A serious question: religion?

[gougou]

Buddhism is self-centric (the ultimate superficiality).

Maybe I have the wrong understanding of the word superficial, but I don't see what it has to do with focusing on oneself.

As for the rest, I think you are oversimplifying. Apart of where they draw their wisdom from, a good Christian and a good Buddhist aren't all that different, are they? What I mean is, also Buddhists can make somebody else happy.

[elina]

Yes, Elina, I didn't want to be mean or ignorant, I was just relflecting my lack of vocabulary, that's all. I thought you were a native in the beginning if that helps

Sorry, nipponman, I misunderstood you, I seriously apologize for that.

The rise of Buddhism in China brought a lot of poverty to the people as well, as the Buddhist priests roamed city to city they would accept food and money offerings (for “blessing” people). Many monks in this time became extremely corrupt and this is where the statues of Buddha, portrayed as a fat man, come from

I think China’s poverty is caused by many reasons, including politics, I don’t want to talk about politics. Let me talk about Japan. I think there are lots of people in Japan believing in Buddhism, and is Japan poor? When you find “Many monks in this time became extremely corrupt”, at the same time, I see some Buddhists (I really don’t meet many Buddhists) are pretty good and honest people. I think it is like the way you explained to gougou

Look at the Vatican for example, the center of Christianity. Do they really need so much gold everywhere?

I think it is sad that most religions (I don't dare to say all, but I don't know of any exceptions) hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world.

Ok, once again, people are looking at the worst part of religion. Inevitably there are going to be people that exploit religion for their own personal gain... in EVERY religion (again, this goes back to the wickedness of man). I have never once hoarded money or "relics" or any such thing in my entire life! Nor has my church. I spend thousands of dollars every year going to orphanages, drug rehab centers, supporting churches, the families in their congregations, etc... from all around the world (from India to Russia to the Philippines, to South America, etc). You can't assume that everyone who claims to be part of a religion is actually obeying that religion's laws. That would be naive. Not everyone that calls themselves a Christian is a true Christian. So then, how can we categorize the atrocities of these so-called "Christians" as being something that is common to that religion? Here's an example: The crusades. The knights came down and raided Jerusalem, killing Jews (God's chosen people). While killing Jews they did it in the name of Christianity and sang hymns as they gathered Jews in Synagogues and burnt them alive. They did this, calling themselves Christians. Were they Christians? Absolutely not. So using your argument that generalizes a religion based on 1 person’s radical (and misguided) actions (ala Tele-evangelists that try to get money from you)… I could argue that Religion doesn’t hoard anything, and gives everything away… looking at Mother Teresa’s life, looking at what I do… both are examples of what good things religious people can do. Your argument is too generalized, and doesn’t have a very good foundation.

What Youshen said about it makes me suddenly understand something. I think Youshen is right. For example' date=' student A and student B are both in the same class and with the same mathematics teacher, student A is a good student, while student B is not. People can not get the conclusion that what the mathematics teacher taught (say 1+2=3) is wrong, just because of student B’s score and behavior. I think it is unfair to consider a religion in that way, religion is to give a road to people to be perfect, but does not guarantee that everyone who claims to believe in that religion is perfect. And the whole world is not perfect, I think the first sentence can be changed into different sentences:

1. “It is sad that most religions hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world”

1A. It is sad that most countries hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world

1B. It is sad that most organizations hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world

1C. It is sad that most companies hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world[/quote']

Buddhism on this message board has only discussed the introspection aspects and hasn’t really touched on the “deity” aspect yet.

Yes, and till now I agree with Buddhism on the philosophy level.

In religion, you cannot pick and choose what you want to believe.

Yes, I’d like to find and choose the one which is really right, no matter how tough the path is.

Is it true that in Buddhism, you pray to Buddha? Isn’t it true that you buy idols to pray to? This goes back to my original statement… how powerful is a religion where you have to buy the gods you pray to? I have known many Buddhists, and the single greatest thing that turned them away was that they got tired of buying their gods and seeing no results when they are praying.

