Do you consider yourself religious/spiritual?

[TaraMaiden]

He is right when he says that Buddhism has to change in accordance with what we know. But we must remember that The Dalai lama - although undoubtedly one of the world's foremost experts on Buddhism - is an official and acknowledged representative on a sector of Buddhism. He does not - and does not claim to - represent every school of Thought in Buddhism, and as such there are many who are resistant to Change.

there is still much in Buddhism that is to my mind, misguided and biased.

I don't want to go off-topic here, but the religion - as implemented by the "Representative Elder statesmen" can be flawed and questionable. Again, I mention the ordination of Nuns in the East being resisted and condemned by many modern day monks, whereas the Buddha was encouraging of the practice. it has been put forward - by far more eminent, experienced and informed scholars than I - that later scriptures and teachings, writings and instructions regarding the ordination of nuns, were not from the Buddha, but added in order to not give women equal status.

 

So whilst it is clear that "Buddhism would have to change", it's clearer still that Buddhists would have to change.

I don't know which would be the greater challenge.....!

 

What has always interested me about Buddhism, is that, unlike the classic religions, which are rigid and immovable in their doctrines, Buddhism flows, it does change and it's got an inbuilt adaptability to change. Like water, it can be strong and smash, yet it can also flow around obstacles and adapt it's shape without changing it's essential nature.

I think there are many Purist Buddhist scholars - particularly in Theravada - who would disagree with you.

Buddhism - as taught by the Buddha - is as relevant and poignant today as it has been since he first rose from sitting under the Bodhi tree.

Reading his teachings now, it seems as if much of them could have been written in recent times, rather than nearly 3000 years ago.

 

It would be more accurate to say, I think, that the adoption and practice of Buddhism enables Buddhists to flow, change and be moveable according to circumstances. It is we who flow and adapt. It is we who can be as powerful and yet as flexible, as water.

When practised according to the Buddha's teachings, and adhered to in thought, word and deed, then a Buddhist can pretty much cope with anything life hurls at them......

 

(When I manage this, I'll be sure to let you know....)

[Simon Attwood]

I think there are many Purist Buddhist scholars - particularly in Theravada - who would disagree with you.

The problem with doctrines is that they are followed by man, and therefore any manifested flaws in the doctrine are really just the manifested flaws of man. The rigidity you speak of, is the rigidity of men, and not the rigidity of a doctrine.

 

When practised according to the Buddha's teachings, and adhered to in thought, word and deed, then a Buddhist can pretty much cope with anything life hurls at them......

 

(When I manage this, I'll be sure to let you know....)

 

When you get to reading Destructive Emotions, I think you will be very interested in the bit where they hook up a meditating buddhist monk named Öser to EEGs and fMRI scanners and the results they get.

[TaraMaiden]

The problem with doctrines is that they are followed by man, and therefore any manifested flaws in the doctrine are really just the manifested flaws of man. The rigidity you speak of, is the rigidity of men, and not the rigidity of a doctrine.

That's pretty much what I said in the first part of my post, but I didn't mention the word rigidity....

This is the point I was trying to make when I discussed the point you made about Buddhism being as free-flowing, yet as powerful as water.

 

To put it basically, Buddhism is a mere tool.

It's something to use until the job is finished.

And like a real honest-to-goodness tool, it's only as good as the craftsman who uses it.

Buddhism is worth a fat diddly-squat, unless it's utilised in the right manner....

(Right, as in '8Fold Path' manner.....)

 

 

 

 

When you get to reading Destructive Emotions, I think you will be very interested in the bit where they hook up a meditating buddhist monk named Öser to EEGs and fMRI scanners and the results they get.

I'm looking forward to reading it.

Though I know the readings show some unexpected results.....

[pureinheart]

No, I would say you are definitely Religious.

You just don't affiliate yourself to any specific format of worship.

You don't go to church, and you don't read the Bible...(these are some forms of conventional behaviour adhered to by those who purport to be religio-specifically oriented....)

