Living without religions

[blazeofglory]

Man existed before religions existed. There were no ideas of Gods. Scriptures came after man. There was no Bible or the idea of the Bible before man.

There are stories built around the creation of the universe. But there must have been a man who wove the story of creation.

Man precedes everything, God, religions, scriptures.

If God created man, but the idea about God was created by man.

It is man who gave God that title.

Can you think about a master without a servant? It is the servant's existence that asserted or that averred the existence of the manster.

Religions in point of fact are creating voids, gulfs and fences. Imagine there is no religion, but there are values, respects and mutuality among us. Imagine man loves man instead of God.

In fact loving something abstract you have not seen and hating something vital or animate is not the morale of life.

Religions stands as a wall between two peoples.

Let us read the best of Krishna, the Buddha, Christ and forget the religions built around these greats.

[skasian]

But isnt believing a God between Krishna Buddha Christ or any other dedicating yourself to become religious? If you start believing and taking faith in a God, then it is inevitable you become active in a religion. This is because when you start having faith in a God, you start to worship, and follow their ways and words. How can you be individually religious? You automatically become classified into a religious group, therefore religion is inevitable.

If there was to be no religion and we do not live by it, we all become atheists, where we may or may not believe in the existance of a God but not taking faith in one. But how is it possible when there is certainty that at least one person in the world will dedicate themselves to a higher power? Religion therefore has to exist.

[JBI]

Yes, but if we break from organized religion we can live a personal spiritual existence, with individual values - though that is, I think, impossible, being that people like to band together. A sense of community is central to many religions, especially Judaism, where the relationship between people is far more important than the relationship between man and God. In truth, a personal religion, in a sense, exists within a frame, such as Buddhism, but I think cannot exist when you have Popes saying one moment this, and then the next moment that, or whatever. If religion is to exist in the modern world, it should break itself down, and allow itself to be less organized, less structured, and more personal.

In a sense, Native American traditions had it closer when they established the tradition of the spirituality between things, and people. Each thing is a spirit, and connects with other spirits, but doesn't submit himself to other spirits. A religious structure like that is far more beneficial than a radical cross-continent jihad.

But then again, perhaps something like that cannot survive. The west-coast native Canadians, for instance, once they established a sustainable way of life that was far more advanced than their plains neighbors, went right ahead and established hierarchies within society. Perhaps hierarchies are a product of civilization, and human kind, when not trying to band together for survival will automatically submit to an authority, and a caste.

[skasian]

Yes, but if we break from organized religion we can live a personal spiritual existence, with individual values - though that is, I think, impossible, being that people like to band together. A sense of community is central to many religions, especially Judaism, where the relationship between people is far more important than the relationship between man and God. In truth, a personal religion, in a sense, exists within a frame, such as Buddhism, but I think cannot exist when you have Popes saying one moment this, and then the next moment that, or whatever. If religion is to exist in the modern world, it should break itself down, and allow itself to be less organized, less structured, and more personal.

In a sense, Native American traditions had it closer when they established the tradition of the spirituality between things, and people. Each thing is a spirit, and connects with other spirits, but doesn't submit himself to other spirits. A religious structure like that is far more beneficial than a radical cross-continent jihad.

But then again, perhaps something like that cannot survive. The west-coast native Canadians, for instance, once they established a sustainable way of life that was far more advanced than their plains neighbors, went right ahead and established hierarchies within society. Perhaps hierarchies are a product of civilization, and human kind, when not trying to band together for survival will automatically submit to an authority, and a caste.

Thanks for sharing your views, and some information I have not been across such as Judaism and their values.
Your point about personal religion is exactly my point. Religion doesnt have to be in a group or society, all it requires is a system. A system dedicated to god(s) or inner belief. Personal religion is religion afterall. Personal or not, it is still religion. Therefore even if an individual worships God, they are religious and it takes one person to form a religion.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Thanks for sharing your views, and some information I have not been across such as Judaism and their values.
Your point about personal religion is exactly my point. Religion doesnt have to be in a group or society, all it requires is a system. A system dedicated to god(s) or inner belief. Personal religion is religion afterall. Personal or not, it is still religion. Therefore even if an individual worships God, they are religious and it takes one person to form a religion.

Hi, but Buddhism is not necessarily a religion, I would describe it more as a personal philosophy. There is no god in Buddhism, Buddha was simply a man the 'enlightened one' and there have been many Buddhas. It is also possible to attach some of the ideas of Jesus in a non-religious context too, towards a personal philosophy of life, something that is entirely personal and completely non-religious.

[skasian]

Hi, but Buddhism is not necessarily a religion, I would describe it more as a personal philosophy. There is no god in Buddhism, Buddha was simply a man the 'enlightened one' and there have been many Buddhas. It is also possible to attach some of the ideas of Jesus in a non-religious context too, towards a personal philosophy of life, something that is entirely personal and completely non-religious.

I was actually tentative to whether include Buddhism to my post but with limited understanding, I decided not to include it. Buddhism is a hard subject whether to swing it towards philosophy or into religion. But in my country, we regard it as a religion. May I ask you (if you do know) why people bow down in front of a Buddha statue? I do not understand the meaning, is it a sign of respect, worship or self spiritual perfomance?

It is true that a person can account Buddha and Jesus into being a part of their personal philosophy of life however when one starts to worshipping and accepting them to their lives, they become religious. I think thoes two things are very contrasting, and it makes one become an atheist and the other non atheist.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I was actually tentative to whether include Buddhism to my post but with limited understanding, I decided not to include it. Buddhism is a hard subject whether to swing it towards philosophy or into religion. But in my country, we regard it as a religion. May I ask you (if you do know) why people bow down in front of a Buddha statue? I do not understand the meaning, is it a sign of respect, worship or self spiritual perfomance?

Yes Buddhism sometimes sits in-between philosophy and religion, it is hard to classify, in the UK they class Buddhism as a religion too, but this 'whole scale' classification does not fit, it is simply down to individual interpretation.

I strongly suspect that the reasons some Buddhists use statues is in order to maintain focus during mediation and/or general daily pursuits. It is not that they are particularly worshiping Buddha, it is perhaps more accurate to say that they are using the image as a symbol towards their personal development.



