Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Nothing convincing from your side...just arguing for the sake of argument.
I live in an apartment for years and don't know who my neighbors are. I haven't even seen or met any!! Does that mean there are no neighbors in my block?? Similarly, God is known through His signs....manifestations. No one has seen Him yet His existence is felt. You therefore got no reason not to believe His existence.
Varenne had posted "ECurb isn't atheist" and juniper seems to be suggesting that "ECurb isn't an atheist" would be better. Varenne then defends her usage of it as a modifier (an "attributive noun", that is, which is different than an adjective, so everyone here is at least a little right in the end).Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
EDIT: to be fair to Varenne, I was just now able to find one online dictionary that listed "atheist" as an adjective as well, so it looks like the bleeding of an attributive noun convention into the category of full-blown adjective is underway.
let alone semantics. get to the point.:)
Thanks, Billl. I love opportunities to improve my English. Your input is much appreciated. :)
That was very funny, mazHur. Ridiculously funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
And Ecurb, you are a fountain of disinformation. But I wouldn't get entangled with you if I were her.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes -- an ant can reproduce more than an elephant, if it's the right kind of ant. Some ants can't reproduce at all (or is that Bees?). What does that have to do with anything I've ever written?Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
mazHur, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm not the one with something to prove. You're asserting that there is a god and clear evidence of a god, so the burden of proof lies with you, sugarplum. I'm not worried about it either way. I'm aware of reality and what humans are capable and incapable of knowing about the history of the universe at this point. I'm aware that additional evidence could present itself in the future. As of now I have never met a deity. No one I know has met a deity. Deities don't seem able to interact with the physical world, if they do exist. That makes me reasonably certain that you haven't met deities either, and can't truthfully assert that they factually exist. I agree with you on one point, however, there's nothing worth arguing here.
I was pointing out to the fallacious analogy given by you concerning reproduction rate between the rich Americans and the poor Asians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
As the Arabian Nights says: A poor man sleeps peacefully all night while a rich man cannot because the former has nothing to lose but................reproduce more and more and that too speedily!!:)
Yes, it is an insult to say someone who "takes mythology seriously" is naive. I'll grant that it is not an EFFECTIVE insult, because I'm sure that almost every serious poster on these boards (including me) "takes mythology seriously".Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
To return your insult, I'll only say that anyone who DOESN'T take mythology seriously is naive. I prefer the sophisticated approach, and take not only mythology, but also fairy tales, novels, and epic poems seriously.
Funny for the Lady lioness (or lion) sad for the poor dead deer!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by [QUOTE
Oh, get a grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
The only way to meet a deity is first to taste the flavor of Death!Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
BTW deities are not interested in meeting anyone...they don't need to.they are too busy-just as all and sundry like me cannot meet even the human President of a country!!
We can only visualize 'deity' through'' His manifestations and signs just as you can predict a storm by looking at the sky or racing wind!!
"Fallacious analogy"? My observation wasn't "fallacious" and it wasn't an "analogy". Other thant that, you're probably right. "Fitness" has a special meaning in evolutionary biology:Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
Fitness
Definition
noun
(1) (biology) A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.
(2) A relative measure of reproductive success of an organism in passing its genes to the next generation.
(3) The relative ability of an individual (or population) to survive, reproduce and propagate genes in an environment.
I meant, and I think this was clear, that it is either naive or insane to take mythology so seriously that it becomes a person's perceived reality. I can safely say that a lot of the posters here do not seriously believe we are ruled by Greek gods. They don't think centaurs are roaming the woods near their houses. They aren't out on quests to kill dragons and ogres. I love the Dark Tower series, but I don't think I'll stumble upon magical doors into other dimensions, or be held prisoner by a talking psychotic train, or have mystical sex with a shape-shifting demonic apparition. Sure, it sounds thrilling, but I would never expect anyone to respect those crazy ideas if I thought they were real and wanted to act them out. I would expect them to laugh and think me a weirdo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
The steam has gone out of my argument though. I've been cooking and talking about delicious veggie feasts over on the vegetarian holiday manners thread. Now all I can think about is the fantastic dinner I have planned for family and friends tomorrow. I forfeit all of my remaining battle points for this round to you, Ecurb. Many happy returns. :D
Have a good Thanksgiving!