 

But I posted a definition of Religion, dictionary-wise, earlier in the thread.

I think it covers both of us......

 

And I don't believe in God, personally, because he's man-made too, in my opinion.

But I'm still Religious.....

 

Since when did I say I did not go to church or read the Bible? No, religion is man made....it makes absolutely no sence what you just said...

[TaraMaiden]

Yes, I suspected as much that you did.

 

If you go to Church, do you go to a different church every week?

Probably not.

You co-exist within the same social community, all the time....

if you read the Bible, do you read a different version every time?

Or do you read other religious literature (Torah, Qu'ran) as well, to broaden your religious base?

probably not.

 

so you are religious, whether you choose to declare it or not.

you simply won't admit to following something, because that would seem to make you a conformist to a practice you may not entirely be in complete agreement with.

 

Of course religion is man-Made!

 

It cannot be anything else!

 

Mankind is the only creature on the planet that has regular religious devotional practice, and prays.

Or needs to.

 

As the famous saying goes, "If God didn't exist, it would have been necessary for men to invent him."

(This is why I, for my part, am convinced that not only are you right, in your assertion that Religion is man-made, but that God comes under the same condition....)

 

By very virtue of the fact that religion is a human practice, of course it's Man-made. How could it possibly be anything else?

 

So what is it about following a religion, that you specifically object to....?

Would you classify yourself as Spiritual, if you still maintain you are not religious?

And what is 'spiritual' to you?

 

And please believe me - I do find it interesting, and would be curious to know, because it gives insight into individual thought. Which is always fascinating..

 

And I'm giving us both food for thought, here......

Edited February 4, 2010 by TaraMaiden

[pureinheart]

Yes, I suspected as much that you did.

 

If you go to Church, do you go to a different church every week?

Probably not.

 

Tara...this is going to sound really weird to you (well maybe not). Because I like the teachings, although have never been one for ridiculous rules and regs, I move around a lot....I know most of the Pastors in the churches around my area...kind of a big area and deal with them mostly.

 

Tara, once the selfrighteous crap starts I have to go. I realise that people are people and there is no perfect church.

 

Age is helping me handle things better now, as I have always been a rebel with a cause. I have a prayer group that I go to off and on and have stayed with them because they are like me.

 

I believe that "church" can happen anywhere...well for instance, talking to you in this forum to me is church.

 

You co-exist within the same social community, all the time....Man it is hard to keep up with everyone though

 

 

if you read the Bible, do you read a different version every time?

Or do you read other religious literature (Torah, Qu'ran) as well, to broaden your religious base?

probably not.

 

Actually, like reading all kinds of stuff...How do I word this...Ok, I like to study/read about most faiths as I don't feel like I get "poisened" or anything. I know where I stand and how I believe (my truth) ...I don't get weirded out like a lot of fundamentalists. We miss a lot by being close minded. I fear I will miss a really cool person or saying just because of being "paranoid", you know? Many different faiths have a lot of good insight.

 

so you are religious, whether you choose to declare it or not.

you simply won't admit to following something, because that would seem to make you a conformist to a practice you may not entirely be in complete agreement with.

 

Well Tara, still have to say I'm not religious, I know it doesn't make any sence, although don't have the correct words to communicate...ok....to "me" religion means rituals and I am just into God.

 

Of course religion is man-Made!

 

It cannot be anything else!

 

Mankind is the only creature on the planet that has regular religious devotional practice, and prays.

Or needs to. True

 

As the famous saying goes, "If God didn't exist, it would have been necessary for men to invent him."

(This is why I, for my part, am convinced that not only are you right, in your assertion that Religion is man-made, but that God comes under the same condition....)Oh ok, you feel that God and man are the same

 

By very virtue of the fact that religion is a human practice, of course it's Man-made. How could it possibly be anything else?

 

So what is it about following a religion, that you specifically object to....?

Would you classify yourself as Spiritual, if you still maintain you are not religious?

