Edit: After reading sherezade's post, I'm deleting my former comment because it would be unfair if I argue against Islam and the person above me is not allowed to answer to my argument (right here in this thread).
Printable View
Edit: After reading sherezade's post, I'm deleting my former comment because it would be unfair if I argue against Islam and the person above me is not allowed to answer to my argument (right here in this thread).
R e m i n d e r:Please note that this is a discussion about reincarnation (not about any particular religion) as stated in the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by sh_einstein
Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.
On suffering - The Buddha's whole path is based upon dealing with suffering as taught in the 4 Noble Truths. But this is not what I had an issue with. You said that the suffering is shared.Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
I do think we all have our share of suffering . Who said that people who have money do not suffer in their life ?!!
Some lack money , others love . Some lack children others good health . But we all have our share .
It is shared, but rather unequally in my view. How can you compare the sufferings of the rich with the sufferings of the poor and destitute?
I realise that Islam and Christianity have to cope with this inequality of suffering, and that the promise of heaven is central as the idea of a reward. I struggle with the idea of a test though. The thousands who were killed in the Tsunami had no chance - it wasn't a choice they made, or an act that they as individuals committed that resulted in their deaths. I saw a programme after about the beliefs of survivors, and the test theory seemed to sustain them. What that means is that God is willing to kill tens of thousands to test the survivors. I can't see that from a loving and personal God. It is one of the reasons why reincarnation is a more logical belief for myself.
I answered you Dodo via the private messages .
If you are rich and you have a kid who has cancer and you have your neighbour who is very poor but his kid does not have cancer ; wouldn't you wish to be like him? What if you lost him ,what would your money do to you ?Quote:
It is shared, but rather unequally in my view. How can you compare the sufferings of the rich with the sufferings of the poor and destitute?
Isn't that equality of suffering ?Quote:
I realise that Islam and Christianity have to cope with this inequality of suffering
We have no free choice in what concerns death. We are doomed to die in that moment and because of that very thing wether it is Tsaunami or car accident or whatever else . Death belongs to God's will .Quote:
I realise that Islam and Christianity have to cope with this inequality of suffering, and that the promise of heaven is central as the idea of a reward. I struggle with the idea of a test though. The thousands who were killed in the Tsunami had no chance - it wasn't a choice they made, or an act that they as individuals committed that resulted in their deaths.
We survive because it is our destiny not to die in that moment . Our moment has not yet come .That's it . Moreover He does not kill to test others . He uses their death , which is destined , to test the others .Quote:
I saw a programme after about the beliefs of survivors, and the test theory seemed to sustain them. What that means is that God is willing to kill tens of thousands to test the survivors. I can't see that from a loving and personal God. It is one of the reasons why reincarnation is a more logical belief for myself.
There is a big difference .
This is as you know that someone is going to die tomorow so you ask him to donate his organs to others .
We were going to die with Tsunami or without as that patient was going to die whether you used his corpse to help the others or not . You did not kill him , he was doomed to die , but you tried to benefit from his inevitable death .
Caddy, this first quote seems to suggest that, in our Earthly lives, there is an equality of suffering among individuals. Your hypothetical (about the rich and poor men with their healthy or unhealthy children) omits the possibility of there being a rich man with a healthy child, as well as the cases in which the poor have sick children.Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
You are right that there can sometimes be a balancing out, but there are sufficient examples of people for whom things have gone mostly quite well all of their lives, and people for whom there has been greater than average suffering and unfairness.
I agree with Billl about the inequality of suffering. You only have to look around to see many people who suffer inordinately more than the reast of us. Children are abused, have accidents, suffer bullying - adults suffer depression, acidents, illness - how many people have you met who seem to have multiple illnesses?
As for destiny - who sets destinies if not the creator God?
I gave that example because paulclem speaks like being rich is everyting in life and like rich are immune against suffering in their life . And because what is emotional is no less important then what is material .Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
Thx Bill for your comment . You drew my attention to sth wrong I did . I should have said justice not equality . Justice sometimes implies inequality rather than equality .
