Why I believe in God?

[MarkBastable]

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

~ Voltaire

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

Ralph Waldo Emerson

[mazHur]

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

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Ignorance is bliss

[MarkBastable]

Ignorance is bliss

We'll take your word for it.

[mazHur]

We'll take your word for it.

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

[cafolini]

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.

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

[Paulclem]

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

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

[mazHur]

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!!

[ftil]

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.

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.
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. 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.

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

[Paulclem]

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.

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.
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. 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?

[mazHur]

[QUOTE]

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.

[ftil]

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.

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. 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.

[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!!

[BlackCat]

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

[MarkBastable]

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

[Darcy88]

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

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