And what is 'spiritual' to you? Wow, Tara, I really don't have an adequet answer (and should), although will try. I operate in the Spirit a lot, see visions, go into deep states of prayer (both personal and corporate). Have had some very unusual things happen that I know are God ordained. God tells me where He wants me to read in the Bible. I have conversations with God and hear Him....stuff like that...does this make sense?

 

And please believe me - I do find it interesting, and would be curious to know, because it gives insight into individual thought. Which is always fascinating..I do too, I think it is great....to me it is freedom.

 

And I'm giving us both food for thought, here......

 

There are many in the faith that I am in that observe the form, although deny the power thereof. This is the conflict that I have had in the past with the "church"....I don't agree with playing church, and with this statement am not saying that I don't fall short...I do, in fact am worse and have done worse than mostlikely any of you...lol. It's just that I don't have a problem with talking to the "gang member" or the person that society has deemed them unacceptable. In fact these are the people I identify with best...

 

You have given much food for thought, and man it's some good stuff!

Edited February 6, 2010 by pureinheart

[TaraMaiden]

Thank you for your response, PiH...

 

I have to say, I find it a lot more open and considered than many responses I have received, from so-called 'solidly-grounded Christians.

And I see what you mean about Religion.

if I might venture to put forward a specific suggestion:

It's not the religion bit you take exception to. It's the interpretation and dogmatic ruling of those purportedly "in charge" that you find difficult to accept.

For example, the Bible makes no reference to Catholic priests having to remain celibate. neither does the bible mention anywhere that it is not right to have women priests.

but the 'men in charge' have decreed it to be so. And they's the ones who make the rules.

(or make the rules up as they go along.....)

I think this may be what you're getting at.

 

The only comment - and it IS the only one - that I would dispute, is that you say that I think God and Man are the same.

I really don't believe that at all.

 

Men are men. (for reasons of simplicity, we're talking about 'women' here, too! )

There are good men, and there are men who do not manifest goodness.

There are men who are good most of the time, and there are those whose goodness it's pretty hard to locate.

There are even men who are described as being 'pure Evil'. Something I really don't subscribe to.

But Godliness doesn't enter the picture for me.

To my mind - the buck stops here.

because if I take your comment at face value - that I think God and men are the same - then it stands to reason that I think Satan and men are the same, too.

And that would be far more accurate.

Because logically, you can't have one without the other.

[allina]

I'm a pretty hard core atheist, and I am not "spiritual."

[Simon Attwood]

I'm a pretty hard core atheist, and I am not "spiritual."

What defines a hard core atheist as opposed to your run of the mill atheist?

 

For me, I would consider atheism to be a dispassionate position on the nonexistence of god. In this, if someone said I am an atheist and atheism is not a belief system, I would accept it. But when atheism is backed up by a passion then surely it becomes a belief system? I have this discussion with Dawkins disciples often. As soon as passion becomes involved there comes a different underlying motive. When it becomes confrontational, then surely it becomes a religion of sorts? It becomes defensive of its doctrine. It becomes attacking towards other religions as if the opposing religion itself is the source of evil. It’s just another splitting, a dichotomy of good and evil. The passion defines it as a category and therefore a belief system, i.e. religion, as opposed to a disinterested and dispassionate point of view.

 

So therefore, does hard core imply a passionate position on the non existence of god?

 

And as soon as you create a category, are you not taking sides, and therefore falling in to the same divisional problems that religion appears to create?

[Simon Attwood]

For example, the Bible makes no reference to Catholic priests having to remain celibate. neither does the bible mention anywhere that it is not right to have women priests.

but the 'men in charge' have decreed it to be so. And they's the ones who make the rules.

(or make the rules up as they go along.....)

Is this not how all rules are made? Before the Magna Carta existed, someone had to make it up. Before the US had a constitution, someone had to make it up (although it was more or less copied for the British “Bill of Rights”). All rules, at some point or other, were made up by someone as they went along.

