It is when religion becomes an empty thing, and has a shell that reminds us of its former self but is devoid of spirit. When faith adherents invoke the name of religion but have tongues and hands ready to harm, not heal.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How are these Great Beings explained?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
It is when religion becomes an empty thing, and has a shell that reminds us of its former self but is devoid of spirit. When faith adherents invoke the name of religion but have tongues and hands ready to harm, not heal.
I
I like that phrasing as detachment can be taken to mean not caring, aloof and distant.
I like that phrasing as detachment can be taken to mean not caring, aloof and distant.
The story seems clear and timely to me and in the context of an extended interfaith discussion. It was not pointed towards any individual and the principle is just as much for me as anyone else.No no...... Unity? In the Individual Investigation of Truth? I think not. That is the lone wanderer grasping the tree and shaking it until its roots quiver. Then and there might truth be discovered, sometimes by an angry retort, at other times by the quietest whisper.
No no...... no other faith, no agenda, and no ego for we, most of us, are nameless...... the intangible.
Not you, of course, but that could have been shouted by a debater on the ropes?
Why, we never do catch it, it's usually just just best to follow after and see if it might side-wind straight into a mouse trap, all by itself.
Often with intellectual prowess comes ego, and with knowledge of religion, attachment.
It's a complicated label, and can mean quite a lot. Certainly becoming disillusioned with organised religion is one of factor. Another factor is that it's a trendy thing to say.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Fair enough.
I like the prosaic rhetoric of it all, but I don't much like the story. It's contrived to suit the purposes of a person who wishes to produce an auto-reactive prejudice towards any who might contend against that person's pov.
We could do it with a motor car, I expect. He who understands the vehicle and the writings of the road of life shall travel in safety, whilst he who enfolds in ignorance and is careless of the written way shall crash and burn...... sort of rhetorical..... rhetoric.
Oh, bloody ego. It flexes its sunburned muscles on building sites; demands votes only for the intellectual; stands on the flying bridge of its motor yacht, and even basks in the glory of its IT performance.
There should be a one week (one month!) open season for ego hunters, shotguns only, and rock-salt cartridges. Then there won't be any work for the doctors to do afterwards.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Little Oxford:
Detached.... separate; not connected; free from bias or emotion.
No carelesness, aloofness .... but distant, yes.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I had not heard of it before.
Even so, whilst I can grasp the word 'spirit' as in 'non physical entity, ghost, even demon or jinn, as soon as I think of the word 'spiritual' then I can only really perceive it to mean 'of non physical entities'.
Do you believe that we have souls?
Funny you hadn't heard of it. A ton of people, when asked what their religion is, these days just pause, stare off into space reflectivley, and say, 'Well, I'm spiritual ... (pause for reflection to indicate a certain seriousness about it) ,but not religious.
I don't believe we have souls. I believe we have physical bodies. Not that my belief matters much.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
That would be the perfect moment to say,
'Corr..... say somint spiritual then, innit.'
I agree about the physical body.
As far as souls go, I will accept the existence of souls, but only if caterpillars, swallows and jellyfish have them as well. And Rocks.
I could not help but find irony here. A theist sees God, an atheist sees emptiness.
Emptiness is an interesting concept that is clearly important to Buddhism. Like detachment it can have different meanings so I wonder what it means to you.
It is often used in patients in psychiatry for example. I ask how do you feel, and she says "empty." I see people who feel depressed, where life is meaningless, and without purpose and direction saying they feel empty. It is used in a diagnosis called borderline personality disorder where symptoms include chronic feeelings of emptiness along with depersonalisation and derealisation.
But it seems to be a useful spiritual metaphor. Baha'u'llah uses it when He says empty thyself of all learning save the knowledge of God.
When I was searching for answers and investigating Buddhism amongst other religions I often heard about emptying your cup of self, to allow room for a new paradigm and perspective.
Brahma seems to be a very Dharmic concept with many meanings again. I see it can mean Creator God in Hinduism and best or supreme in Buddhism. It's a word that an Abrahamic adherent would never use but clearly is Central to the Dharmic Faiths.
