what is the point of religion?

[cacian]

there seem lots of people for and against God/bible/beliefs but it is not quite clear to me what the point of religion/god/bible in one 's life is.

Is religion important?
if so why?
How does it actually affect anyone personally and others around them? is a valid question.
To claim to be an atheist is well and good and to claim to be religious is also de facto.
So what is it that anyone trying to achieve with either of those claims?

[togre]

I've said this somewhere else, but I'm too lazy to find it, so here it goes again:

Any religion that isn't a monstrosity attempts to describe and present reality--what the world, the soul, God is really and truly like. Truth.


To the extent any given religion fails to accurately present the truth it is a failure, a false lead and a tragedy.

I believe what I believe not because I'm convinced it gives me benefits or because it adds to my life. I believe what I believe because I am convinced it is true and factual.

[cacian]

I see what you mean but is there any reason why I should spend time and effort trying to find a truth that might or might not be even though it is not actuallygoing to help me live or improve my life.
Truth is what you make of it.
A fact is really a question of reasoning.
what is truth to you is not to me.
so what does TRUTH mean?

[BienvenuJDC]

I see what you mean but is there any reason why I should spend time and effort trying to find a truth that might or might not be even though it is not actuallygoing to help me live or improve my life.
Truth is what you make of it.
A fact is really a question of reasoning.
what is truth to you is not to me.
so what does TRUTH mean?

It seems by starting this thread, that you are searching for some kind of truth in God and/or religion. There are lots of great religious writings that have improved people's lives throughout history.

[togre]

Truth is what you make of it.
A fact is really a question of reasoning.
what is truth to you is not to me.

But you don't live your life this way--no one can. Is arsenic poisonous or not? My not believing in the poisonous qualities of arsenic do not help me survive if I consume it.

We live our lives as though the physical reality is objective--as if it exists whether or not we like it that way. Indeed we make all sorts of accommodations to the facts of physical reality--I eat (because I'll die otherwise), I own a car (because my home and my work are separated by physical distance), I don't eat arsenic.

Is there any reason to believe that spiritual realities are any different?


Yes, there may be many answers to the question "Is there a soul?" or "Is there a God?" or "Who is God?" or "What is right and wrong?". But that doesn't mean they are all correct or acceptable or beneficial. There are correct answers and incorrect answers.

That fact that we (on this board or on this planet) argue about which answers are correct does not mean all are correct (or indeed any are correct).

[hillwalker]

Religion is a support mechanism that helps many people cope with life - in particular the hardships and traumas that we all meet up with at one time or another. Loss, grief, disappointment and low self-worth. And of course the fear of death.

Religion is like a sugar pill - it doesn't cure the ailment but it tricks the mind that things will get better and so they do. It also provides many people who would otherwise feel isolated, even alienated, with a specific community who share the same beliefs (whatever beliefs their particular religion promotes). It's almost a self-help group.

Of course it also has a more sinister side when one religious faction is convinced their religion is the right one and everyone else's is wrong - or when one faction imposes its rules and moral standards on everybody else. As if we can't behave ourselves unless there's a supreme being to punish us when we step out of line.

What's the point of it? Take away all the nonsense about how the world was created and the myths of the flood and the garden of Eden and in general it's a search for a moral blueprint - a recipe for how to live life as a good person. Of course, the world has moved on and many religions remain rooted in the past. Similarly, many self-proclaimed religious leaders set themselves as moral custodians yet their behaviour is anything but moral.

As an exercise in exploring philosophical thought the study of religion will give you some insight into the various belief systems around the globe - especially the contrast between Eastern and Western credos. But if you're thinking of joining your local church I'd advise you to tread carefully.

H

[cacian]

It seems by starting this thread, that you are searching for some kind of truth in God and/or religion. There are lots of great religious writings that have improved people's lives throughout history.

I am only seeking to understand the reasons behind one's beliefs.
Religions as far as I am concerned have only created divisisions and wars between people.
I am trying to understant how religion impact on my everyday life which is more important to me then achievements of faiths.

[Varenne Rodin]

Religion is a support mechanism that helps many people cope with life - in particular the hardships and traumas that we all meet up with at one time or another. Loss, grief, disappointment and low self-worth. And of course the fear of death.

Religion is like a sugar pill - it doesn't cure the ailment but it tricks the mind that things will get better and so they do. It also provides many people who would otherwise feel isolated, even alienated, with a specific community who share the same beliefs (whatever beliefs their particular religion promotes). It's almost a self-help group.

Of course it also has a more sinister side when one religious faction is convinced their religion is the right one and everyone else's is wrong - or when one faction imposes its rules and moral standards on everybody else. As if we can't behave ourselves unless there's a supreme being to punish us when we step out of line.

What's the point of it? Take away all the nonsense about how the world was created and the myths of the flood and the garden of Eden and in general it's a search for a moral blueprint - a recipe for how to live life as a good person. Of course, the world has moved on and many religions remain rooted in the past. Similarly, many self-proclaimed religious leaders set themselves as moral custodians yet their behaviour is anything but moral.

As an exercise in exploring philosophical thought the study of religion will give you some insight into the various belief systems around the globe - especially the contrast between Eastern and Western credos. But if you're thinking of joining your local church I'd advise you to tread carefully.

H

I agree with this. How could anyone not? I also want to say that your writing skills are excellent.

[cafolini]

I am only seeking to understand the reasons behind one's beliefs.
Religions as far as I am concerned have only created divisisions and wars between people.
I am trying to understant how religion impact on my everyday life which is more important to me then achievements of faiths.

It's one of the myths in history that it has been religion that caused wars. As Hillwalker expressed succintly and correctly, religions are recipies for coping. But wars, regardless of the religious impositions of the aristocracies, have always been fought for economic motives. In the background, one religion is as good as any other one for it's purpose. Most have been used for war but none has been the cause of war. Today, in a global sense, they are even useless for war. In fact, any religion used as an excuse for war is ridiculous and uterly ludicrous.
Religious unification is impossible in the postmodern world. It will never come back as such.

[Jack of Hearts]

Don't let hill fool you- he makes it every Sunday.








J

[Paulclem]

The point of religion depends upon who you ask.

Clearly it is used by the powerful to control the disempowered in some circumstances. It is also cited in what are essentially power plays - God on our side and all that - in some kind of justification for war, power manoevres or political necessity.

This is a highly visible aspect of religion and is justifiably criticised. State + religion are often bad combinations with the state benefitting and the religion suffering a poorer reputation by its association. I still contend that religions don't cause wars, but the powerful manipulate belief for their own ends.

If you ask individuals, you will get different answers. There's lots of talk about rationality, science, proof, myth, fairy stories etc as if these have anything to do with what is experienced in people's hearts. Irrational things do happen to some people. Strong emotions are bound with our rites of passage. So how do people make sense of their world? They construct their own story based upon their very particular circumstances, experience and background. That some of these mean they become more strongly religious in whatever religion is around them is hardly surprising. Its as surprising to find out that advertising works, except that the religion of your family, group, tribe etc is a much more powerful influence.

Is it a surprise that this forum is populated with quite a lot of atheists, born as many of us are into an increasingly secularised western world? Our environment of ideas is science based. Are we really sure that atheistic views are any different in the sense of influence and environment, from religious views? Our ideas are different and sometimes at odds, but are those who are atheist merely subject to different cultural influence, but in a very similar way?

[WyattGwyon]

It's one of the myths in history that it has been religion that caused wars. As Hillwalker expressed succintly and correctly, religions are recipies for coping. But wars, regardless of the religious impositions of the aristocracies, have always been fought for economic motives. In the background, one religion is as good as any other one for it's purpose. Most have been used for war but none has been the cause of war. Today, in a global sense, they are even useless for war. In fact, any religion used as an excuse for war is ridiculous and uterly ludicrous.
Religious unification is impossible in the postmodern world. It will never come back as such.

I can think of a cases where your assertion is dubious. What about a situation where the economic motives are those of the religion itself, as when the RCC is motivated to wage/fund warfare against a protestant rival to preserve market share? (e.g., Thirty Years War) Seems in this case the religion would rightly be considered the cause.

Then consider sectarian violence in the Moslem world. Are the suicide bombers currently killing pilgrims of another sect motivated by economics? Seems unlikely.

[Ecurb]

“Point” is not a specific word. Many anthropologists think religion has a number of “functions” in society, however. Religion has a variety of socializing functions, helping communities gain solidarity through public, shared rituals. In addition, religious statements affirm the willingness of the speaker to share the sentiments of the group.

