Right or wrong religion?

[Shantanu]

faith is supposed to be its own proof

I am sorry Luis, please can you explain this a bit?

 

[LuisDantas]

I am sorry Luis, please can you explain this a bit?

Faith is a personal matter. It has no business attempting to be "proven". If you feel motivated by it, then it must be real. If you do not, then it does not exist. It can't even be "false", let alone "true".

Someone who claims to have proof of his faith is just confused about the role of faith, and attempting to convince others in all the wrong ways, for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Marcion]

Nonduality teaches that the Unmanifest and the Manifest, are the same, not two, not dual.

From the viewpoint of the Absolute reality that is true, but for a being who is still stuck in the illusion of dualism, this relative dualistic world feels very real and should not be denied nor neglected. So the manifested world is still a reality in its own right, even though it is only a relative reality that does not last.

 

[Shantanu]

Faith is a personal matter. It has no business attempting to be "proven". If you feel motivated by it, then it must be real. If you do not, then it does not exist. It can't even be "false", let alone "true".

Someone who claims to have proof of his faith is just confused about the role of faith, and attempting to convince others in all the wrong ways, for all the wrong reasons.

That is true: one does things in faith that God is protecting one in one's actions when one has surrendered to God. Eventually this only proves that Truth rather than God is what one should have faith in because Truth is a higher attribute higher than whatever God can bring upon one.

 

[Marcion]

There are many schools of Hindu philosophy. There are many beliefs but there are certain principles and beliefs that are the core of Hinduism. They can all be found in various scriptures which one might consider the authority. It’s the reason people refer to the “authority and authenticity of the Vedas”. To reject them is to essentially reject Hinduism, as the Buddha did. Among those core principles are the belief in the unity of all creation; Brahman; karma and reincarnation; for example.

Hinduism encompasses pantheism and panentheism, often at the same time, non-contradictory. The world is but an effect of maya; maya having a few meanings.

I don't think that Buddha rejected all of the Vedas, he just rejected their collective absolute (unquestionable) authority.
And if that supposedly makes one a non-Hindu, then I am proud of that because dogmatically accepting the authority of collected or compiled scriptures goes against reason and sound spirituality.
Defining what makes for a Hindu is as interesting as defining what makes for a Christian.

 

[Shantanu]

I don't think that Buddha rejected all of the Vedas, he just rejected their collective absolute (unquestionable) authority.
And if that supposedly makes one a non-Hindu, then I am proud of that because dogmatically accepting the authority of collected or compiled scriptures goes against reason and sound spirituality.
Defining what makes for a Hindu is as interesting as defining what makes for a Christian.

 

[Shantanu]

I don't think that Buddha rejected all of the Vedas, he just rejected their collective absolute (unquestionable) authority.
And if that supposedly makes one a non-Hindu, then I am proud of that because dogmatically accepting the authority of collected or compiled scriptures goes against reason and sound spirituality.
Defining what makes for a Hindu is as interesting as defining what makes for a Christian.

Buddha was on to something quite different from anything contained in the Vedas so created a distinct faith of Buddhism. Hinduism is vast and every aspect of it defines the essence of spirituality because it provides the factual backbone to individual Realisation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, that is not it at all.
I do not even know what you mean.

Sorry about the typos. That should have been "you don't need faith to know your own mind."

Regardless, if that's not what you meant, then I have no idea what you mean by "faith in atheism" or "you don't need to have faith in atheism."

 

[Windwalker]

From the viewpoint of the Absolute reality that is true, but for a being who is still stuck in the illusion of dualism, this relative dualistic world feels very real and should not be denied nor neglected. So the manifested world is still a reality in its own right, even though it is only a relative reality that does not last.

That is what nonduality actually teaches. Many call monism, that only the transcendent is reality, to be "nonduality", but it technically is not. Monism is a form of subtle duality, which is stating that "this" is real and "that" is not. It divides.

True nonduality recognizes fully that the material world is reality too. "Emptiness is not other than form. Form is not other than Emptiness." From the nondual perspective, the manifest world is reality as well. Nonduality is paradoxical, nonlinear, as opposed to linear.

 

[Windwalker]

God is not unknowable. Human quest must be fulfilled by his own efforts or by God as Creator and Preserver.

God is unknowable by the human intellect. That is not the same as saying one cannot apprehend God. Certainty we can. But we cannot fathom the infinite with our minds. That is what is meant by Unknowable. The same is suggest in the word Ineffable. or the Mystery. It is beyond words, beyond comprehension.

 

[Shantanu]

God is unknowable by the human intellect. That is not the same as saying one cannot apprehend God. Certainty we can. But we cannot fathom the infinite with our minds. That is what is meant by Unknowable. The same is suggest in the word Ineffable. or the Mystery. It is beyond words, beyond comprehension.

There is no harm in trying to contact God in a bid to clarify His position, is there? - I tried my best and failed.

 

[Trailblazer]

I take it that you are attempting to be funny.

Faith is (or may be, depending on how you define it) something useful and precious. Believing in a God is something very different, and often much poorer.

No, I was not trying to be funny.
I do not know what you mean by what you said.

 

[Trailblazer]

In any case, faith is supposed to be its own proof.

Why do you even want evidence? It suggests a flaw.

How is faith proof of anything?
Why does wanting evidence suggest a flaw?

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry about the typos. That should have been "you don't need faith to know your own mind."

Regardless, if that's not what you meant, then I have no idea what you mean by "faith in atheism" or "you don't need to have faith in atheism."

The simplest way I can put it is that you do not have to have faith in something that is not a belief. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.

I do not have to have faith that I will not have an accident on the way to the store if I do not believe I will not have an accident on the way to the store.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, I was not trying to be funny.
I do not know what you mean by what you said.

I am pointing out that faith at its best is a sublime motivation and understanding.

Belief in God is, to the best of my understanding, actually quite unrelated to faith.

 

[LuisDantas]

How is faith proof of anything?
Why does wanting evidence suggest a flaw?

Because faith is not about believing in the "right" or the "right number" of gods, but rather about nurturing moral courage and motivation.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't think that Buddha rejected all of the Vedas, he just rejected their collective absolute (unquestionable) authority.
And if that supposedly makes one a non-Hindu, then I am proud of that because dogmatically accepting the authority of collected or compiled scriptures goes against reason and sound spirituality.
Defining what makes for a Hindu is as interesting as defining what makes for a Christian.

I didn’t say he rejected them in their entirety. But he may as well have. The Upanishads deal extensively with the Ātman, Self, Brahman. The Upanishads are unquestionably part of the Vedas. Those are things he rejected.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am pointing out that faith at its best is a sublime motivation and understanding.

Belief in God is, to the best of my understanding, actually quite unrelated to faith.

Faith in what?
Are you comparing faith in God to belief in God?
Or are you talking about faith in general?

 

[Trailblazer]

Because faith is not about believing in the "right" or the "right number" of gods, but rather about nurturing moral courage and motivation.

Oh, now I see and I agree, faith is better than belief.
Belief is meaningless if it is devoid of moral courage and motivation.

 

[sayak83]

There's no such thing as objective morality.

Any action that causes unnecessary suffering for sentient beings is defined as immoral. That's a clear cut criteria for determining what is or is not moral.