It is true that a person can account Buddha and Jesus into being a part of their personal philosophy of life however when one starts to worshipping and accepting them to their lives, they become religious. I think thoes two things are very contrasting, and it makes one become an atheist and the other non atheist.

It depends on how someone interprets the words of Jesus, it one sees Jesus as a philosopher and teacher only, as I do, and not as the son of God, then there is no reason that such a person is going to 'become religious' any more than if they use the ideas of other philosophers. One doesn't become religious just because one reads Freud or Plato.

[skasian]

Yes Buddhism sometimes sits in-between philosophy and religion, it is hard to classify, in the UK they class Buddhism as a religion too, but this 'whole scale' classification does not fit, it is simply down to individual interpretation.

I strongly suspect that the reasons some Buddhists use statues is in order to maintain focus during mediation and/or general daily pursuits. It is not that they are particularly worshiping Buddha, it is perhaps more accurate to say that they are using the image as a symbol towards their personal development.

It depends on how someone interprets the words of Jesus, it one sees Jesus as a philosopher and teacher only, as I do, and not as the son of God, then there is no reason that such a person is going to 'become religious' any more than if they use the ideas of other philosophers. One doesn't become religious just because one reads Freud or Plato.

Ah insightful. Thank you for your explanations.
Also, when someone bows down 180times or more, what kind of personal development are they intending to achieve? I seen somewhere if one bow for a thousand time, a wish of theirs come true. Are there rules of bowing that corresponds to personal development/need?

Yes, that is my point. If some one that only takes in the words of Jesus as a spiritual leader and philosopher without taking in as a God or Saviour, then that person is non religious, or atheist. If some one that takes in the Words of Jesus and believe that He is their God and Saviour, one becomes a Christian, therefore religious.

Oh yes, I have another question, what are the Buddism views of an afterlife?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ah insightful. Thank you for your explanations.
Also, when someone bows down 180times or more, what kind of personal development are they intending to achieve? I seen somewhere if one bow for a thousand time, a wish of theirs come true. Are there rules of bowing that corresponds to personal development/need?

Yes, that is my point. If some one that only takes in the words of Jesus as a spiritual leader and philosopher without taking in as a God or Saviour, then that person is non religious, or atheist. If some one that takes in the Words of Jesus and believe that He is their God and Saviour, one becomes a Christian, therefore religious.

Oh yes, I have another question, what are the Buddism views of an afterlife?

Oh no problem glad to help.

There is a difference between being a lay Buddhist and a Buddhist monk. Buddhist monks take things A LOT further than the standard lay Buddhist or Buddhist follower. A monk dedicates themselves to a particular order of which there are many. Off the top of my head there are at least 7/8 main branches of Buddhism, though inevitably there are sub-divisions. A Buddhist monk may have to follow 240+ rules depending upon a particular division.

It sounds like what you mention is a reading of a Buddhist text, over and over, sometimes used as part of a meditation in some orders. What they are NOT doing is praying, they are devoted to personal development and are using such words as they would the image of Buddha. Here is something from the Dhammapada which they may use:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.than.html

I have no idea about the wish thing, sounds like rubbish to me and not part of any aspect of Buddhism that I know about, but who knows there are many individual orders so who knows?

There are also the lay Buddhists, the ordinary person who follows the Buddhist philosophy, like me in some ways. For lay Buddhists there are some fundamental common sense 'guides' like the four noble truths and the eightfold path, but no 'rules' at all as such - it is quite simply a form of personal philosophy. Of course the Buddhist monks follow these too on top of their extra devotions.

Four noble truths: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

Eightfold Path: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

As for re-birth, again there is no rule about this, it is up to the individual. but based on a few Buddhist forums that I am on I would say the majority of Buddhists believe in re-birth, say 75%? I certainly don't. I think this is where the common sense philosophy (or as what I see as such) and faith meet. Maybe such a division should/could determine the difference between philosophy and religion? Though in the end it doesn't really matter.

If you have any other questions I will be glad to help if I can, thanks John.

[Zee.]

Skasian, buddhist views of the afterlife is the belief in reincarnation depending on our karma in our previous life, and the reach of enlightenment like buddha obtained. It's very complex, too complex to explain here, i suggest if you're interested, that you read up on it. We are not under the "creation" of one god, there is no "god", we can all reach a state of god like divinity through enlightenment

[NikolaiI]

I stayed for a weekend at a Buddhist Abbey and learned a lot. I was able to speak with Geche Dorje, who was visiting, and talking with someone who is very advanced can help you make a lot of progress. For instance he explained the four sacred truths, and it was different hearing them than reading about them.

There is more to Buddhism than common sense. It is a religion although Buddhists are not pushy about that term. I would call it a religion because it is structured like one. There are monks who are authorities of sorts. My own religion - sanatana-dharma, the way of the soul - is very similar to Buddhism. Eating meat is prohibited as well as intoxication. Even food such as garlic is not taken. These are again more strictly observed by monks, or in my religion, brahmanas. I think in Buddhism there are 5 precepts all lay are supposed to follow, and there are more, like 9, for monks.

There are three jewels in Buddhism, as they are called. (I believe.) The Dharma, The Buddha, and the Sangha, and a lot of Buddhist prayer has to do with taking refuge of these. The Buddha is obviously the Buddha, the Dharma is the teachings of the Buddha, and the Sangha is the community of lay and monks.

This is just my own view and I certainly don't speak for any Buddhist organization, but I would say Buddhism is about searching for enlightenment also. It is a tenant of most if not all Buddhist schools of thought that our nature is buddha-nature. This means that our natural state is enlightenment, embodiment of bliss and wisdom. After death there are different states of being, in one of the earlier of which one may see a "Clear White Light," and this light is said to be the illumination of the enlightened ones.

Buddhists believe in anatta, the non-existence of the soul, while my religion believes that we are the soul. Both of them however believe bodily ego and desire to be illusion. Buddhism is about searching out reality. And when one inquries and searches, one realizes that we are part of reality, and only the illusion of separateness exists. I speak about myself as if I am separate. "I am searching for reality." But actually I have an inherent connection, as deep in my being as my being itself, rooted in reality. Searching for enlightenment is like searching for wetness while splashing about in the water. All forms of enlightenment are within us, they only require certain methods of bringing them to the fore.

