Buddhism - on lying

[rockyysdt]

Thanks Spider.

I guess the task is easier said than done.

I suspect the lowest level of Samadhi, with regular practice, would go a long way.

I also suspect that a large number of us place obstacles in the way.

Two retreatants I met at Wat Suan Mokkh both revealed that they experience Samadhi at the majority of their sits.

Their secret was regular practice.

Many have said we are already awakened, but rooted in delusion we are unaware.

Is it possible that our negative self talk and imposed glass ceilings hold us back?

I often plan things but observe talking myself out of many of them when the time arrives.

I also find myself analyzing a poor sit and begin to think about the futility of practice when all along performing the practice regardless of experience was the most important thing.

I find myself critisizing my ability to meditate when all along I should have simply maintained awareness of what was in the moment regardless whether it was nice or not.

I've spent countless hours attempting to meditate when I should have realized one doesn't meditate. Meditation comes to us given favorable conditions.

I've run from teacher to teacher, & teaching to teaching for answers, not realizing regular earnest practice is the way.

My question is:

Are we our own obstacle to achieving regular Samadhi?

Is it easier than what we suspect?

[rockyysdt]

 
 
Noble concepts indeed. But, I would ask how many people on this planet, at any given time, have the honor of experiencing deep samadhi? How many gain that level of enlightenment, or spiritual advancement, where they experience ever new, ever conscious bliss? My guess is less than a few thousand, on the entire planet. 


 
 

 
I've often pondered why those who succeed are small in number.
 
My thoughts are that:
 
The majority of those on the planet have no inclination towards or any belief in Buddha or Buddhism.
 
Of those who do, the majority, wrapped up in the clutches greed and aversion, only persist for a short time and give up, or due to ego continue to be merely observers, looking for something more than mortality, but not able control their effort and level of sacrifice.
 
Of the few who continue further, many succumb to higher challenges along the way.
 
To begin the journey of freeing oneself from attachment to the Skhandas, let alone successfully traversing it, one must be willing to embrace the fact that ones body and all it entails, is a psychological step
 
The first Skandha, Rupa (Form - the material body and the physical sense organ) is an obstacle but is a psychological barrier.
 
 
We take Rupa (the body) as being inextricably part of us, but the Buddha taught the opposite.
 
But to over come attachment we must turn our back on sexuality, power, greed, aversion, need for acceptance, wealth, success and other desires.
 

• I suspect it might be that simple (power over negative thought) but also that difficult.

 
How do we get over these? Edited August 7, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

 

As regards lying, I see a connection between the Buddhist position on this, and the success of science.

Whilst Buddhism and other religions consider lying to be unwise or unethical, it is science which has shown the benefits of 'telling the truth'. Science is founded upon the capacity of certain individuals to accurately and truthfully record what they observe, and develop theories that explain what they observe. In science, all proof is provisional. All accepted theories can be subject to modification in the light of new observations. In the absence of proof we have hypotheses. In many aspects of Buddhism it seems that hypotheses are all we have to go on.

 

It could be argued that religion is void of hypothetical reason. Scientists would certainly be sniggering, already, I'm sure but others might consider them to be blinkered by logic. For instance; Science often presumes that a scientific process must have been used in a supposed "creation" of religion. In this view scientists presume that one sect of humanity has evilly devised an outcome, oppression for instance, and then devised religion as a method to arrive at the desired outcome. However; whereas Science looks at an possible outcome and then logically devises methods; Religion could be said to be the non-hypothetical outcome of humanity's experience so far.

 

 

 

 

RandomSand,

 

I can't agree with such a viewpoint. It doesn't make much sense to me. First, my impression is that 'sniggering' is an act of human behaviour which is probably less common amongst scientists than it is amongst non-scientists (although I can't point to any scientific study on the issue). Secondly, scientists don't presume 'that a scientific process must have been used in a supposed "creation" of religion.' It is generally understood that the scientific methodology of experiment, verification and/or falsification is a relatively modern procedure. 

 

Whilst some essential processes involved in the scientific method, such as mathematics and logic, were laid down by ancient Greeks, such as Euclid and Aristotle who lived about a century after Gautama Buddha, the true scientific methodology was formulated as recent as a 1,000 years ago, long after the current, major world religions were formulated.