If you're a teacher , to be just , you cannot give your students equal grades . There should be necessarely difference in grades . Actually God speaks of inequality not equality here and in the afterlife out of justice . He spoke of " preference" , "degrees" , "portions" , and "ranks "among human beings .
He said for instance : We have apportioned among them their livelihood in the life of the world , and raised some of them above others in rank that some of them take labour from others " (az-zukhruf:32)
And if Allâh were to enlarge the provision for His slaves, they would surely rebel in the earth, but He sends down by measure as He wills. Verily! He is in respect of His slaves, the Well-Aware, the All-Seer (of things that benefit them). (Ash-shura:26)
In the first example He explained to us that the aim of this " inequality " is to take labour from each other . If everyone was satisfied and does not lack something , we won't labor to get what we lack . As a result movement in life would stop . And labor is the aim of our existence on earth and gives meaning to it . Moreover our relationship becomes complementry . We complement each other in this way and we depend on each other . No one can stand by his own , he needs something , whether great or trivial , that exists in the other and does not exist in him .
It's a must that the muslims give 2,5% of their money every year to the poors
:"And in their properties there was the right of the Sa'il (the beggar who asks)
and the Mahrûm (the poor who does not ask the others." (alshura:18)
God put to law but at the same time he explains to us why He did so and so . He is transparent in what concerns his wisdom.
I gave that example because paulclem speaks like being rich is everyting in life and like rich are immune against suffering in their life . And because what is emotional is no less important then what is material .
Caddy - I don't know where you got the idea that I think being rich is everything. perhaps you misunderstood one of my examples. I took issue with your statement that suffering is shared out.
If you read my posts you will see that I agreed that eveyone suffers.
What about my other question about who sets a person's destiny?
In the first example He explained to us that the aim of this " inequality " is to take labour from each other . If everyone was satisfied and does not lack something , we won't labor to get what we lack . As a result movement in life would stop . And labor is the aim of our existence on earth and gives meaning to it . Moreover our relationship becomes complementry . We complement each other in this way and we depend on each other . No one can stand by his own , he needs something , whether great or trivial , that exists in the other and does not exist in him .
It's a must that the muslims give 2,5% of their money every year to the poors
:"And in their properties there was the right of the Sa'il (the beggar who asks)
and the Mahrûm (the poor who does not ask the others." (alshura:18)
God put to law but at the same time he explains to us why He did so and so . He is transparent in what concerns his wisdom.
This makes sense in terms of the Islamic tradition and reflect reflects John Donne's "No man is an island". But it does not explain the ineqality of suffering - sometimes extreme suffering that people experience.
On another point - did I read of a Lebanese sect that believed in reincarnation?
Sorry - I just looked it up. The Druze in Lebanon believe in reincarnation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze
Hi Paulclem . I'm sorry . plz accept my apology because I haven't read the whole thread and replies .
And yes there is a whole sect in lebanon who believes in reincarnation . My best friends at the university were Druze but we've never discussed reincarnation or any other thing that relates to their belief . Some are very sensitive to these issues and consider some discussions offensive . So we try to avoid any discussion of this kind .
But here it is a forum, and the very fact of being here means that you are willing to discuss and share your belief with others . I wish you don't consider my discussions offensive .
As a matter of fact reincarnation contradicts the basic principles of Islam , so as a Muslim I cannot accept it ,simply .
In what concerns Destiny . We have like in English another word , I think it's doom . As in the Greek tragedy they said " doomed to his fate .
In Arabic too and in the Qura'n God mentionned both " doom and destiny " .
The doom is the fate that you cannot change because you have not made , you have not chosen ; it is set by God. As a result you are not responsible of your doom face to God .
This is like they said that Oedipus was doomed to his fate .
