don't have any need to prove to anybody what I know.

Secondly, I am tired of repeating myself. I wrote a few posts where I have explained where we differ in our approach to seeking the knowledge. Finally, I understand that you feel comfortable with accepting common knowledge about Buddhism. But you have to understand that not everybody is like you. There are people who are not followers and who question every belief that hold as truth. It is as simple as that.

irishpixieb

11-26-2011, 07:50 PM

I personally would simply just go with Pascal's Wager if any of the logical arguments aren't flying for you. It's a win win situation either way!

But, my favorite argument for God is Thomas Aquinas' in the Summa Theologica! I love that guy!!

BlackCat

11-26-2011, 08:16 PM

MarkBastable

11-27-2011, 03:19 AM

Except there's a huge flaw in Pascal's wager too.

Darcy88

11-27-2011, 04:05 AM

Except there's a huge flaw in Pascal's wager too.

I'm curious, what would you say the flaw is?

deryk

11-27-2011, 04:08 AM

I begin with why I think certain people do not believe in God. Then I will write about why I still believe in God.

One main reason why some people do not believe in God is that they do not find a direct proof of God. Today science has changed the way people live and think. People have tremendous faith in science and science shows concrete results, often magic like. Science goes by pure logical evidence and God does not seem to fit there as a loving father capable of performing any miracle. The idea that someone is controlling everything in the universe does not seem to ring true to these people.

Secondly, God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent and omni-powerful, but the control of real world seems to be in hand of other people. Injustice, cruelty, corruption and poverty are often evident in social life and many times wrong people seem to be controlling affairs or enjoying life. At the same time, some good people undergo great sufferings without any fault from their side. However, the all-powerful and just God who is also said to be a benevolent father seems to pay no heed and appears completely passive and indifferent.

Now, why I begin believe in God.

When I was young, my parents believed in God and so we followed those religious practices and I thought that a God is there. As we grew up and gain experiences, we begin to reason and apply logic to God. I think believing in God provides a comfort. Believers, have something to fall back upon - something to cling to in case of adversity or after we die. However, is this comfort feeling has a basis in fear for unknown? Alternatively, can we apply some logic to it?

If we consider things from scientific point of view, we find that everything in nature, right from a simple leaf to a blue whale or to just whatsoever else we can think of has a beautifully planned system. You can take an atom or nucleus of an atom or Sun or other stars or the galaxies in our universe, there seems intricate planning in everything. Science only has discovered this beauty of nature and scientists marvel at it. Here we have to choose: Whether it is God or some higher Power, or everything just evolved slowly with time by itself starting with a big bang, as whoever has heard about it keep saying. Choosing God as I did, many questions are still left unanswered but that is where the faith comes i.e. just going by what your heart says.

Coming to the second aspect, yes, I agree the real world is not exactly like we desire. But why does not God intervene then. Well, I think, if God starts intervening directly, smacking all the wrong persons, then world may improve very quickly but world would become very automated, dull and without spice. Second, if you believe your are eternal beings or in the reincarnation theory as I do, then eventually everything is going to fit- at its own pace. The world is a learning playground for us and God with his wild humor has His own plan for each one of us.

Well, to start with, I have given few main reasons why I believe in God. I hope other readers may give their views- on why they believe or do not believe in God.

I just hope that we do not go for one-another’s throat and keep our humor intact. :D
Lots of tossing around abstractions and no earned conclusions.

I think bad things happen because the universe does not unequivocally revolve around us, not because some anthropomorphic, astronomical presence rolled the dice to spice things up.

I've considered both sides of the opposition you've created for a very long time.

I doubt you can say the same.

Your aim isn't truth, it's self-fulfillment.

I'm curious, what would you say the flaw is?The flaw is that the wager can easily be inverted. What if the afterlife sounds like a hideous fate? In that scenario the believer has everything to lose. It's still a matter of Kantian perception. It isn't really science.

MarkBastable

11-27-2011, 04:32 AM

I'm curious, what would you say the flaw is?

Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside.

So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.

Go on. Believe it. Really believe it. Go on. What's stopping you?

deryk

11-27-2011, 04:44 AM

OrphanPip

11-27-2011, 05:04 AM

There's also the fact that for Pascal's Wager to be really effective, we would essentially have to sincerely believe in a number of contradictory doctrines. As you can't simultaneously follow all the religious dictates of Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism or what have you.