 

The Bible, as we know it today, Protestant and Catholic versions aside, was commissioned by the Roman Emperor Constantine when he converted to Christianity later on during his reign, so it already had a deeply patriarchal stance. With the added strength of Peter and Paul’s misogynistic interpretations (Peter’s jealousy and dislike of The Magdalene’s special place by Jesus’ side is well documented. And is allegedly portayed in DaVinci's "The Last Supper", where Peter is approaching Mary with a knife in his hand and menace on his face), this further adds to the patriarchal (male dominated) nature of The Bible. Constantine chose a council of Bishops (upwards of 300 male Bishops) who got together in what is now, present day Iznik, in Turkey (The First Council of Nicaea) to edit and assemble the chosen texts. Many versions of the gospels were entirely omitted, and the 4 chosen gospels were highly edited in their translation from the original Greek that they were written in.

 

For example, the chosen version of The Gospel of Mark and certain additions and omissions has caused great controversy; most notably from the Mar Saba Letter

 

The only comment - and it IS the only one - that I would dispute, is that you say that I think God and Man are the same.

I really don't believe that at all.

 

The term “God and Man are the same” might be a misinterpretation of the concept that Man made God in his image. This does not make them the same, it rather suggests that God is created from our collective unconscious. The Divine within us, as individuals, accumulates in to a powerful image projected and reflective of our collective selves, but the very best of ourselves, our own omniscience, our conscience.

 

In this sense, god and man are the same and yet not the same, for God is a projected image of our collective unconscious divinity.

There are good men, and there are men who do not manifest goodness.

There are men who are good most of the time, and there are those whose goodness it's pretty hard to locate.

There are even men who are described as being 'pure Evil'. Something I really don't subscribe to.

 

Surely a man that doesn’t manifest goodness, is by definition “pure evil”?

 

A notion, I also do not subscribe to.

 

When both Good and Evil are accepted as existing side by side in ourselves, it becomes much harder, if not impossible, to demonise another human. The splitting of Good and Evil is the one and only true sin for it has divided us and created conflict in us. And all the conflicts in the world are external projections of our internal conflicts.

 

To my mind - the buck stops here.

because if I take your comment at face value - that I think God and men are the same - then it stands to reason that I think Satan and men are the same, too.

And that would be far more accurate.

Because logically, you can't have one without the other.

 

Why would it be more accurate to think that Man and Satan are one and the same, than to think that Man and God are one and the same? As you said, you can’t have one without the other, so that is not logical at all?

 

Never, ever, stop the Buck. The buck must keep moving, Tara

Edited February 8, 2010 by Simon Attwood

[TaraMaiden]

Is this not how all rules are made? Before the Magna Carta existed, someone had to make it up. Before the US had a constitution, someone had to make it up (although it was more or less copied for the British “Bill of Rights”). All rules, at some point or other, were made up by someone as they went along.

Yes.

My point is, that These extraneous and prejudicial rules were implemented as an extension of Biblical teachings, and are, according to the authoritative powers, sacrosanct and decreed by God. Something hotly disputed by many, even those within the Catholic faith. In fact, recently, the Pope declared that he feels anti-discriminatory legislation in the UK goes against RC dogma and belief, because it will mean that transsexuals and homosexuals will be permitted to become priests, and women would be able to seek ordination. He feels this violates God's word, but as has been explained, Religious belief does not override statute Law or Human Rights Legislation. He believes it should. The Law, states otherwise.

 

The Bible, as we know it today, Protestant and Catholic versions aside, was commissioned by the Roman Emperor Constantine when he converted to Christianity later on during his reign, so it already had a deeply patriarchal stance. With the added strength of Peter and Paul’s misogynistic interpretations (Peter’s jealousy and dislike of The Magdalene’s special place by Jesus’ side is well documented. And is allegedly portayed in DaVinci's "The Last Supper", where Peter is approaching Mary with a knife in his hand and menace on his face), this further adds to the patriarchal (male dominated) nature of The Bible. Constantine chose a council of Bishops (upwards of 300 male Bishops) who got together in what is now, present day Iznik, in Turkey (The First Council of Nicaea) to edit and assemble the chosen texts. Many versions of the gospels were entirely omitted, and the 4 chosen gospels were highly edited in their translation from the original Greek that they were written in.