Destiny is something that will happen in the future , we say my destination . God has a " foreknowledge " of what will happen to you . How would you behave, and what would you do in the future . He has a foreknowledge that you will believe in reincarnation but he did not oblige you to believe in reincarnation . You've chosen this so you will be responsible of this .
So your destiny is the " foreknowledge of God of what will you choose and do ."
He destined something because He knows you will do this very thing but he did not oblige you to do it .
Interesting distinction! I never heard of that before.
Thanks Caddy - no I wasn't ofended by your posts. It is interesting to see different perspectives As Billl says - it has made the destiny idea clearer fro the perspective f Islam.
I can see why discussion with Druze friends would be difficult, but it's nice to see tolerance of different beliefs by yourself.
Reincarnation is of course the means by which Tibetans have chosen their Dalai Lamas.
The current Dalai Lama - HH The 14th Dalai Lama is a well known figure on the world stage. His figure embodies reincarnation, as it is claimed by Tibetan Buddhists, to be the living embodiment of the Buddha of Compassion.
This system is not hereditary, but relies upon the previous Dalai Lama leaving clues, the insights of Nechung - a protector spirit who advises the Office of the Dalai Lama, the visions from sacred lakes and, once the children are found, tests to establish authenticity.
A bit wild weird and wonderful? The 13th and 14th Dalai Lamas have been exemplary, as anyone who has seen HH The 14th Dalai Lama will understand.
It is also not just the Dalai Lamas who are chosen in this way. The Karmapas, (another spiritual leader in Tibet), are also chosen this way, The 17th in the last 20 years.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dance-17-Liv...5429607&sr=1-1
I agree to this distinction but I'd like to add something about the words "fate", "destiny" and "doom".
The three of them share the meaning that "something that is inevitably destined to happen to a person". But there are shades of meanings that color each word with some particular use.
"Fate" (as an uncountable noun) refers to the power that controls all events in a way that cannot be resisted (He had hoped to become president, but fate decided otherwise); it is almost synonymous with the word "destiny" in this sense (Destiny brought them together).
When the word "fate" is pluralized, it means the future of someone or something as decided by fate (destinies):(They met their various fates.)
Now fatal alone means 'causing or ending in death' (a fatal accident); it also means 'ruinous, ending in disaster' (a fatal mistake, a fatal weakness).
The word "destiny" [ can either be singular or plural, with the same difference in meaning as in the case of "fate". When used as countable noun it also means "something that happens to someone thought of to be predetermined by fate" (It was his destiny to die in a foreign country). So "destiny" or "destinies" are determined by "fate".
The word "doom" seems to me as having a negative implication. It means a "tragic or ruinous Fate" or "an inevitable ruin or destruction" (Their family is doomed), that is, they are miserable, poor, unlucky, ruined, decadent, disintegrated, etc
NB: The works consulted are OED, AHD, and Fowler's Modern English Usage
Well, I like how, in this system of distinctions, "doom" is not what the individual chooses ("doom"s negative connotations are quite strong in everyday English) and "destiny" represents what the individual does choose (the word "Destiny" generally has a very good connotation in English).
Unfortunately the addition of "fate" as something that cannot be resisted--and also something that (somehow) can be held as equivalent to "destiny"--sort of makes things a bit confusing. Isn't "destiny", in the earlier post, supposed to represent a course chosen by the individual (but forseen by God)? Rather than something that an individual cannot resist?
In Arabic language BIll, wich is the language of the Qur'an ,fate is represented in two words only and make the distinctions clear .
That makes the Arabic language referential in interpretation .
When translating to other languages there would be some diffculties as the case here .
I refered to the Greek civilization because they believed that fate is set by gods and goddesses and there is no notion of the free will . In their tragedies they refer to the first distinction in the Qur'an.
In the Elizabethen tragedy , there is the notion of the free will , so fate would be the second one in the Qura'n .
To make things clear , I think we should refer tothe English version of the Qura'an to know which word they used in every case .