Yes, the Buddhists whom I know pray to Buddha and buy some idols. But they said to me: it doesn’t matter if you buy the idol or not, it has no effect to the believing. By the way, my mother who is a Christian also buys something, like 十字架 or 耶稣像, etc.

[Battosai]

I would like to comment on several issues that were raised here,

Song You Shen said:

It is intriguing how you think that doing things in life to make God happy is superficial. Have you ever made someone else happy? How does it make you feel? I hope it makes you feel good (it should). I know that when I know I’ve made someone that I care fore happy, I feel great. When I know that I can live a life that is pleasing to the Lord, there is no greater feeling. Yet you believe in Buddhism. Buddhism is self-centric (the ultimate superficiality). Buddhism teaches that everything you need in life is already in *you*. That your goal is to find the unity of everything, but this can’t happen until *you* have found a deeper level of *introspection*. So I am not sure how you can claim something to be superficial.

I’m sorry .I meant to say that my understanding of Christianity is superficial. Not that the religion it self is superficial. I personally do not believe in the existence of an anthropomorphic God. I know some Christians that reject that notion as well. I suppose my understanding of reality is closer to that of certain mystics (which can be found in most religions) who sees God as ‘the force of Nature’. Like a primordial energy, that doesn’t have any human characteristics. It is neither happy nor sad. It doesn’t have a ‘will’. It is similar perhaps to the Tao (and Taoists please correct me if I’m wrong). It is the force that drives the world, if you flow with it you can be happy if you go against it you will end up in misery.

Have you ever studied the origins of Buddhism? The original Buddha was very much like Mahatma Gandhi. They were both very “good” men in their lives. Buddha, however, is not the typical Buddha that you see today. The first/original Buddha was so skinny that he almost died many times. This is extremely contrary to the fat Buddha that is used as an iconic symbol today. The rise of Buddhism in China brought a lot of poverty to the people as well, as the Buddhist priests roamed city to city they would accept food and money offerings (for “blessing” people). Many monks in this time became extremely corrupt and this is where the statues of Buddha, portrayed as a fat man, come from.

Buddhism on this message board has only discussed the introspection aspects and hasn’t really touched on the “deity” aspect yet. In religion, you cannot pick and choose what you want to believe. Is it true that in Buddhism, you pray to Buddha? Isn’t it true that you buy idols to pray to? This goes back to my original statement… how powerful is a religion where you have to buy the gods you pray to? I have known many Buddhists, and the single greatest thing that turned them away was that they got tired of buying their gods and seeing no results when they are praying.

The so-called Fat Buddha is only a symbol of Buddhism in the West. It is actually a Chinese monk and is specific to certain sects in China. You wont find him in Sri Lanka for example.

I don't understand why you raise the point of Buddhism supposedly causing poverty in China. In the name of Christianity thousands if not millions were killed in South America, Asia, Africa, The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, etc…Should we conclude that the teachings of Jesus are to blame? I don’t think so. People everywhere are misguided and deluded, they take even the purest, most gentle teachings and use them for their egocentric purposes. This does not mean that the teachings themselves are not beneficial.

This leads me to a good point you make. You say that praying to idols is a part of Buddhism. You are correct. It is a part of the culture of Buddhism. It is however not part of the teachings of the Buddha. There have been many movements throughout history that tried to revert Buddhism into its original path. Zen in China is one of them, Nichiren in Japan is another and Western Buddhism in our times is perhaps another. As a Westerners I take refuge in the teachings of the Buddha but not in Buddhism- the culturally specific organised religion.

You say ‘Buddhism is self centred’. I don’t know how to relate to this sort of statement, perhaps you are right. But the teachings of the Buddha are not. The teachings of the Buddha are all about breaking the monopoly of the ego on our perception of reality.

In Sanskrit the teachings of the Buddha are called the ‘Dharma’ (I think its fofa 佛法in Chinese) . It’s best to make a distinction between Buddhism (fojiao佛教) and the Dharma.