But what does it mean to say that our nature is buddha-nature? What does it mean to say, as it does, in the Great Flower Ornament Sutra, that in every atom of the universe, there are oceans of world systems? Because of these, and because also of passages such as "The Buddha is equal to the realm of reality" and "the Buddha is equal to the cosmos," I got pointed in a certain direction...

After several experiences I had one where I ... "experienced" buddha-nature. It's difficult to describe. All I can say is that the rest of this is illusion. Buddhism teaches this, that our pure being, our pure essence, is obscured from us and we don't see it when we only use object-perception. I've found that at our core is Buddha and infinite Buddha-lands. Everything in life is some part of the divine - even the inconscient part is also some part of it. But we are somewhere on the spectrum experiencing. We are subject to illusion and so we don't see things as they are. There are so many illusions which we are always perpetuating to feed our desires - Ego, body, mind, attachment, time. We are inside a little box of sense-perception where our senses give us information which is filtered, and we don't get it purely or unfiltered. As William Blake said, "When the doors of perception are cleansed, then all will appear to man as it is, infinite."

[skasian]

Oh no problem glad to help.

There is a difference between being a lay Buddhist and a Buddhist monk. Buddhist monks take things A LOT further than the standard lay Buddhist or Buddhist follower. A monk dedicates themselves to a particular order of which there are many. Off the top of my head there are at least 7/8 main branches of Buddhism, though inevitably there are sub-divisions. A Buddhist monk may have to follow 240+ rules depending upon a particular division.

It sounds like what you mention is a reading of a Buddhist text, over and over, sometimes used as part of a meditation in some orders. What they are NOT doing is praying, they are devoted to personal development and are using such words as they would the image of Buddha. Here is something from the Dhammapada which they may use:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.than.html

I have no idea about the wish thing, sounds like rubbish to me and not part of any aspect of Buddhism that I know about, but who knows there are many individual orders so who knows?

There are also the lay Buddhists, the ordinary person who follows the Buddhist philosophy, like me in some ways. For lay Buddhists there are some fundamental common sense 'guides' like the four noble truths and the eightfold path, but no 'rules' at all as such - it is quite simply a form of personal philosophy. Of course the Buddhist monks follow these too on top of their extra devotions.

Four noble truths: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

Eightfold Path: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

As for re-birth, again there is no rule about this, it is up to the individual. but based on a few Buddhist forums that I am on I would say the majority of Buddhists believe in re-birth, say 75%? I certainly don't. I think this is where the common sense philosophy (or as what I see as such) and faith meet. Maybe such a division should/could determine the difference between philosophy and religion? Though in the end it doesn't really matter.

If you have any other questions I will be glad to help if I can, thanks John.

Thank you John for sharing your knowledge in Buddhism. Even though I have many friends that are Buddhist none of them could relieve my curiosity about Buddhism.
I apologise about the wish thing, I saw in a Korean drama about this buddist monk girl becoming a geisha type King's dancer. Thanks for the links, they were interesting.

I have another question if this is ok. I have been thinking about morality in all religions, and what rule/aspect does Buddism have about morality? Are there a specific aspect that tells people to avoid evil and act good as much as possible?

[skasian]

Skasian, buddhist views of the afterlife is the belief in reincarnation depending on our karma in our previous life, and the reach of enlightenment like buddha obtained. It's very complex, too complex to explain here, i suggest if you're interested, that you read up on it. We are not under the "creation" of one god, there is no "god", we can all reach a state of god like divinity through enlightenment

That is similar to what Nikolai described, and I think he is not Buddhist (Correct me if Im wrong Nik) anyway I have a question about the creation, what does Buddishts believe about creation or the start of the universe? Or is this like rebirth, how 75% believes in it while the others doesnt?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I have another question if this is ok. I have been thinking about morality in all religions, and what rule/aspect does Buddism have about morality? Are there a specific aspect that tells people to avoid evil and act good as much as possible?

Absolutely, morality is at the very heart of Buddhism doing good for others is one of the absolute core objectives of it found in the eightfold path. The idea of personal development, is not personal as such, it is effective only in relation to others. A Buddhist aims to live by peace for all, even those aggressive towards them. I'll post you an interesting link about this later.


That is similar to what Nikolai described, and I think he is not Buddhist (Correct me if Im wrong Nik) anyway I have a question about the creation, what does Buddishts believe about creation or the start of the universe? Or is this like rebirth, how 75% believes in it while the others doesnt?

I know that this is not aimed at me as such but remember that the 75% mark is only my best guess based on nothing much. My answer would be that I distrust all "Buddhism is ..." statements, Buddhism is highly individual and it is NOT necessary to believe in re-birth in order to follow its philosophy. I don't really know about the creation, but as Buddhists do not believe in God, I suppose they would turn to science in order to answer the question.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Originally Posted by skasian
I have another question if this is ok. I have been thinking about morality in all religions, and what rule/aspect does Buddism have about morality? Are there a specific aspect that tells people to avoid evil and act good as much as possible?

Absolutely, morality is at the very heart of Buddhism doing good for others is one of the absolute core objectives of it found in the eightfold path. The idea of personal development, is not personal as such, it is effective only in relation to others. A Buddhist aims to live by peace for all, even those aggressive towards them. I'll post you an interesting link about this later.

Here it is, "The Parable of the Saw" it is right at the bottom of the page:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html

[NikolaiI]

That is similar to what Nikolai described, and I think he is not Buddhist (Correct me if Im wrong Nik) anyway I have a question about the creation, what does Buddishts believe about creation or the start of the universe? Or is this like rebirth, how 75% believes in it while the others doesnt?

No I am not, I studied various Buddhist scriptures and writings, but I am a Vaisnava. I serve and worship Lord Hari, who is the original personality of Godhead. Equal to Hari are Visnu, Ram, Krishna, Govinda, etc. Krishna-Buddha-Allah-JHWA, all are Krsna, all are one.