That seems like a good idea, thank you for exploring the issue, and trying to come up with a convenient perspective for me, as an English-speaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Does this mean that the distinction between "destiny" and "doom" still holds, as set forth a few posts back? I suppose, in the interpretation according to Elizabethan English, that "fate" would be regarded as "doom"... I appreciate that, from the Arabic perspective, there might be some objection, on grounds of some technicailty, or cultural nuance, of course...
Still, in case you were unaware, the term "doom" has a very negative connotation in English. The word "fate" is also rather frightening (and generally negative), but there are cases in which it has been applied to positive outcomes, perhaps emphasizing that the participants should not take too much credit for their good fortune. "Destiny", however, has a rather strongly positive connotation. It might be possible to use it in a negative context, but the unorthodoxy of such a choice would certainly register with the reader. "Destiny" is usually associated with heroics, and the success of one's best expression of will.
Again, I cannot understand the nuances regarding the two Arabic words which might represent Fate (in English), and so I wonder if something in my preceding paragraph might offer some hint to you about this nuance in translation.
Really, I wonder if we can get anywhere on this, and if PaulClem might soon object to this tangent. ;-)
And I certainly feel some embarrassment at your facility with my language, when I have really none with yours.
For sure it still holds true . I looked up in the English version and I found out that for the same word in Arabic they do not use destined , or doomed .
Instead they often use " judged " to mean the will of the God that you cannot change . It fascinated me .
I'll see what they use for the other meaning .
That is fascinating... Could the judgement really be arbitrary (i.e., based on nothing at all)?
Objection your honour! - No Billl not at all.:lol:
Applying a "connotative approach",so to speak, helps one to see the bad connotations of the word "doom", both as a noun and a verb, in everyday English. As a native English-speaker, I believe Bill better understands the connotations of such words than learners of English as a foreign language.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I think that I'm convinced that "destiny" is not necessarily a bad thing, like "Fate". For example, birth, marriage, death, success, etc and any course of events in our life is a destiny, not Fate.
In regards to the Arabic meaning of the English "fate", we say "Kadar" (pronounced with a hard /d/). Its meaning in Arabic culture is implied in a classical Arabic phrase we use in our colloquial language, which is equivalent to "the irony of fate" in English. As Muslims, in order for a person to be a good believer, they should believe in and never object to "fate,"- be it good or evil, simply because it is predetermined by Allah (God). This is one of the basic principles of faith ("Iman") in Sunnah. I do not know of something similar in Christianity that suggests this meaning.
"Destiny" is translated as "masir" (pronounced with long /i:/). I think it borders its meaning in English, because we choose the way that results in our "destiny", so to speak.
So what do you think?
Personally, I do believe in reincarnation. And I think it would do the world a lot of good if each and every person believed in it too. At least that way people would have a reason to do some good stuff.
This seems like it might be a good explanation. I guess everything falls into one of the two categories (fate or destiny)? Or are there events that are simply "chance" or "not so important"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mahmoud
I don't know how these words might still be relevant to Bible scholars or in any particular branch of Christianity, unfortunately. The words "doom", "fate", and "destiny" are mostly familiar to me via literature, movies, adventure stories, etc. They suggest something pre-determined, but have different nuances/connotations.
I guess "fate" maybe sort of suggests a "story" that must be fulfilled in one's life, and is usually blamed as cause of some misfortune. "Doom" suggests that there is no hope of escape--really, it might simply suggest being in a hopeless position, moreso than it might suggest predetermination. "Destiny" sounds heroic: I am not familiar with Harry Potter, but I could imagine that he might be on occasion be told that he is "destined" to save everyone, etc.
So without the threat of coming back as a dung beetle, you see no reason to do good stuff?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
Lol... I was not talking about me. I was talking about the world as whole. My personal ambition is to help as many people as I can... but that's a different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I was referring to those people who live for themselves and themselves alone. Who believe we-get-life-only-once and live-it-as-full-you-can and who-the-hell-cares-about-others.