Then we are talking impermanence. Everything is in flux so what has changed in the 2500 since Buddha walked the earth? Maybe we don't need to know God, but a monotheist would argue it would help if we did.
Thank you for patiently considering my niave musings on Buddhism.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I could not help but find irony here. A theist sees God, an atheist sees emptiness.
Haha. Emptiness has nothing to do with god. Unless Hinduism has another word for detachment to form and non-form or uses the word emptiness, in Buddhism, it's just a fact of life. Not religious in nature just a lot of people are attached to who they are by what society and their interpretations of it, their sacred-books, and experiences want to define them as.
I don't see the comparison between god and emptiness. Hinduism, from a god perspective, is totally different than Buddhism. Buddhism has mystical experiences, gods, bodhisattvas, we have blessings from The Buddha, experiences from meditation, and so forth. Just no belief in a creator.
I never knew anything about Brahma like The Buddha has. I never knew anything about god of abraham until I was a adult. So, I'm pretty much stuck on how you see the connection between the two to find it ironic....
do share?
Hmm. How would I explain it. I am still putting together my experiences to know. It's like realizing and shedding the perceptions of what you thought was you (short hair, artist, with a dazzling smile
) to understand these things come and go. Like the body, I can be an artist one day and a carpenter another, type of thing. My hair is growing and I need to get it cut. I need some new toothpaste, while I think about it. These things aren't me. They come and they go like the river. The banks are shaped and what is our nature is the river that never stays in the same place. The ocean is when we understand this in full and we have no distinction anymore between self (hair, artist, etc) and Self (the X in fluctuation: try to define the nature of the stream at the millisecond that it is stands still in one spot)
In Christianity, on the other hand, the river is defined and the ocean means something completely different. The river may be the holy spirit and the fluctuation is the sinning nature in his growth and connection with god. The ocean could be likened to one's union with god or higher power. The spirit would be the nature of the water. The soul the water itself.
When I was clinically depressed years ago, I guess you can say I felt empty. I think the emptiness you're referring to is disassociation with life, reality, or oneself self to where at the time I didn't feel I was in my own body. My body and mind were psychologically decaying and my sense of self could not be defined anymore. Some people see their sense of self or finding it is finding their purpose in life. When someone who is depressed can't find a purpose in life, their association with themselves/mind and what we define is reality is distorted.
In Buddhism, it is not like this. We are in constant flux as we speak. It's the nature of life which not only has to do with our state of mind but our body and environment around us. There is no difference. We can define clinical depression by its symptoms but we can't define emptiness (Buddhism) because to do so is to create attachment; a label contradicting what the word empty actually means.
For example, in my signature, what we are talking about now is like the philosopher and the theologian except we're not fussing. When two spiritual practitioners come together with "nothing" to say, they smile.
That is emptiness.
It isn't a metaphor. That is the difference or what makes us diverse, I'll say, is our two ideas based on two totally different things. The words are the same but the concepts are diverse.
When you empty yourself, you have no attachments. God is an attachment. One of the many things The Buddha opposed to the idea of. You said you love your raft. That raft is god.
If you empty yourself as The Buddha says, you do not need knowledge from god or any external thing because they come and go just as my hair grows and teeth fades. The "knowledge" is already there without god.
In my opinion, these are not metaphors, these are facts.
Yeah, that new perspective isn't tangible. It's opening yourself up to a new perception or worldview of life independent of external needs such as god while at the same time dependent by default through kamma.
In other words, it's telling you to take out preconceived bias to learn different worldviews.
Brahma is the creator in Buddhism too. Just in The Buddha's case, he did not believe in a permanent eternal soul, so union with Brahma did not figure into the equation of enlightenment. He does use Brahman, though. I have to understand Brahman to know the context of what I read from the suttas. Hindus haven't given me any knowledge of it and I would not go to a temple just to gain knowledge I'm not going to apply unless I were Hindu.
Everything has been in flux way before The Buddha came around. He just realized it not given the knowledge. He was enlightened or experienced realization that was already in himself and embedded in everything.