YesNo

11-27-2011, 05:18 AM

Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside.

So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.

Go on. Believe it. Really believe it. Go on. What's stopping you?
The following is closer to Pascal's wager since for Pascal there is a severe penalty in not believing.

If you believe in pink pixies you will get a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe, a million dollars will be taken away from you on your sixtieth birthday.

How would you scientifically test the pink pixie hypothesis? You just look at the bank accounts of people who turn sixty.

How would you scientifically test whether there might be something like a God that Pascal would believe in? Some evidence comes from near death and shared death experiences. Other evidence comes from the near certainty that the universe had a beginning 13.73, plus or minus 1%, billion years ago.

However, these lines of evidence only give you partial support for Pascal's God who demands belief using heaven and hell to influence your choice. The evidence could imply all kinds of Gods, but not the pink pixies which we can disprove quickly.

MarkBastable

11-27-2011, 05:26 AM

The following is closer to Pascal's wager since for Pascal there is a severe penalty in not believing.

If you believe in pink pixies you will get a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe, a million dollars will be taken away from you on your sixtieth birthday.

How would you scientifically test the pink pixie hypothesis? You just look at the bank accounts of people who turn sixty.

How would you scientifically test whether there might be something like a God that Pascal would believe in? Some evidence comes from near death and shared death experiences. Other evidence comes from the near certainty that the universe had a beginning 13.73, plus or minus 1%, billion years ago.

However, these lines of evidence only give you partial support for Pascal's God who demands belief using heaven and hell to influence your choice. The evidence could imply all kinds of Gods, but not the pink pixies which we can disprove quickly.

I think you're missing both Pascal's point and mine. However, if you prefer, the pink pixies will give you invisible immortality. They really will. So start believing in them immediately.

I don't think that the severe threat makes any difference to the difficulty of sincerely believing something because the logic suggest it's a good idea to.

In fact, we can try that now.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will call you a rude name.

Feel like believing in them yet?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will throw a tennis ball at you.

Any glimmerings of faith?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will destroy a foreign city you've barely heard of.

Ready to welcome the pixies into your heart?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, you will be cast into the fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity.

Aha! Has that swung it? Do you now believe in the pixies?

I suspect not, and that's for three reasons.

1) It's necessary to have a pre-existing belief in the pink pixies to take seriously the threat of what they might do to you - so Pascal doesn't apply.

2) In any case, the ability to believe isn't really increased by the escalation of the threat.

3). Even if you knew for a fact that some other agency than the pink pixies was going to fulfil the threat - let's say it's me, in my capacity as the pixies' self-declared representative on Earth - you wouldn't be able to make yourself believe in them, although you might decide it was a good idea to pretend to.

Varenne Rodin

11-27-2011, 05:33 AM

Paulclem

11-27-2011, 06:24 AM

Why don’t you read your response about Kalachakra Tantra. We might have had an interesting discussion if you took your time to read that book. Please don’t make assumptions that I criticize your integrity. How can I do that if I don’t know you????? I raised a question how could you make assumptions about the author or about the website that posted that book without reading it and checking the references the author provided. Please, don’t make more assumptions. :devil:

I am not trying to get a last word. I just don’t see any reason to continue our discussion. We have the rights to disagree. It is you who have the need to convince that you are right and others are wrong. :brow: I don't have any need to prove to anybody what I know.

Secondly, I am tired of repeating myself. I wrote a few posts where I have explained where we differ in our approach to seeking the knowledge. Finally, I understand that you feel comfortable with accepting common knowledge about Buddhism. But you have to understand that not everybody is like you. There are people who are not followers and who question every belief that hold as truth. It is as simple as that.

You came into this discussion stating I must remember there are three aspects of Buddhism - Hinayana, Mahayana and Tantra. My response was that they are not different in the sense of their basis, but they have a different focus for practice. Tantra grows from practising the Mahayana. It is not seperate in the sense that you become a Tantric Buddhist and not one of the others.

If you want to discuss this I will.

As for the Kalachakra Tantra - was that in a previous discussion? The one on your thread where you are using a site which is full of anti-Dalai Lama sentiments?