Is it necessary to believe and pray? I do not think prayer is something that helps us. We are told to renounce everything to God and this is a form of servility. We often like to behave slavishly since we crave security. Why people are not rebellious? The reason is they are afraid of being stranded. We like to comply with what we are told. My parents told me in my babyhood that there is a God and since we are Buddhists by birth and Buddhism if you make an advanced study of Buddhism God is not an important
issue the way Hinduism, Christianity or Islam accentuate it.
Why should God need our service and prayer? God must be indifferent to prayer or condemnation. We have a certain shape and size or idea or fabrication of God and we believe God resides in heaven and there is nothing called heaven and hell. These all are mythological tales. Today children read Harry Potter and it has so many imagined stories invented by J K Rowling. I have recently read Heart of Darkness, a very interesting and exploratory story written by Conrad and one of the characters in the novel finds himself in an African land and his stature there is likened to a God any religious community believes and the community who likes to worship that character like a God has in fact incarcerated him there and the rest of characters coming across him find the place and situation despicable.
God is not a person if God does exist at all. God is not something the way your scriptures have written about. The word God is not God or the idea you have imported from your Guru or book is not God. God if there is is this cosmic wholeness, pervasiveness and presence.
You have foolishly invented your personal Gods since you want to have a distinctiveness to identify yourself with. Your idea of God has divided the world and that ended up in the break of so many wars and the world is threatened more by the idea of God and religion than without them.
If you think disinterestedly and detachedly you will keep mind from the idea of God
[QUOTE=osho;1091862]Quote:
Is it necessary to believe and pray?
God does not want us to do anything for Him, only you suffer from that idea.PHP Code:Why should God need our service and prayer?
As for prayer, friends 'pray' for success and prosperity to their friends and loved ones; they wish nice things to other people. If someone does not believe in 'praying' or 'wishing' well to others he is infact something out of this world.... a weird non-human being perhaps. Similarly, one prays to God for no charge!! It's not necessary that He grant you all you wish or pray for.
Praying or wishing well to someone is like thanking them and needless to say a 'thankless person' is not the sign of a good personality.
Buddhism believes in self-torture to get rid of sufferings. Other religions such as Islam and Christianity teach struggle and love and hold one's life as a trust to God. Suicide is haram in Islam and perhaps other religions too and is a sign of cowardice and hopelessness. If 'to pray' to the Supreme being for goodness for self or others is bad then 'to hope' is no better.
Are you wise enough to call the billion believers fools?? That is an insult to them. Wars are not the result of 'religion' alone- lust and greed for domination and power is.PHP Code:You have foolishly invented your personal Gods since you want to have a distinctiveness to identify yourself with. Your idea of God has divided the world and that ended up in the break of so many wars and the world is threatened more by the idea of God and religion than without them.
Quote:
If you think disinterestedly and detachedly you will keep mind from the idea of God
Who do you have for succor?? Social security? pension? servility to rules and laws of land? allegiance to your family and country?? wealth and power?? Knowledge and wisdom?? You lose all these things with time.....and finally you feel the brunt of not praying or wishing ........
It is true that prayer and hope are one and the same, but they don't have anything to do with religion objetifying them. The world is already innundated with prayer for betterment without any need for religion.
I agree with mazHur's comments on prayer.Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
Personally, I find mantra recitation helpful. I suspect this could be called "prayer". Basically, it keeps the mind focused on words that have been repeated so often they come to mind immediately like the lyrics of a song one recently heard. Although I think there are personal benefits in doing this, it is not a just a self-help activity. It works because it is directed to an Other.
If I had to be servile to anything, I would prefer that to be the highest God I could imagine. Religious stories help me imagine a higher God than money, pleasure, or fame. These petty Gods are just not good enough for me. One problem with atheism, among other things, is that it leaves these petty Gods as the only ones available for the imagination.
Who do you pray to?? Who do you wish by ?? Without 'Faith' no prayer no wish can come true. Call it religion, faith, belief, soul, spirit, whatever, it ends up in 'Religion'...Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
A thief's 'religion' is stealing; a pick-pocket's is in ripping off pockets;
a generals is in martial matters; a politician's 'religion' is in how much he can fool people; a priest's faith is in his piety, fake or true. You ought to have a faith to hold you up in times of challenge and that faith is only provided by your FAITH OR RELIGION. Unless you have faith in your parents or friends you cannot be loyal to them nor ever pray or wish them good.
Inundation of prayers is just like habitually buying a million lottery tickets but no jackpot showing up. Prayers have to be ''genuine' ie from heart and soul. I have had many experiences of failed prayers as well as some successful ones....all depends on intentions and faith.
