Where's All the Religious People?

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would say this place is full of religious people.
However not many are stereotypical puritans or what ever rings your bell.

Even the non theists go at it with religious fervour.

 

[Tathagata]

Friend Tathagata,
Every human being is *RELIGIOUS*; so it applies to everyone at RF too.
What is RELIGION? It is simply a path or a way that takes all forms back to its source.
Yes, one can say that most people follow the path unconsciously and only a few do so consciously.

This is merely a semantic gripe. My point was that there aren't many people that believe in all the supernatural and faith-based concepts that I listed in the OP.

Your beliefs and expectations are all *thoughts* or *mind matters* and religion is all about *TRANSCENDING* that very mind. Only when one transcend the mind is it realised that there are no others any where;

Religion is all about Transcending "thoughts" and "mind matters"?? I think you mean Zen Buddhism, which does not represent every religion. None of the Abrahamic faiths even attempt to explain psychology.

And Zen Buddhism doesn't teach that you should transcend mind, but rather the discriminating mind, and reach a higher state of mind called transcendental intelligence/bodhimind.

[Lankavatara Sutra]: The Blessed One Replied: Transcendental Intelligence rises when the intellectual-mind reaches its limit and, if things are to be realized in their true and essence nature, its processes of mentation, which are based on particularized ideas, discriminations and judgements, must be transcended by an appeal to some higher faculty of cognition, if there be such a higher faculty. There is such a faculty in the intuitive-mind (Manas), which as we have seen is the link between the intellectual-mind and Universal Mind. While it is not an individualized organ like the intellectual-mind, it has that which is much better,- direct dependence upon Universal Mind. While intuition does not give information that can be analyzed and discriminated, it gives that which is far superior,- self-realization through identification."

its all one and each a tiny component of that *whole*.

I'm pretty sure that's well understood by all Buddhists, but I don't see how that applies to this.


.

 

[Breathe]

@OP

I'm an afterlife and believer in "God" (although it's not an Abrahamic style God, as I think you know from our chats), and I'm not one who believes in sin, Satan, or other such things.

This place doesn't attract many literalists or fundamentalists, though, which is a good thing. Those who do come seem either leave or are escorted out rather quickly.

I enjoy the diversity here, it's what makes this place so good.

 

[painted wolf]

I already know that. The emphasis isn't on what entails as "religious," but rather where all the supernaturalists are.

Then your issue is what you define as a "supernaturalist".
(and that you amended your definition of "religious" to be the same as "supernaturalist" what ever that means.)

It could easily be argued that anyone who believes that one can "transcend" ones animal state is a "supernaturalist" as they see themselves beyond the natural. So, by that definition any Buddhist, atheistic or not, counts.

wa:do

 

[LoTrobador]

None of the Abrahamic faiths even attempt to explain psychology.

Psychology in medieval Islam - Wikipedia
A history of Christians in Psychology - Eric L. Johnson & Stanton L. Jones
CHAPTER VI· The Patristics, Scholastics, and Arabians; the Mystical Reaction from History of Psychology: A Sketch and an Interpretation, Volume I - James Mark Baldwin
An Intellectual History of Psychology - Daniel N. Robinson

 

[zenzero]

Friend Tathagata,

You are missing that life has no beginning or end.
It is HERE-NOW!
everyone is the same aspect of reality but only in different forms and in different time/space zones.
Understanding/realizing IT is religion and everyone joining RF is trying to do so in their own individualist ways.
Rgds zen or buddhism they are just labels and unless one kills the buddha one cannot be a buddha.

Love & rgds

 

[Tathagata]

Friend Tathagata,

You are missing that life has no beginning or end.
It is HERE-NOW!
everyone is the same aspect of reality but only in different forms and in different time/space zones.

Rgds zen or buddhism they are just labels and unless one kills the buddha one cannot be a buddha.

These are things I already know, but pointing this out doesn't really address the content of religious debate.

Understanding/realizing IT is religion and everyone joining RF is trying to do so in their own individualist ways.

You are equivocating "religion" with "truth." Understanding and realizing the truth may be the goals of people in religions, but not all religions have the truth. They all make contradictory claims about reality and they can't all be true. Even your notion that all religions are ways to realize the same truth would be countered by the exclusivistic religions themselves by their own doctrines.


.

 

[Tathagata]

Psychology in medieval Islam - Wikipedia
A history of Christians in Psychology - Eric L. Johnson & Stanton L. Jones
CHAPTER VI· The Patristics, Scholastics, and Arabians; the Mystical Reaction from History of Psychology: A Sketch and an Interpretation, Volume I - James Mark Baldwin
An Intellectual History of Psychology - Daniel N. Robinson

Is psychology addressed in their holy books? Didn't think so.

That's what I was referring to. Obviously Christians and Muslims can study psychology and relate it to their religion, but that doesn't mean they have a scripture based doctrine on the matter.



.

 

[LoTrobador]

Is psychology addressed in their holy books? Didn't think so.