Jun Heng Clinic said :

But I find that living in the 'Now' bring me life and joy. Perhaps largely because when I follow the Way I cannot worry; worry is totally antagonistic to the Way of peace and truth. Worry deceives you about the past and the future - and stops you from living in the present. But to face truth is to abandon worry and *deal with* the present. I find this inspirational and releases my faculties to deal with my life. I don't find it a 'tough path' really. Could you explain what you said in more detail? Maybe I have misunderstood it - or maybe you have only shared part of your understanding. Or maybe I have another depth to go to in my life here ... ;)

When I examine the present I see it full of misery and anxiety . In Buddhism we make a separation between an experience called ‘absorption’ and another called ‘awareness’. If you meditate you will probably reach a stage where you are no longer worrying about the future or thinking about the past. This sort of concentration has many levels ,it is also called an absorption and it's a very pleasant experience. For the Buddhist practitioner these stages are only a tool for examining reality. When reality is examined deeply and patiently , one sees that the sensations that arise in the body-mind complex create a reaction . This reaction is misery. If the sensation is pleasant, craving is generated (however subtle- but it sows the seed for future misery). If unpleasant, aversion is generated (again sometimes a very subtle reaction). This awareness is what makes following the Buddhist path a ‘difficult’ one. Ultimately though Buddhism is about freedom and not about suffering. It is a tough path but for me its well worth it.

I am glad to hear that you experience joy. How do you practice?

I hope my less than adequate explanation gives you at least some idea of how I see it. I am not so good at expressing myself.

All the best to everyone,

[Song You Shen]

I don't understand why you raise the point of Buddhism supposedly causing poverty in China.

The so-called Fat Buddha is only a symbol of Buddhism in the West. It is actually a Chinese monk and is specific to certain sects in China. You wont find him in Sri Lanka for example.

It was not my intention to connect Buddhism as the single cause of poverty in China. I used that allusion, not to attack Buddhism, but to re-inforce the argument from where the "Fat Buddha" icon came from (used for historical purposes rather than argumentative purposes). Sorry if it sounded otherwise.

However, I do not agree that the "Fat Buddha" symbol is a western thing. I have been to the Philippines, Korea, and Japan. In each of these Eastern coutnries I have seen the same fat Buddha's. I understand that there are many different types of Buddha's (and thus, many types of statues), but the Fat Buddha is the most prolific icon when it comes to Buddhism.

Youshen

[Jun Heng Clinic]

Hi Youshen. Thank you for some stimulating points!

Basically I don't want to dissuade you from your commitment to Christianity. If it is helping you along the way then I am pleased. But what does seriously worry me is when I see fundamentalists 'kick everyone else into touch' and assert that they - and only they - are right on the planet.

I believe that this attitude is extremely dangerous - both to the individuals themselves and everyone else.

So before I get into any deailed responses to your points I have two serious questions for you:

(1) Is there any possibility that your current understanding of the Bible on basic issues (such as the Trinity, the inspiration of Scripture and the means of salvation) could be wrong?

(2) Where did you get these ideas from anyway? I know you claim that they come from the Bible - but ask yourself honestly (I mean really honestly) whether you had heard them from other Christians BEFORE you had decided on their veracity.

It is my firm belief that to consider that you could be wrong about a thing is the first prerequisite for growth - and this applies to anything in life.

I know that your friends in Christianity will say that this is the devil talking and you must just hold fast to the fundamentals and close your ears to that which you hear from the left and right.

This type of 'fingers in the ear' and 'blinkers on' approach is what gives rise to things like Waco and most of the religious wars on this planet.

If your beliefs really are correct, they will stand up to totally honest scrutiny! Be bold, be strong ... and be honest with yourself!