Great message, highly inspirational even for non-believers!! :hurray::thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
But who performs these miracles,
"People usually consider walking on water
or in thin air a miracle.
But I think the real miracle, someone should have told HanH!!
is not to walk either on water or in thin air,
but to walk on earth.
Every day we are engaged in a miracle
which we don't even recognize:
a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves,
the black, curious eyes of a child--
our own two eyes.
All is a miracle."
Thich Nhat Hanh
Vietnamese Bhuddist Monk, Author and Poet
It wasn't inspirational for this non-believer. It was ludicrous.
I loved your post, Osho. Everything you said made so much sense. Thank you.
sorry, that was not meant for you .... there are non-believers who might love the post and even if they confusedly don't that's their prerogative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
You are getting better all the time. Ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
It is interesting what you wrote about God. Madame Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophical Society, visited Tibet where she received her teachings. She had a very different idea about God.
Well, her God. :biggrinjester:
Excerpt from The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky — Vol. 2
Quote:
VOL. 2, PAGE 233 HOLY SATAN.
The true esoteric view about “Satan,” the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled “The Secret of Satan,” to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford’s “Perfect Way.” No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader, and it is therefore quoted here at some length: —
“1. And on the seventh day (seventh creation of the Hindus),* there went forth from the presence of God a mighty Angel, full of wrath and consuming, and God gave him the dominion of the outermost sphere.†
2. “Eternity brought forth Time; the Boundless gave birth to Limit; Being descended into generation.”‡
4. “Among the Gods is none like unto him, into whose hands are committed the kingdoms, the power and the glory of the worlds:”
5. “Thrones and empires, the dynasties of kings,§ the fall of nations, the birth of churches, the triumph of Time.”
For, as is said in Hermes, “Satan is the door-keeper of the Temple of the King; he standeth in Solomon’s porch; he holdeth the key of the Sanctuary, that no man enter therein, save the Anointed having the arcanum of Hermes” (v. 20 and 21).
These suggestive and majestic verses had reference with the ancient Egyptians and other civilized peoples of antiquity to the creative and generative light of the Logos (Horus, Brahma, Ahura-Mazda, etc., etc., as primeval manifestations of the ever-unmanifested Principle, e.g., Ain-Soph, Parabrahm, or ZeruanaAkerne — Boundless Time — Kala)
Quote:
VOL. 2, PAGE 234 THE SECRET DOCTRINE
33. “Satan is the minister of God, Lord of the seven mansions of Hades” . . . .
The seven or Saptaloka of the Earth with the Hindus; for Hades, or the Limbo of Illusion, of which theology makes a region bordering on Hell, is simply our globe, the Earth, and thus Satan is called —
33 “. . . . the angel of the manifest Worlds.”
It is “Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god,” and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity. For he is one with the Logos, “the first son, eldest of the gods,” in the order.
Quote:
VOL. 1, PAGE 350 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
The latter is, in the Chaldean Kabala, a pure abstraction; the Word or LOGOS, or DABAR (in Hebrew), which Word, though it becomes in fact a plural number, or “Words” — D(a)B(a)RIM, when it reflects itself, or falls into the aspect of a Host (of angels, or Sephiroth, “numbers”) is still collectively ONE, and on the ideal plane a nought — 0, a “No-thing.” IT is without form or being, “with no likeness with anything else.” (Franck, “Die Kabbala,” p. 126.) And even Philo calls the Creator, the Logos who stands next God, “the SECOND GOD,” and “the second God who is his (Highest God’s) WISDOM” (Philo. Quaest. et Solut). Deity is not God. It is NOTHING, and DARKNESS. It is nameless, and therefore called Ain-Soph — “the word Ayin meaning nothing.” See Franck “Die Kabbala,” p. 153. See also Section XII., “Theogony of the Creative Gods.” The “Highest God” (the unmanifested LOGOS) is its Son.
Buddhism, as all know, had its origin in India. Irony of fate is that it has been almost wiped out of Indo-Pakistan and is extinct in its ORIGINAL form, the form that Mahatama Gautam Budh gave it. The present day great religion of Mahatama has been modified to suit various far eastern regions of the world.
If Buddha hadn't believed in God, his most ardent convert the Great Ashoka and Grand Chandra Gupt Mauria wouldn't have given up bloodshed without feeling scruples of the fear of Almighty! This should also be a food for thought for those who want to understand God!