Religion is varied, and all of its functions cannot be listed here. However (as just one example) taboos show the willingness of the self-denier to suffer in order to affirm his solidarity with the group. Muslims refrain from eating pork (delicious as it is) in an affirmation of their willingness to suffer (in a minor way) for their faith. Native Americans who practiced the Sun Dance as a male initiation rite suffered more dramatically, fasting and inflicting torture on themselves. The stated purpose of this ritual was to induce visions – from an objective point of view, however, the ritual (whether it induces visions or not) affirms the toughness of the participants and their willingness to suffer for the group. This makes sense as a rite of passage into manhood in warlike societies.

I could go on, but the subject is too complicated (and fascinating) for me to do justice to so here. For basic texts, one could read E.E. Evans-Pritchard (“On Religion” or “Witchcraft among the Azande), or Clifford Geertz. Evans-Pritchard – although somewhat dated – was a key member of the “Structure and Function” school of anthropology, which posited that the structural institutions of society (like the Church) have specific functions in terms of helping society work.

[BienvenuJDC]

I can think of a cases where your assertion is dubious. What about a situation where the economic motives are those of the religion itself, as when the RCC is motivated to wage/fund warfare against a protestant rival to preserve market share? (e.g., Thirty Years War) Seems in this case the religion would rightly be considered the cause.

Then consider sectarian violence in the Moslem world. Are the suicide bombers currently killing pilgrims of another sect motivated by economics? Seems unlikely.

But the Religion itself is not the cause, but the greed of man. Religion has only been used to justify war to gain what would be gained in the end.

[Paulclem]

I can think of a cases where your assertion is dubious. What about a situation where the economic motives are those of the religion itself, as when the RCC is motivated to wage/fund warfare against a protestant rival to preserve market share? (e.g., Thirty Years War) Seems in this case the religion would rightly be considered the cause.

Then consider sectarian violence in the Moslem world. Are the suicide bombers currently killing pilgrims of another sect motivated by economics? Seems unlikely.

It is very difficult to see what influences motives at the times, and so it is very easy to suggest that it is actually the religion that is the cause. Religion is just the environment. Power is the cause.

[cacian]

But the Religion itself is not the cause, but the greed of man. Religion has only been used to justify war to gain what would be gained in the end.

where greed generate from?

[BienvenuJDC]

where greed generate from?

Greed is generated from selfishness. If you want to look at the origin of most religions, there is a morality usually taught. I can speak for the Christian religion, that its followers are taught NOT to be greedy.

[kensington]

The point of religion is to make people walk by faith and not by sight. And to make them believe, without questioning, in someone else's version of things. And then they can get the poor people to go along with anything.

You're not to be greedy if you're poor. You're to work for nothing and smile. And give 10% of your meager wages to the church.

And then you pray for heaven since your life is unbearable here.

Religion conquers the world. It even humbled the Vikings.

[Paulclem]

The point of religion is to make people walk by faith and not by sight. And to make them believe, without questioning, in someone else's version of things. And then they can get the poor people to go along with anything.

You're not to be greedy if you're poor. You're to work for nothing and smile. And give 10% of your meager wages to the church.

And then you pray for heaven since your life is unbearable here.

Religion conquers the world. It even humbled the Vikings.

Buddhism is not a religion that asks for faith without testing out what the teachings say. The Buddha's last words were to be a lamp unto yourself - not just accept what I say on faith but check it out.

In terms of other religions, it all comes down to the application of faith by the leaders. If the leaders are avaricious, then the religion becomes so. That's how Henry VIII was able to dislodge the catholic church from its lucrative and powerful position. He'd never have got away with it without this perception being within the populace.

Your generalisation also neglects those who choose poverty, such as christian monks, and some of the offshoots of christianity. It points to exemplars of power and how they wield religion, and then blames the religion.

One religion where I feel there is a very strong element of social control is Hinduism and the caste system, where a great umber are condemend to relentless poverty because of their caste.

[Ecurb]

The point of religion is to make people walk by faith and not by sight. And to make them believe, without questioning, in someone else's version of things. And then they can get the poor people to go along with anything.

You're not to be greedy if you're poor. You're to work for nothing and smile. And give 10% of your meager wages to the church.

And then you pray for heaven since your life is unbearable here.

Religion conquers the world. It even humbled the Vikings.

Here's GK Chesterton's take on that, and (although a little early) one of my favorite Christmas poems:


There fared a mother driven forth
Out of an inn to roam;
In the place where she was homeless
All men are at home.
The crazy stable close at hand,
With shaking timber and shifting sand,
Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand
Than the square stones of Rome.

For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done.

A child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam;
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home;
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost---how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.

This world is wild as an old wife's tale,
And strange the plain things are,
The earth is enough and the air is enough
For our wonder and our war;
But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings
And our peace is put in impossible things
Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings
Round an incredible star.

To an open house in the evening
Home shall all men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.

[kensington]

Poetry is so romantic, Ecurb. :)

[smerdyakov]

Religion, for me, falls between two stools:

A colour by numbers version of life and voluntary insanity.

No disrespect intended. Of course, religion is a very positive force in society.

[Paulclem]

Poetry is so romantic, Ecurb. :)

I think you have simplified the issues. Ecurb has pointed out that the birth of christianity was a revolutionary event. Jesus, mary and joseph would have been perseduted by Herod. The odd thing is that once the religion becomes established as a power through the remains of the Roman Empire, it becomes a state religion manipulated by those in charge - eventually the Popes of course.

Today in the UK, Catholic churches are brimming with Polish workers who have settled here with their families. In their case the church was not a bloated manipulator, but a real support during the days of the Soviet Bloc when religion was at best tolerated. The same is true of Christian Chinese in China who form a small minority of millions. The same is true ofsome african countries where it has been a source of stablility in the face of war and instability. Of course those same churches in some African countries oppose homosexual vicars and women. Te picture is very complex and really to try to simplify the whole of even one major religion is trite.

[Drkshadow03]

I see my "religion" as an authentic part of my identity. My religion is synonymous with my culture.

[ftil]

Every religion is to control masses. It happened in Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt. Egyptian priests mastered mass manipulations and they kept secret knowledge. The same happened with Mystery of Mithras in Roman Empire. Limiting to Catholic church is like throwing all past history into the garbage bin. If we don’t know history, we will repeat the same mistakes again and again.

It is a big difference if we talk about particular teachings that may inspire people and religions with priests or monks. Sadly, religions don’t teach question but expect to follow rituals and practice. I had been involved in Buddhism practice for a couple of months and I didn’t want to fulfill all practices but I just wanted to get, I forgot the name, but it was an image that supposed to help me to concentrate. When I openly said that I was not going to read Sanskrit everyday, chant everyday, and meet ever week for a group study, they told me to forget about getting the image. :biggrinjester:

My love for Buddhism ended.

I guess we can call it control.

[stlukesguild]

Originally Posted by cafolini- It's one of the myths in history that it has been religion that caused wars. As Hillwalker expressed succintly and correctly, religions are recipies for coping. But wars, regardless of the religious impositions of the aristocracies, have always been fought for economic motives. In the background, one religion is as good as any other one for it's purpose. Most have been used for war but none has been the cause of war. Today, in a global sense, they are even useless for war. In fact, any religion used as an excuse for war is ridiculous and uterly ludicrous.
Religious unification is impossible in the postmodern world. It will never come back as such.

I can think of a cases where your assertion is dubious. What about a situation where the economic motives are those of the religion itself, as when the RCC is motivated to wage/fund warfare against a protestant rival to preserve market share? (e.g., Thirty Years War) Seems in this case the religion would rightly be considered the cause.

Then consider sectarian violence in the Moslem world. Are the suicide bombers currently killing pilgrims of another sect motivated by economics? Seems unlikely.

While I find myself rarely agreeing with Cafolini, in this instance he/she is 100% correct. I'll not go into a major discussion of the supposed "exceptions" you raised to the notion that war has always been fought over economic issues (I'll leave that to him), but I will point out the obvious flaws in your examples. To supposed that the Thirty Years War was fought primarily over the religious beliefs of mankind... as an effort to "save man's soul") you are being quite naive. The dominant motives behind this war, like all others, were economic. In this instance it was a battle led by the Habsburg/Holy Roman Empire/Roman Catholic Church for continued control of Europe (and it's wealth) vs the ascendant Bourbon/French powers.

