IS there an eastern/pagan solution to our religious delimas?

[LuisDantas]

That has pretty much nothing to do with any of them actually having evidence to back them up on any level.

I also wasn't implying that you need evidence of the one true religion, but generally you would start with evidence to back at least one up before you start trying to back up tradition upon tradition.

I don't think that you are seeking a religion at all. You seem to be asking for... an alternate cosmology, I suppose.

 

[Vinayaka]

Certainly in most eastern traditions there is little need to prove anything. Proving isn't really part of the paradigm. Course I could be wrong. But just as a tidbit example, we do have an active 'atheist' Hindu here on these forums. So this God either is or isn't mostly Abrahamic versus atheist stuff isn't really anything close to eastern faiths. We stay outside of that argumentative box for the most part.

Another example is from the title. I don't see any dilemma really. So, people have differing viewpoints. Is that some unresolvable dilemma? Not to me.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Any introductory book, an anthology of scriptures. Participate in meditation or watch worship and rituals. If you like what you see and read, adopt it, otherwise not.

I may or may not already like it but that doesn't exactly make it true now does it?

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

I don't think that you are seeking a religion at all. You seem to be asking for... an alternate cosmology, I suppose.

Why are you under the impression I was seeking a religion?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why are you under the impression I was seeking a religion?

You are asking about religion, but the questions are all disconnected from what religion is supposed to be.

It really feels like for whatever reason you either don't understand or don't want to admit what a religion is.

Christianity and Islaam are, frankly, very much aberrant. I don't think Islaam even qualifies, precisely because it loses its way attempting to "be true" in an entirely misguided way.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

You are asking about religion, but the questions are all disconnected from what religion is supposed to be.

I am allowed to ask questions without seeking a religion. Most of these are questions I already have my own answer for and I have yet to be swayed anywhere by any of the answers on here. If a religion has some evidence behind it then great maybe I will actually seek then. Until then it's pretty much just random stuff I like talking about.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am allowed to ask questions without seeking a religion.

Sure. And we are allowed to point out that the questions seem to be mistaken about what a religion is expected to be.

Most of these are questions I already have my own answer for and I have yet to be swayed anywhere by any of the answers on here. If a religion has some evidence behind it then great maybe I will actually seek then. Until then it's pretty much just random stuff I like talking about.

Uh... why would you - or anyone - waste time with so-called religions that attempt to be "evidenced as truth"?

It seems to me that we have a serious misconception right there. If you want to "receive truth" you should probably learn to adjust your expectations first of all.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Sure. And we are allowed to point out that the questions seem to be mistaken about what a religion is expected to be.


Uh... why would you - or anyone - waste time with so-called religions that attempt to be "evidenced as truth"?

It seems to me that we have a serious misconception right there. If you want to "receive truth" you should probably learn to adjust your expectations first of all.

To what exactly?

 

[LuisDantas]

To what exactly?

For one thing, it could be worthwhile to consider that human beings have no reason to expect a connection to some form of "ultimate truth". Our cognition is not cosmically significant, at least not as a given.

Nor is it particularly useful or advisable to expect what is often called a "revelation". Even if we somehow knew for a fact that a genuine revelation exists, it would only be as good as our ability to make constructive use of it.

At a radical level, we do not have access to truth as such. We build degrees of certainty by various means. Some are more reliable than others. We can not really escape that limitation. But we can and probably should understand and accept that our means and duties do not particularly suffer for that.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

For one thing, it could be worthwhile to consider that human beings have no reason to expect a connection to some form of "ultimate truth". Our cognition is not cosmically significant, at least not as a given.

Nor is it particularly useful or advisable to expect what is often called a "revelation". Even if we somehow knew for a fact that a genuine revelation exists, it would only be as good as our ability to make constructive use of it.

At a radical level, we do not have access to truth as such. We build degrees of certainty by various means. Some are more reliable than others. We can not really escape that limitation. But we can and probably should understand and accept that our means and duties do not particularly suffer for that.

Yes I know that. None of that is new to me and I don't expect any of that.. I ask for evidence because if someone starts to make claims about the universe, gods or well just about anything. I would like some evidence of it actually being true. If you do not have evidence of it being true then it Is impossible for me to believe but not impossible for me to discuss.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes I know that. None of that is new to me and I don't expect any of that.. I ask for evidence because if someone starts to make claims about the universe, gods or well just about anything. I would like some evidence of it actually being true.

Well, that is what science is for. Not religion. And in that case, "belief" is not really a proper verb to use.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Well, that is what science is for. Not religion. And in that case, "belief" is not really a proper verb to use.

So religion Is completely incompatible with evidence?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've met people who were once Christians or Jews among other things that turned to eastern traditions or paganism because of the issues they have had with their original religion. I'm sure someone will be tempted to say "Well atheism was the original belief they had." because you aren't religious when you are born ect.

Either way I've often had people tell me that eastern religion is just so much better than western religion/ "It is so much more peaceful!" they say or "It just makes more sense." I'll hear someone scream. Look if it really does make more sense then cool. I just don't think a lot of these are much better than their western counterparts.

I don't think professing belief in gods without any evidence to back it up is better simply because you are now following an eastern tradition. Do the eastern traditions offer more evidence or more of a reason to be a Hindu/Buddhist than say a Christian or muslim? Is there an eastern solution?

Nope. Eastern religion is the same as any other religion out there.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Lorgar-Aurelian

Namaste,

I don't think professing belief in gods without any evidence to back it up is better simply because you are now following an eastern tradition. Do the eastern traditions offer more evidence or more of a reason to be a Hindu/Buddhist than say a Christian or muslim? Is there an eastern solution?