Having said that, I would like to reply to Neely in saying that there is much more to Buddhism than morality. There is also beauty, Buddhism is in itself the simultaneous search for beauty and truth. There is great beauty in deep wisdom, and there is beauty which can only be seen when one has penetrated the deep essence of buddha-nature. One can only see this beauty when one has found enlightenment, or one's own equivalent, such as Mind of Light, Christ-consciousness, peace, nirvana, etc. And Buddhism is scientific, a systematic way of bringing about this enlightenment, when one will see the beauty of the buddha, in the greatest and smallest discernments. It is this enlightenment which is beyond, gone beyond, gone completely beyond. This can be attained through many different schools in Buddhism, but fairly essential is the status of the spiritual master, or teacher as you would say. Also it's so beneficial to associate with practicing monks and lay - then you will see what the practice actually is. Buddhists eat only food which is offered, only which is strictestly vegetarian, and they also don't eat garlic. They only eat at particular times which are scheduled arounds time for prayer and meditation, when they chant sacred mantras and bow many times before the Buddhas. Buddhism is many things, but one thing which is not to be un-emphasized is the power of health and goodness, refreshment, to be found within a Buddhist community. Buddhists practice 24/7, and even a small association with them can be very beneficial. Buddhsits often exhibit great health because they are not partaking in any karma from eating meat, and they are always engaged in meditation.

The only downside to Buddhism, that I have had, is that it lacks knowledge about the soul, and about God, and truly it doesn't know exactly what and who the boddhisattvas and Buddhas which are honored, revered, offered and prayed to. Although I say this and it is probably very premature. Intelligent ones in this situation realize who the buddha is... although here we come across - logically and systematically, as could happen in what other religion?- the idea "if you know you can't say but if you don't know you can't be told." In other words - if you know who the buddha is, who bodhisattvas are, you are enlightened, but if you don't know, you can't know, because you must know to know. So what I am trying to say is that a Buddhist's practice is not any less perfect than a Christians, because if a Buddhist understands who the Buddha is then he has attained it himself.

[skasian]

Absolutely, morality is at the very heart of Buddhism doing good for others is one of the absolute core objectives of it found in the eightfold path. The idea of personal development, is not personal as such, it is effective only in relation to others. A Buddhist aims to live by peace for all, even those aggressive towards them. I'll post you an interesting link about this later.



I know that this is not aimed at me as such but remember that the 75% mark is only my best guess based on nothing much. My answer would be that I distrust all "Buddhism is ..." statements, Buddhism is highly individual and it is NOT necessary to believe in re-birth in order to follow its philosophy. I don't really know about the creation, but as Buddhists do not believe in God, I suppose they would turn to science in order to answer the question.

Yes, I think you have answered all my curiosities and your explanations are greatly appreciated.

[skasian]

No I am not, I studied various Buddhist scriptures and writings, but I am a Vaisnava. I serve and worship Lord Hari, who is the original personality of Godhead. Equal to Hari are Visnu, Ram, Krishna, Govinda, etc. Krishna-Buddha-Allah-JHWA, all are Krsna, all are one.

Having said that, I would like to reply to Neely in saying that there is much more to Buddhism than morality. There is also beauty, Buddhism is in itself the simultaneous search for beauty and truth. There is great beauty in deep wisdom, and there is beauty which can only be seen when one has penetrated the deep essence of buddha-nature. One can only see this beauty when one has found enlightenment, or one's own equivalent, such as Mind of Light, Christ-consciousness, peace, nirvana, etc. And Buddhism is scientific, a systematic way of bringing about this enlightenment, when one will see the beauty of the buddha, in the greatest and smallest discernments. It is this enlightenment which is beyond, gone beyond, gone completely beyond. This can be attained through many different schools in Buddhism, but fairly essential is the status of the spiritual master, or teacher as you would say. Also it's so beneficial to associate with practicing monks and lay - then you will see what the practice actually is. Buddhists eat only food which is offered, only which is strictestly vegetarian, and they also don't eat garlic. They only eat at particular times which are scheduled arounds time for prayer and meditation, when they chant sacred mantras and bow many times before the Buddhas. Buddhism is many things, but one thing which is not to be un-emphasized is the power of health and goodness, refreshment, to be found within a Buddhist community. Buddhists practice 24/7, and even a small association with them can be very beneficial. Buddhsits often exhibit great health because they are not partaking in any karma from eating meat, and they are always engaged in meditation.

The only downside to Buddhism, that I have had, is that it lacks knowledge about the soul, and about God, and truly it doesn't know exactly what and who the boddhisattvas and Buddhas which are honored, revered, offered and prayed to. Although I say this and it is probably very premature. Intelligent ones in this situation realize who the buddha is... although here we come across - logically and systematically, as could happen in what other religion?- the idea "if you know you can't say but if you don't know you can't be told." In other words - if you know who the buddha is, who bodhisattvas are, you are enlightened, but if you don't know, you can't know, because you must know to know. So what I am trying to say is that a Buddhist's practice is not any less perfect than a Christians, because if a Buddhist understands who the Buddha is then he has attained it himself.

Krishna and Buddah are the same?? Woah, you got me confused here, are you saying Buddhism and Hindism are linked as well as the Vaisnava religion??

Ah thank you for adding more from Neely's views, I always found Buddhism something very peaceful and beautiful in the same time, especially like the water lily which I know is linked with Buddhism some how. About vegetarians, it is strange how some of my friends are Buddhist, as they come from a Buddhist families, and they arent vegetarian, in Buddhist terms, what will happen to them?
As we have been discussing Buddhism, I have one more question about and it would be great if you or Neely or anyone could suggest an answer. One of my Buddhist friend always wears a bracelet which are made up of small square wooden blocks, and in each of these blocks have carvings that resemble the Nazi symbol. I have seen the same symbol in Buddhist drawings and carvings, but I do not understand why Nazi borrowed such symbol for their own. What are the significance of this symbol that made the Nazi to use this?

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact there are many similarities between Buddhism and Hinduism. In fact I do not say Hinduism, and I do not like the term for it creates a sectarianism. I call better the Vedic society.
In fact Buddhism has taken some of the best things from Vedic literature.

The Vedas are the lifeblood of eastern philosophy whether you call Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and the like.

The Vedas are the source or the fountainheads of many religions, cultures.

Sanskrit is the source of many other languages, even some European languages too.

I do not in fact support any religions. I am versed in many books of religions and scriptures but Sanskrit scriptures are unbeatable in terms of philosophy and literature.