Middle-Eastern Terrorism? Perhaps the individual who embraces the idea of being a martyr to Islam believes that his actions are solely in support of Islam... but what is the core motive behind the entire Middle-Eastern debacle if it is not a question of maintaining control of the incredible wealth involved in the oil? Why is the US even involved in the region and thus made a target. Why does the US continue to support outdated regimes that largely oppress their own populations?

[Paulclem]

Every religion is to control masses. It happened in Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt. Egyptian priests mastered mass manipulations and they kept secret knowledge. The same happened with Mystery of Mithras in Roman Empire. Limiting to Catholic church is like throwing all past history into the garbage bin. If we don’t know history, we will repeat the same mistakes again and again.

It is a big difference if we talk about particular teachings that may inspire people and religions with priests or monks. Sadly, religions don’t teach question but expect to follow rituals and practice. I had been involved in Buddhism practice for a couple of months and I didn’t want to fulfill all practices but I just wanted to get, I forgot the name, but it was an image that supposed to help me to concentrate. When I openly said that I was not going to read Sanskrit everyday, chant everyday, and meet ever week for a group study, they told me to forget about getting the image. :biggrinjester:

My love for Buddhism ended.

I guess we can call it control.

I think your example is not about control of you, but about the method used to gain something. Buddhism offers tools to gain insights or attainments. It's up to you whether you follow it.

[ftil]

I think your example is not about control of you, but about the method used to gain something. Buddhism offers tools to gain insights or attainments. It's up to you whether you follow it.

If it is not about control……we have very different definition about control. I think that it is control beyond measure. Shouldn’t they offer the image without asking to follow a rigid regime of practice?
But it was good to have that kind of experience. I have been fully cured from Buddhist teachings. :biggrinjester: I love spiritual freedom.

[Darcy88]

If it is not about control……we have very different definition about control. I think that it is control beyond measure. Shouldn’t they offer the image without asking to follow a rigid regime of practice?
But it was good to have that kind of experience. I have been fully cured from Buddhist teachings. :biggrinjester: I love spiritual freedom.

Wouldn't that be like me walking up to my kickboxing instructor on day one and saying "no push-ups or sit-ups for me, I'll just start sparring right away."?

[Paulclem]

If it is not about control……we have very different definition about control. I think that it is control beyond measure. Shouldn’t they offer the image without asking to follow a rigid regime of practice?
But it was good to have that kind of experience. I have been fully cured from Buddhist teachings. :biggrinjester: I love spiritual freedom.

What you get with Buddhism is a set of tools. If you choose not to use what they offer, then that's quite rightly up to you. They use tried and tested methods which are skillfully delivered - hopefully. You might call it a rigid scheme of practice. They might call it a systematic approach to achieving a particular goal. Buddhism doesn't suit everyone.

Why should they offer the image without the pre-requisite practice? You're not compelled to follow them, and they are not compelled to take your advice. It seems as though both parties are free in that sense.

[ftil]

What you get with Buddhism is a set of tools. If you choose not to use what they offer, then that's quite rightly up to you. They use tried and tested methods which are skillfully delivered - hopefully. You might call it a rigid scheme of practice. They might call it a systematic approach to achieving a particular goal. Buddhism doesn't suit everyone.

Why should they offer the image without the pre-requisite practice? You're not compelled to follow them, and they are not compelled to take your advice. It seems as though both parties are free in that sense.

You talk to me as if I didn’t know how to read LOL! I spent considerable time to study Buddhism. I never make up my mind without studying the subject. You may not see that it is a control to ask people to follow a rigid regime. I do. I have spent time to study about cults. The practice they required absolutely fits into that category. We are lucky that we have psychologists who study cults in depth.

I agree that Buddhism is not for everybody. It is definitely not for me. Too bad that I had to waste my time and money to buy books. But in the end of the day, I freed my mind. I agree what Buddha said, “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. “
Sadly, those who do have secret knowledge of Buddhism don't want to talk.
I would be very interested to learn about it, not practice, though.

[MarkBastable]

Surely these two statements, which appear in the same paragraph, are contradictory.





I agree that Buddhism is not for everybody. It is definitely not for me. Too bad that I had to waste my time and money to buy books.




I would be very interested to learn about it, not practice, though.

[ftil]

Surely these two statements, which appear in the same paragraph, are contradictory.

No it is not if you have studied that subject. :biggrin5: I am interested in esoteric one. I would love to know why it is a secret.

[stuntpickle]

I can think of a cases where your assertion is dubious. What about a situation where the economic motives are those of the religion itself, as when the RCC is motivated to wage/fund warfare against a protestant rival to preserve market share? (e.g., Thirty Years War) Seems in this case the religion would rightly be considered the cause.

Then consider sectarian violence in the Moslem world. Are the suicide bombers currently killing pilgrims of another sect motivated by economics? Seems unlikely.

Your statements are guilty of equivocation. No religion is synonymous with its psychical institutions. Any "Christian" war concerning "the economic motives [that] are those of the religion itself, as when the RCC is motivated to wage/fund warfare against a protestant rival to preserve market share" is an abortion of the Christian religion, which counsels against violence and the collection of riches. Moreover, one finds in Christianity, the greatest indictment of religious institutions in history. Jesus criticized nothing more than the "church," and examples of corrupt churches confirm his teachings. Jesus' main thesis was that we are all corrupt and awful and, therefore, are neither arbiters nor executors of judgment--a statement that anticipates all varieties of corruption in churches and their members and admonishes them. Christianity is a corrective mechanism for precisely the sort of thing you're talking about.

Islam is a bit different. Perhaps an argument can be made that the religion is one fundamentally about conquest. I think, in many ways, Islam is the antithesis of Christianity. However, I am not prepared to pursue such an argument.

[MarkBastable]

Islam is a bit different. Perhaps an argument can be made that the religion is one fundamentally about conquest. I think, in many ways, Islam is the antithesis of Christianity. However, I am not prepared to pursue such an argument.

If you're not prepared to pursue it, don't make such provocative statements then run away from them.

It's disingenuous and cowardly, and you're bright enough to know it.

[stuntpickle]

If you're not prepared to pursue it, don't make such provocative statements then run away from them.

It's disingenuous and cowardly, and you're bright enough to know it.

I think it's obvious without pursuing. Jesus was an itinerant healer who was executed by the Roman state and forgave those who executed him. Muhammad was a warlord who subjugated the Arabian Peninsula. Jesus is famous for saying to those about to stone an adulteress, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." More than once Muhammad advocated stoning people for adultery. Both figures had philosophies consistent with the aforementioned lifestyles. I'm not afraid of the argument, but rather I don't want to distract from the point, which is that the comments made regarding Christianity are wrongheaded. I'm not interested in debating the virtues of Islam.

[Theunderground]

Religion does have some apsects in it which correlate with genuine human yearnings. But unfortunately priests and polits misuse these aspects and dogmatise and preach to others.While scientists just posit there opposition to these aspects just for the sake of being reactionary or demanding unreasonable evidence.

[Paulclem]

You talk to me as if I didn’t know how to read LOL! I spent considerable time to study Buddhism. I never make up my mind without studying the subject. You may not see that it is a control to ask people to follow a rigid regime. I do. I have spent time to study about cults. The practice they required absolutely fits into that category. We are lucky that we have psychologists who study cults in depth.

I agree that Buddhism is not for everybody. It is definitely not for me. Too bad that I had to waste my time and money to buy books. But in the end of the day, I freed my mind. I agree what Buddha said, “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. “
Sadly, those who do have secret knowledge of Buddhism don't want to talk.
I would be very interested to learn about it, not practice, though.

If you have studied it then why are you surprised when the group you were with didn't just let you have what you requested without doing the practice?

You may not see that it is a control to ask people to follow a rigid regime.

No, I think it fair that if you want to join a group that is offering teachings, then you follow the prerequistes for that group. You are free to join in or free to go your own way. Take it or leave it.

I have spent time to study about cults.

So it's cults now is it. :biggrin5:
I think you just like arguing with me. You've moved away from the original premise into wind up mode.

We are lucky that we have psychologists who study cults in depth.

Wind up mode

Sadly, those who do have secret knowledge of Buddhism don't want to talk.

Are we back to Tantra and the secret teachings? I did read that the secret is actually embodied in the relationship between the Teacher and the Student. At that level a Student has a Teacher with which they form a strong Karmic bond - or reawaken one. Transmissions are actually an oral tradition. I suspect all the teachings are already available, but that mere study will not capture the essence of the teachings.

[ftil]

If you have studied it then why are you surprised when the group you were with didn't just let you have what you requested without doing the practice?