Hi Nikhar - where does that impulse come from? - if you don't mind me asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
:thumbs_up
On the destiny, fate, doom ideas - in Buddhism to be doomed would be to continue to expereince rebirth, and not escape from Samsara -the world.
Fate has to be replaced by Karma which operates according to the mind at a particular time - negative - bad karma rises, good - vice versa.
Destiny - there are some Buddhas who have dedicated themselves to freeing all sentient beings, and so the positive aspect of destiny is that eventually all will be freed from suffering.
I know a little bit Arabic, I had to take it in highschool but does'nt "masir" mean return as in "Ila allah almasir" which means everybody's return is to God?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mahmoud
and what does "Ikhtiar" or choice mean if all of this is foreseen? Does that mean that our thoughts and what we are going to do is predictable? That makes sense.
and I always had problem with the difference between "taghdir" and "gadha"? do they mean destiny, like "va ghadara allaho kola shay'en"?
Of course I don't mind your asking. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
And I would've answered your question for sure if I only knew what it meant. lol :goof:
Kindly rephrase your question.
PS:- I do feel that I'm such a twit at times. lol :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
:D
Where does your personal ambition come from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Well, I have seen some very poor people in and around the area I live. Fortunately, I have been blessed with a roof over my head and been provided with some excellent education. When you see people sleeping on roads, children merely 7 or 8 begging for food, and a mother who hugs her 2 months old child tightly to protect her from the cold in the absence of a blanket, I do think that we have come into this world to help those who can't help themselves. The excellent conditions we have been given also gives us a duty to help those who haven't been so lucky.
I know that I want to earn a loooooooot of money and distribute it all. And I guess I'm a bit selfish also. I know I would die happily if I know that I have thousands of hands praying or my safety.
Sorry if that sounds cliched or over dramatic.... but that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
In Buddhism there's an aspiration - and a practice - called the Bodhisattva Ideal. The aim is to devote oneself to helping all sentient beings. The ultimate aspect of this aim is to help all beings become enlightened, but easing suffering hs to take place before that can happen. Are you familiar with this idea? It sounds like you have the aspiration anyway.
:D
Thanks. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
And no, I haven't heard of Bodhisattva Ideal. But now, I have a one word answer if some one asks about my ambition in life. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
No it couldn't be arbitrary . Actually in the Judgment Day , although God is omniscent He called for" witnesses" .Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
He cannot be the Judge and the witness at the same time . Look how many witnesses He called for , how just is He .
The angles
The prophets , every prophet will be a witness on his nation .
The location where I did every deed.
Time when I did every deed.
The scripture where every deed I did is written by the angels .
MY tongue,
MY hands .
MY legs or feet .
My skin .
This is only one verse among many that tackles this issue : On the Day when their tongues, their hands, and their legs (or feet) will bear witness against them as to what they used to do.(Al -Nour :24)
Gadhar is the noun , ghadara with a stressed /d/is the verb.Quote:
Originally Posted by sh_einstein
Yes it is destiny or fate . Doom as they said has always a negative connotation .
We say Doom's Day or Judgment's Day not destiny's day or fate's day . At that day there will be a horrible destruction and ruin on the earth .Fate and
destiny could be both good and bad .
There is a rule in Arabic ;when they come seperately in verses they mean the same thing ;when they come together in one verse , there would be a difference in meaning .
When you say "will of God, that can't be changed," I assume you are talking about the "judgement," and not the acts that are judged. (I am thinking that, at least in the area of "destiny" the person has some sort of choice about things, with God's foreknowledge being somehow different from predetermination by God).Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
This is a more commonly used sense of "judgement" in English, I think. I had thought you were referring to an Arabic word for "fate" and/or "doom" and/or "destiny" which some translator was translating as "judgement." I had been suggesting that equating "judgement" with events pre-determined by God (fate, doom) would seem to make the whole thing arbitrary. (e.g. This person shall die as an infant, therefore they are judged as one who should live a short life.) Again, I guess "destiny" is maybe the important category, here.