Mazhur - I remember you saying things before about Buddhism and Ashoka that are patently untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
The Southern Buddhists of Sri Lanka, Burma and Vietnam claim that they preserve the original teachings in the Therevada in the books of the Tripitaka, whilst the Mahayana traditions claim that their teachings merely build upon the teachings of Gautama Buddha. The Therevada claims it is the original form, and there is no reason to say otherwise. the writings are even written in a form that suits the rendering of an oral tradition.
If Buddha hadn't believed in God, his most ardent convert the Great Ashoka and Grand Chandra Gupt Mauria wouldn't have given up bloodshed without feeling scruples of the fear of Almighty!
This is not in the Buddhist teachings. Ashoka stopped the campaign of his victorious armies after witnessing the suffering that was caused. He was moved by compassion and then became an iconic Buddhist practitioner, and created the Pillar of Ashoka, which was found by later archaeologists and proved that Buddhism was not a mere branch of Hinduism.
This should also be a food for thought for those who want to understand God!
What is food for thought is why you think it is ok to peddle this cod version of Buddhist history. I remember a post from last year you made claiming similar things. I don't see many Buddhists on here coming up with false histories of Islam, and I don't see why you should either.
This is completely untrue. The Buddha's Path is the Middle Way - neither cultivating suffering, nor over indulging oneself. A quick and cursory read of The Life of the Buddha will confirm this. I also remember you claiming to have studied Buddhism before settling on Islam. I distinctly remember thinking that it was a balanced way of deciding upon a spiritual path. Now this. Either you didn't study it, or you did, but have decided to write untruths to people you think will not know. So which is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
I found our previous conversation on the thread "Is God a projection of our thoughts" - page 9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Hm…..you can’t forget that Buddhism involves Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Tantric Buddhism. Within Hanayana or Mahajana we find many sets that differ in their doctrine. Tantric Buddhism also evolved over several centuries. We can’t have discussion about Buddhism without specifically referring to Hanayana, Mahayana, or Tantric. It would be the same mistake like making generalizations about Christianity. Within Christianity there are so many sects and denominations with distinct doctrines.
I think that to understand that subject requires years of intense study. :biggrin5:
I believe in God because of the equilibrium that He brought to my life. I also believes in God because it was God who inspired me to learn all things possible. It was God who inspired me to study beauties of the world, to see the universe as a united singularity. I also believe in God because I study, and as subjective as it is because I can hear Him speak to my heart (no Schizophrenia :) )
Sometimes I believe in God because I have fun imagining all that I could not do.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCat
The three aspects of the path are not incompatible, but follow the Buddha's path. It's still the Middle way, but the emphasis of each differs. They are unlike Christianity in that the doctrines of each are not at odds. How does what I've said change according to the tradition?Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
Which part of these quotes did she get from Tibet? Tibet had been a Buddhist country for centuries then. It all reads like a re-interpretation of Christian doctrine and seems to have nothing to do with Buddhism.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
Also, Madame Blavatsky has been associated with Spiritualists and the Spiritualist movement in the past. It is very different from Buddhist teachings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Hm….I have been reading about Tantric Buddhism and I see many differences with Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism. To be honest, I didn’t know about Tantric Buddhism as I read Hanayana and Mahayana teachings. Buddhist tantric practice is classified as secret practice and it influenced by Hindu teachings. Interestingly enough, study of Tantrayana on west are in early stages. Those who study that subject made it very clear that there is still lots of secrecy even though there is a large number of tantric scriptures.
So, we may simplify Buddhist teaching to one doctrine…but then we will talk about New Age or pop version of Buddhist teachings. Secondly, Christianity doctrines within protestant church, for example, are not at odds as you said but there are differences like in Buddhism.
My point was that if we want to talk about Buddhism, we need to be very specific and aware of the limitations of our knowledge.
It would answer your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
She introduced the concept of Ascended Masters from whom she received her teachings.Quote:
According to biographers, H.P. Blavatsky’s path laid to Tashilunpo monastery (near Shigatse). A book "The Voice of the Silence", published for the request of Panchen Lama IX in 1927 by Chinese society for Buddhism study at Peking, reports that H. Blavatsky during several years was studied in Tashilunpo and knew well Panchen Lama VIII Tenpay Vangchug. Blavatsky also confirmed her living at Tashilunpo and Shigatse. In a letter, she depicted her correspondent a solitary temple of Tashi Lama near Shigatse.