 

Odd as it may seem, the first true scientist is considered by many to be a Moslem by the name of Ibn Al Haytham who lived from 965-1040 A.D.

http://lostislamichistory.com/ibn-al-haytham-the-first-scientist/

 

To be truly scientific; a scientist would first have to hypothecate "spiritual matters" as truth and then wrestle with his own reason.

 

I see a confusion and contradiction in terminology here. In science, one wrestles with reason first, before hypothecating that there might be some truth in spiritual matters, which warrants investigation.

 

However, it is reasonable to suppose that the earliest religions represented an attempt by the emerging human consciousness to find an explanation for some very puzzling, natural phenomena. Such explanations were as rational as they could be at the time, in the absence of mathematics, logic and the scientific methodology.

 

For example, there are many gods of thunder in the history of mankind. It is not difficult to imagine how terrified early humans must have been when witnessing the dazzling and sometimes destructively lethal flashes of lightning, and the awesome and angry sound of thunder during a storm. It's easy to appreciate that  any primitive society without even a rudimentary understanding of weather processes, electricity, evaporation and condensation etc, might have settled on the only explanation they were capable of imagining. A God of Thunder made good sense within the context of the times, just Gautama's teachings made even better sense to some, in the context of their times.

 

As regards the Kalama Sutta, I'm very impressed. It's an aspect of the Buddha's teachings that greatly attracts me. However, just as the Kalamas would have had to rely upon their own limited understanding and state of knowledge of life and the world, when exercising their mind in order to work out what things are "moral, blameless and praised by the wise", I also rely upon my own understanding and knowledge of the world, (which I suspect is greater than that of the Kalamas, wouldn't you agree   ), in order to work out what is moral, blameless and praised by the wise.

 

A failure of most religions in my view, lies in the reluctance to take on, consider and incorporate new knowledge and new understanding into the scriptures, including new interpretations of the scriptures in the light of modern discoveries, as though there is nothing new of any significance to be learned. Such religions therefore tend to be stuck in the past, as are their adherents.

 

Albert Einstein was religious, but in a modern way, believing that God was a rational, organising principle at the heart of the universe, which he (Einstein) spent his life investigating.

Edited August 7, 2014 by VincentRJ

[rockyysdt]

A failure of most religions in my view, lies in the reluctance to take on, consider and incorporate new knowledge and new understanding into the scriptures, including new interpretations of the scriptures in the light of modern discoveries, as though there is nothing new of any significance to be learned. Such religions therefore tend to be stuck in the past, as are their adherents.

 

 

Hi Vincent.

 

An interesting point and quite pertinent.

 

Has new knowledge and scientific discoveries contradicted Dharma (4 Noble Truths & 8 Fold Path)?

[rockyysdt]

A simpler way of putting it is:

Does it come down to our ability to be able to honestly free ourselves from sensual craving and practice earnestly without doubt? Edited August 7, 2014 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

 

It could be argued that religion is void of hypothetical reason. Scientists would certainly be sniggering, already, I'm sure but others might consider them to be blinkered by logic. For instance; Science often presumes that a scientific process must have been used in a supposed "creation" of religion. In this view scientists presume that one sect of humanity has evilly devised an outcome, oppression for instance, and then devised religion as a method to arrive at the desired outcome. However; whereas Science looks at an possible outcome and then logically devises methods; Religion could be said to be the non-hypothetical outcome of humanity's experience so far.

 

RandomSand,

 

I can't agree with such a viewpoint. It doesn't make much sense to me. First, my impression is that 'sniggering' is an act of human behaviour which is probably less common amongst scientists than it is amongst non-scientists (although I can't point to any scientific study on the issue). Secondly, scientists don't presume 'that a scientific process must have been used in a supposed "creation" of religion.' It is generally understood that the scientific methodology of experiment, verification and/or falsification is a relatively modern procedure. 

 

Whilst some essential processes involved in the scientific method, such as mathematics and logic, were laid down by ancient Greeks, such as Euclid and Aristotle who lived about a century after Gautama Buddha, the true scientific methodology was formulated as recent as a 1,000 years ago, long after the current, major world religions were formulated.