From my Hindu perspective, and i will stress this is only my Hindu view.

Firstly, as far as professing "Gods", is concerned, to me the mistranslated words "Deva/Devi", into "God", has been a problem, these are contextual words and yes in some instances (depending on context) these are referring to a supernatural being similar to "Gods", of old European Traditions. But largely these are referring to Natural elements that "Give", or "Provide", sustenance and care, These terms also are used to classify anything/person that is Giving or providing something without asking for anything in return, such as Surya Deva (Sun, as it give light and life without asking for anything in return) or a Mother (MattaDevi) or Father (PitruDeva). So Hindu Dharmah (nor religion) advises "respect", "Gratitude", and "reverence", to these Devas/Devis through the different modes of Puja/Yagna ect.

As Hinduism is not concerned with what Devi/Devta one worships there is freedom in modes or worship and beliefs.

Hindu Dharmah does not want all "Souls", to get to heaven, It has not condemn someone for not believing in a particular Devi/Devta or even in none, it is concerned with Karma according to Dharmah, it emphasizes Ahinsa and Satya and the highest actions and ideals. Yet none of these are ever forced onto anyone.

Hindu Dharmah does not care about someone not believing in some of the uncountable Darshans and Mattas that make up Hindu Dharmah, It is not trying to force Yoga on to people, it is not forcing Dhyana (Meditation) onto people, It is not forcing Ahinsa or Satya onto anyone.

There is no meeting in temples where the Pundit preaches fiery sermons condemning sinners, Kafirs, Heathens and unbelievers to Hell and eternal torment.

Those that claim a certain truth (In Hindu Dharmah) have the burden on them to provide evidence for it, there is no one book that governs all of Hindu Dharmah.

And in my view this is why many people are attracted to Hinduism, and this is some of my many reasons for sticking with it.

Dhanyavad

 

[sayak83]

I may or may not already like it but that doesn't exactly make it true now does it?

I find it more illuminating to see if the worldview proves useful in addressing the goals and needs of its practitioners rather than some impersonal criteria of truth. It does appear that atheism is most suitable for you, which is perfectly ok.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

I find it more illuminating to see if the worldview proves useful in addressing the goals and needs of its practitioners rather than some impersonal criteria of truth. It does appear that atheism is most suitable for you, which is perfectly ok.

I don't seem to like it very much. Atheism feels more like a conclusion I came to begrudgingly rather than favorably.

 

[sayak83]

I don't seem to like it very much. Atheism feels more like a conclusion I came to begrudgingly rather than favorably.

Most eastern religious traditions are based on experiences gained through practice (meditation, various forms of yoga etc.). Whether you consider these experiences pointing to a metaphysical reality or not depends on you. But since they are first person experiences, you should have them yourself before making a decision. Regardless, you will get a far greater mastery of your conscious and subconscious minds through the repeated use of concentration, mindfulness and introspective techniques you learn along the way. There is no downside... but please stay away from some of the predatory new age gurus who try to create a personality cult out of this. Most of the classic texts are available, so discerning which teachers are honestly trying to instruct and which are not is not difficult.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think there is a lot of validity in Eastern religion. The Kundalini and Chakras I find very interesting. This was mostly inspired by European religion, however. It isn't really Eastern.

Not just Hinduism and Buddhism, but many other pagan beliefs in East (Tao, Shinto, etc). I consider Hinduism to be a mix of two pagan streams, Indo-Aryan and indigenous Indian. However, I see no Western association in Kundalini and Chakras. They are the product of indigenous Indian thought.

Eastern religion and metaphysical world view cannot easily be reconciled with science - or, more generally, with modern humanistic values.

I find the statement very strange. If any thought goes beautifully with science or modern humanistic values, it is 'Advaita' Hinduism and Buddhism. I think you have some major misunderstanding.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual. It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.

Eastern religions stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d’être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way.

Doctrines of reincarnation, detachment, karma and the like have always struck me as ridiculous or wishful/dreadful thinking.

You say that for the people who wrote 'Kama Sutra' and who consider 'Kama' (which includes sex) as one of the four necessary things to be done by people (the Four 'Purusharthas' - Puruṣārtha - Wikipedia) and essential part of duties (dharma)? I need not say that I am hugely surprised. Yes, there are monks in Buddhism (in Hinduism too) but not all Buddhists or Hindus are monks.

Whether it is Hinduism or Buddhism, it tells us what to do now that we are here - that is 'Dharma' (our duties). Both religions consider our existence as illusionary (maya) or non-substantial (anatta). You say that they are narcissistic!

There are hundreds/thousands of views in Hinduism. Doctrines of reincarnation and karma are social constructs to keep people away from evil deeds by frightening them of hell or lowly births. One can have alternate views. I am an atheist Hindu and I do not believe in these things - except in scientific ways. What happens to the material that our body is made of after our death. Is it not recycled, will it not go into other living and non-living things in course of time. That is the actual reincarnation. Karma is a simple scheme - 'You reap what you sow'. Yes, I should keep away from evil deeds because I will suffer if I do not, physically or psychologically. Do you see anything wrong with that?

Detachment is a different thing altogether, a difficult achievement. It does not mean severing of ties but cushioning ourselves from sorrows and disappointments which are galore in life. Equanimity/Samata/Anasakti (not being dependent on) are the other equivalents of detachment. Detachment does not mean leaving everything and going to the forests. In the end, I would say you hardly have any understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism and your post clearly reflects that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atheism feels more like a conclusion I came to begrudgingly rather than favorably.

You have a choice with us. You can be happily an atheist in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism (like I am).