Please don’t make assumptions that I criticize your integrity.

You have criticised my integrity - not that I am offended. Every time you mention me making assumptions - you are criticising my integrity.

If you want to argue that Madame Blavatsky knew anything at all about Buddhism and the teaching of Tantra - then go on.

It is you who have the need to convince that you are right and others are wrong.

Some of the things that have been written are incorrect. Are you criticising me for pointing this out? You can check what I say. I'm just about to respond to Mazhur's last post where he has stated something incorrect in previous posts.

Buddhism believes in self-torture to get rid of sufferings.

Mazhur - this is fundamentally incorrect. A reading of the Buddha's life will establish that he rejected such asceticism for the Middle way. As he was sitting in a starved state he realised that this was not going to answer the question of solving the suffering of life. He then began to take food again and resumed his quest for Enlightenment. What you said is fundamentally against The Buddha's own example.

[QUOTE]

If you think I am incorrect please let me know where?? Start with telling the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism which can possibly aid to its better understanding as well as help someone convince about it for a possible 'conversion'.

I still hold on to my idea that Buddhism is a ''passive' kinda religion disfavoring ACTION and laying more stress on mysticism, rituals, esoteric and occult.

I have absolutely no wish to convert anyone. I respect your religion, and wish you well in the practice of it. HH he Dalai Lama said some years ago that people should follow the religion they grow up with unless they have a very strong attachment to another.

I still hold on to my idea that Buddhism is a ''passive' kinda religion disfavoring ACTION and laying more stress on mysticism, rituals, esoteric and occult.

It's true that Buddhism advocates peace, as Ashoka demonstrated. It is not a passive, sit about, doormat, let it happen to you religion though. It basically gives an individual the tools to try to locate the sources of suffering and to change their behaviour or situation in order to improve that. It teaches action, but right action through a correct appraisal of the situation rather than by reacting with destructive or negative emotions like anger. The result of acting unskillfully is to incur negative Karma, which leads to more suffering.

ftil

11-27-2011, 08:06 AM

You have criticised my integrity - not that I am offended. Every time you mention me making assumptions - you are criticising my integrity.

Well, we have a very different understanding what assumptions mean. When I said that you made assumptions I didn’t criticized your integrity but I said that you were wrong about my thoughts. You may try to sit in my head and read my thoughts,........ believing that it is true. :lol:

Some of the things that have been written are incorrect. Are you criticising me for pointing this out? You can check what I say. I'm just about to respond to Mazhur's last post where he has stated something incorrect in previous posts.

Well, I have noticed that you also questioned others who wrote about Blavatsky or Kalachakra.
Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack. You use the same tactic so that don’t be surprised that I brought this up. To make very clear, I am not talking about myself but about others who studied that subject in depth.

As for the Kalachakra Tantra - was that in a previous discussion? The one on your thread where you are using a site which is full of anti-Dalai Lama sentiments?

Well, it was not a site. It was a book that the site you mentioned posted it. This book can be found on a number of websites. May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided? You will find a number of important scholars. Don’t be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... don’t expect others to be afraid to challenge and question. :p

MarkBastable

11-27-2011, 08:18 AM

It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.

To be fair, old love, the same could be said of you, or me, or anyone who mounts an argument in order to defend a position. So it's hardly a useful observation about someone you're arguing with. In fact, it smacks a bit of desperation.

mazHur

11-27-2011, 10:55 AM

Mazhur - this is fundamentally incorrect. A reading of the Buddha's life will establish that he rejected such asceticism for the Middle way. As he was sitting in a starved state he realised that this was not going to answer the question of solving the suffering of life. He then began to take food again and resumed his quest for Enlightenment. What you said is fundamentally against The Buddha's own example.

Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.

What is Kalachakra??? Literally it means ''Black Circle''

YesNo

11-27-2011, 11:41 AM

I think you're missing both Pascal's point and mine. However, if you prefer, the pink pixies will give you invisible immortality. They really will. So start believing in them immediately.

From my view, we all already have "invisible immortality". There is no need to believe in anything to get this. So why bother wagering at all for something we already have?

I don't think that the severe threat makes any difference to the difficulty of sincerely believing something because the logic suggest it's a good idea to.

In fact, we can try that now.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will call you a rude name.