 

Odd as it may seem, the first true scientist is considered by many to be a Moslem by the name of Ibn Al Haytham who lived from 965-1040 A.D.

http://lostislamichistory.com/ibn-al-haytham-the-first-scientist/

 

To be truly scientific; a scientist would first have to hypothecate "spiritual matters" as truth and then wrestle with his own reason.

 

I see a confusion and contradiction in terminology here. In science, one wrestles with reason first, before hypothecating that there might be some truth in spiritual matters, which warrants investigation.

 

However, it is reasonable to suppose that the earliest religions represented an attempt by the emerging human consciousness to find an explanation for some very puzzling, natural phenomena. Such explanations were as rational as they could be at the time, in the absence of mathematics, logic and the scientific methodology.

 

For example, there are many gods of thunder in the history of mankind. It is not difficult to imagine how terrified early humans must have been when witnessing the dazzling and sometimes destructively lethal flashes of lightning, and the awesome and angry sound of thunder during a storm. It's easy to appreciate that  any primitive society without even a rudimentary understanding of weather processes, electricity, evaporation and condensation etc, might have settled on the only explanation they were capable of imagining. A God of Thunder made good sense within the context of the times, just Gautama's teachings made even better sense to some, in the context of their times.

 

As regards the Kalama Sutta, I'm very impressed. It's an aspect of the Buddha's teachings that greatly attracts me. However, just as the Kalamas would have had to rely upon their own limited understanding and state of knowledge of life and the world, when exercising their mind in order to work out what things are "moral, blameless and praised by the wise", I also rely upon my own understanding and knowledge of the world, (which I suspect is greater than that of the Kalamas, wouldn't you agree   ), in order to work out what is moral, blameless and praised by the wise.

 

A failure of most religions in my view, lies in the reluctance to take on, consider and incorporate new knowledge and new understanding into the scriptures, including new interpretations of the scriptures in the light of modern discoveries, as though there is nothing new of any significance to be learned. Such religions therefore tend to be stuck in the past, as are their adherents.

 

Albert Einstein was religious, but in a modern way, believing that God was a rational, organising principle at the heart of the universe, which he (Einstein) spent his life investigating.

 

 

Ascribing a god to an aspect of the universe doesn't automatically mean that people do not understand the universe.

Your illogical reasoning is a perfect example of - and you exemplify -  my viewpoint which you disagreed with, ironically.

 

I can see from the way you write that the universe, in your eyes, is dead & I doubt anything I could write would shake that belief.

Paradoxically weak and simplistic ideas of creation often go hand in hand with this view.

 

From what you wrote I see you cannot build such a working model because your cognitive process is dependant on your flawed, presumingly biblical, conditioning.

There's another paradigm. It requires faith. This paradigm paradigm requires faith in your own reason, or more rightly your own being, without prejudice of any kind.

It's very obvious to me that you're blinkered to it. Indeed you admit to only reading  "confusion and contradiction".

 

I'm only sorry my reply is so augmentative. A faith based way of reasoning is too simplistic for you, perhaps, you already have faith in what you know to be true.

 

Edited August 7, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

For example, there are many gods of thunder in the history of mankind. It is not difficult to imagine how terrified early humans must have been when witnessing the dazzling and sometimes destructively lethal flashes of lightning, and the awesome and angry sound of thunder during a storm. It's easy to appreciate that  any primitive society without even a rudimentary understanding of weather processes, electricity, evaporation and condensation etc, might have settled on the only explanation they were capable of imagining. A God of Thunder made good sense within the context of the times, just Gautama's teachings made even better sense to some, in the context of their times.

 

You describe your forefathers as simpletons who would appear to have just landed on the earth and remain in awe. You, indirectly, suggest they had the reasoning ability of 5 year olds and the ideas that someone with a IQ of 50 would dream-up.

It's amazing you're here today isn't it, all things considered ?

Edited August 7, 2014 by RandomSand

[VincentRJ]

 

 

It could be argued that religion is void of hypothetical reason. Scientists would certainly be sniggering, already, I'm sure but others might consider them to be blinkered by logic. For instance; Science often presumes that a scientific process must have been used in a supposed "creation" of religion. In this view scientists presume that one sect of humanity has evilly devised an outcome, oppression for instance, and then devised religion as a method to arrive at the desired outcome. However; whereas Science looks at an possible outcome and then logically devises methods; Religion could be said to be the non-hypothetical outcome of humanity's experience so far.