Now about the detailed points you raised. To fully answer them would require a book - and my memory is not terribly good, so I can't remember my detailed findings from the Bible (this was 5-15 years ago). It would take me much too long to answer - so you can consider yourself to have won these detailed arguments if you want

But I'll just try to say a few things:

SONG YOUSHEN WROTE:-

What were you devoted to? To the religion? To the ideas of Christianity? I don’t want to be mean when I say this, but you were not devoted to God if you consider yourself agnostic now.

DAVID: I was a committed Christian in my opinion; at least as much as most of everyone els around me. I didn't live a perfect life - I disobeyed God frequently - and then sincerely felt bad about it, confessed to God, sought his help to change - and tried to change. Your words above seem to imply that it is impossible for someone who was at one time devoted to God to later become agnostic. I think others (non-Chrisitians) would find this odd. Can you explain here. Do you believe that 'once saved - always saved'?

SONG YOUSHEN WROTE:-

Really? I find it hard to believe that what has been approved as doctrine over the last 500-1000 years was completely overturned by you.

I have no confidence in 'the establishment'. Sure I basically keep the law of the land etc. But I would not trust my spiritual life (or eternal fate, for that matter) to what some vicar or priest declared, or what some council of vicars or priests, decided 1500 years ago. What makes you think that the various councils who determined which books to keep and drop from the Bible (and who determined the Trinity etc) were 'inspired'. I have no reason to have any confidence in them; my impression is that they were highly politically motivated.

SONG YOUSHEN WROTE:-

the first mention of the trinity was in the Book of Genesis where it says “and created man in *our* image.” The plurality of the word indicated that there was more than 1, if you study out the word you will find that it describes the 3 in 1 factor of the trinity.

DAVID: I am (or was) familiar with that passage in Genesis. It does say "our" image. But of course the Hebrew for God is elohim, which is a plural word. In Hebrew there is no difference between "God" or "gods". There are passages in the Old Testament where it is clearly stated that God is present among many gods. There are many gods, though the Old Testament teaches that Jehovah (Yahweh) is the chief god. So this passage from Genesis could just be translated, "Then the gods said 'Let us make man in our image' ". This does not prove the Trinity. All it does is show that there is some type of plurality within deity, ie there is more than one god.

SONG YOUSHEN WROTE:-

So you say salvation is based on works? Where does it describe this? Doesn’t the Bible say “Without faith it is impossible to please God”? Doesn’t is also say that the “Justified shall live by faith”? Faith and works go hand in hand. You cannot do one without the other, that is why the scripture says “Faith without works is dead.”

DAVID: Hmm, I was writing in a somewhat exaggerated, poetic, sense here in order to put right what I see as a serious imbalance. I would never deny that faith is the motivator of works. I would say, however, that huge portions of the Bible (and not just Old Testament, also much of Jesus's teachings, Revelation, James and even, if I remember correctly, some of Paul's words) show that totally radical lifestyle is necessary if you are to call yourself a Christian. Many sermons preached in Christian churches state that while he walked the streets of Palestine 2000 years ago, Jesus was saying: "Stop doing those hypocritical Pharasaical good works; instead believe in me." 'Belief in Christ' is described by many clerics today as something you do in your head or in your heart. But Jesus's message was actually totally different from this type of believing. His message was, largely, "Stop doing those hypocritical Pharasaical good works; instead FEED THE POOR AND LOOK AFTER THE ORPHANS". In other words, "DO TRULY BENEVOLENT WORKS to show your devotion to God." My belief is that this would create a very different type of Christianity!

SONG YOUSHEN WROTE:-

What are these “component books” you are talking about? There are no component books to the bible.

DAVID: No big deal, Youshen; I just meant 'the books of the Bible', Genesis, Exodus, ... , Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.

SONG YOUSHEN WROTE:-

You talk about original languages (i.e. more than 1 language), but the New Testament was only written in Greek.

DAVID: You are quite right here. I read the New Testament in koine (aka comon) Greek. I also studied a little Hebrew (for the Old Testament), but never got very fluent at that.

SONG YOUSHEN WROTE:-

You also talk about using literal translation. By using literal translation you are basically throwing out contextual meaning.

