Your Best 10 Minute Case for Your Religion

[Laika]

What dies? There is nothing that can die.

I'm a believer that there is no afterlife. So agree to differ.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How can there be afterlife when there is no birth or death? Read my edited post.

 

[Laika]

How can there be afterlife when there is no birth or death? Read my edited post.

I will concede that my beliefs are not very rigorous and that they are often self-contradictory. It's something I'm having to work on at the moment going through several Marxist texts. My view that there is no life is inferred by the belief that consciousness is a product of matter (organised in the brain) and that therefore, consciousness cannot be separate from the physical body/brain, hence there is no consciousness after "death". I couldn't say for certain that that is the case, but I would act as if it were. ultimately, I think it would be backed up by scientific knowledge but only if you could persuasively argue that science is appropriate for this area. I feel comfortable saying there's a lot of uncertainties hiding in there if I were to look hard enough.

What dies? There is nothing that can die.

- Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. Bhagawat Gita 2.12
- Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance and of the eternal there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both. Bhagawat Gita 2.16
- That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable. Bhagawat Gita 2.17
- For it there is neither birth nor death at any time. It has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain. Bhagawat Gita 2.20
- As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, it similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones. Bhagawat Gita 2.22
- It can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind. Bhagawat Gita 2.23
- This is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same. Bhagawat Gita 2.24

If I took this at face value, I would disagree with most of them. However, eastern religions have a very illusive quality which points out the deceptive nature of words and the illusionary nature of our understanding (something I appreciate and agree with because of dialectics). So they often have layers of meaning that are not quite so obvious to western ears who are brought up with a Christian culture of "god says so, therefore it is".

it also makes for much more beautiful and poetic literature as your selection of the Gita shows. the best poetry leaves a lot to the imagination because the reader has to produce their own understanding and not simply reproduce that of the author. they are often not the same even if they start from the same source.

What is the difference between meaning and its absence? What is the difference between existence and non-existence? They can be very interesting questions that can really expand your horizons if you are willing to let go of the illusion of control and the arrogance of thinking "we know". I still believe there is an objective reality from which truth is arrived at but that's not the same as saying we possess such an absolute understanding of truth that we can do no wrong.

So if you said "there is no birth and death" because you implied that there is "no self" because the self is an illusion- I could see what your getting at. there are things I know that may not be so. certainty is very deceptive. at once solid and then turning to dust. I'm open to suggestions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What dies? There is nothing that can die.

- Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. Bhagawat Gita 2.12
- Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance and of the eternal there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both. Bhagawat Gita 2.16
- That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable. Bhagawat Gita 2.17
- For it there is neither birth nor death at any time. It has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain. Bhagawat Gita 2.20
- As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, it similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones. Bhagawat Gita 2.22
- It can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind. Bhagawat Gita 2.23
- This is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same. Bhagawat Gita 2.24

That depends how are we defining death. It appears these excerpts from the Bhagwat Gita are referring to the immortality of the spirit (life force, prana, whatever you wish to call it). I agree that this can't die. However, I don't see how "there is nothing that can die" can be a true statement. I've seen many bodies die, from vegetation to human. I've seen the death of old habits. I've seen the death of relationships (been in more than a few).

Please elaborate on "there is nothing that can die."

 

[Aupmanyav]

My view that there is no life is inferred by the belief that consciousness is a product of matter (organised in the brain) and that therefore, consciousness cannot be separate from the physical body/brain, hence there is no consciousness after "death". I couldn't say for certain that that is the case, but I would act as if it were. ultimately, I think it would be backed up by scientific knowledge but only if you could persuasively argue that science is appropriate for this area. I feel comfortable saying there's a lot of uncertainties hiding in there if I were to look hard enough.

If I took this at face value, I would disagree with most of them. However, eastern religions have a very illusive quality which points out the deceptive nature of words and the illusionary nature of our understanding (something I appreciate and agree with because of dialectics). So they often have layers of meaning that are not quite so obvious to western ears who are brought up with a Christian culture of "god says so, therefore it is".

it also makes for much more beautiful and poetic literature as your selection of the Gita shows. the best poetry leaves a lot to the imagination because the reader has to produce their own understanding and not simply reproduce that of the author. they are often not the same even if they start from the same source.

What is the difference between meaning and its absence? What is the difference between existence and non-existence? They can be very interesting questions that can really expand your horizons if you are willing to let go of the illusion of control and the arrogance of thinking "we know". I still believe there is an objective reality from which truth is arrived at but that's not the same as saying we possess such an absolute understanding of truth that we can do no wrong.

So if you said "there is no birth and death" because you implied that there is "no self" because the self is an illusion- I could see what your getting at. there are things I know that may not be so. certainty is very deceptive. at once solid and then turning to dust. I'm open to suggestions.

In my opinion also your view is correct. Science is appropriate in all things concerned with us and the universe, all physicality.

for your second paragraph. Yes, to understand the meaning is tough. Have you seen aphorisms from "Brahma Sutras"? Here is the first line "Athato Brahma jignāsā" (Now, therefore, the inquiry about Brahman). And here is its analysis: Jijnasadhikaranam: Topic 1 – Brahma Sutras – Chapter 1: Samanvaya Adhyaya. No, I would not want you to read the whole book. It is too tough.