[NikolaiI]

I mean that in the sense that the form of Krishna is absolute bliss and knowledge and near as I can tell this is also the nature of the Buddha. Why do I liken Buddha to God? Because Buddha is within and without. Within it is as Buddha-nature, and without it is as reality. This may seem esoteric but it is the logical conclusion of the idea of buddha-nature.

This is not what the majority of Buddhists believe, and so Buddhism is not so much the same as Hinduism, but it's just my understanding of it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

QUOTE=skasian
About vegetarians, it is strange how some of my friends are Buddhist, as they come from a Buddhist families, and they arent vegetarian, in Buddhist terms, what will happen to them?

Again it depends on how it is interpreted by the individual, as I don't believe in re-birth, for me nothing. For those who do I'm not sure, that they will come back as bacon I suppose? Personally I'm not strickly a vegetarian though I do limit my meat intake.

Vegetarianism and Buddhism is a contentious issue and always draws sharp opinions from those interested in the Buddhist philosophy. In the precepts it says about not killing or causing harm to a living being, which is a clear sign to be vegetarian, but then again the Buddha himself (as does the present day Dali Lama) ate meat. It is a conflicting issue that is best left to the individual to decide on. In the same way drinking alcohol also divides Buddhist thought, again it is to be a thing left for the individual to decide for themselves, Buddhism is a very personal philosophy/religion and letting go of such views are perhaps more important than holding on to them anyway.

I don't know about the symbol, I remember that the Nazis took it from something else, not necessarily Buddhist, but what it is exactly I'm not sure.

[skasian]

Thank you all for expressing your views and knowledges. Back to the main subject of living without religions, I cannot possibly imagine a world without religion, which I think is unrealistic, living without God. Without God there is no existance, no nothing. How can there be no religion in our lives when God is truely the centre of our lives and everything that we should give up for.

[billyjack]

I cannot possibly imagine a world without religion, which I think is unrealistic, living without God. Without God there is no existance, no nothing.

can't imagine eh? unrealistic? hows bout 2,000 years ago; before your religion existed. or 3,000 or so years ago; before any modern day religion existed?

living without god? Scandinavian countries do just this. And as far as standard of living goes they're top notch world wide. their crime rate (godlessness if you will) is minuscule compared to that of religious countries (say the USA for instance--91% believe in a god of some sort)


How can there be no religion in our lives when God is truely the centre of our lives and everything that we should give up for.

this is revealing and troubling and a good example of why religion most certainly needs to be questioned. you say "we" as if all should subscribe to your axiom of "giving up everything" in the name of god. I'll give you the larry david analogy or somewhere near abouts to it to illustrate my point: you like lobster. so you think everyone should like lobster.

[NikolaiI]

I agree with you, skasian, because religion (which I would define as the science of self-realization, the path of God-realization, and sanatana-dharma the way of the soul) is the point of life. Why can the search for God not wait? Because serving God is fulfilling everything, just like watering the roots of the tree is the only way to distribute water to the rest of the tree. Similarly, God is the root of existence, so to go back to God is to return to life, knowledge, and bliss. It does require sacrifice such as sacrifice of false ego - believing "I am the body," or "I am simply matter and not spirit." Because in truth we are spirit - all matter comes from spirit and all of the universe comes from God.

People disbelieve in God because they disbelieve in the possibility of an Absolute Good. But God exists, God is simply reality. God is love, peace, knowledge, and bliss. The center of everything, the source, and the root of all, is this Absolute Truth, the original source of all other forms. It is simply the case. And when you make your life centered around God, this is only when you can make true advancement in life; that is, true growth which is not based on temporary or false instructions. God is the creator of all of this, and he is eternal. The material manifestation is not eternal, however, and our physical bodies are not eternal. If we never recognize and serve God in this life, then we will not make true progress (or much of it) and we will stay within the material universe, and take another body, our energy refreshed, in a higher or lower birth. So goes the seemingly endless cycle of birth and death.

An elephant cannot make great progress in the river, though he is very powerful. If the river is strong it will sweep him away. But a fish, even though he is much smaller, can swim even up and against the current. Why is this? Because he takes shelter of the river. He is very naturally existing in the river. Similarly, all of us, as originally transcendental, pure, blissful souls, situated fully in knowledge of our relationship to the Supreme, exist very naturally in the Supreme. If we take shelter of God, then the world, which is in general in ignorance about the soul, about God, in other words; covered by Maya, is no longer an obstacle for us. We would not be subject to birth and death anymore. But we do not demand this anyway. We simly have become attracted to God, who is the source of all beauty, knowledge, wisdom, strength, wealth, and fame; in other words, the all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we are simply living we should be, no more or less.

[edit: be clear as to how I defined religion. It is the path of the soul, not Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or any other religion. My religion is sanatana-dharma. The nature of the soul is service; be it service to our family, our country, our desires, our company (working). All of these are temporary service, however, but if we do service for God it brings us eternal spiritual merit. It has nothing to do with any caste or creed; it is simply our natural, transcendental position of our relationship with the Surpeme.]

[skasian]

can't imagine eh? unrealistic? hows bout 2,000 years ago; before your religion existed. or 3,000 or so years ago; before any modern day religion existed?

living without god? Scandinavian countries do just this. And as far as standard of living goes they're top notch world wide. their crime rate (godlessness if you will) is minuscule compared to that of religious countries (say the USA for instance--91% believe in a god of some sort)



this is revealing and troubling and a good example of why religion most certainly needs to be questioned. you say "we" as if all should subscribe to your axiom of "giving up everything" in the name of god. I'll give you the larry david analogy or somewhere near abouts to it to illustrate my point: you like lobster. so you think everyone should like lobster.

The bible accounts that the world existed around 4000years ago, and in this basis from the beginning mankind served God, therefore religion always has been with mankind from Creation.

As a Christian, it is natural for me to believe that all people in this world should give up everything to God. The reason some people dont agree this is because they are atheists. Most religion promote that they should give up their lives to their God. It is simple and powerful belief that governs what an individual thinks and they have every right to do so.

[skasian]

I agree with you, skasian, because religion (which I would define as the science of self-realization, the path of God-realization, and sanatana-dharma the way of the soul) is the point of life. Why can the search for God not wait? Because serving God is fulfilling everything, just like watering the roots of the tree is the only way to distribute water to the rest of the tree. Similarly, God is the root of existence, so to go back to God is to return to life, knowledge, and bliss. It does require sacrifice such as sacrifice of false ego - believing "I am the body," or "I am simply matter and not spirit." Because in truth we are spirit - all matter comes from spirit and all of the universe comes from God.