DAVID: I'm afraid I don't agree here. Literal (source-langauage oriented) translations open up the text, and let the reader see the contextual flows of themes more openly. The reader then has the opportunity to identify those contextual thematic flows and interpret based on them. Of course, this is what translators do when they translate. So when you read an idiomatic (target-language oriented) translation, all the work has already been done for you. Well, that's fine if you totally trust the translator. The only problem is that the reality is that individual words and phrases generally contains A LOT of ambiguity, which can only be resolved with reference to the broader thematic flows and the translators end up having to take QUITE A LOT of views regarding these thematic flows - and ascertaining and evaluating these thematic flows is something where personal bias can easily come in. All of this just means that if you only read idiomatic transations you are substantially at the mercy of the translators. That's my view anyway.

SONG YOUSHEN WROTE:-

The Bible says the wisdom of man is as foolishness to God. The Bible was not meant to be interpreted by Man (as to what the Bible “must be” saying), but to be revealed by God (as to what the Bible “is” saying).

DAVID: Does this mean that you should stop thinking? (Serious question here.)

SONG YOUSHEN WROTE:-

In these responses, I do not want them to seem as an attack. But I need to bring correction to what you are saying.

DAVID: Thank you for your good will, Youshen.

But having said all of that, I don't want the above specifics to cloud something that I see as a much more important issue; the willingness to let others be as they will and the willngness to enable oneself to change and grow. If you deny these, then you may find that in the years to come you will stagnate.

[Song You Shen]

Jun Heng, thank you for your kind response. I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

1. Is there any possibility that your current understanding of the Bible on basic issues (such as the Trinity' date=' the inspiration of Scripture and the means of salvation) could be wrong?

2. Where did you get these ideas from anyway? I know you claim that they come from the Bible - but ask yourself honestly (I mean really honestly) whether you had heard them from other Christians BEFORE you had decided on their veracity.

3. Can you explain here. Do you believe that 'once saved - always saved'?

4. What makes you think that the various councils who determined which books to keep and drop from the Bible (and who determined the Trinity etc) were 'inspired'. I have no reason to have any confidence in them; my impression is that they were highly politically motivated.

5. In Hebrew there is no difference between "God" or "gods". There are passages in the Old Testament where it is clearly stated that God is present among many gods. There are many gods, though the Old Testament teaches that Jehovah (Yahweh) is the chief god.

6. Many sermons preached in Christian churches state that while he walked the streets of Palestine 2000 years ago, Jesus was saying: "Stop doing those hypocritical Pharasaical good works; instead believe in me." 'Belief in Christ' is described by many clerics today as something you do in your head or in your heart. But Jesus's message was actually totally different from this type of believing. His message was, largely, "Stop doing those hypocritical Pharasaical good works; instead FEED THE POOR AND LOOK AFTER THE ORPHANS". In other words, "DO TRULY BENEVOLENT WORKS to show your devotion to God

7. I'm afraid I don't agree here. Literal (source-langauage oriented) translations open up the text, and let the reader see the contextual flows of themes more openly. The reader then has the opportunity to identify those contextual thematic flows and interpret based on them. Of course, this is what translators do when they translate. So when you read an idiomatic (target-language oriented) translation, all the work has already been done for you. Well, that's fine if you totally trust the translator. The only problem is that the reality is that individual words and phrases generally contains A LOT of ambiguity, which can only be resolved with reference to the broader thematic flows and the translators end up having to take QUITE A LOT of views regarding these thematic flows - and ascertaining and evaluating these thematic flows is something where personal bias can easily come in. All of this just means that if you only read idiomatic transations you are substantially at the mercy of the translators. That's my view anyway.