It depends on your religion. Hinduism has somewhat the same concept as Buddhism but in order to free oneself from attachment, one needs god.
In Christianity, in order to free oneself from sin (which is something specific to a human's actions and god) so later they are in union with god.
There is no union outside oneself/one's mind in Buddhism. That's the difference.
Thank you for patiently considering my niave musings on Buddhism.
Sure. Don't worry, I'm still learning myself. When I realized the basics it was a eureka moment like this is common sense. But it does go deeper than that. I don't have the experience to express it in words. Unless all religious are making something more mystic than it is. We are not aliens to each other so I'm sure there is some expression or is that the artist in me. lol
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
LOL @adrian009 Sorry about the post.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
This is what I said: "It's also saying that Jews and Christians don't have their original teachings." So that's my question to the Baha'is... Do Baha'is believe Christians and Jews have lost their original teachings? I really, really doubt they believe they have lost their original teachings.
Now for being right or wrong. My feeling has always been that I think spiritual leaders wrote what they thought was the truth. Maybe embellished the story with supernatural things to make it more authoritative, like stories of visits from angels or hearing God speak or whatever. Religion then becomes very much a product of a people and culture. It can have similarities with other religions, but it can have many contradictory ideas also.
Religions then can easily "progress" as people adapt things from other people's religions. I would call Buddhism more of an evolution from Hindu concepts. It then changed with each culture that became Buddhist. Baha'is are forced to see all these types of changes as negative things. They call them man-made traditions. I see them as adapting religions and blending ideas into something that fits their culture.
In Hinduism, as far as I know, Brahma just has one meaning. Brahman, a much deeper concept, has several, and in layers. Most Hindus make a point for non-Hindus not to confuse the two concepts, but they often do anyway, despite Hindus beseeching them not to.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Now it goes to the events taking place during the second Woe? Rev 9:15-16... one third of mankind killed. A two hundred million horsemen army. Chapter 10... What's that all about? Then, Chapter 11... The two witnesses and the beast that kills them. Since we already went through Muhammad in the description of the first Woe, how do Baha'is make this about Muhammad again?Revelation 9
1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.
This prophecy concerns the Muslim invasions of Asian and African Christendom that began about 633 AD. At first, Muslim warriors were noted for their justice and tolerance of other Faiths, such as Christianity and Judaism. Muslim warriors were, however, ferocious fighters against idol worshippers and other enemies of monotheism. It is important to understand that
the aggressive invasions of Islam were not instigated by Muhammad but by the Successors (Caliphs) following the death of Muhammad.
The question of the Successorship was the historical origin of the Shi'ah and Sunni divisions of Islam. The first four Caliphs, often called the Rightly-Guided, generally followed the policy laid down by Muhammad. However, according to Shi'a belief, Muhammad had actually chosen His son-in-law, 'Ali, as His Caliph. Although 'Ali later arose to His appointed station, He was assassinated before He could consolidate His power. The caliphate fell to the Umayyad pretender, Mu'awiya, whose father, Abu-Sufyan, was the arch-enemy of Muhammad and His Revelation. The course of political intrigue set in motion by Abu-Sufyan eventually achieved success, and, by beclouding the principles of Islam, Abu-Sufyan became a "fallen star."
The bottomless pit is the pit of error. The smoke arising from the pit symbolizes obscurement. The sun of spiritual truth was dissensions, abrogation of obscured, and the atmosphere of nearness to God was stifled by the smoke.
The scorpion was a quickfirer that permitted rapid discharge of arrows. John describes the plague of mounted warriors as
"locusts." The magnificent horses of the Arabian warriors are commemorated in fable. Grass, green things and trees are the commoners, the righteous people and their spiritual leaders. The command not to hurt the righteous was given by Muhammad.
A "month" is 30 years therefore 5 months is 150 years. The Muslim Empire was carved out in a space of about 150 years, from the initial invasions of 633 AD until the peak of the Empire under Caliph Harun ar-Rashid in 786 AD. Verses 7 to 10 describe the appearance of the mounted Arabian warriors (locusts), their quickfirers (scorpions), and the sound of their chariots (wings).