 

For example, the chosen version of The Gospel of Mark and certain additions and omissions has caused great controversy; most notably from the Mar Saba Letter

I don't dispute any of this. Most Theistic religions are extremely misogynistic. It's deplorable.

 

 

 

The term “God and Man are the same” might be a misinterpretation of the concept that Man made God in his image. This does not make them the same, it rather suggests that God is created from our collective unconscious. The Divine within us, as individuals, accumulates in to a powerful image projected and reflective of our collective selves, but the very best of ourselves, our own omniscience, our conscience.

 

In this sense, god and man are the same and yet not the same, for God is a projected image of our collective unconscious divinity.

Absolutely fine, good and wonderful, if you ascribe to an all-powerful, omnipotent omniscient God. Or even the possibility of one existing.

I don't.

So all this talk of God and man being the same, is meaningless to me....

 

 

Surely a man that doesn’t manifest goodness, is by definition “pure evil”?

 

A notion, I also do not subscribe to.

I don't believe that any person can be consistently, continuously, seamlessly perpetually evil. It's not possible. therefore, when the evil does not manifest, it's either neutral behaviour, or 'good' behaviour.

 

When both Good and Evil are accepted as existing side by side in ourselves, it becomes much harder, if not impossible, to demonise another human. The splitting of Good and Evil is the one and only true sin for it has divided us and created conflict in us. And all the conflicts in the world are external projections of our internal conflicts.

Right......

But I don't believe in Sin, either, because that would imply some sort of format which would bestow forgiveness.

I believe people are capable of doing good, as much as they are capable of doing bad.

It's a choice......

 

 

 

Why would it be more accurate to think that Man and Satan are one and the same, than to think that Man and God are one and the same? As you said, you can’t have one without the other, so that is not logical at all?

I didn't say that it would be more accurate. I said that it stands to reason that if apparently, God and man are the same, then it follows that Satan and man are also the same. it's equal, not either/or, or more/less accurate....

 

Never, ever, stop the Buck. The buck must keep moving, Tara

Not so.

As far as I am concerned, I am 100% responsible for everything that goes on behind my eyes. And therefore, it all hinges on me. Choices change and Life is a moveable feast. But insofar as how it's all digested, I can't pass that buck to anyone else.

So yes, that one stops with me.

[skydiveaddict]

It seems like most, or at least a significant number of people these days identify as atheist or agnostic? I have also noticed that some only do this because a many others look down at them/ridicule them if they admit to being religious and/or spiritual.

 

 

I'm Roman Catholic and I dont care what anyone else thinks about it either.

I cant recall ever being ridiculed about my religion to be honest

[sxyNYCcpl]

I consider myself spiritual, but not religious. I believe in the eternity of consciousness, I believe that we humans are merely "spiritual" (or perhaps, multi-dimensional) entities having a 3D (or 4D if you prefer) physical life experience, that our primary purpose is to learn to love more effectively and that some, though not necessarily all of us, might have one or more very specific missions we're here for.

 

We choose to come, knowing more or less what we're in for because we feel it will provide us with good lessons.

 

I've been studying Near Death Experiences for awhile now and they are fascinating, especially with regard to the consistency of the experiences across religious, cultural, and just about any other metric you could think of. It's also very, very curious to me how the more I examine it, the study of quantum physics and the study of "spirituality" seem to be headed in the same general direction.

[allina]

What defines a hard core atheist as opposed to your run of the mill atheist?

 

 

I meant that not only am I aware of the proven fact that there are no such things as gods, deities, etc., I'm also quite appalled and disgusted by many of the actions and attitudes of those who call themselves believers/religious.