8. Does this mean that you should stop thinking? (Serious question here.)[/quote']

Here are my responses:

1. No. I know this sounds closed minded and prideful, but really it isn’t. Let me try to explain. Say there are two students. Each student comes from a different country. One country has the correct teaching that 1+1=2 and the other country says that 1+2=2. Student 1 has the correct knowledge of math and know the *true answer. The second student doesn’t know the truth, but rather, only perceives the truth based on what he has been taught for so many years. When these students come together, both will argue. The first student must seem very closed minded if he does not accept that 1+1 might not actually =2. Even more so, Student 1 must seem very prideful to claim that he has the “correct” answer. I gave you this example to try to explain that truth is not a relative term.

a. Here is the main, #1 reason why I do not believe I am wrong. I know God. I have relationship with Him. I have seen crippled people from birth get up out of wheelchairs, people with cancer get healed. Blind people healed. All of these I’ve seen in person. I have prayed for people and they have gotten healed. I have been healed. I have heard the voice of God, I have prophesied many times and they are true and accurate. I could continue give more examples, these are just a few…

2. I cannot say that all I have learnt, I learnt myself through reading the bible. But what I am taught in doctrine, I check and verify in the Bible myself to affirm its veracity. The Bible is extremely clear about the means of salvation, etc.

3. No, I do no believe that once you are save, you are always saved. This does not fall into line with what the Bible teaches. What I believe is, if you have ever encountered God in a real way and have a relationship with Jesus, there is no way you can possibly deny Him. Yes, you can turn away from Him, but you still know that He is the one and only God, you just refuse to follow Him. Being agnostic means that you have the knowledge that there is something out there, but don’t attribute it to any specific god. That’s why I questions what exactly you were committed to. Even if someone is committed to the theology of Christianity or the doctrines, it is still easy to disregard the traditions of man, however to deny Christ as the true God demonstrates much different. In other words, it’s easy to deny an idea, but it is impossible to deny the reality of a person.

......................

[Song You Shen]

4. What types of doctrines did you listen to? The types of doctrines used in Pentecostal/evangelical churches today did not come from the Catholic Church. They originated in the first church in Jerusalem (as well as the churches that are most commonly talked about in the New Testament). The doctrines were formed by leaders in these Churches, leaders like Peter, James, Paul, etc. The 12 Apostles. Overtime, other doctrines were suppressed. Salvation through faith was discarded by the Catholic Church so that people would continue to pay the priest to remove their sins. Martin Luther was the first to rebel against this horrible lie. He studied out the scriptures (which was not allowed in those times) and found the Just Shall Live by Faith. The original doctrine of the grace of salvation was restored. So I do not know how you would assume the statement you used.

5. Actually, you are incorrect on this. The Hebrew language is centered around “Agape.” This is a word that communicates a godly-love. The center of the language is formed around the one true God (Jehovah). The name “Elohim” is a Jewish word for God. Yes, it is pluralistic, but it refers specifically to Jehovah. Then you might ask, why does the bible mention other “gods”. In Jewish belief, angels, demons and other spiritual beings were considered ‘gods’, but in Jewish/Hebrew belief, there were no other gods that were equal to Jehovah. Elohim was Jehovah. If you have ever studied the names of God (there are so many, like 50-100) you will be able to understand this better.

6. Jesus made it very clear that the first commandment was, “Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind.” This is a direct line of information that specifically talks about the spiritual relationship with God. He then says, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” However, he never mentions that they are the same thing. The bibles says that you must believe first (in Romans) in order to be saved. There are many people in the world who do great works, but they are not saved. They do not believe. How so could they show their devotion to God?

7. I have taken many classes on translation. In every one of these classes, you will be taught that literal translation will not give you the full-correct meaning. You cannot create a “flow” if you do not understand the thinking style and process of that culture. Psalms is a great example. It is Hebrew poetry. However, it will never make sense if you do not understand how Hebrew poetry works. And within that, if you do not understand what cultural words mean or why certain experessions are used, then you will not be able to fully grasp what is being said.

8. No, on the contrary. In all of my arguments about what the bible is talking about I have used scripture to back myself up. I do not give you what I think, but I show you what the Bible says. Revelation is when God opens the understanding of man. The bible says, you know in part because you see [understand] in part. God, opening revelation in the bible is not based on man’s conclusion of what it must be saying.