Abaddon and Apollyon mean "The Destroyer" and refer to the Umayyad dynasty personified by Abu-Sufyan.
The woe that is past is the Advent of Muhammad. The two remaining woes are to be the Advents of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
Adapted from Apocalypse unsealed (Robert Riggs)
Hope that helps.
siti
Well-Known Member
Hmmm! So is the fact that some have grasped the "water-snake" carelessly and been bitten a good reason to abandon all our individual attempts to grasp it and wait for it to be handed to us by a divinely authorized charmer? Or is the sweet water of philosophical knowledge - the power of individual human reason - to be forbidden to all because some have choked on it? (see Averroes, The Decisive Treatise, 12th century). A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing, but surely failing to address our thirst for it with clean, clear 'water' will spell the death of the intellect altogether - and what hope for independent investigation then?
And that is the problem with a revelation "first and last" approach to knowledge. If the revelation is genuine then surely it must stand up to even the most rigorous philosophical probing - which was the point that Averroes (following Aristotle) was making. It is also the point the early English Deists like John Toland (Christianity Not Mysterious, 1696) and Matthew Tindal (Christianity as Old as the Creation, 1730) were making about Christianity in the 18th century. If the revelation cannot withstand the intellectual probing of reason and, yes, even ridicule, is the revelation genuine? Is a faith based on it sound? Or just "blind"?
So any independent investigation would surely have to take a philosophical (or scientific) approach as well as (if necessary) an appeal to "revealed truth" - wouldn't it? In any case, how could any revealed truth be greater in profundity or scope than the human mind in which it was 'revealed' could accommodate?
Baha'u'llah seems to agree here:
"To whatever heights the mind of the most exalted of men may soar, however great the depths which the detached and understanding heart can penetrate, such mind and heart can never transcend that which is the creature of their own conceptions and the product of their own thoughts. The meditations of the profoundest thinker, the devotions of the holiest of saints, the highest expressions of praise from either human pen or tongue, are but a reflection of that which hath been created within themselves, through the revelation of the Lord, their God." (Gleanings, no. 148, pp. 317–18)
The "truth" must surely then be as amenable to human reason as any "revelation" - mustn't it? Or to put it another way, isn't it quite possible that "divine truth" may be "revealed" BY the power of human reason, since it is unquestionable that any revelation - however mundanely or miraculously induced - must be amenable to human reason if it is to have the desired (or any) effect on human minds?
That being the case, is it not also true to say that any "revelation" about the Nature of Ultimate Reality (aka "God" if we want use that term) is, in fact, true for the humans in whose minds it is revealed? And by definition, the same revelation is, in fact, false for the humans in whose minds the revelation fails to be accommodated?
So a more apt illustration about our vision of "truth" - as opposed to "grasping" one "Truth" or imbibing from one pool of unchanging "Divine Wisdom", might be to say that although we are all looking at the same "mountain", we each view it from a different vantage point and see the same reality differently but (at least potentially) with equivalent accuracy and acuity. Or perhaps rather with equivalent obscurity and opacity - like the blind men in the old Hindu fable who wanted to 'see' what an elephant was like.
The Baha'i position is, of course, in keeping with the earlier Islamic tradition that it (essentially, socially and religiously) grew out of, that the Ultimate Reality is entirely ineffable and unapproachable in its effulgent glory and splendor - infinitely beyond the comprehension of human minds - which position raises the question of why anyone would imagine that any 'revelation' in any human mind (divinely or mundanely revealed) should be much (if at all) superior to a 'revelation' in any other human mind.
If the revelation of Christ or Buddha or Baha'u'llah is, in fact, genuinely superior to other revelations then that must surely be because the mind of Christ or Buddha or Baha'u'llah was superior to other minds - otherwise, how did their minds grasp the revelation in order to propagate it? And if their minds were superior anyway, what need had they of supernatural revelation which could, in any case, reveal only as much as their natural minds could accommodate?