[ella23]

I'm Roman Catholic and I dont care what anyone else thinks about it either.

I cant recall ever being ridiculed about my religion to be honest

Good that that's never happened to you.

I've noticed quite a few people who are non-religious making fun of those who are fairly religious over their beliefs.

[TaraMaiden]

I meant that not only am I aware of the proven fact that there are no such things as gods, deities, etc., I'm also quite appalled and disgusted by many of the actions and attitudes of those who call themselves believers/religious.

 

Allina, could I suggest that possibly there is a definite line between a person practising their religion devotedly, and those who purport to practise their religion rather over-zealously and interpret their specific teachings in extreme ways, to the extent that they in fact distort them to their biased and prejudiced opinion?

 

There is a difference, because I'm sure that, just as you know that there are those whose actions and attitudes are appalling, there are also those who define and represent their religion in a fitting and commendable way?

My point is, that you can't be an atheist because of views coloured by those negative people...

They're not truly representative of their religion. They're representative of Religion implemented in a wrong and misguided way.

 

Would you agree therefore that it's not necessarily Religion you find abhorrent, it's the method....?

[Simon Attwood]

Yes.

My point is, that These extraneous and prejudicial rules were implemented as an extension of Biblical teachings, and are, according to the authoritative powers, sacrosanct and decreed by God. Something hotly disputed by many, even those within the Catholic faith. In fact, recently, the Pope declared that he feels anti-discriminatory legislation in the UK goes against RC dogma and belief, because it will mean that transsexuals and homosexuals will be permitted to become priests, and women would be able to seek ordination. He feels this violates God's word, but as has been explained, Religious belief does not override statute Law or Human Rights Legislation. He believes it should. The Law, states otherwise.

 

And my point was that the prejudices are not extensions to biblical teachings, but rather the biblical teachings have prejudices that permeate throughout them. Thus aiding anyone that would want to interpret them so. Any powerful roles held by women were edited out, for instance the High Priestess Magdalene of the early Christian Church, was deliberately confused with the "Dancer" Mary, and only recently has the Vatican accepted that the 2 women were not the same person. The Gospel of Mary being one of the many gospels to be omitted by the First Council of Nicaea.

 

I don't dispute any of this. Most Theistic religions are extremely misogynistic. It's deplorable.

 

Just human nature, dear

 

Absolutely fine, good and wonderful, if you ascribe to an all-powerful, omnipotent omniscient God. Or even the possibility of one existing.

I don't.

So all this talk of God and man being the same, is meaningless to me....

 

You should read more carefully at no point did I suggest that I ascribe to an "all powerful" entity called God. I suggested that God was an external collective projection of something internal i.e. within us.

 

That same internal divinity exists in Buddhism. The difference in the 3 major religions is that the inner divinity is externalised collectively and described as a separate entity. At least it is on the face of it, but if you listen and read a bit more carefully, you will hear a different song.

 

As I am sure you have cottoned on by now; my interest in religion centres on the psychological/neurological basis for religion, all religion. I do not ascribe to any religion, but by doing so, see value, as well as failure, in all religions, and ascribe that value and failure to human imperfection, rather than any failing in the religion.

 

Religion is a vehicle, and like any vehicle, if you put in the wrong kind of gas, the vehicle won't go. The vehicle can be a wonderful tool for getting somewhere, but it can also be destructive if used in the wrong way.

 

I don't believe that any person can be consistently, continuously, seamlessly perpetually evil. It's not possible. therefore, when the evil does not manifest, it's either neutral behaviour, or 'good' behaviour.

 

Neither good, nor evil, ever manifests in it's pure form, for they are entwined. The very basis for the Taijitu; Yin Yang graphic. Both Good and Evil are always manifest, entwined, although, one, or the other, may come to the fore, depending upon environment and stimulus.

 

Right......

But I don't believe in Sin, either, because that would imply some sort of format which would bestow forgiveness.