 

RandomSand,

 

I can't agree with such a viewpoint. It doesn't make much sense to me. First, my impression is that 'sniggering' is an act of human behaviour which is probably less common amongst scientists than it is amongst non-scientists (although I can't point to any scientific study on the issue). Secondly, scientists don't presume 'that a scientific process must have been used in a supposed "creation" of religion.' It is generally understood that the scientific methodology of experiment, verification and/or falsification is a relatively modern procedure. 

 

Whilst some essential processes involved in the scientific method, such as mathematics and logic, were laid down by ancient Greeks, such as Euclid and Aristotle who lived about a century after Gautama Buddha, the true scientific methodology was formulated as recent as a 1,000 years ago, long after the current, major world religions were formulated.

 

Odd as it may seem, the first true scientist is considered by many to be a Moslem by the name of Ibn Al Haytham who lived from 965-1040 A.D.

http://lostislamichistory.com/ibn-al-haytham-the-first-scientist/

 

To be truly scientific; a scientist would first have to hypothecate "spiritual matters" as truth and then wrestle with his own reason.

 

I see a confusion and contradiction in terminology here. In science, one wrestles with reason first, before hypothecating that there might be some truth in spiritual matters, which warrants investigation.

 

However, it is reasonable to suppose that the earliest religions represented an attempt by the emerging human consciousness to find an explanation for some very puzzling, natural phenomena. Such explanations were as rational as they could be at the time, in the absence of mathematics, logic and the scientific methodology.

 

For example, there are many gods of thunder in the history of mankind. It is not difficult to imagine how terrified early humans must have been when witnessing the dazzling and sometimes destructively lethal flashes of lightning, and the awesome and angry sound of thunder during a storm. It's easy to appreciate that  any primitive society without even a rudimentary understanding of weather processes, electricity, evaporation and condensation etc, might have settled on the only explanation they were capable of imagining. A God of Thunder made good sense within the context of the times, just Gautama's teachings made even better sense to some, in the context of their times.

 

As regards the Kalama Sutta, I'm very impressed. It's an aspect of the Buddha's teachings that greatly attracts me. However, just as the Kalamas would have had to rely upon their own limited understanding and state of knowledge of life and the world, when exercising their mind in order to work out what things are "moral, blameless and praised by the wise", I also rely upon my own understanding and knowledge of the world, (which I suspect is greater than that of the Kalamas, wouldn't you agree   ), in order to work out what is moral, blameless and praised by the wise.

 

A failure of most religions in my view, lies in the reluctance to take on, consider and incorporate new knowledge and new understanding into the scriptures, including new interpretations of the scriptures in the light of modern discoveries, as though there is nothing new of any significance to be learned. Such religions therefore tend to be stuck in the past, as are their adherents.

 

Albert Einstein was religious, but in a modern way, believing that God was a rational, organising principle at the heart of the universe, which he (Einstein) spent his life investigating.

 

 

Ascribing a god to an aspect of the universe doesn't automatically mean that people do not understand the universe.

Your illogical reasoning is a perfect example of - and you exemplify -  my viewpoint which you disagreed with, ironically.

 

I can see from the way you write that the universe, in your eyes, is dead & I doubt anything I could write would shake that belief.

Paradoxically weak and simplistic ideas of creation often go hand in hand with this view.

 

From what you wrote I see you cannot build such a working model because your cognitive process is dependant on your flawed, presumingly biblical, conditioning.

There's another paradigm. It requires faith. This paradigm paradigm requires faith in your own reason, or more rightly your own being, without prejudice of any kind.

It's very obvious to me that you're blinkered to it. Indeed you admit to only reading  "confusion and contradiction".

 

I'm only sorry my reply is so augmentative. A faith based way of reasoning is too simplistic for you, perhaps, you already have faith in what you know to be true.

 

 

 

I think you misunderstand my post. I assume, because it seems reasonable to me, that any claimed understanding of the universe, by any person or society and regardless of particular beliefs in a God, is a very partial and incomplete understanding at best. Currently the combined knowledge of all the scientists in the world is sufficient only to identify about 5% of the matter and energy they think exists in the universe. The other 95%, not a single particle of which has been discovered, is described as Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It's existence is presumed on the basis that our current theories of gravitation and dynamics, on the very large, universal scale, are correct. They might not be.