If, on the other hand, we are holding that the measure of the revelations is not the greatness of the mind of the recipient, but rather the greatness of the 'movements' and 'civilizations' they inspired (as one of the main strands of the Baha'i argument in this thread has suggested repeatedly) then I would respectfully suggest that this is the theological equivalent of shutting one's eyes and 'grasping' an elephant by the tail to find out what one is like. And woe betide anyone who strives with closed eyes to examine an elephant (let alone "Christian" or "Islamic" culture) from behind!
But perhaps in the end there is no Ultimate Reality at all. Perhaps there is just a kind of "Divine Attractor" "pulling" civilizations and societies towards a "moving target" kind of "Omega Point" that is the asymptote of human potentiality (maybe that is what, each in their different ways, Christ, Buddha and Baha'u'llah represent) - a point - a unity - perhaps a 'singularity' of human 'purpose' - that is always before us but always tantalizingly beyond our grasp. It represents the best possible outcome from our various current vantage points, of all past and current human striving in a world in constant flux. The (currently apparent) ultimate synthesis in a fundamentally dialectical reality of unending process of change and opposition (God/no God, self/no self, me/not me...etc.). A point we will never actually reach - the end of our rainbow - a noble but ultimately unattainable goal that whilst unquestionably glorious and effulgent in the distance, is no less subject to change and decay than we are ourselves - and yet it is always 'there'.
So maybe the "greatness" of these "Beings" (Human Beings - if they existed at all as the individuals described in the traditions they inspired) is not so much in the fact that they inspired great civilizations (etc.), but that they provided (they are) an "omega point" towards which the societies of their times (still current in some cases) aspire(d). All equally valid, but not necessarily in all times or all places. But what makes (or made) them "great" is not the resultant cultural movement they trailed behind them, but the fact that in their time (in the time during which their influence prevailed) they set before us a vision, a model, that resonated with a large number of human intellects. None were either more or less "right" or "true" than the others - just more or less appealing to certain human audiences in certain times.
If this is right then God becomes the Divine Attractor and the "Divine Manifestations" are the Omega Points. God becomes the Divine Attractor, but the Divine Attractor does not need to be "God" - it could equally be "no God". It could be Human Wisdom. After all, there could be nothing in its "revelations" to us that cannot be accommodated and encapsulated within the span of human wisdom. But it is easy to see why it might wear the mask of God. I have no problem with that - but I also think there is a clear and present danger in refusing to unmask it at least occasionally so we can observe its expressions and see where it seems to be leading us - and why.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Instead of defending your belief, be introspective and willing to learn and ask questions. If you approach topics in a different manner, they won't be perceived as arguments but just interfaith dialogue offering
diverse opinions. Takes patience and flexibility, and a whole lot of chocolate chip breaks.
Maybe you’re right but I still think that we need to remove things like religious prejudice, racial discrimination and so on or wars will continue.
Yes but take a country like a North Korea. They needed the world to do something long ago but political ambitions have supplanted spiritual goals and their entire nation suffers because of it.
Spirituality needs to be far stronger than materialism and commercialism for the world to be a better place and currently it’s not permeating the world enough quick enough to make a difference.
Again those are your words. Every scripture of every Faith envisages a ‘time of its own end’. Why is Christ coming again if Christianity is going to remain in its pristine purity or Buddha returning and don’t forget even Buddha said His Dhamma would decay over 2,500 yrs and disappear entirely. Even the Quran says every age has its own Book and Teachings so if you refer to each Holy Book your contention that there is no respect for each religion can be found in their own verses that they will eventually come to an end one day and a new religion will appear.
I’m only sharing with you something you can find in clear verses of all Holy Books predicting that after time they will decay and require to be renewed. This quote from the Bhagavad Gita sums it up.
In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium. (Bhagavad-Gita 4:8)
And again
when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises in the world, then the true Dhamma disappears. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 16)
Those are not my damning words condemning any religion to oblivion but the purported Words of Buddha and Krishna indicating that a time will come when their religion will have fallen into error and will need to be renewed.
Spirituality is not an item like a utensil but things like honesty and humility and truthfulness. Above all spirituality is to have the humility to accept all the Manifestations God sends and not insist we know everything.