Why I believe in God?

[mazHur]

[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.

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.

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).

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

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

[Paulclem]

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.

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. 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.

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.

[BlackCat]

[QUOTE=mazHur;1092335]

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. 
............ 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).

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.

[mazHur]

[QUOTE=BlackCat;1092343]

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??

[ftil]

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?


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.

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.

[BlackCat]

[QUOTE=mazHur;1092351]

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

[Paulclem]

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?


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.

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.

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.

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.

[BlackCat]

so Buddhism believes that things are illusory in nature?

[ftil]

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.

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.

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.

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"

[MarkBastable]

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

[ftil]

"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

[mazHur]

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?

[Paulclem]

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.




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.



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?

[MarkBastable]

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

Albert Einstein

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

[ftil]

"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