 

I don't know how you got the idea I have some sort of Biblical conditioning. I'm an agnostic with leanings towards atheism. Buddhism appeals to me because it doesn't teach a belief in a creator god.

[VincentRJ]

 

For example, there are many gods of thunder in the history of mankind. It is not difficult to imagine how terrified early humans must have been when witnessing the dazzling and sometimes destructively lethal flashes of lightning, and the awesome and angry sound of thunder during a storm. It's easy to appreciate that  any primitive society without even a rudimentary understanding of weather processes, electricity, evaporation and condensation etc, might have settled on the only explanation they were capable of imagining. A God of Thunder made good sense within the context of the times, just Gautama's teachings made even better sense to some, in the context of their times.

 

You describe your forefathers as simpletons who would appear to have just landed on the earth and remain in awe. You, indirectly, suggest they had the reasoning ability of 5 year olds and the ideas that someone with a IQ of 50 would dream-up.

It's amazing you're here today isn't it, all things considered ?

 

 

You've got some strange ideas. Monkeys and apes are still here today. Some creatures have been around for millions of years without much change. What has that got to do with reasoning ability and IQ? You don't have to be smart to reproduce, just healthy and attractive to the opposite sex.

[RandomSand]

A failure of most religions in my view, lies in the reluctance to take on, consider and incorporate new knowledge and new understanding into the scriptures, including new interpretations of the scriptures in the light of modern discoveries, as though there is nothing new of any significance to be learned. Such religions therefore tend to be stuck in the past, as are their adherents.

I think it's more logical to say something like "Doctrinal belief systems which which others regard as outdated might not change for two reasons 1. adherents resist change they find challenging. 2. as soon as doctrine is created it at once becomes a historical record".

Albert Einstein was religious, but in a modern way, believing that God was a rational, organising principle at the heart of the universe, which he (Einstein) spent his life investigating.

Your use of "in a modern way" is totally fallacious and you come across as trying to palm off ancient history, and therefore humanity, as irrational. I find your diatribe to be both vulgar and irrational despite the rosy picture of Einstein.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2014 by RandomSand

[VincentRJ]

 

A failure of most religions in my view, lies in the reluctance to take on, consider and incorporate new knowledge and new understanding into the scriptures, including new interpretations of the scriptures in the light of modern discoveries, as though there is nothing new of any significance to be learned. Such religions therefore tend to be stuck in the past, as are their adherents.

 

 

Hi Vincent.

 

An interesting point and quite pertinent.

 

Has new knowledge and scientific discoveries contradicted Dharma (4 Noble Truths & 8 Fold Path)?

 

 

Hi Rocky,

How could anyone contradict such basic principles like the following (1) Right view, (2) Right intention, (3) Right speech, (4) Right Action, and so on? Whatever the qualities of behaviour under discussion, everyone without exception wants them to be 'right', surely.

 

However, what might have been considered 'right' in an ancient Indian society 2,500 years ago might not always be considered 'right' in today's modern society. This applies particularly to concepts of reincarnation.

 

As I understand, the Buddha inherited and took for granted, with perhaps some slight modification, the Indian doctrine of rebirth and the spiritual goal of Nirvana that was already prevalent in his society and times, even though the word 'Nirvana' might not always have been used to express this 'liberation from the cycle of birth and death and one's worldly conception of self'.

 

It therefore seems reasonable, and to be expected, that Gautama would have interpreted his experience of enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree, in terms of those prevalent doctrines of the times, or at least the authors of the Pali Canon would have interpreted the memorised accounts of the Buddha's life and experiences, in terms of their own world view, about 4 centuries later.

 

According to the Buddhist texts, Gautama, during a single evening under the Bodhi Tree, recalled up to 100,000 former births and habitations in all their modes and detail, as well as many eons of integration and disintegration of the universe. To the Western mind this seems highly improbable, if taken literally.

 

The 20th century Thai scholar-monk Buddhadasa presented a more credible interpretation of rebirth which is more acceptable to my own world-view, and I imagine that of most Westerners. He didn't view birth and rebirth in a literal sense but as a metaphor for a mental process involving the concept or thought of 'I am'.