Feel like believing in them yet?

Let's test this scientifically. I don't believe in the pink pixies. I am waiting to hear the rude name. Ah, I don't hear one. I can conclude either the pink pixies don't exist or they do not have the ability to call me a rude name.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will throw a tennis ball at you.

Any glimmerings of faith?

OK, let's test this. I don't believe in pink pixies, but no one is throwing a tennis ball at me. I can dismiss the pink pixies.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will destroy a foreign city you've barely heard of.

Ready to welcome the pixies into your heart?

I think it is safe to assume that there are more people in the world who don't believe in pink pixies than there are cities in the world. Since these cities still exist, the pink pixie threat is not real.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, you will be cast into the fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity.

Aha! Has that swung it? Do you now believe in the pixies?

I don't believe in a fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity. There might be other hells, however.

II suspect not, and that's for three reasons.

1) It's necessary to have a pre-existing belief in the pink pixies to take the threat seriously - so Pascal doesn't apply.

2) In any case, the ability to believe isn't really increased by the escalation of the threat.

3). Even if you knew for a fact that some other agency than the pink pixies was going to fulfil the threat - let's say it's me, in my capacity as the pixies' self-declared representative on Earth - you wouldn't be able to make yourself believe in them, although you might decide it was a good idea to pretend to.

There are people who live under oppressive environments where they have to pretend to like what a government is doing just to survive. In this case there is no need to believe in anything. They are fully aware of the dangers they face.

MarkBastable

11-27-2011, 11:48 AM

From my view, we all already have "invisible immortality".

I wasn't intending to talk about what each of us individually believed, but to talk about whether Pascal's Wager worked. If you start from the idea that we all have immortality whether we believe in God or not, then Pascal doesn't apply, whether or not it works.

OK, let's test this. I don't believe in pink pixies, but no one is throwing a tennis ball at me. I can dismiss the pink pixies.
.

Remember, this is analagous to the punishment that God will visit upon us - which is the flipside of eternal heavenly life. Like God, the pixies won't be throwing the tennis ball - or doing anything else to you, nice or nasty - until after you're dead. That's the basis of Pascal's Wager, and of Bastable's Pixies (Invisible Immortality Version).

Of course, the beauty of Pascal is that he doesn't preclude Bastable's Pixies or anything else, as long as they aren't mutually-contradictory. You can believe in just about everything that might be beneficial. If it were possible to believe things on the strength of seeing that they might do you some good, Pascal would have the maximum spread-bet chance of believing the thing that turned out to matter.

cafolini

11-27-2011, 12:28 PM

If you don't believe in the pink pixies you know of no pisses of pixies well pissed.

Paulclem

11-27-2011, 01:49 PM

Well, I have noticed that you also questioned others who wrote about Blavatsky or Kalachakra.
Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack. You use the same tactic so that don’t be surprised that I brought this up. To make very clear, I am not talking about myself but about others who studied that subject in depth.

Well, it was not a site. It was a book that the site you mentioned posted it. This book can be found on a number of websites. May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided? You will find a number of important scholars. Don’t be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... don’t expect others to be afraid to challenge and question. :p

The question about the Kalachakra - from what I recall - I'll go and have another look at the thread in a bit - the book on the site you mentioned has a very skewed interpretation of the meaning of Tantric Buddhism. Reading further on, I noticed denigrating references to HH The Dalai Lama. I assume you had looked at this site in good faith, but were perhaps unaware of the agenda behind it. I have read enough of the pages to understand that it does have an agenda. The reason I picked up on this - as I was browsing a link you provided - were some very basic mistakes in the explanation of some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. It was when I looked further that it became clear that this is a site full of misconceptions and misinterpretation which is intended to show Tibetan Buddhism in general, HH The Dalai lama and Tantra in particular, in a negative light. I was merely pointing out to you that this is the case, and anyone reading it should be aware of it.

Although Tibetan Buddhism, and Buddhism in general, is usually well regarded, there are agencies that seek to denigrate it. The obvious one is the Chinese Govt, who maintain that HH is a splittist wanting to separate Tibet from China again. China is very sensitive to criticism, and past policy regarding Tibet by Mao resulted in an orchestrated famine that killed over a million Tibetans. HH has stated that he is willing to work with the Chinese, and won't be seeking independance - it is politically impossible given China's resources.