They use judged , commanded , ordained for the predetermined. They all different forms of the same word : alkada' . For example,"It's a thing ordained (Maryam : 21)
For the other word : alkadar , the foreknowledge
"And the commandement of Allah is certain destiny "( Al-ahzab;38)
In another translation : and the commandement of Allah is a decree determined .
This is exactly as you are saying
Quote:
I am thinking that, at least in the area of "destiny" the person has some sort of choice about things, with God's foreknowledge being somehow different from predetermination by God).
Interestingly, this matches the view (in a way) of a prominent atheist, Daniel Dennett. Of course, he doesn't posit a God, but he is convinced of determinism. He also uses the term "free will", but for him, it refers to an individual's relative capacity to consider a variety of choices. He believes, however, that the choice ultimately made is pre-determined (e.g. our thought are just shiftings of chemicals and the mechanistic firings of neurons in our brain).Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
So, just as in the sense of "destiny" we have been discussing, an individual with free will "chooses" more so than does a single-cell organism that has a more simple and more-easily predictable set of responses. However, it is still, ultimately pre-determined by the preceding course of mechanistic events in the brain. Almost as if the exercise of free will is a mere judgement handed down, from the perspective of the material world and natural laws.
I think Dennett's is an interesting view, but I don't want to suggest that I am convinced by it.
I believe in reincarnation very strongly though I have never had any paranormal experiences about it.
I believed in God from early days but could see lot of anomalies and wrong in the world. This was at times dismaying and a bit perplexing.
Reincarnation concept helps in seeing the turmoil state and God more clearly.
I started believing in reincarnation really after reading Avatar Meher Baba’s work. It fitted well with my logical reasoning.
Seeing the world as it is presently, or as it was at any time, I take it as God’s plan to give a person, repeated lives, to allow him or her to remove one’s imperfections and become a perfectly pure person, without letting the person remember, what happened in previous lives.
Letting the person know what happened in earlier lives or who-is-now-who in the present life would be catastrophic.
However, what we carry forward from our previous life is our karmas, and perhaps our fears, courage, cunningness, smartness etc. I like to think that we are born with an intrinsic nature which we get owing to our previous lives. That is the reason why I think we keep finding some kids completely different in nature from their parents or their environment. We will find brave kids to timid parents, genius kids to average parents, cruel kids to kind and believing parents, God believing kids to atheist parents, and no amount of environment or external methods seems to be working on them. We feel exasperated that why it is so. Kids may slowly change over their lives and parents too may learn something from their kids, and I take all these interactions as a God’s meticulous plan to see that each one of us, through thousands or millions of lives, through ups and downs, through misery and happiness, begin to realize the vanity of worldliness and materialistic life, and becoming free of worldly desires, one just start longing only for union with God.
Probably that is what must have occurred to Gautam Buddha, who was born a prince and renounced everything to know himself. Why don’t all of us also feel that strong urge to know oneself?
There can be few more points.
First, we see a lot of wrong in the world. Being born blind or poor or dying young, is it previous life’s bad karmas. I don’t know. But I take it as a God’s plan to train you to eventually believe in Him. We shout ‘unfair’ because, we see only the present moment, only this life, but try to see God as someone who has seen the present sufferer through more than thousands of previous lives. Someone who has seen the same person as king and beggar, man and woman, deformed and able bodied, beautiful and ugly, fair and dark, killer and victim, and seen all this over and over again. Thus if we too know the full history of this person then we will not crib that why he is born blind in this life. I like to believe in the saying that ‘God loves you more than anybody can love you and will stick with you always’. As you eat and drink, read this or that, sleep, jog, scheme right or wrong things, love and hate God never leaves you for a single moment.