I believe people are capable of doing good, as much as they are capable of doing bad.

It's a choice......

 

Although Buddhism does not recognise the classical christian view of sin, karma can be both good and bad; sin could loosely equate to bad karma. And punishment through Vipaka. It's a different route towards the same goal; reward for good behaviour, suffering for bad behaviour!

 

It's all just names, interpretations and perspectives really.

 

I didn't say that it would be more accurate. I said that it stands to reason that if apparently, God and man are the same, then it follows that Satan and man are also the same. it's equal, not either/or, or more/less accurate....

 

What exactly did this mean, then?

And that would be far more accurate.

Definitely looks like you said "more accurate" to me

 

Not so.

As far as I am concerned, I am 100% responsible for everything that goes on behind my eyes. And therefore, it all hinges on me. Choices change and Life is a moveable feast. But insofar as how it's all digested, I can't pass that buck to anyone else.

So yes, that one stops with me.

 

What happened to the woman that reminded me about impermanence?

[Simon Attwood]

I meant that not only am I aware of the proven fact that there are no such things as gods, deities, etc., I'm also quite appalled and disgusted by many of the actions and attitudes of those who call themselves believers/religious.

 

This is exactly what I was alluding to; One of the main failings that are attributed to religion is that it leads to conflict because it creates “sides”. Centuries of conflict sparked by religion demonstrate this perfectly. This is not the failing of religion, but rather a failing in human nature. In fact it’s not a failing at all; as animals and as tribal people from prehistory, this was an essential survival tool. When you take a side, you are not on your own and therefore more likely to survive. The modern world has turned this on it’s head. Now, the taking of sides is more likely to lead to conflict, and thus death and destruction.

 

Atheism should be an unconflicted, disinterested and dispassionate acceptance of the non existence of god, but when it is set up as a “side”, against the belief in god, and when it becomes a passion, it sets itself up for the same failings as religions; the human instinct to form groups and sides in conflict.

[Taramere]

I think the perception of a God is just a way of trying to simplify and humanise the forces of nature. A superstitious belief that nature has a face and a heart, and that it's somehow possible to win nature's good favour by bowing and scraping in churches. I can't say I've got no elements of superstitious thinking in my psyche, or that I haven't had moments where disbelief has been suspended as a result of strange coincidences...but superstitious thinking isn't something I actively encourage or take pride in.

 

Thinking about this a little more....I had to appear as a witness in a case yesterday, which obviously required me to take the oath. I don't have the kind of mindset that would require me to demand an atheist alternative. I tend to see that kind of thing ("I don't believe in God, so I will not take an oath invoking his name") as a bit silly and attention seeking...though i suppose if someone felt very strongly about atheism, they might protest against that take on it. Fair enough. I just tend to see things traditions where the name of God is invoked as being old fashioned and formal, and I really don't mind them.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Taramere

[Ariadne]

I've been studying Near Death Experiences for awhile now and they are fascinating, especially with regard to the consistency of the experiences across religious, cultural, and just about any other metric you could think of.

 

I have found also fascinating how the life of the Saints for example resemble the same experiences of the enlightened and Holy men in India and across the different religions.

 

I have found no contradictions.

[TaraMaiden]

Just human nature, dear

Misogyny is NOT human nature. it's human conditioning.

 

 

You should read more carefully at no point did I suggest that I ascribe to an "all powerful" entity called God. I suggested that God was an external collective projection of something internal i.e. within us.

 

That same internal divinity exists in Buddhism.

No, it doesn't

 

The difference in the 3 major religions is that the inner divinity is externalised collectively and described as a separate entity. At least it is on the face of it, but if you listen and read a bit more carefully, you will hear a different song.

Where, in Buddhism, have you read anything about an internalised 'divinity'?

 

Although Buddhism does not recognise the classical christian view of sin, karma can be both good and bad; sin could loosely equate to bad karma.

No, I'm afraid you're incorrect there.

 

And punishment through Vipaka.