S. Cranston asserts that, according to H.P. Blavatsky, it is not known would she was at Lhasa in that time, but V. Jelihovsky affirmed the follows: "It is reliably that she (Blavatsky) sometimes was at Lhasa, capital of Tibet, and also at Shigatse, main Tibetan religious centre … and at Karakoram mountains in Kunlun Shan. Her living stories about this proved that for me many times".
According to the biographers, last period of her living at Tibet H.P. Blavatsky has conducted in the home of her Teacher Koot Hoomi (K.H.). He helps Blavatsky to get to several lamaseries where any European was not before her. In the letter from October 2, 1991 she wrote to M. Hillis-Billing that the house of Teacher K.H. "is in the region of Karakoram mountains beyond Ladakh which is at minor Tibet and related now to Kashmir. This is a large wooden building in China style looking like to pagoda located between lake and a nice river".
Researchers believe that just at this time (during living in Tibet) Blavatsky began to study the texts which later will come to the book "The Voice of the Silence".
In 1927, one of the eminent explorers of Tibet and its philosophy W.Y. Evans-Wentz wrote in introduction to his translation of "The Tibetan Book of the Dead": "As concerning an esoteric meaning of forty ninth day of Bardo, please see about this in H.P. Blavatsky’s “The Secret Doctrine” (London, 1888, v.1, P.238, 411; v.2, p. 617,628). Late lama K.D. Samdup believed that in spite of malevolent critics of Blavatsky’s works, this author has undisputable proofs that she was well acquainted with the highest lamaist teaching, and for this she needs to get an initiation". Doctor Malalasekera, founder and President of the World Buddhist brotherhood, wrote about Blavatsky in a monumental "Buddhism Encyclopedia": "Her acquaintance with Tibetan Buddhism and also with esoteric Buddhism practices is indubitable". Thus, Japan philosopher and Buddhologist D. T. Suzuki supposes that
H.P. Blavatsky. 1876-1878
“ "undoubtedly Ms. Blavatsky somehow or other was initiated into deeper propositions of the Mahayana teaching".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky
The question that I ask who they really are and if they are so evolved why they need humans as a vehicle to transmit their knowledge. :biggrinjester:
Quote:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ascended-master
Ascended Masters are enlightened beings whom many in the esoteric field believe have evolved beyond the need to reincarnate on earth and now act from a higher plane of existence to assist humans in their movement toward enlightenment and guide the race in its destined evolution. The concept of ascended masters was popularly introduced by Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, cofounder of the Theosophical Society, and described in some detail in her most important book, The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky taught that both individuals and the human race were engaged in an upward evolutionary process. At the same time, she pictured a hierarchy of Masters headed by a being known as the Solar Logos. Those masters at the lowest level of the hierarchy regularly interacted with humanity. The Masters El Morya and Koot Hoomi have had a special role in the formation and guidance of the society. One of the early members of the society, A. P. Sinnett, also received regular communications from the masters that became the basis of two important theosophical texts, Esoteric Buddhism and the Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett.
Together, the masters constituted the Great White Brotherhood. A number of the spiritual leaders from past history were pictured as members of the hierarchy. For example, the person known as Jesus, revered as the fountainheadof Christianity, is believed to hold the office of Maitreya in the hierarchy. The work of the masters was championed by Blavatsky's successor Annie Besant and her colleague Charles W. Leadbeater, whose works further elaborated upon the nature and work of the masters.
Blavatsky also introduced the idea of ascension as a goal for humans, a concept made central of "I AM" Religious Activity, an organization founded by Guy W. Ballard, who further developed theosophical concepts. Ballard taught that it was possible through following the disciplines of the movement, including vegetarianism, to so purify the self that the individual need not die but could ascend to the next level of conscious existence. Ballard's own untimely death necessitated some revision of that ideal, and the natural process of death was integrated into the understanding of the process of ascension. Ballard is now believed to have assumed a position as an ascended master, as has Mark Prophet, the founder of the Summit Lighthouse (now the Church Universal and Triumphant), a group similar to the "I AM."
Where did I 'compare' any religion with Buddhism??? False history of Islam??? When, where??Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I live in the ancient Buddhist zone,,,,the Ghandara civilization, stupas all around but NOT a single Buddhist?? It is almost the same all over India! Buddhism been split into a myriad of sects or faces is no more the same as taught by the Great Buddha. It is favored, though in a different mode, more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant--the Hindu's and Jains. And that is a fact.