That's what I was referring to. Obviously Christians and Muslims can study psychology and relate it to their religion, but that doesn't mean they have a scripture based doctrine on the matter.

I see your point. I don't think that psychological teachings are explicitly expressed in the Tanakh or the Bible; I don't know whether they are expressed in the Qur'an.

However, I think that Abrahamic faiths and their teachings are not necessarily confined to the Sacred Scriptures, therefore I would see psychological teachings based on a spiritual or philosophical tradition and expressed within one of the Abrahamic religions as a part of psychological heritage of this religion.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Tathagata,

but not all religions have the truth. They all make contradictory claims about reality and they can't all be true. Even your notion that all religions are ways to realize the same truth would be countered by the exclusivistic religions themselves by their own doctrines.

You still miss the point.
Organised religion has been spread by followers of the individual who realised TRUTH by walking on that particular path and the followers were not necessarily enlighetened and so the different versions of truth.

Those who have reached to IT are all become ONE with existence, one with truth.
One uses a ladder/path/way to reach a place but after reaching the paths/ways/ladders/religion are all meaningless LABELS.

These are things I already know, but pointing this out doesn't really address the content of religious debate.

That is a good one *religious debate*. Religion is all about *no-mind* where debate is all about *mind* and NOW you are equating two aspects of two entities.

Personally only know that *I* am not *me* and and hardly am in touch with *I* to know anything, which your *I* does.

Love & rgds

 

[Tathagata]

You still miss the point.
Organised religion has been spread by followers of the individual who realised TRUTH by walking on that particular path and the followers were not necessarily enlighetened and so the different versions of truth.

The different religions cannot all be different versions of the truth. The Buddha didn't spend his time debating Brahmins and refuting their doctrines for nothing. He knew that they were not preaching the truth and so he spent much time refuting their false doctrines.What you are saying is not at all in line with what Buddha taught.

The Buddha: "Preach it, make it known, establish it, open it, minutely explain it, and make it clear-until they, when others start vain doctrines, shall be able to vanquish and refute them, and so to spread the wonderworking truth abroad. I shall not die until the pure religion of truth shall have become successful, prosperous, widespread, and popular in all its full extent-until, in a word, it shall have been well proclaimed among men!" [Mahaparinibanna Sutta]

As you can see, there is only ONE truth, and other doctrines that preach falsehoods must be REFUTED. This is according to the Buddha himself!

One uses a ladder/path/way to reach a place but after reaching the paths/ways/ladders/religion are all meaningless LABELS.

The name of the religions are labels, but the doctrines of said religions are not.

Do realize that I know labels and words don't represent reality, however, you must understand that words and labels are necessary to describe reality. And the various religions of the world are not all describing the same thing.

That is a good one *religious debate*. Religion is all about *no-mind*

You mean, YOUR religion is all about no-mind. Are you saying that Zen is the only religion and Christianity is not a religion? Because Christianity certainly does not have any doctrines that say "religion is all about no-mind" or anything near that.

where debate is all about *mind* and NOW you are equating two aspects of two entities.

Actually, I never equated "religion" with "debate," I said "religious debate" which is the title of this very forum.


.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Tathagata,

Thank you for your response.
However you continue to miss the point.
Sorry your choice of labels are inappropriate.
You state that *buddha* went about debating with brahmins.
Since *buddha* is a state and not a individual person, the label *Gautama* is appropriate.
Besides the label *brahmin* means those who have an understanding of *brahman* and sorry the brahmins debated where unconscious humans who only where conscious about themselves been born or labelled as *brahmins*, without any understanding of *Brahman*.
However if Gautama went about debating, it was his way and every individual being in different time/space zones has to take a way to reach timelessness.
Personal understanding is that in the present context such debating is only for insensitive people and not necessary as slowly through the evolutionary process they too will become conscious on their own and will start catching the pointers that existence mirrors at all times and even through debates.

As you can see, there is only ONE truth, and other doctrines that preach falsehoods must be REFUTED. This is according to the Buddha himself!

Once again; what Gautama felt and did was appropriate at that time; but am sure after he had followers he stopped debating and to this day someone missed the point somewhere and is still debating unnecessarily as the consciousness has not yet penetrated the unconsciousness.

You mean, YOUR religion is all about no-mind. Are you saying that Zen is the only religion and Christianity is not a religion? Because Christianity certainly does not have any doctrines that say "religion is all about no-mind" or anything near that.

Your mind is twisting and turning words which never existed.
Personally *I* am not *ME* and so follow no religion/path/way and that no way itself is another way getting demonstrated HERE-NOW!
What is being stated is that Jesus as Christ and Gautama as Buddha reached to the same zone of *timelessness* [no-mind] FULLSTOP!
Down below where time is meaningful, its the ground of dualities where differences will always remain as the mind can only perceive in that fashion of duality and so the way of Jesus and Gautama were and still remains different but once reached to where they wanted their followers to reach i.e. *buddhahood* and *Christhood*, its all ONE.

Kindly meditate on IT!

Love & rgds