 

'Birth' refers to the arising of the idea 'I am'. If at some moment there arises in the mind the false idea 'I am', then at that moment the 'I' has been born. When this false idea ceases, there is no longer an 'I'. The 'I' has momentarily ceased to exist. When the 'I' again arises in the mind, the 'I' has been reborn.

So in a single day we may be born several times, many dozens of times. (Although I'm not sure of 100,000 times. That seems to be stretching it.   ) Even in a single hour we may experience many, many births. Whenever there arises the idea 'I' and the idea 'I am such-and-such', that is a birth. The 'I' is born, endures for a moment, then ceases, is born again, endures for a moment, and again ceases - which is why the process is referred to as the cycle of samsara.

[VincentRJ]

 

A failure of most religions in my view, lies in the reluctance to take on, consider and incorporate new knowledge and new understanding into the scriptures, including new interpretations of the scriptures in the light of modern discoveries, as though there is nothing new of any significance to be learned. Such religions therefore tend to be stuck in the past, as are their adherents.

I think it's more logical to say something like "Doctrinal belief systems which which others regard as outdated might not change for two reasons 1. adherents resist change they find challenging. 2. as soon as doctrine is created it at once becomes a historical record".

Albert Einstein was religious, but in a modern way, believing that God was a rational, organising principle at the heart of the universe, which he (Einstein) spent his life investigating.

Your use of "in a modern way" is totally fallacious and you come across as trying to palm off ancient history, and therefore humanity, as irrational. I find your illogical diatribe to be vulgar.

 

 

 

 Why do you think it is totally fallacious? That is the useful and interesting point to make. Why do you think it might be fallacious when I describe Albert Einstein's belief in God as a belief in an organising principle rather belief in a personal god who intervenes in human affairs and listens to human prayers. Is this not a modern way of viewing God?

[RandomSand]

Oh yes the Buddha took x,y,z for granted when he dreamt up Buddhism!

You see, there's that same paradigm, again and again, VincentRJ of Little Faith.

You presume yourself to be totally rational but unwittingly you're already conditioned by what you perceive to be true.

 

"Gautama would have interpreted his experience" Oh, would he really? Are you sure ...or are you guessing, VincentRJ ?

 

Could it be that Buddhadasa's "interpretation" is more palatable to you because it's aimed at your mindset and not because Gautama and Buddhadasa had different "views" which you implied with the use of the same word?

[RandomSand]

 

 

A failure of most religions in my view, lies in the reluctance to take on, consider and incorporate new knowledge and new understanding into the scriptures, including new interpretations of the scriptures in the light of modern discoveries, as though there is nothing new of any significance to be learned. Such religions therefore tend to be stuck in the past, as are their adherents.

I think it's more logical to say something like "Doctrinal belief systems which which others regard as outdated might not change for two reasons 1. adherents resist change they find challenging. 2. as soon as doctrine is created it at once becomes a historical record".

Albert Einstein was religious, but in a modern way, believing that God was a rational, organising principle at the heart of the universe, which he (Einstein) spent his life investigating.

Your use of "in a modern way" is totally fallacious and you come across as trying to palm off ancient history, and therefore humanity, as irrational. I find your illogical diatribe to be vulgar.

 

 

 

 Why do you think it is totally fallacious? That is the useful and interesting point to make. Why do you think it might be fallacious when I describe Albert Einstein's belief in God as a belief in an organising principle rather belief in a personal god who intervenes in human affairs and listens to human prayers. Is this not a modern way of viewing God?

 

 

Albert Einstein was religious: Really? I didn't know that. To which religion was he an adherent and did that religion undergo changes when he presented his theories (which actually were quite trendy and already emergent at the time)?

but in a modern way: Your use of "in a modern way" is totally fallacious and you come across as trying to palm off ancient history, and therefore humanity, as irrational.

believing that God was a rational: You presume he believed. He might have known. There's many combinations of belief and knowing and the subject is quite complex so moving on...

organising principle at the heart of the universe: I know what you mean and he did indeed, from what can read about him, desire the universe to be totally understandable.

rather belief in a personal god who intervenes in human affairs and listens to human prayers. This God you propose some people believe in is the same god that atheists use to suspend their own belief or even actively disbelieve. Crazy thinking!

which he (Einstein) spent his life investigating. Obviously he spent his entire on something or other.