There is no judgement, there is no punishment. Please, if we're going to talk about Karma/Vipaka, let's be accurate.

 

It's a different route towards the same goal; reward for good behaviour, suffering for bad behaviour!

This isn't the way it happens with Karma.

 

It's all just names, interpretations and perspectives really.

If that's what you think.... But I'm afraid it's not correct.

 

 

 

What exactly did this mean, then? (. . .) Definitely looks like you said "more accurate" to me

I was referring to the whole of my comment, not just the last bit. I could have worded it differently, but I didn't. I did however, try to clarify.

Don't be a pedant and get stuck on semantics. I think we've covered this enough.

 

 

What happened to the woman that reminded me about impermanence?

What has "The Buck Stops here" got to do with Impermanence?

...back atcha, petal....!

[Simon Attwood]

Misogyny is NOT human nature. it's human conditioning.

 

 

 

No, it doesn't

 

 

Where, in Buddhism, have you read anything about an internalised 'divinity'?

 

 

No, I'm afraid you're incorrect there.

 

 

There is no judgement, there is no punishment. Please, if we're going to talk about Karma/Vipaka, let's be accurate.

 

 

This isn't the way it happens with Karma.

 

 

If that's what you think.... But I'm afraid it's not correct.

 

 

 

 

I was referring to the whole of my comment, not just the last bit. I could have worded it differently, but I didn't. I did however, try to clarify.

Don't be a pedant and get stuck on semantics. I think we've covered this enough.

 

 

 

What has "The Buck Stops here" got to do with Impermanence?

...back atcha, petal....!

 

Ahh, the "No it doesn't", "you're incorrect" argument. How on earth am I supposed to respond to that?

 

Buck stops = fixed, rigid, permanent.

 

impermanence = Buck being in a state of flow

 

Regarding divinity in Buddhism; I fear you are taking divinity too literally, applying it to a diety of sorts. The divinity I refer to is the divine within each and everyone of us. The divinity that is at the heart of the rebirth of the Dalai Lama, and the rebirth of Arya Tara

 

I'll leave you to further your study on Divinity in Buddhism by yourself, for you will be more fulfilled by the process.

[TaraMaiden]

Ahh, the "No it doesn't", "you're incorrect" argument. How on earth am I supposed to respond to that?

 

By telling me where in Buddhism you have found any reference to an internal divinity...

 

Buck stops = fixed, rigid, permanent.

 

impermanence = Buck being in a state of flow

 

I'm not going to even try to pick this one to pieces.. Good grief....

 

 

 

Regarding divinity in Buddhism; I fear you are taking divinity too literally, applying it to a diety of sorts. The divinity I refer to is the divine within each and everyone of us. The divinity that is at the heart of the rebirth of the Dalai Lama, and the rebirth of Arya Tara

Oh, right, yeah.

Tibetan Buddhism.

Not my bag.

too loaded with extraneous and distracting matter....

I'm a Theravada girl, myself.

 

I'll leave you to further your study on Divinity in Buddhism by yourself, for you will be more fulfilled by the process.

Been there, done that.

Hence the Theravada choice.

Thanks anyway.....

[Simon Attwood]

By telling me where in Buddhism you have found any reference to an internal divinity...

 

Oh, right, yeah.

Tibetan Buddhism.

Not my bag.

too loaded with extraneous and distracting matter....

I'm a Theravada girl, myself.

 

Been there, done that.

Hence the Theravada choice.

Thanks anyway.....

 

Now you never told me you were going to switch to a specific branch of Buddhism.

 

Talk about moving the goal posts

[TaraMaiden]

I never switched.

I was always Theravada.

You made the assumption - as most people do - that if a person is Buddhist, then they must be followers of the Dalai lama and Tibetan Buddhism.

 

Either that, or that the little fat statue of the Laughing Buddha is what we 'worship'.

 

I get both, all the time.

I was even asked once, "Well, if you're really Buddhist, why aren't you bald?".

 

Ho-hum.....