We also see wrong people enjoying life till they die and right people living hard life and dying bad deaths. I take God as keeping each moment’s account of everyone’s deeds, thoughts and action and doing full justice in the new lives.
Now, how many of us really deserve a place in Heaven, if there is really such a place - place with all unimaginable pleasures. How many of us are perfectly pure beings who have not sinned at all and are not affected by jealousy, lust, anger, laziness, greed etc. God, if you decide to become strict, I think only a small rare percentage will get a ticket to Heaven.
Me, definitely not.
So if it is only one life then almost all of us will end up in Hell forever.
I do not expect a benevolent and merciful God, wisest beyond words to do so.
Also, if we have only one life and with so many births and deaths occurring year after year all these years, would not the overall population of dead persons or resulting souls be increasing continuously in Hell ?
With God, who is worshipped as limitless anything can be possible, but I like to think that better explanation is rebirths of the same person again and again. You will say, if it is just recycling then how come our population in earth has increased from what it was say 1000 years ago.
The answer lies probably in what Avatar Meher Baba explained in ‘God Speaks’. Prior to taking birth as a human, a person has gone through stage of taking births in following forms in descending order like animals, bird, fishes, worms, plants, metals and stones. However, once you appear as human in earth, you keep taking births as human, life after life, twisting and untwisting, getting and loosing impressions repeatedly, till you become free of desires in the world and are ready for union with God. You have to take millions of births in human form before you start turning towards God permanently.
That is the reason why I think some people are wired to believe very easily in God and why heart of others are locked in present life. But ultimately everyone will go to God.
Lastly, when I heard about Meher Baba for first time through a colleague, I scoffed at the whole idea, but curious, I started reading His literature.
What He said and what people who were with Him said about Him and their experiences with Him.
I always believed that there has to be only one God for entire humanity.
So I always felt baffled that if God is one then, who amongst Christ and Muhammad and Krishna and Zoroaster and Buddha and others was truer or stronger..
I believed that evolution theory could not be totally discarded.
I believe love has to be uppermost eventually.
Reading Meher Baba, I begin to see things in new light which I could map well with my own reasoning and experiences in the world.
I begin to think God having wild humor and take this world as God’s playground.
In Hinduism there are so many accounts of incarnations. God reincarnates when the need for it intensifies, and when the world loses uprightness and when wretchedness becomes rampant and people become off course then God has to reincarnate or be born. This has beautifully expressed in the Gita. Rama, Krishna and the like were reincarnations of Vishnu
And the majority believes in it in a Hindu country and I am torn between belief and disbelief for my age is like that and I have to listen to both atheists and theists, read science and religion
Interesting post Laidback. You seem to indicate a leaning towards Hinduism, as your beliefs don't accord with the Buddhist worldview.
I would also point out that Buddha is not considered a God, by Buddhists, as there is no belief in a creator God.
There are often clear distinctions between those with a scientific outlook, and those witha religious outlook on this forum, and it can be difficult for believers to argue against the empiricists with what is subjective experience versus evidence based views.
Buddhism is often considered to be a philosophy - by non-Buddhists i might point out, but it has the flexibility to accept science, evolution, physics - in fact some of the teachings include descriptions of reality that accord very well with the descriptions by physicists I hear - and can work as a belief - including the belief in reicarnation - alongside science.
In fact amalgamating science with faith is a fruitless endeavor and we live in the age of science and technology at the same time we cannot refuse to accept religions. However at times we absurdly try to fuse the two together. The way they coined Christian Science or the like. They are polar opposites and this incorporation of these two opposite directions does no more than create a mass of confusion. Revisit this
There are plenty of religious scientists, but I think that religion and science deal with different aspects of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
In referring to Buddhism I was making the point that there is room for science as far as it goes. For example it is demonstrably true that meditation calms the mind; it has been experimentally investigated. Thesame will be true for Hindu meditative practices too.
The other thing is that, although there is a different emphasis on proof, Buddhism encourages investigation and examination which are features of the scientific method.