May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided?

The judgement is from what it says in the text of the site. My reading of it was clear. I feel the site is written in an intentionally misleading way, and so I don't feel reading the references - which may include texts that have valid information or not - is particularly relevant. If you like, I'll go back and have a look at the things that stand out as either intentionally misleading, a negative interpretation or just plain wrong.

Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.

Attack - challenge - correct - question. I prefer the last three labels, but I will continue to do so when something is so obviously incorrect. There are already a lot of misconceptions regarding Buddhism.

Don’t be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... don’t expect others to be afraid to challenge and question.

In the cases on here I've never had belief challenged. The concepts about Buddhism I challenge are well known in terms of being rock solid Buddhist concepts. The thing I challenged Mazhur about - that Buddhism is about finding Enlightenment through suffering is completely the opposite of the Buddha's message. I don't see anything wrong in challenging a wrongly stated fundamental question.

You know I will respond if you take issue with anything, but if I am wrong, or find I am wrong, I will admit it freely. Tell me where I have been wrong and I'll hold up my hands if you're right.

Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.

He went through an ascetic stage, but rejected this as a valid way to gain freedom from birth, ageing, sickness and death. There are statues of the Buddha as virtually a skeleton, but the message was probably intended to refute Hindu asceticism as a way to truth.

Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.

What is Kalachakra??? Literally it means ''Black Circle''

I've heard it referred to as The Wheel of Time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalachakra

cafolini

11-27-2011, 03:27 PM

There were only a few years when Buddha suffered indigestion with lotus pizza.

mazHur

11-27-2011, 04:23 PM

I've heard it referred to as The Wheel of Time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalachakra

No, Kala (in my language) means black, chakra means wheel or circle, together they mean Black Wheel or perhaps metaphorically black 'magic' or esoteric , occult or misfortune.

There were only a few years when Buddha suffered indigestion with lotus pizza.

I am so sorry...
I love Buddha!

ftil

11-27-2011, 04:31 PM

To be fair, old love, the same could be said of you, or me, or anyone who mounts an argument in order to defend a position. So it's hardly a useful observation about someone you're arguing with. In fact, it smacks a bit of desperation.

Do you think so? You don’t know me….but make assumptions that it is an act of desperation. LOL!
I am not afraid to challenge my belief system. One of the reasons that I am not afraid is the fact that flexible belief system is a sign of psychological health. Don’t you think that it is very freeing?
I don’t have any need to defend my belief system. I guess you didn’t read my posts, otherwise you would know that I don’t have answers but I have questions and I keep my mind open while I search for truth.

Originally Posted by Paulclem

The question about the Kalachakra - from what I recall - I'll go and have another look at the thread in a bit - the book on the site you mentioned has a very skewed interpretation of the meaning of Tantric Buddhism. Reading further on, I noticed denigrating references to HH The Dalai Lama. I assume you had looked at this site in good faith, but were perhaps unaware of the agenda behind it. I have read enough of the pages to understand that it does have an agenda. The reason I picked up on this - as I was browsing a link you provided - were some very basic mistakes in the explanation of some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. It was when I looked further that it became clear that this is a site full of misconceptions and misinterpretation which is intended to show Tibetan Buddhism in general, HH The Dalai lama and Tantra in particular, in a negative light. I was merely pointing out to you that this is the case, and anyone reading it should be aware of it.

To make a final comment, I can say that I don’t have any need to defend any religious figure whether it is Dalai Lama or Pope. Dalai Lama’s followers may believe that he is holly. I don’t. I don’t believe that Pope is holly either. If you see it that it was an agenda, so be it. I don’t have any interest to convince otherwise. But I have a lot in common with the author. I have always found fascinating that when we look for truth we arrive to the same conclusions that take us deeper.

Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves. To bottom line is that people may think whatever they want. But it is not my business what others think. They are free to choose their beliefs. But I don’t like when the truth is not being told. And I clearly see it regarding tantra and Blavatsky. Since you deny connections Blavatsky with Buddhism which is very important, we have to end here. This was a reason I said that I didn’t want to continue our discussion. :wink5:

mazHur

11-27-2011, 04:40 PM

Okay folks enough, let's now talk ''why I believe in God''!!