People disbelieve in God because they disbelieve in the possibility of an Absolute Good. But God exists, God is simply reality. God is love, peace, knowledge, and bliss. The center of everything, the source, and the root of all, is this Absolute Truth, the original source of all other forms. It is simply the case. And when you make your life centered around God, this is only when you can make true advancement in life; that is, true growth which is not based on temporary or false instructions. God is the creator of all of this, and he is eternal. The material manifestation is not eternal, however, and our physical bodies are not eternal. If we never recognize and serve God in this life, then we will not make true progress (or much of it) and we will stay within the material universe, and take another body, our energy refreshed, in a higher or lower birth. So goes the seemingly endless cycle of birth and death.

An elephant cannot make great progress in the river, though he is very powerful. If the river is strong it will sweep him away. But a fish, even though he is much smaller, can swim even up and against the current. Why is this? Because he takes shelter of the river. He is very naturally existing in the river. Similarly, all of us, as originally transcendental, pure, blissful souls, situated fully in knowledge of our relationship to the Supreme, exist very naturally in the Supreme. If we take shelter of God, then the world, which is in general in ignorance about the soul, about God, in other words; covered by Maya, is no longer an obstacle for us. We would not be subject to birth and death anymore. But we do not demand this anyway. We simly have become attracted to God, who is the source of all beauty, knowledge, wisdom, strength, wealth, and fame; in other words, the all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we are simply living we should be, no more or less.

So true, thank you for your enlightning words.

[NikolaiI]

So true, thank you for your enlightning words.

Your words are simple and also explained it better than I can. The whole point or the only main point I wished to really point out was that since God is the source of beauty, wisdom... to make him the center of our lives creates a change, which is, now our lives have peace and God at their center. Also, our relationship with God is our life, or it is more than simply life, since God is the source of all life.

[lupe]

can't imagine eh? unrealistic? hows bout 2,000 years ago; before your religion existed. or 3,000 or so years ago; before any modern day religion existed?

living without god? Scandinavian countries do just this. And as far as standard of living goes they're top notch world wide. their crime rate (godlessness if you will) is minuscule compared to that of religious countries (say the USA for instance--91% believe in a god of some sort)



this is revealing and troubling and a good example of why religion most certainly needs to be questioned. you say "we" as if all should subscribe to your axiom of "giving up everything" in the name of god. I'll give you the larry david analogy or somewhere near abouts to it to illustrate my point: you like lobster. so you think everyone should like lobster.

shhhhh.... don't wake up Skasian and NikolaiI, please. Their conversation is so touching! :as-sleep:

[Saladin]

I'll give you the larry david analogy or somewhere near abouts to it to illustrate my point: you like lobster. so you think everyone should like lobster.

Reversed: You dont like lobster, so you think everybody doesn`t like lobster. I must admit that both Nikolai and skasian have some good and valid points. God and religion have been a part of humanity since the birth of man.

Since you mentioned Scandinavia and i live there, i would clarify something. Well you are right that many scandinavians are secular, but many believe in a God or some kind of supernatural entity. So you have to see the bigger picture.

What i mean about God and religion? Well i consider religion to be a private issue, but i would say i agree with what the great scandinavian (danish) philosopher Kierkegaard said and i think both Nikolai and skasian would agree.

"A mans life is wasted when he lives on, so deceived by the joys of life
or by its sorrows, that he never becomes decisively conscious of himself
as spirit, as self, that is, he never is aware in the deepest sense that
there is a God."

- Søren Kierkegaard

[Saladin]

Regarding hell and all that stuff. I am a muslim why would i care if catholics mean i am a heathen, ergo i will go to hellfire? Or buddhists mean i wont reach Nirvana? Or hindus think i can`t reach moksha since i am not a devout hindu?

In the same way should a non-religious person not care about what religious writings or dogmas says. For instance - I dont believe that the Easter Bunny will rob me, since i dont even believe he exists. So if you dont believe on hell and the fire, what is the problem?

Digression:
Hehe. When i first registered myself in this forum i promised myself not to involve in discussion which is about politic or religion. Seems like i broke my promise to myself.

[LitNetIsGreat]

No, I have to strongly side with Billyjack, the world would be a much better place without religion. It would be much better if a personal philosophy of goodness was used instead of an authoritarian religious system of values. Maybe the question we should ask is: did God create man or did man create God, and if so why?

skasianThe bible accounts that the world existed around 4000years ago, and in this basis from the beginning mankind served God, therefore religion always has been with mankind from Creation.

But you don't believe that do you? You're not one of those creationist types (no offence intended) are you? We were getting along so well... :confused:

[Saladin]

No, I have to strongly side with Billyjack, the world would be a much better place without religion. It would be much better if a personal philosophy of goodness was used instead of an authoritarian religious system of values.

Actually the world would be a better place without politics, money, without humans at all.

Alas! Yes! The world would be a much better place without humanity. Religion can be a tool to destroy, but its also a tool that gives a lot of joy and happiness to many humans. Absence of religion is not total happiness or eudaimonia for all humans. To believe that is to be a rather naive.

Just take a look at the world history. Most conflicts and war since the beginning of man have been either politically or ethnical or economical motivated. I agree with you on that there is a great deal problems and issues with authoritarian and organized religions. Regarding creationism. Personally i dont believe that the earth were created for 6000 years ago, nor that Darwin is "satanic scientist", because that is to be honest, pardon the language, a bunch of bull****.

[NikolaiI]

shhhhh.... don't wake up Skasian and NikolaiI, please. Their conversation is so touching! :as-sleep:

Wake up, lupe. :)

You are in the universe.

say this to yourself a million times, a billion times. "I am in the universe."

You are in the universe, and this means you cannot die, you have always lived, and you will never suffer, because you are being pulled toward the relief of suffering. No matter what it is you crave. Everyone is somewhere between completely insane and completely enlightened. My words - God is real - Peace will occur - even if these are not things you wish to believe, no matter who you are or what you are, you are somewhere between insane and completely enlightened. God is real, I believe, I am not saying I am completely enlightened, but all enlightenment comes from God. Now you would be completely illogical to call the statement: all enlightenment comes from God, illogical.

But perhaps this is too far beyond you. I don't mean to insult you.

But let me explain this to you very simply. The main problem people have in this life is trying to get power. But why are you trying to get power? You are a drop in the ocean. You are part of the universe. You are eternal and you are part of everything. You are part of a flowing ocean. Why do you wish for anything? There is no reason to lament for anything because nothing dies. Everything exists in the Lord, and so it comes from and enters into the Lord, always.

You atheists think you are so correct, but I should tell you: this universe is infinite. There are worlds above us, where people are enlightened, which are called spiritual realms. There are worlds below us, where people live in torment, they are called worlds of suffering. This is a simple fact and truth.

[NikolaiI]

Sri Aurobindo said it this way; "The earliest formula of Wisdom promises to be its last, -- God, Light, Freedom, Immortality."

What are we? What is the universe? One thing we can know is that we are not separate from the universe. Einstein put it this way:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

This is exactly what I believe too. We can transcend our own life and soul to embrace the rest of humanity as well. Only then can we see things as they truly are; in each thing and without reflected the divine, and the beauty of the divine.

We are created by the universe; that is, we are created by the same force, or in the same fires, perhaps, as the rest of creation; that is, the stars, the star systems, and everything in the cosmos. This is why our nature is the same as the nature of those beautiful star systems we see in the cosmos. Again, we are simply a part of the universe, or to understand it differently, part of a flowing system, like water in a river or on a drainpipe. As Eintsein says, "experience the whole of nature in its beauty." This is the vast assortment of experience and dreams, and the fact that reality is greater than dreams, because how could something (dreams) come from something which it was greater than? In fact, life's ultimate goal is about finding perfection, or in otherwise, solidified or concreting the feeling, dream, or ideal of Love. The mystics do not have mathematically formulas, they only have teachings in parables and works in philosophy. And yet the truth the mystics describe absolutely genuine.

[LitNetIsGreat]

[QUOTE=Saladin;655008]Actually the world would be a better place without politics, money, without humans at all.

Alas! Yes! The world would be a much better place without humanity. Religion can be a tool to destroy, but its also a tool that gives a lot of joy and happiness to many humans. Absence of religion is not total happiness or eudaimonia for all humans. To believe that is to be a rather naive.


Oh, I am under no pretention that the removal of religion would bring world peace at all. Not to mention the ridiculous idea of "removing" a belief in the first place. Maybe a time will arise in the future when such things are not needed, but I doubt it.

[lupe]

You almost succeded to put me to sleep with your illuminating pseudo-philosophies. And I didn't even start to say "I

[lupe]

You almost succeeded to put me to sleep with your illuminating pseudo-philosophies. And I didn't even start to say "I'm in the universe" a billion times...

But I'm so happy I know somebody who knows the "simple fact and truth".

[NikolaiI]

Lupe this world, and your life or my life or anyone's life in it, exists from the power of intention. This is what governs everything. You can call it the power of intention, suggestion, or the law of attraction, karma, or anything. It's what exists. Whatever any person thinks of, it has some reality. And if you combined every person's ideas, it would not encompass everything which exists.

The universe is more vast than we can imagine. You called what I had to say "pseudo-philosohpy" and you said it almost put you to sleep. I'm sorry but your negative intention or suggestion will not affect me in the least. I was only trying to share with you - if you don't wish to hear anything I have to say - as is evident - it won't affect me but I won't try to speak to you anymore.

What can any person alive say execpt to share what they view. Every person alive has had many similar experiences, experiences of delight, sadness ... this forum is simply for communication and if you are in a bad mood there's nothing I can say to help you. Every person's opinion is valid and has something to learn from, and if you can't open your mind to that it is not my limitation.

[lupe]

NkolaiI, if you don't like humour or sarcasm, I have some great books to recommend. You can start with any Aristophanes...

[billyjack]

Maybe the question we should ask is: did God create man or did man create God, and if so why?

look at all the contradictions in the bible regarding the personality of god: he's forgiving, but he'll damn you to hell; you must fear him, but you must love him; salvation lies in faith, but a miracle here or there never hurt anyone; dont practice cannibalism, but you can eat my son on sundays; you're will is free, but i'll be watching you every step of the way. either god is fickle or he's a man made


Reversed: You dont like lobster, so you think everybody doesn`t like lobster.

nah. i dont like lobster and it frightens me that most do would be more fitting. its not a matter of taste (although religion does certainly offend my taste), more a matter of moral progress and a secured future for humanity


What i mean about God and religion? Well i consider religion to be a private issue, but i would say i agree with what the great scandinavian (danish) philosopher Kierkegaard said and i think both Nikolai and skasian would agree.

[I]"A mans life is wasted when he lives on, so deceived by the joys of life
or by its sorrows, that he never becomes decisively conscious of himself
as spirit, as self, that is, he never is aware in the deepest sense that
there is a God."

- Søren Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard's "god" in this quote of yours isn't the one you're thinking of. its the existentialist god: the man who defines his own existence, Kierkegaard's knight of faith. its poetic and resembles nothing to the christian "god the father"


Actually the world would be a better place without politics, money, without humans at all.

blasphemy. as if the universe made a mistake in evolving humanity. feel free to barter for your sustenance. and good luck taking a shower or doing anything resembling your civilized life without politics and government


Religion can be a tool to destroy, but its also a tool that gives a lot of joy and happiness to many humans. Absence of religion is not total happiness or eudaimonia for all humans. To believe that is to be a rather naive.

religion is inherently corrupt and irrational. of course it brings happiness to some, this is undeniable. that's not an argument though. i could say the same of alcohol, drugs, ramblin, gamblin, and backbitin. i didn't read anyone say anti-theism would result in a utopia or total happiness (neither of these have ever existed and never will).


Just take a look at the world history. Most conflicts and war since the beginning of man have been either politically or ethnical or economical motivated.

not motivated. rather, involved. the motivation 9 times outa 10 is religious. whether it be blatantly religious like the radical islam's war on everyone else, or subtly religious in the form of underlying religious principles guiding our actions: eye for an eye, praise of martyrdom, following a leader unquestionably, fear, chompin at the bit to die (72 virgins, heaven), chosen peoples syndrome, nationalism, ect...

[skasian]

Your words are simple and also explained it better than I can. The whole point or the only main point I wished to really point out was that since God is the source of beauty, wisdom... to make him the center of our lives creates a change, which is, now our lives have peace and God at their center. Also, our relationship with God is our life, or it is more than simply life, since God is the source of all life.

I agree with your views. I have a question, is it ok to consider that God is everything except for impurities or any kind of evil? I used to consider this, but how can I put God in the bottom line as "is everything"? Or is it God can be everything or God is like everything?

[blazeofglory]

[QUOTE=skasian;655545]I agree with your views. I have a question, is it ok to consider that God is everything except for impurities or any kind of evil? I used to consider this, but how can I put God in the bottom line as "is everything"? Or is it God can be everything or God is like everything?[/QUO

Since everything comes from God and in point of fact even evil too can not be excluded from ' everything' .

Then it is construed that both good and evil are sheer illusions. In fact saints will also use up their saintliness in the course of time and sinners will be cleansed or purged of their sin or profanities.

In fact at the lower level there are sinners and saints are different forces or attributes but at the highest or deepest level there are no sinners.

To understand this fact we need a greater understanding.

[skasian]

[QUOTE=skasian;655545]I agree with your views. I have a question, is it ok to consider that God is everything except for impurities or any kind of evil? I used to consider this, but how can I put God in the bottom line as "is everything"? Or is it God can be everything or God is like everything?[/QUO

Since everything comes from God and in point of fact even evil too can not be excluded from ' everything' .

Then it is construed that both good and evil are sheer illusions. In fact saints will also use up their saintliness in the course of time and sinners will be cleansed or purged of their sin or profanities.

In fact at the lower level there are sinners and saints are different forces or attributes but at the highest or deepest level there are no sinners.

To understand this fact we need a greater understanding.

I have seen that you use the term saints a couple of times. What is your definition and depiction of saints? I am unfamiliar with saints, and I depict them as souls that live closely with God in God's Kingdom, and historic people that dedicated their lives devoting to God during their times in earth. Nothing else. I am not sure if Catholics have strong connections with them or not, and I am not sure about their roles in Christian religion at all.

[NikolaiI]

NkolaiI, if you don't like humour or sarcasm, I have some great books to recommend. You can start with any Aristophanes...

Have you read Hearts in Atlantis? Read it.

[LostPrincess13]

'Deus est mortuari iuvare mortatem'

[lupe]

Have you read Hearts in Atlantis? Read it.

I gave you Aristophanes and you give me Stephen King ?!!!!!! No comments...!

[planet earth]

We already did this and we are but harvesting what we have done. Loving only man, means being very selfish. God is not the God of man only God is every creature's God. He is God of the Sky God of earth God of angels God of birds God of Trees God of animals God of everything and entirely everything what man claims to know and what one does not. Loving man only, leaves all God's creatures neglected.

However, many did this and decided to have there own code of ethics of life. A man made one. But what did that lead to. What did people who allow interest and Usury in banks do. They finally discovered that Allah's order preventing interest is the only right thing and are banks in America are starting to make their interest zero.

Adultery and freedom of sexual relationships, what did that lead to? Had we submitted to the Divine order from the beginning we would have definetly lived a better life.

Why is it so difficult to believe that without God, we are at a total loss? Why did Solomon's ant discover there is God and human beings who are actually minds can't reach this conclusion. He is so near, where are we searching?

Adam was man number one upon earth, and he knew`and talked with God directly. Then came Noah, Abraham, that came with a scripture, Moses that came with scripture, David that came with a scripture, Jesus that came with a scripture, and finally Muhammad, that came with a scripture and all the scripture include exactly the same Godly order and code of life.

Even the latest of scientifce theories are trying and are about to detect God. The String theory is one of these latest theories that are proving the Existence of the maker of everything existing. It is not because we cannot understand his nature that he is not there, He is and He will always be, and unto Him we will return so soon.

[weltanschauung]

But isnt believing a God between Krishna Buddha Christ or any other dedicating yourself to become religious? If you start believing and taking faith in a God, then it is inevitable you become active in a religion. This is because when you start having faith in a God, you start to worship, and follow their ways and words. How can you be individually religious? You automatically become classified into a religious group, therefore religion is inevitable.



Thanks for sharing your views, and some information I have not been across such as Judaism and their values.
Your point about personal religion is exactly my point. Religion doesnt have to be in a group or society, all it requires is a system. A system dedicated to god(s) or inner belief. Personal religion is religion afterall. Personal or not, it is still religion. Therefore even if an individual worships God, they are religious and it takes one person to form a religion.

:lol:
do you even know what youre saying?
"i like pineapple, but i dont like pineapple."
"i believe in groups of people, but i dont believe in groups of people"
"i dont think this point is important, therefore its the crucial point"

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/29.gif

[blazeofglory]

:lol:
do you even know what youre saying?
"i like pineapple, but i dont like pineapple."
"i believe in groups of people, but i dont believe in groups of people"
"i dont think this point is important, therefore its the crucial point"

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/29.gif

Your ideas seem very deep and profound and in point of fact out of my comprehension.

Maybe I am not mature enough to map your range of ideas. No doubt they are insightful and penetrating. You made an analogue that is really profound and not out of the premeditated notions of things.

[weltanschauung]

it happens.

[skasian]

:lol:
do you even know what youre saying?
"i like pineapple, but i dont like pineapple."
"i believe in groups of people, but i dont believe in groups of people"
"i dont think this point is important, therefore its the crucial point"

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/29.gif

Not quite sorry. It seems you have misunderstood my views about individual and system of religion.

Religion is always a system, holding a purpose to serve a higher being of having a following a specific philosophy. This system applies to a group of followers as well as being applied to an individual. For example, a person is a Christian, this person is involved in a religion, and in a group of followers that serve the same God. But a Christian that doesnt go to church, a congregation of the religious, is involved in religion independently and personally, ie praying to God privately and working and serving Him by themselves. This way, as the system of religion can apply in one fixed person but also in a group of people, my thoughts are not wrong.

Belonging to a system of religion is not concrete as a pineapple or a fixed thought, so you are wrong about my views.