This type of 'fingers in the ear' and 'blinkers on' approach is what gives rise to things like Waco and most of the religious wars on this planet.

Actually, things like Waco occur because people “study” the bible and come up with erroneous doctrines that other people follow.

Just so you don’t think that I’m pulling all of this out of my butt, I’ll mention that I graduated from an International Bible College. In this place I studied out many different religions, and many different doctrines. I have thoroughly studied these out and have compared them to the Bible.

Youshen

[eddiewouldgo]

God was never created. God had no beginning, and will have no end. God is God, and there were none before Him. This is hard for us to understand, because we can't fully grasp the idea of something having no beginning. We think in terms of "beginnings" and "endings". In this way, our thinking is extremely limited. God lives outside the realm of time, and therefore He does not operate on the basis of time.

You always come up with this kind of claim whiout prove and backing it up. How do you prove God had no beginning and no end. HOW?? Because the Bible says so??

Are you limiting yourself by saying something that has no beginning and no ending?

[nipponman]

You always come up with this kind of claim whiout prove and backing it up. How do you prove God had no beginning and no end. HOW?? Because the Bible says so??

Are you limiting yourself by saying something that has no beginning and no ending?

Well, as a christian you know that God has no beginning. But for an atheist, it is hard. Just go with it, no one can prove the Bible wrong.

[gougou]

Song You Shen, Jun Heng Clinic, I sincerely enjoy following the debate between you two; it is nice to listen to somebody who actually knows what he is talking about.

Would either of you object if I would put down the differences in thought between you to Song You Shen being religious, Jun Heng Clinic being philosophical?

[Jun Heng Clinic]

Gougou wrote:-

Would either of you object if I would put down the differences in thought between you to Song You Shen being religious, Jun Heng Clinic being philosophical?

DAVID:

Hi Gougou. Good to hear from you! I certainly wouldn't object; I think you're right. And I apologize if some people feel that I have made my recent posts off-topic - Elina's original post was about religion, not philosophy - but I have been writing about philosophy for quite a few posts now!

The reason for my doing this is that I have noticed that as soon as the subject of spirituality and the meaning of life is raised in the West people tend to put themselves immediately somewhere on the religious---atheist spectrum; the meaning of life has in my view been somewhat hijacked by religion, and *philosophy* as a meaning of life has been forgotten, possibly in part due to the appallingly impractical nature of most Western philosphy. But oriental philosophy is powerfully practical and using it I believe you can be a very spiritually aware (and spiritually active) person without holding any view on the God issue.

Ciao.

[Jun Heng Clinic]

Hi Youshen

Thank you for such a carefully written a thorough response! I was particularly interested by your reference to the first and second commandments; I need to think this one through - could take some time!

Ciao.

[elina]

(David, please check your e-mail box, we have sent three letters to you to confirm your receiving address, but no response. Now I also sent you a private message here on this website, in case If your e-mail box has problem to enter! )

For the Buddhist practitioner these stages are only a tool for examining reality. When reality is examined deeply and patiently , one sees that the sensations that arise in the body-mind complex create a reaction . This reaction is misery. If the sensation is pleasant, craving is generated (however subtle- but it sows the seed for future misery). If unpleasant, aversion is generated (again sometimes a very subtle reaction). This awareness is what makes following the Buddhist path a ‘difficult’ one. Ultimately though Buddhism is about freedom and not about suffering. It is a tough path but for me its well worth it.

I’m afraid that I could not understand this paragraph clearly, could you please make an example? Many thanks in advance.

1. No. I know this sounds closed minded and prideful, but really it isn’t. Let me try to explain. Say there are two students. Each student comes from a different country. One country has the correct teaching that 1+1=2 and the other country says that 1+2=2. Student 1 has the correct knowledge of math and know the *true answer. The second student doesn’t know the truth, but rather, only perceives the truth based on what he has been taught for so many years. When these students come together, both will argue. The first student must seem very closed minded if he does not accept that 1+1 might not actually =2. Even more so, Student 1 must seem very prideful to claim that he has the “correct” answer. I gave you this example to try to explain that truth is not a relative term.