Hey, hey. In your fourth paragraph, you have jumped right into the most difficult question of all times. IMHO, We need to wait for a generation or so to get the answer of this question. The scientists are tackling the 'Quantum' questions step by step.

For your last paragraph - no, what I say does not get wrong even if existence turns into non-existence. What we started with is energy, what exists is energy, and there is no diminution of that as far as we know. Nothing new, nothing disappearing; no birth, no death. And if there is no difference in existence and non-existence, then what is non-existent also does not take birth or dies. That reminds me of a line from RigVeda written about 3,000 years ago, the hymn is known as "Nasadiya Sukta" and in general as the Hindu hymn of creation:

"Sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛidi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"
(Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.)
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Getting aboard a bus you sit yourself next to a person who informs you (s)he is in a quandary as to which religion (s)he should adopt, and asks for your advice. Believe it or not, (s)he knows nothing of your religion. Taking up the challenge you have 10 minutes to make a case for it.

What do you say? (If you like, put it in dialog format.)

Please identify your religion or lack thereof at the outset, such as:

Eckankar
........... ...... . .................., .............. ............. ......... . ............ ..... ....., .............. .............
.... ....... ............... .

.

I would tell her it's not my problem, I don't care, and to stop bothering me with inanities.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That depends how are we defining death. It appears these excerpts from the Bhagwat Gita are referring to the immortality of the spirit (life force, prana, whatever you wish to call it). I agree that this can't die.

However, I don't see how "there is nothing that can die" can be a true statement. I've seen many bodies die, from vegetation to human. I've seen the death of old habits. I've seen the death of relationships (been in more than a few).

Please elaborate on "there is nothing that can die."

In the verses that I have mentioned, there is no mention of spirit, life force, prāna or consciousness. The lines refer to just 'it'. Of course, nearly all translations will read this it as spirit, life force, prāna or consciousness (particularly the translation by Prabhupāda). I don't. I will go by the word and IMHO it refers to the undefined Brahman, not a God, but the substrate of all that exists. And that substrate is eternal unless we come to know that it arises from non-existence (as mentioned in my answer to Laika).

As for the second paragraph (separated by me), all that is illusion, māyā, anatta (without substance), anicca (temporary). So, I dismiss it at philosophical level (but not at the practical level, what we know in 'advaita' as 'Vyavahārikā Satya', 'pragmatic reality'). That too is a reality but at a lower level than 'Paramārthikā Satya', the 'absolute reality'.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Yeah but which grandparent hasn't done it?

Mine? I mean, seriously, are you saying you're fine with Grandpa going on a naked bender and then blaming his grandkid for his own problems? I'll choose to see this response as facetious.

And to be honest, he just survived a mahousive great flood, c'mon, I think he has the right to go on the **** up

True, and I don't actually recall being on a naked drunken bender was against any rules, so

In reality, the Mishnah teaches that Ham actually castrated or sodomised, or both, his father Noach. So you can see why Noach would be angry. Babylonion Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 70a)

I understand that there has to be a story that makes it sound less stupid than what was actually written.

Christianity: Not so much about rewards in this life but good perks in the afterlife.

Don't the Beatitudes count for this life? "Life sucks and then you die" is a TERRIBLE commercial for Christianity.

 

[Rival]

Mine? I mean, seriously, are you saying you're fine with Grandpa going on a naked bender and then blaming his grandkid for his own problems? I'll choose to see this response as facetious.

Of course I'm joking lmao.

 

[Rival]

I understand that there has to be a story that makes it sound less stupid than what was actually written.

I think you'd do well to look at the Talmud sometime, though

 

[Kemosloby]

Mine? I mean, seriously, are you saying you're fine with Grandpa going on a naked bender and then blaming his grandkid for his own problems? I'll choose to see this response as facetious.


True, and I don't actually recall being on a naked drunken bender was against any rules, so


I understand that there has to be a story that makes it sound less stupid than what was actually written.


Don't the Beatitudes count for this life? "Life sucks and then you die" is a TERRIBLE commercial for Christianity.

No the Beatitudes don't count for this life. If they did the Apostle Paul should ask for a refund. Peter too, since he was hung by a cross upside down, and all the disciples Christ sent out into the world as sheep among wolves.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please elaborate on "there is nothing that can die."

 

[Sha'irullah]

I believe there are many gods, they are distinct and not correlated to the point they are all the same.
I believe that gods may or may not be a product of man but if they are then man must return to the notion of greatness that he has created.
I believe worship of gods is empirical for mankind as it is a way of removing egotistical inclinations.
My religion encourages the absolute hopelessness of mankind and his need to persevere in order to overcome his natural fate.
The use of rational discourse must be promoted and the need to promote the science is vital for mankind's progress.

My religion is bleak and my religion is practical given what I see. I have no other reason to assert otherwise.

 

[YmirGF]

I would move to another seat.

Me too. After a cold, "Oh, **** off!"