 

Is this not a modern way of viewing God?

 

I don't see in any way why that should be the case.

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

You presume, VincentRJ, there's many "fabrications" and thus no truth. A logical perspective and understandable.

My message to you is that there might be one single truth yet many interpretations.

You allude to acknowledging this, indeed you used the word "interpretations" yourself, but I don't think you've really seriously considered it.

But it's difficult, to seriously consider something which is unfathomable, isn't it?... Where do you even start?

Your position is certainly understandable, VincentRJ, and that's exactly where faith is most needed.

No, it's not simply about believing xy or z utterly blindly Rather, It's a scientific method to study a doctrinal framework.

Okay I think my point is made.. so with that in mind, it's better for you if you think "I don't understand that" rather than dismissing it as garbage or the "belief" of "primitive" people.

 

Your beliefs that that your fore-fathers were; (a.) primitive and (b.) believed in something because they didn't understand the world around them  ...are just that... They're your beliefs.  A very ironical situation, actually

Edited August 7, 2014 by RandomSand

[VincentRJ]

Albert Einstein was religious: Really? I didn't know that. To which religion was he an adherent and did that religion undergo changes when he presented his theories (which actually were quite trendy and already emergent at the time)?

RandomSand,

You really didn't know that? I'm not such an expert that I claim to know precisely the nature of Einstein's belief in God or how his ideas and understanding of God might have changed over the years as he developed his scientific theories, but it seems clear from what is written on the subject that his concept of God was not that of a personal or anthropomorphic god as in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The following link provides more detail, if you're interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Anyway, it seems clear that I have offended you by expressing my views on the subject as honestly as I know how, so I'm sorry. This is always a danger when discussing religion, so I think it's better to end this discussion here.

[RandomSand]

I always presumed the anthropomorphic interpretation of Abrahamic doctriine was for those of lesser faculties who'd have trouble conceptualizing pantheistic imminance but after considering the world from your perspective, for which I'm thankful you've shared, I'm now open to a reevaluation of my own beliefs which only goes to show how much I disagree with you. I must admit to being somewhat seduced by the reductive, if not totally black & white, approach of "VincentRJ" methodology. I guess it's modern so I must be making progress, surely? I've heard rumours about the doctors which work in the loony bin who in time become like their patients and I can only hope that I'm now not in a very similar situation. Anyway; enough of my idle chit chat. I should vacate this medium and presently attend to the holy books.

Edited August 8, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

 

 

Noble concepts indeed. But, I would ask how many people on this planet, at any given time, have the honor of experiencing deep samadhi? How many gain that level of enlightenment, or spiritual advancement, where they experience ever new, ever conscious bliss? My guess is less than a few thousand, on the entire planet. So, while a great and noble precept, not a practical idea.

 

 

Hi Spider.

 

Coincidentally, while reading the Ven. Maha Boowa's book  The Path to Arahantship, he answered our question.

 

He indicated there were 4 categories of people:

 

• Padaparama:  People living in total darkness, both blind and worthless. Human in appearance only, they can only go down.
• Neyya:  People capable of being trained in the way of Dharma. Sometimes they progress, sometimes they go down. Fully capable of understanding and practicing, they are governed by either carelessness or earnestness.
• Vipacitanna:  These individuals always progress, not going down or backwards.
• Ugghatitannu:  Individuals intuitively wise. They have quick understanding and can pass beyond in a moment of insight.

 

 

If we fall into the category of Neyya, doesn't he suggest that it's down to us, how high we progress?

 

He said, in comparison (Awakening), the world is a refuse bin with different grades of garbage.

 

He goes on to say that he succeeded through earnest effort.

 

I thought, a psychologically imposed glass ceiling might be one of the things Maha Boowa described as carelessness.

 

 

I don't think any of us really knows our personal category.

For example, Vincent could very well be Vipacitanna. Scientific & practical in thought, none the less he practices regularly. Much examination & insight automatically occurs whilst in meditation.'

I imagine most of us have our own personal set of attachments to overcome.

 

Edited August 8, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.