MarkBastable

11-27-2011, 05:05 PM

You don’t know me….but make assumptions that it is an act of desperation.

Well, I know you as well as you know Paul - about whom you seem able to say 'It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.'

You may say that you are not making a judgement of him, but of what he has written here. Hence 'It sounds that..." I'd say the same of you, hence 'It smacks of..."

Darcy88

11-27-2011, 05:18 PM

Paulclem

11-27-2011, 05:23 PM

To make a final comment, I can say that I don’t have any need to defend any religious figure whether it is Dalai Lama or Pope. Dalai Lama’s followers may believe that he is holly. I don’t. I don’t believe that Pope is holly either. If you see it that it was an agenda, so be it. I don’t have any interest to convince otherwise. But I have a lot in common with the author. I have always found fascinating that when we look for truth we arrive to the same conclusions that take us deeper.

Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves. To bottom line is that people may think whatever they want. But it is not my business what others think. They are free to choose their beliefs. But I don’t like when the truth is not being told. And I clearly see it regarding tantra and Blavatsky. Since you deny connections Blavatsky with Buddhism which is very important, we have to end here. This was a reason I said that I didn’t want to continue our discussion. :wink5:

It's true I do defend HH, but not , I hope, unfairly. I've made some postings on the book/site you were referring to. I'm trying to show why it is biased and full of inacurracies and assumptions. I'm not personally having a go at you when I do this, but sincerely trying to demonstrate that the site is badly flawed. Don't rely on it, or rather check up on what it says.

I still maintain that Blavatsky has no knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism, and you haven't provided any connection either. You don't say why you think it is important even. I could discuss that with you if you could tell me what it is that Blavatsky wrote that has any importance at all concerning Tantra. We can leave it at that impasse though if you wish.

Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves.

Interestingly, The Buddha says that each should find out the truth of the path for themselves. This is a very important point in choosing a teacher and investigating Buddhist beliefs. I don't isagree with this sentiment in principle, and Buddhism is about challenging and changing yourself.

No, Kala (in my language) means black, chakra means wheel or circle, together they mean Black Wheel or perhaps metaphorically black 'magic' or esoteric , occult or misfortune.

I can see that, but this particular reference is to the Wheel of Time.

cafolini

11-27-2011, 05:27 PM

I suspected you would say something to that effect. And, really, I don't think there's a good defense to made against your objection. Once you violate the laws of plausibility and empiricism you are kind of left with a belief system in which anything goes.

But Darcy, anything does go that goes. Otherwise it couldn't happen.

ftil

11-27-2011, 05:49 PM

It's true I do defend HH, but not , I hope, unfairly. I've made some postings on the book/site you were referring to. I'm trying to show why it is biased and full of inacurracies and assumptions. I'm not personally having a go at you when I do this, but sincerely trying to demonstrate that the site is badly flawed. Don't rely on it, or rather check up on what it says.

I still maintain that Blavatsky has no knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism, and you haven't provided any connection either. You don't say why you think it is important even. I could discuss that with you if you could tell me what it is that Blavatsky wrote that has any importance at all concerning Tantra. We can leave it at that impasse though if you wish.

Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves.

Interestingly, The Buddha says that each should find out the truth of the path for themselves. This is a very important point in choosing a teacher and investigating Buddhist beliefs. I don't isagree with this sentiment in principle, and Buddhism is about challenging and changing yourself.

You have the rights to believe whatever you want, including defending Dalai Lama. I don’t do it any more. Years ago, I defended Pope. LOL! Life is beautiful as I can outgrow beliefs that thwart my understanding of reality.

You are free to keep your beliefs about Blavatsky. You want me to explain the connections …….How can I do it since it took me more than a decade to pick up the pieces and make connections. I wish it were that simple as I would not need years of study, not mentioning money I have wasted. To explain what I mean, I can say that if somebody told me what I know today, I would have to believe it but I wouldn’t see it. More likely I would refuse to believe it. How human consciousness works is quite fascinating, yet it can be pain in the neck if we are committed to seeking the truth. Too many lies and deceptions. Unless we understand how our consciousness works, we have to BELIEve. :D I don’t invest my energy into believing but I keep my mind open.