Yes, I was surprised because if it was a truly spiritual practice they wouldn’t need to push people to be engaged in a regime. Everybody knows that Mercedes is a good car. It doesn’t need any advertisement. It sells. Period. The same applies to any school of thoughts. It Buddhism was a practice that bring tolerance and acceptance of others not mentioning happiness and fulfillment…people would be attracted to it. They wouldn’t need to put any requirements but people would choose on their own to practice. It is as simple as that.



So it's cults now is it.
I think you just like arguing with me. You've moved away from the original premise into wind up mode

No, I don’t argue with you. I mentioned cults because I was in a group of people who followed certain teachings. I took me less then 6 weeks to figure it out that something was wrong. I did some research about cults and I was surprised that I had a very wrong idea about cults. I did examine many beliefs and experiences I had in the past. Practice of Buddhism I was asked to do to get an image was nothing else but a cult. You may not agree with it but why don’t we leave it here. I respect that you follow Buddhism teachings and you need to respect that I don’t. We are free to question, aren’t we?





Are we back to Tantra and the secret teachings? I did read that the secret is actually embodied in the relationship between the Teacher and the Student. At that level a Student has a Teacher with which they form a strong Karmic bond - or reawaken one. Transmissions are actually an oral tradition. I suspect all the teachings are already available, but that mere study will not capture the essence of the teachings.

No, I didn’t think about Tantra only. I thought about 2 people involved in Buddhist secret teachings. One person was a Zen master and another was initiated into Vajrayana. They said a little but it was profound and I wish they could reveal more but they didn’t want to do so. As I said, I am not interested in Buddhist teachings they offer for masses. I want a secret knowledge. :D

This is my last response to your posts. Have you noticed that whenever I talked about Buddhism you deny everything what I say? I question every belief and I don’t have any needs to defend any religious belief system. You need to find people who are as enthusiastic about Buddhism as you are. I prefer to be around those who question everything. I learn faster in that interactions.LOL!

Enjoy LitNet.:smile5:

[Paulclem]

Yes, I was surprised because if it was a truly spiritual practice they wouldn’t need to push people to be engaged in a regime. Everybody knows that Mercedes is a good car. It doesn’t need any advertisement. It sells. Period. The same applies to any school of thoughts. It Buddhism was a practice that bring tolerance and acceptance of others not mentioning happiness and fulfillment…people would be attracted to it. They wouldn’t need to put any requirements but people would choose on their own to practice. It is as simple as that.




No, I don’t argue with you. I mentioned cults because I was in a group of people who followed certain teachings. I took me less then 6 weeks to figure it out that something was wrong. I did some research about cults and I was surprised that I had a very wrong idea about cults. I did examine many beliefs and experiences I had in the past. Practice of Buddhism I was asked to do to get an image was nothing else but a cult. You may not agree with it but why don’t we leave it here. I respect that you follow Buddhism teachings and you need to respect that I don’t. We are free to question, aren’t we?






No, I didn’t think about Tantra only. I thought about 2 people involved in Buddhist secret teachings. One person was a Zen master and another was initiated into Vajrayana. They said a little but it was profound and I wish they could reveal more but they didn’t want to do so. As I said, I am not interested in Buddhist teachings they offer for masses. I want a secret knowledge. :D

This is my last response to your posts. Have you noticed that whenever I talked about Buddhism you deny everything what I say? I question every belief and I don’t have any needs to defend any religious belief system. You need to find people who are as enthusiastic about Buddhism as you are. I prefer to be around those who question everything. I learn faster in that interactions.LOL!

Enjoy LitNet.:smile5:


Practice of Buddhism I was asked to do to get an image was nothing else but a cult. You may not agree with it but why don’t we leave it here.

I have no way of evaluating your experiences except from what you say. You initially framed this as a form of Buddhism, which, if it is a cult seems unfair to then cast aspersions upon the valid practices and to then claim that Buddhism has the same faults.

No, I didn’t think about Tantra only. I thought about 2 people involved in Buddhist secret teachings. One person was a Zen master and another was initiated into Vajrayana. They said a little but it was profound and I wish they could reveal more but they didn’t want to do so. As I said, I am not interested in Buddhist teachings they offer for masses. I want a secret knowledge.

Why do you think that might be? When we've discussed higher teachings before we've talked about how the practices need skill and guidance. As I said, to have such teachings requires a teacher. This is standard practice because it is important to have guidance when confronting the psychological/ karmic issues that these practices assist with. I'm also interested, but I now appreciate that I need to practice the path first.

From your former posts I detect that you are interested in the mind and its workings, which is exactly what Buddhism is about. You clearly have some connection through your family too, but you can't expect to run before you can walk. As I said earlier, the texts are all probably available, but the secret will be embodied in the relationship with the Teacher. (They may also have a part of the text as an oral transmission, or key practice which renders the texts unworkable).

Have you noticed that whenever I talked about Buddhism you deny everything what I say?

If you look over the posts you'll see that I respond where I can see people have written something incorrect. In the case of Mazhur, he had written the complete opposite of the practice. In that case you decided to join in. You don't have to talk to me of course. It's up to you.

[ftil]

Originally posted by Paulclem

Why do you think that might be? When we've discussed higher teachings before we've talked about how the practices need skill and guidance. As I said, to have such teachings requires a teacher. This is standard practice because it is important to have guidance when confronting the psychological/ karmic issues that these practices assist with. I'm also interested, but I now appreciate that I need to practice the path first.

From your former posts I detect that you are interested in the mind and its workings, which is exactly what Buddhism is about. You clearly have some connection through your family too, but you can't expect to run before you can walk. As I said earlier, the texts are all probably available, but the secret will be embodied in the relationship with the Teacher. (They may also have a part of the text as an oral transmission, or key practice which renders the texts unworkable).

You don't have to talk to me of course. It's up to you.


Oh, I just don’t want to talk about Buddhism any more. What I am interested in is deeply guarded by a few. They only give us crumbs and I want a three dish meal. :lol: Nothing has changed since Mesopotamia or ancient Egypt and if people believe otherwise, well, I am not going to disturb their sleep.

I am interested in working of the mind but it was not what people I have mentioned talked about.
It was much more interesting than the workings of our minds. :biggrinjester:

[Paulclem]

Oh, I just don’t want to talk about Buddhism any more. What I am interested in is deeply guarded by a few. They only give us crumbs and I want a three dish meal. :lol: Nothing has changed since Mesopotamia or ancient Egypt and if people believe otherwise, well, I am not going to disturb their sleep.

I am interested in working of the mind but it was not what people I have mentioned talked about.
It was much more interesting than the workings of our minds. :biggrinjester:

It is all about the mind. Perhaps that's what they're not telling you. Without a practice though, whatever it is that hasn't been passed to you is useless.

[ftil]

It is all about the mind. Perhaps that's what they're not telling you. Without a practice though, whatever it is that hasn't been passed to you is useless.

It is not about mind at all! In my post there was nothing that indicted that people I mentioned talked about mind. You have made assumptions and you are wrong. It is much deeper than that. I guess, we are attracted to the different writings and no wonder we can’t understand each other. :wink5:

[Paulclem]

It is not about mind at all! In my post there was nothing that indicted that people I mentioned talked about mind. You have made assumptions and you are wrong. It is much deeper than that. I guess, we are attracted to the different writings and no wonder we can’t understand each other. :wink5:

If you are talking about a form of Buddhism then it is about the mind essentially. That's what the practices are aimed at changing. I know you didn't indicate that, but what else is Buddhism concerned with?

[ftil]

If you are talking about a form of Buddhism then it is about the mind essentially. That's what the practices are aimed at changing. I know you didn't indicate that, but what else is Buddhism concerned with?

It is not but if you want to want to simplify it and believe it…so be it. I don’t have any business to convince otherwise. :ihih:

[Paulclem]

It is not but if you want to want to simplify it and believe it…so be it. I don’t have any business to convince otherwise. :ihih:

I'm interested to know what you think it is.

[ftil]

I'm interested to know what you think it is.

Don’t you think that it is too late to show your interest after a few posts where you made assumptions without asking what was so profound they said? It is a pattern in our conversations, isn’t it?

I hope that you understand now why I lost my interest to continue our discussion.

[MarkBastable]

Well, I'm interested in knowing what you think it is.

[Paulclem]

Don’t you think that it is too late to show your interest after a few posts where you made assumptions without asking what was so profound they said? It is a pattern in our conversations, isn’t it?

I hope that you understand now why I lost my interest to continue our discussion.