It is irony of fate that two of the greatest Kings of India namely Mauriya and Asoka lost their empires and dynasty AFTER they converted to Buddhism....
it was not only 'suffering' they caused that made them realize to opt for a new religion but they kinda attained Nirvana...or unification with God!
Buddhism in its Original form is almost history...what we see today is modifications of Buddhism...and Buddha teachings except his Eight Paths.
Basic teachings of almost all religion lay emphasis on 'morals' and 'way of living' so does Buddhism and I don't have any disagreement on that. The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION ...and doesn't condemn self-infliction which is not considered legitimate in other religions including Islam. FYI it is HARAM in Islam to commit suicide or kill anyone-it says : the Killing of one person is the same as Killing humanity. Well, if people do not comply with the tenets of their religion that cannot be the fault of their religion, any religion for that sake.
BTW which religion doesn't teach the middle way??? What if the adherents of a religion do not obey its tenets?? What if the teachings of a religion are adulterated and obliterated by human hands??Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I am not a religious man...I talk from experience and practical observation.
Buddhism was a shift from Hinduism....It teaches peace to the extent of death which is NOT moderation. It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!
Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself. Dividing religious norms and scriptures into 'open' and 'secret' sections too isn't good...for it was for this reason that Martin Luther revolted.
In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea!
Tantric Buddhism is not a seperate form of Buddhism, but grows from the Mahayana. As such it follows the Buddha's path and extends it into practices such as medicine Buddha Practice. You therefore need a grounding in the teachings of The Buddha.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
This practice is not necessarily secret, such as Vajrasattva practice. The secret practices include wrathful forms of the Buddhas such as Vajrayogina and Mahakala. They are secret because these practices utilise wrathful energy and sexual energy for the path. I must stress that the practices do not involve sexual acts, but are practiced by Monks and Nuns who are abstinent and must maintain their vows. They are secret because of misinterpretation and literalism. This has been a problem in the past.
I wasn't trying to simplify Buddhism. It isn't simple, and the accretion of cultures uponthe different forms add a lot of variety. But the core beliefs and principles remain the same throughout.
My point was to address Mazhur's false claims about Buddhism. Nowhere does it say that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering.
It doesn't answer my question. Where in that is there any sniff of Buddhism. There is a lot of name dropping of places, but I don't recall Madame Blavatsky being credited with any teachings that are anything like Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
I specifically addressed your assertion that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering. They do not. The Middle Way was developed by The Buddha to counter the extremes of asceticism, and also the extremes of over indulgence. The Middle way is a specific path and not a generalisation that you can apply to general ethics practiced in other religions. It involves following the 8 Fold Path which is a Buddhist construct.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION
This is not what I was taking issue with, but since you bring it up, Buddhism teaches that you should act in the right way. If that include action - then act. If it requires inaction. Don't act.
Buddhism's view of suicide is that it is wrong. But the view of a person who does this is one of compassion.
Your assertion that Buddhism isn't practiced as it was originally intended is refuted by modern Buddhists in the Therevada tradition.
I'm also not impressed that you claim to come from that region. What has that got to do with anything? I also take issue that Buddhism was intended for any particular people - more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant- in your words. It is intended for anyone who wishes to practice it, and it is very clear on that - including Hindu untouchables and anyone else.
.
Buddhism is not a shift from Hinduism if you mean that it is a branch of it. I have no idea what you mean by peace to the extent of death. Perhaps you mean that it is better to die than to kill another person in anger. If you mean that then yes. it has high ideals.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!
You could look at this and say it was the greed and violence of the victorious.
Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself.
This is not a part of the Buddhist teachings. The Middle Way is.
In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea
Ok, but in my humble opinion, you should inform yourself about the basic tenets of a religion before you go pronouncing on it.
That's his humble opinion too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Originally Posted by mazHur
it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth.
...apparently.
this might come off a tad bit stupid and lazy, but what are y'all talking bout Buddhism?
quite true but ur argument in favor of God may be express on wider canvas like this " its a supper beauty that this universe and all in btw is in perfect equlibrium"Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCat
isnt it ?
Yes. No harm in asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCat
I'm not making an argument, that was just a reason why I believe in God. That would be why I present a subjective proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by usman.khawar
Yes. I've referred to a previous conversation with Mazhur too. We've been here before, which makes me wonder why he's persisting in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
sorry, just too long though, just wondering what aspects of Buddhism you folks are onQuote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem