Why I believe in God?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

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

---

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

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

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

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

:banana::banana::banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

PHP Code:

---

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


---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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


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

PHP Code:

---

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


---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

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



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

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

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

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

---

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

Yes. I said it developed from the Mahayana teachings.

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

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

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

Buddhism came from India, and so this follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=mazHur;1092335]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackCat

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

PHP Code:

---

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


---

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





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


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

PHP Code:

---

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


---

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

---

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

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

[QUOTE=BlackCat;1092343]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulclem

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

---

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


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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

[QUOTE=mazHur;1092351]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackCat

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

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


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




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

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

---

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What truth am I denying? Please elucidate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackCat

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

---

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

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

so Buddhism believes that things are illusory in nature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

What truth am I denying? Please elucidate.

---

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

Food for thought.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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

---

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

Albert Einstein

:wink5:

Several kinds of Buddhism, Buddhists:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

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


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




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



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

Food for thought.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

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

Albert Einstein

:wink5:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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

---

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

~ Voltaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

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

~ Voltaire

---

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

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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

Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

Ignorance is bliss :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

Ignorance is bliss :)

---

We'll take your word for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

We'll take your word for it.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

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



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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulclem:

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.

Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

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

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

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

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




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

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

Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.

Thomas Jefferson

---

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulclem:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irishpixieb

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

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

---

Thomas is a great guy :party:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laidbackperson

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

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

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

Now, why I begin believe in God.

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

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

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

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

I just hope that we do not go for one-another’s throat and keep our humor intact. :D

---

Lots of tossing around abstractions and no earned conclusions.

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

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

I doubt you can say the same.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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

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

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

---

So in essence, Occam's Razor axes Pascal's Wager.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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