Not really. It only came up over that last couple of posts. I'd still like to know. You're a person who likes others to question things, so here's one for you.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Addressing the OP's question, "What is the point of religion?":

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." ~ Thomas Paine

[Paulclem]

Addressing the OP's question, "What is the point of religion?":

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." ~ Thomas Paine

You could say that religion is not really embodied in these institutions, but is more of a private practice sometimes expressed in communities. .

[Ecurb]

You could say that religion is not really embodied in these institutions, but is more of a private practice sometimes expressed in communities. .

The problem with DEFINING religion as "a private practice" is that private practices may or may not be identifiable. When social scientists talk about religion, they must talk about something they can identify. Of course religious practitioners make statements ABOUT their private practice, and, when those statements involve supernatural claims, they can be called "religious".

(I'm not saying that a social scientific definition of religion is the only reasonable definition, just pointing out some of the difficulties involved in it.)

[Paulclem]

The problem with DEFINING religion as "a private practice" is that private practices may or may not be identifiable. When social scientists talk about religion, they must talk about something they can identify. Of course religious practitioners make statements ABOUT their private practice, and, when those statements involve supernatural claims, they can be called "religious".

(I'm not saying that a social scientific definition of religion is the only reasonable definition, just pointing out some of the difficulties involved in it.)

I agree. I was just pointing up that Mutatis' quote refers only to one facet of religion.

[ftil]

Not really. It only came up over that last couple of posts. I'd still like to know. You're a person who likes others to question things, so here's one for you.

Well, you still can’t see what is wrong with our conversation. I would hardly call it conversation as you didn’t show any interest to know what they said but you made assumptions. You were not only not interested what they said but also what I thought. The bottom line is that fact that we had the same pattern in every conversation. If you are interested to hear yourself, be my guest……but I have more interesting things to do. :biggrinjester:

BTW, it is not a subject of this tread. Let's others continue their discussion about the point of religion.

[Paulclem]

Well, you still can’t see what is wrong with our conversation. I would hardly call it conversation as you didn’t show any interest to know what they said but you made assumptions. You were not only not interested what they said but also what I thought. The bottom line is that fact that we had the same pattern in every conversation. If you are interested to hear yourself, be my guest……but I have more interesting things to do. :biggrinjester:

BTW, it is not a subject of this tread. Let's others continue their discussion about the point of religion.

I'm getting deja vue, or perhaps I'm making assumptions again? But looking back over the posts it was you who posted something about Buddhism after I had responded to Kensington.

I seem to remember you posting to me when I was addressing Mazhur in the last thread too. I didn't seek you out. I assume, though that if you respond to my posts that you want to engage in conversation.

I think you're right. there is a pattern in the conversations. I answer your posts. You say I don't know you - (true) - and that I am making assumption about you - (not true). You post something, and I respond. You say I make assumptions about your knowledge, reading, study etc, but everything I say can be checked very easily on the internet. No problem. Where do you back up what you say?

[ftil]

I'm getting deja vue, or perhaps I'm making assumptions again? But looking back over the posts it was you who posted something about Buddhism after I had responded to Kensington.

I seem to remember you posting to me when I was addressing Mazhur in the last thread too. I didn't seek you out. I assume, though that if you respond to my posts that you want to engage in conversation.

I think you're right. there is a pattern in the conversations. I answer your posts. You say I don't know you - (true) - and that I am making assumption about you - (not true). You post something, and I respond. You say I make assumptions about your knowledge, reading, study etc, but everything I say can be checked very easily on the internet. No problem. Where do you back up what you say?

Well, you have answered my post …to hear yourself. I didn’t say that you made assumptions about my knowledge. You are making assumptions again and you are wrong. I think that I have already clarified for you what making assumptions means. I can do it again, hoping that you will understand. We make assumptions when we believe that we can read others minds. In other words, we try to sit in others heads. You don’t have any clue what I said and you weren’t even interested to ask. This is what making assumptions means.

Second, you may not agree with scholars I choose to read. But why don’t you argue with them. :lol: I don’t pretend that I am a Buddhist scholar. In fact, I have more questions than answers. Finally, I think that we may end our discussion. I respect what you believe but your truth doesn’t match mine. It is as simple as that. Nothing personal but we like to be around people who are like minded, don’t we? :wink5:

I hope that I expressed myself as clear as possible so that we will not have that kind of discussion again.

Let's others talk about religion. :wink5:

“To know is not to know, not to know is to know”
Indian Kena Upnishad

[Paulclem]

To be honest I've no idea who you read. You've never said. You've never quoted or paraphrased anyone to me in this discussion.

Now I know what assumptions are I'll try to stay away from them.

I don’t pretend that I am a Buddhist scholar.

You didn't, but since you posted to me I thought you might share what you know. I have shared what little I know. I thought that's what forums were about- sharing ideas and discussing and elucidating.

[ftil]

To be honest I've no idea who you read. You've never said. You've never quoted or paraphrased anyone to me in this discussion.

Because you didn’t ask. :lol: Maybe I will post it on my tread in the future. Now, I have other subjects that keep my mind occupied.


Now I know what assumptions are I'll try to stay away from them.

Oh, assumptions can drive people crazy. I avoid making assumptions because when we make assumptions what others think or feel we are most of the time wrong. I have learned to ask for clarification because the end of the day I want to understand others. :wink5:

[JuniperWoolf]

^Has anyone else noticed that the more cornered ftil feels, the more emoticons he uses?

[ftil]

^Has anyone else noticed that the more cornered ftil feels, the more emoticons he uses?

LOL! I love using emoticons and it is you who have aversion to it. :lol: I don’t know what you mean that I feel cornered. Are you unable to escape your projections? BTW, how does your response relate to religion? :biggrinjester:

[ralfyman]

It is part of the human condition.

[Paulclem]

It is not about mind at all! In my post there was nothing that indicted that people I mentioned talked about mind. You have made assumptions and you are wrong. It is much deeper than that. I guess, we are attracted to the different writings and no wonder we can’t understand each other. :wink5:

I'd like to go back to this point about the mind.

When you're talking about Buddhism, it's about practices which are designed to positively help the practitioner; to demonstrate why some actions are negative and have a negative effect, why some actions are positive and have a positive effect, and how to assist this change through purification. As all actions come from the mind, then it is the mind that has to be positively changed by the practitioner themselves.

They may very well then begin a practice to develop single pointed concentration. This is a mind which is trained to focus very powerfully upon an object of meditation. It is useful in that it is used with meditations on reality.

Once the practitioner has become better at controlling their own mind's negative impulses, and developing positive ones, then they might begin to develop compassion, or Bodhicitta - literally called the mind of Enlightenment. This mind develops the spontaneous and boundless wish to help all sentient beings to liberation from suffering.

In addition to this the practitioner will develop the wisdom realising Emptiness. Emptiness can be developed alone, but Bodhicitta is developed alongside it, as without that, full Enlightenment will not be attained.

The Tantra practitioner, at some point will identify a teacher, and become their student. Tantra is also called the short path, and is very powerful, as it is supposed to provide a method for achieving Enlightenment in one life.

Tantra involves complex visualisations - which also train the mind, and the use of inner energies or winds in order to visualise becoming whatever Buddha their practice involves. The practice is maintained in and out of meditation - as any level should be through application of the practice.

These practices may involve images and ritual instruments, but none of those worldly things embody the practice. hat lies within the Teacher and Student. As such, you don't need any objects at all.

Can you then tell me what is deeper than these aspects of the mind?

[ftil]

Originally posted by Paulclem
Can you then tell me what is deeper than these aspects of the mind?


I have told you a few times that it was not about mind……..and you are doing the same. :yikes: One of the person I have mentioned was a member of an ancient Tibetan religious order, The Gelugpa (“The Virtuous”), and that he himself, as his father before him, was one of the sprulsku or reincarnating lamas. He didn’t talk about mind. Zen master didn’t talk about mind either. I told you that maybe I will write about it on my tread in the future. I have wasted my time to explain why I don’t like to talk about Buddhism but esoteric knowledge. :banghead: You have to respect that.

[krymsonkyng]

A celestial security blanket in the form of subset-communities.

[cacian]

It is part of the human condition.

what does the human conditions entails?
Doesn't condition means that humans rely on religion to exist?

[cacian]

^Has anyone else noticed that the more cornered ftil feels, the more emoticons he uses?

Haha..emoticons are the beesknees:cornut:

[cacian]

The question I have here is

what is the difference between someone who is a christian and someone who believes in God?

[ftil]

The question I have here is

what is the difference between someone who is a christian and someone who believes in God?

A strange question. Every religion has own gods and demons. I don’t have any clue where are you going. :biggrinjester:

[Paulclem]

I have told you a few times that it was not about mind……..and you are doing the same. :yikes: One of the person I have mentioned was a member of an ancient Tibetan religious order, The Gelugpa (“The Virtuous”), and that he himself, as his father before him, was one of the sprulsku or reincarnating lamas. He didn’t talk about mind. Zen master didn’t talk about mind either. I told you that maybe I will write about it on my tread in the future. I have wasted my time to explain why I don’t like to talk about Buddhism but esoteric knowledge. :banghead: You have to respect that.

Funnily enough, the tradition I am associated with is Gelugpa - The Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, established in the US and UK by Lama Yeshe and his Heart Disciple Lama Zopa - who is the current head below HH The Dalai Lama.

I am familiar with the teachings as presented in the Gelug tradition, and the above very brief description of the practices is based on Gelug/ Mahayana practice. (I was going to add that different Buddhist traditions have different emphases, and that it isn't extensive.)

I have wasted my time to explain why I don’t like to talk about Buddhism but esoteric knowledge.

If you are talking about reincarnated Lamas and Zen masters, you are talking about Buddhism - esoteric or not. I think you are under a misapprehension about what that esoteric knowledge is, and how it is embodied. As I've said before, the Buddhist path is an integral part of Tantra. It is a prerquisite. You don't get practitioners ignoring the Buddha's teachings or leapfrogging them. They are bound up, Mahayana and Tantra being an extension to, not different from the Buddha's path.

I respect you or I wouldn't waste my time talking to you.

So what was the name of the Lama?

[cacian]

A strange question. Every religion has own gods and demons. I don’t have any clue where are you going. :biggrinjester:

Here is where I am going.
How many Gods are there?
If there are many gods then which one is legitimate?
and if there is only one then what it the point of so many different religion?
In other words
what is the difference between a christian and someone who believes in God?

[ftil]

Funnily enough, the tradition I am associated with is Gelugpa - The Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, established in the US and UK by Lama Yeshe and his Heart Disciple Lama Zopa - who is the current head below HH The Dalai Lama.

I am familiar with the teachings as presented in the Gelug tradition, and the above very brief description of the practices is based on Gelug/ Mahayana practice. (I was going to add that different Buddhist traditions have different emphases, and that it isn't extensive.)

I have wasted my time to explain why I don’t like to talk about Buddhism but esoteric knowledge.

If you are talking about reincarnated Lamas and Zen masters, you are talking about Buddhism - esoteric or not. I think you are under a misapprehension about what that esoteric knowledge is, and how it is embodied. As I've said before, the Buddhist path is an integral part of Tantra. It is a prerquisite. You don't get practitioners ignoring the Buddha's teachings or leapfrogging them. They are bound up, Mahayana and Tantra being an extension to, not different from the Buddha's path.

I respect you or I wouldn't waste my time talking to you.

So what was the name of the Lama?

It is nice that you are associated with is Gelugpa. He revealed the Vajnayana, “the thunderbolt,” and “higher prayer” but he didn’t want to reveal Mantrayana, the vehicle of mystic spells. He said to a person whom he taught that “What I have done is dangerous enough.” ???? I wish I could talk to him as I have many questions but I don’t expect that he would answer it as he didn’t answer to his student. Zen Master talked about psychic abilities and a spirit world. I have also have many question about it. But the truth is that as Tao Te Ching said, “Those who know are still”

I have a different understanding of esoteric knowledge as you do. If you look at many religions for example Mystery of Mithra, Dionysus Mysteries, Orphic Mysteries to name a few, you see that only a few had the access to secret knowledge. Masses got religions as a means of controlling and manipulating them. :D

I hope that you understand why I don’t want to discuss it but I may post excerpt on my tread in the future. Those I would love to talk are still. :banghead:

[ftil]

Here is where I am going.
How many Gods are there?
If there are many gods then which one is legitimate?
and if there is only one then what it the point of so many different religion?
In other words
what is the difference between a christian and someone who believes in God?

I wouldn’t even try to count gods as there are so many. :lol: Of course, I take into consideration all religions, ancient and present. I ask different questions. Who wrote those religions? I am more interested in finding similarities than differences which brings more questions.....

[KCurtis]

Greed is generated from selfishness. If you want to look at the origin of most religions, there is a morality usually taught. I can speak for the Christian religion, that its followers are taught NOT to be greedy.
This is true also of the other two monotheistic religions.

[Paulclem]

It is nice that you are associated with is Gelugpa. He revealed the Vajnayana, “the thunderbolt,” and “higher prayer” but he didn’t want to reveal Mantrayana, the vehicle of mystic spells. He said to a person whom he taught that “What I have done is dangerous enough.” ???? I wish I could talk to him as I have many questions but I don’t expect that he would answer it as he didn’t answer to his student. Zen Master talked about psychic abilities and a spirit world. I have also have many question about it. But the truth is that as Tao Te Ching said, “Those who know are still”

I have a different understanding of esoteric knowledge as you do. If you look at many religions for example Mystery of Mithra, Dionysus Mysteries, Orphic Mysteries to name a few, you see that only a few had the access to secret knowledge. Masses got religions as a means of controlling and manipulating them. :D

I hope that you understand why I don’t want to discuss it but I may post excerpt on my tread in the future. Those I would love to talk are still. :banghead:


He said to a person whom he taught that “What I have done is dangerous enough.”

This could have a couple of meanings. Teaching Tantra has Karmic repercussion and involves vows. If a vow is broken, then there is a karmic repercussion for the student and the Teacher.

The student Teacher relationship is very important, and involves a lot of training. Teachers - it says in the texts, should be very very carefully chosen. The same goes for the student. It's not really about control of individuals as such, for few people will reach this level of meditation. The hold on teachings is because they are potent. Without higher training a person can damage themselves.

Remember these are practices for monastics rather than lay people. It is a full time practice. There's no room for anything else. You're right as well. He won't - can't - tell you about the practices. You'd have to be his student.

Psychic abilities are - it is said - a by product of practice. Things like knowing others' minds etc. They are not the point of the practice. If it becomes the motivation for meditation, then the practice ceases to be Buddhist.

The spirit world is one of the realms in the Wheel of Life. This is the realm of the Hungry Ghosts - a very unfortunate realm where the beings are forever in need and full of unfullfillable desire. Through meditation, it is said these realms can be perceived.

Control comes with institutions and Governements. I can only speak of Buddhism, but I don't think the practice has that element of control in it. Some of the institutions yes - but I think that's politics. Buddhism began as a - not revolutionary but perhaps subversive religion in that it was not the Hindu norm of the time. It can be and is practiced by individuals anywhere. No temples are needed really. It can be a purely solitary practice, or one that involves a community.

[ftil]

He said to a person whom he taught that “What I have done is dangerous enough.”

This could have a couple of meanings. Teaching Tantra has Karmic repercussion and involves vows. If a vow is broken, then there is a karmic repercussion for the student and the Teacher.

The student Teacher relationship is very important, and involves a lot of training. Teachers - it says in the texts, should be very very carefully chosen. The same goes for the student. It's not really about control of individuals as such, for few people will reach this level of meditation. The hold on teachings is because they are potent. Without higher training a person can damage themselves.

Remember these are practices for monastics rather than lay people. It is a full time practice. There's no room for anything else. You're right as well. He won't - can't - tell you about the practices. You'd have to be his student.

Psychic abilities are - it is said - a by product of practice. Things like knowing others' minds etc. They are not the point of the practice. If it becomes the motivation for meditation, then the practice ceases to be Buddhist.

The spirit world is one of the realms in the Wheel of Life. This is the realm of the Hungry Ghosts - a very unfortunate realm where the beings are forever in need and full of unfullfillable desire. Through meditation, it is said these realms can be perceived.

Control comes with institutions and Governements. I can only speak of Buddhism, but I don't think the practice has that element of control in it. Some of the institutions yes - but I think that's politics. Buddhism began as a - not revolutionary but perhaps subversive religion in that it was not the Hindu norm of the time. It can be and is practiced by individuals anywhere. No temples are needed really. It can be a purely solitary practice, or one that involves a community.

Hm…....I don’t want to sound sarcastic but don’t you think that it is funny that those who knew didn’t want to talk……. but you are so eager to explain everything. You have tried to simplify it without knowing a whole story and you are still making assumptions rather than asking questions. Sorry, but I don’t have time for that kind of discussion any more. :rolleyes5: I have been studied for years and I have more questions than answers. In fact, I don’t look for the answers but ask questions since if we accept a belief we close our minds for alternative explanations.

I have a list of books to read from Kalachakra Tantra: A shadow of Dalai Lama. But I don’t think so that I would ever want to discuss it. I know that many questions I have will never be answered.

I better make a good use of my time and go back to reading. You will find people who are interested in Buddhism ….:wink5:

[Paulclem]

Hm…....I don’t want to sound sarcastic but don’t you think that it is funny that those who knew didn’t want to talk……. but you are so eager to explain everything. You have tried to simplify it without knowing a whole story and you are still making assumptions rather than asking questions. Sorry, but I don’t have time for that kind of discussion any more. :rolleyes5: I have been studied for years and I have more questions than answers. In fact, I don’t look for the answers but ask questions since if we accept a belief we close our minds for alternative explanations.

I have a list of books to read from Kalachakra Tantra: A shadow of Dalai Lama. But I don’t think so that I would ever want to discuss it. I know that many questions I have will never be answered.

I better make a good use of my time and go back to reading. You will find people who are interested in Buddhism ….:wink5:

I don't know why you are defensive. I merely expanded on what you put because I'm mindful that other people read these posts.

I don't think I have simplified anything. The explanations are standard fare. These things are explained to practitioners and there's no secret about them. I have already said that I don't practice Tantra, and so I couldn't possibly go into the teachings even if I wanted to. I merely have a basic knowledge of the kinds of practices. What I've put is by no means secret or hidden and if something couldn't be discussed, then I wouldn't discuss it. There's no problem in explaining why either.

Your references to psychic abilities and spirits needed elucidation and so I put in my bit after you had mentioned them. It is easy for people to get the wrong impression. There's lots of potential for confusion about Eastern religions.

I understand that the secret, psychic, spirit parts of Tibetan Buddhism are very interesting. They certainly are, but they remain part of the Buddhist worldview with some typically Tibetan additions such as particular Dharma Protectors.

Next time don't worry about disclaimers like I don't want to sound sarcastc but.. It just means that you are going to be. I don't mind if you are sarcastic. I get the impression that you think I'm trying to get one over on you or something. You could probably guess that I enjoy chatting about Buddhism, and it's purely that, and I'm interested in what you put. I'm also aware of certain teachings, and like to elucidate things when they are mentioned. It might sound a bit pedantic. I don't mean to be, but as I said I'm aware that other people read posts too.

[ftil]

Originally posted by Paulclem

I don't know why you are defensive. I merely expanded on what you put because I'm mindful that other people read these posts.

I am not defensive. I should have used emoticons to express how I felt. :ihih: I just don’t want to talk about it any more. To be honest, I don’t like having that kind of discussion for a long time. It is a distraction and I have too many books I want to read. Therefore, I have a tread about mythology and religion ….free from discussion. :wink5:

BTW, I don't like to be sarcastic either but I am honest.

[Paulclem]

I am not defensive. I should have used emoticons to express how I felt. :ihih: I just don’t want to talk about it any more. To be honest, I don’t like having that kind of discussion for a long time. It is a distraction and I have too many books I want to read. Therefore, I have a tread about mythology and religion ….free from discussion. :wink5:

BTW, I don't like to be sarcastic either but I am honest.

Ok. I never said you weren't honest. There's nothing wrong with a bit of sarcasm with people who can take it.

It seems to me you do like discussion. We've had plenty of them. I enjoy them anyway. You can tell that I'm a billy-no-mates from the number of times I'm on. It's nice to meet someone else who is on as much - I'm only joking. :biggrin5:

[ftil]

Ok. I never said you weren't honest. There's nothing wrong with a bit of sarcasm with people who can take it.

It seems to me you do like discussion. We've had plenty of them. I enjoy them anyway. You can tell that I'm a billy-no-mates from the number of times I'm on. It's nice to meet someone else who is on as much - I'm only joking. :biggrin5:

I don’t enjoy having long discussions where I have more questions than answers as I am aware how much I want to learn and read. I also don’t like writing. When I spent too much time writing, I need my balance back and read.
BTW, I was born to talk and read.:lol:

All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind.
Khalil Gibran

[Theunderground]

I think religions main benefit is that it gives people hope in difficult situations.
'Hope' is very much real,positive and provable emprically. A being called 'god' with all his attributes is a nonsense frankly. But religion fills the gap left by science and philosophy. I would go further and say that 'hope' is almost intrinsic to the human condition and thus hope invents religion and art. The hope is real,the inventions and art much less so. In summary religion is a tool to give man hope.

[MarkBastable]

I have been studied for years...


Really? Who was studying you? I mean, on the basis of your posts, I can see why they might - I'm just surprised you allow it.

[ftil]

Really? Who was studying you? I mean, on the basis of your posts, I can see why they might - I'm just surprised you allow it.

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”

Carl Gustav Jung :lol:

[usman.khawar]

Really? Who was studying you? I mean, on the basis of your posts, I can see why they might - I'm just surprised you allow it.

try to understand ftil.. he wanted to say" i have studied for many years/..."

For thread starter... i think religion is the packet of those conducts which lead a person to Lord. in this packet there are minimum conducts which are neccessary for the Way to Lord. moreover i think it also give peace and success (material,moral etc) in this life on earth as well as hereafter.coz the suggestion are directly from Lord for how to pass in this transitory life..

[ftil]

try to understand ftil.. he wanted to say" i have studied for many years/..."

For thread starter... i think religion is the packet of those conducts which lead a person to Lord. in this packet there are minimum conducts which are neccessary for the Way to Lord. moreover i think it also give peace and success (material,moral etc) in this life on earth as well as hereafter.coz the suggestion are directly from Lord for how to pass in this transitory life..

I guess you speak his language....... I don’t have any clue how his post relates to religion? :lol:

“Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation.”
Rumi

[Paulclem]

try to understand ftil.. he wanted to say" i have studied for many years/..."

For thread starter... i think religion is the packet of those conducts which lead a person to Lord. in this packet there are minimum conducts which are neccessary for the Way to Lord. moreover i think it also give peace and success (material,moral etc) in this life on earth as well as hereafter.coz the suggestion are directly from Lord for how to pass in this transitory life..

You misunderstand Mark, Usman. He was making a joke.

[cafolini]

The point of religion is for people to cope when they don't have other means. There were days when the people were trained to impose it. Those days are still present in delusional, powerless and primitive countries. They will be completely overcome. Religion will linger, but it will no longer be imposed in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Globalization of freedom is unavoidable no matter how long it takes, not because we will attack, but because we will be attacked and we have the power to defend it, make it stick, reproduce and evolve.
In God we trust for these matters, if there is any place where religion must always apply. The freaks of the world are funny. They want us to take that away from the face of the dollar bill. Naive bunch of little weasels ruled by despots and nepotists who collect dollars.

[Paulclem]

The point of religion is for people to cope when they don't have other means.

I don't see this. I don't see the US bible belt made up of the poor and disenfranchised. I don't see it in other countries. In fact religions have grown in coutries which have had the economic stability to support them.


Globalization of freedom is unavoidable

What does the globalisation of freedom mean? I think I know what you are referring to, but it's a big concept which needs explanation.

Your rant is almost religious in its intensity.

[cafolini]

The point of religion is for people to cope when they don't have other means.

I don't see this. I don't see the US bible belt made up of the poor and disenfranchised. I don't see it in other countries. In fact religions have grown in coutries which have had the economic stability to support them.


Globalization of freedom is unavoidable

What does the globalisation of freedom mean? I think I know what you are referring to, but it's a big concept which needs explanation.

Your rant is almost religious in its intensity.

I'm talking about freedom of religion in America. We promote freedom of religion. And we will never allow dominance on the part of any religion.
Mine is not a rant. People have the right to cope in whatever religious way they want. There is no unified church in America. There are thousands of different religions and sects. There is no belt of unified religion.
If you do not see this, too bad. It is one of the major roads to freedom and it is shining in the home of the brave and the land of the free. You are missing my point. And that is also your right and we will defend that right of yours against any freaks that dislike it. In God we trust.

Globalization of freedom might be a big concept, since it is global, planetary, but it needs not your explanation. It is obvious. Definitely you will not entangle us with any explanation that's unnecessary without scholastic condescendence.

[Paulclem]

I'm talking about freedom of religion in America. We promote freedom of religion. And we will never allow dominance on the part of any religion.
Mine is not a rant. People have the right to cope in whatever religious way they want. There is no unified church in America. There are thousands of different religions and sects. There is no belt of unified religion.
If you do not see this, too bad. It is one of the major roads to freedom and it is shining in the home of the brave and the land of the free. You are missing my point. And that is also your right and we will defend that right of yours against any freaks that dislike it. In God we trust.

I thought you said the globalisation of freedom. What do you mean by that?

Those days are still present in delusional, powerless and primitive countries. They will be completely overcome.

This isn't about the US. What do you mean by this? Overcome by whom?

It is one of the major roads to freedom and it is shining in the home of the brave and the land of the free.

Sorry. It was meant to be humourous, but it still sounds like a rant.

[cafolini]

I thought you said the globalisation of freedom. What do you mean by that?

Those days are still present in delusional, powerless and primitive countries. They will be completely overcome.

This isn't about the US. What do you mean by this? Overcome by whom?

It is one of the major roads to freedom and it is shining in the home of the brave and the land of the free.

Sorry. It was meant to be humourous, but it still sounds like a rant.

A rant? A rant is what's been going on in this thread, about this and about that and petty gossipy, spent stuff that no longer applies, and the sea in a small track. There is no humor about this. It's plainly evident. You care to discuss it? I don't. It's obvious to me.

[Paulclem]

A rant? A rant is what's been going on in this thread, about this and about that and petty gossipy, spent stuff that no longer applies, and the sea in a small track. There is no humor about this. It's plainly evident. You care to discuss it? I don't. It's obvious to me.

I wonder why you don't answer the question?

Why did you post if you don't want to discuss it?

petty gossipy, spent stuff that no longer applies, and the sea in a small track.

What makes what you say any more important?

[cafolini]

I wonder why you don't answer the question?

Why did you post if you don't want to discuss it?

petty gossipy, spent stuff that no longer applies, and the sea in a small track.

What makes what you say any more important?

What makes it more impoertant? The evidence in USA, all over the place for those who can see it. And those who cannot, considering the amount of evidence they don't see, will not see it anyway and it doesn't matter. We will even defend the right of people to be blind. That's how beautiful the land of the free and the home of the brave are.

[Paulclem]

I asked you about the globalisation of freedom, and you responded about just talking about the US.


I also suggested that the prescence of religion has been a symptom of economic success, not poverty. Catholocism grew upon the wealth of the European nations. Your own churches are a symptom of an economically successful country.

The point of religion is for people to cope when they don't have other means.

I was interested in your take on globalisation of freedom in light of the Arab Spring perhaps, or the erosion of religion in industrialised countries.

Globalization of freedom is unavoidable no matter how long it takes, not because we will attack, but because we will be attacked and we have the power to defend it, make it stick, reproduce and evolve.

I assume you are referring to recent revolutions in Libya and interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The difficulty with this is that you assume that your point of view is obvious, irrefutable and a good model for any country to follow. It doesn't take account of history, culture, different religious worldviews or the social structures of particular countries.

I'm not sure why you keep spouting on about the brave and the free. That's all very well, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

[cafolini]

I asked you about the globalisation of freedom, and you responded about just talking about the US.


I also suggested that the prescence of religion has been a symptom of economic success, not poverty. Catholocism grew upon the wealth of the European nations. Your own churches are a symptom of an economically successful country.

The point of religion is for people to cope when they don't have other means.

I was interested in your take on globalisation of freedom in light of the Arab Spring perhaps, or the erosion of religion in industrialised countries.

Globalization of freedom is unavoidable no matter how long it takes, not because we will attack, but because we will be attacked and we have the power to defend it, make it stick, reproduce and evolve.

I assume you are referring to recent revolutions in Libya and interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The difficulty with this is that you assume that your point of view is obvious, irrefutable and a good model for any country to follow. It doesn't take account of history, culture, different religious worldviews or the social structures of particular countries.

I'm not sure why you keep spouting on about the brave and the free. That's all very well, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Most likely there is nothing to add to the discussion.

[Paulclem]

What discussion was that then? I felt it was a bit one sided.

[cafolini]

What discussion was that then? I felt it was a bit one sided.

It was that then.

[mike thomas]

a chestnut hath many points which maketh it hard to swallow.

To the Bhuddist there may be no point at all. To a Judeo-Christian-Muslim the point is usually not even inquired into. No need to question that which has always been there, is truth because those with a deeper knowledge say so.

There is always someone at the top.

When it all began, someone wrote stuff on parchment or plaster walls, but I question not what they wrote, rather how come they had the education it takes to transfer one's thoughts into scripture. While they scribbled and mumbled awesome sounding prayers, the other poor buggers had to work their whip-worn nuts like crazy, feeding the priests and grafting for the great king.

But they had not the learning so someone decided to tell them what they had written. More often than not such scripts contained many threats and warnings and not a small heap of bull. But if it contained some happy stuff, and soapy stuff, then that made the monsters less frightening.

And if the king wanted many lives ended in some mad attempt to wipe out the neighbours, then get the priests to justify it. Hatred rape and murder are dishes best served with the aid of a jealous all powerful god.

But the unlearned were never allowed access to the understanding. Those shaven headed priests and scribes rarely went hungry. Peace was in the kingdom and all was well in the world. Until someone learned to read what was in the magic books, and began to question. Then the burning and the torture started.

The masses need solice. Eternity has a way of causing utter dread in the mind of mankind. Booze is another excellent seditive - ask old Noah.

[Paulclem]

a chestnut hath many points which maketh it hard to swallow.

To the Bhuddist there may be no point at all. To a Judeo-Christian-Muslim the point is usually not even inquired into. No need to question that which has always been there, is truth because those with a deeper knowledge say so.

There is always someone at the top.

When it all began, someone wrote stuff on parchment or plaster walls, but I question not what they wrote, rather how come they had the education it takes to transfer one's thoughts into scripture. While they scribbled and mumbled awesome sounding prayers, the other poor buggers had to work their whip-worn nuts like crazy, feeding the priests and grafting for the great king.

But they had not the learning so someone decided to tell them what they had written. More often than not such scripts contained many threats and warnings and not a small heap of bull. But if it contained some happy stuff, and soapy stuff, then that made the monsters less frightening.

And if the king wanted many lives ended in some mad attempt to wipe out the neighbours, then get the priests to justify it. Hatred rape and murder are dishes best served with the aid of a jealous all powerful god.

But the unlearned were never allowed access to the understanding. Those shaven headed priests and scribes rarely went hungry. Peace was in the kingdom and all was well in the world. Until someone learned to read what was in the magic books, and began to question. Then the burning and the torture started.

The masses need solice. Eternity has a way of causing utter dread in the mind of mankind. Booze is another excellent seditive - ask old Noah.

What you're talking about here is mainly politics. I agree that the state is bad for religion. When there is someone in power who spouts religion for their own ends - it seems as though it is the religion at fault. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone without power to perceive the motives of the powerful because they are the ones who control the information. It is simplistic to merely blame the religion. It can only manifest in the people who represent it.

To the Bhuddist there may be no point at all.

For the Buddhist, the point is to end suffering.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

cafolini, out of pure curiosity, how old are you?

[cafolini]

cafolini, out of pure curiosity, how old are you?

Old, very old. I have already changed my hair from brown to white several times.

[BlackCat]

this is my personal opinion:

Religion is important to me because it teaches me about who I am, my relationship to the universe, to others. It gives me a meaning that atheism could not give (no offense, I really don't want to spark a religious debate here). Also since my Catholic faith teaches me about a greater being than myself, that I should molds myself according to this greater being, religion helps inspire me to becomes greater than myself, to overcomes life's obstacles, to have faith in myself as well as others. Religion also provides a medium to introduces me to philosophy, literature, culture, in fact I could proudly say I would not be interested in learning anything if it wasn't for the inspiration of religion.

That being said, I guess it's all up to you to say what religion really means.

[Theunderground]

Religion is mans attempt to make ' verbal sense of himself,his peers and the world'. It exists naturally as man experiences life and should make sense to himself. The problem is we are brought up with unquestionable dogmas or so called 'scientific laws' which can only be rejected with much emotional derision.Another problem is that though the lifes foremost 'values' can be expressed in words,the actual acting and bringing about of these 'values' is known only by experience fully and also demands effort against the obstacles to realising these 'values' practically. Religion is really mans deepest practical values,but they should be personal and not dictated from a book or imposed by other persons. And finally, the words with which people express their 'religion' may sometimes be allegorical or interposed with the concepts most familar to the persons concerned. This is sometimes why confusions arises about the word 'god' and such like.