Who is Student 1 and who is Student 2, it’s question to me.

I have seen crippled people from birth get up out of wheelchairs, people with cancer get healed. Blind people healed. All of these I’ve seen in person. I have prayed for people and they have gotten healed. I have been healed. I have heard the voice of God, I have prophesied many times and they are true and accurate. I could continue give more examples, these are just a few…

Youshen, I trust you. Even if I have not known you personally, but I know you from this thread, you’re an honest person. Meanwhile I trust my colleague who is a Buddhist, she also said that she saw believing in Buddhism makes some ill people become healthy. I think maybe these miracles are caused by the power of people’s believing, no matter which religion they believe in.

Song You Shen, Jun Heng Clinic, I sincerely enjoy following the debate between you two; it is nice to listen to somebody who actually knows what he is talking about.

Me too, I also quite enjoy these.

[Song You Shen]

You always come up with this kind of claim whiout prove and backing it up. How do you prove God had no beginning and no end. HOW?? Because the Bible says so??

Are you limiting yourself by saying something that has no beginning and no ending?

How it is possible to prove that something has no end and no beginning? There is nothing in our known *physical* existence that has these types of characteristics. What proof can be given? You cannot try to prove something spiritual with natural science. In essence they will never be comparable. And no' date=' I am not limiting myself by saying something has no beginning and no end. Actually, I am accepting that there is something so great that my mind cannot even comprehend it, thus I am actually removing the limits on myself.

Would either of you object if I would put down the differences in thought between you to Song You Shen being religious, Jun Heng Clinic being philosophical?

No, I would not object to that. However, I do not see there being a huge difference between religion and philosophy. Religion is "living life based on personal beliefs in a greater power" and philosophy is "living life based on personal beliefs in man's potential." I think that philosophy has placed man's potentional as the "greater power", and so, in this sense, Philosophy is the same thing as religion. But this is just my feelings concerning the two.

Thank you for such a carefully written a thorough response! I was particularly interested by your reference to the first and second commandments; I need to think this one through - could take some time!

No worries, take your time. I wish I could develop my thoughts better, I usually have to do all the writing at work while no one is watching. This makes it hard for my thoughts to come out as smoothly as I would wish.

Who is Student 1 and who is Student 2' date=' it’s question to me.

Youshen, I trust you. Even if I have not known you personally, but I know you from this thread, you’re an honest person. Meanwhile I trust my colleague who is a Buddhist, she also said that she saw believing in Buddhism makes some ill people become healthy. I think maybe these miracles are caused by the power of people’s believing, no matter which religion they believe in.[/quote']

Student 1 is the student that has the scientifically correct answer while Student 2 has an answer that he believes is correct. The point of that illustration was to explain how hard it would be to concete that you are wrong when you know, unequivatably, that you are correct. Sometimes this can be seen as pride, and sometimes it can be seen as close-minded.

As far as Buddhist healings, there is a level of natural healing that your body does. Have you ever taken psychology? When studying psychology there is a certian level of "healing" that you mind can give your body. However, I would have to know what these healings were. I refrained from using examples of what I have heard from other Christians, because it does take away from the authenticity of what is being said. I can trust what you have seen, but I cannot trust what you have been told by someone else. Do you understand? When I talk about healing, I am not talking about somone that is sick with a cold, or sick pneumonia (sp?) or something like that... because in actuallity, your body can heal itself, in time, of those types of things. I am talking about degenerative diseases where there is no physical or scientific cure for. My frined who had a documented heart murmer who was healed, my other friend who had a hole in his heart at birth was healed. I have seen limbs that have been crooked and paralyzed since birth straightened so the person can walk. I have seen tumors literally fall off of people (very gross), etc. Powerful healings that cannot be healed or explained by natural abilities of the mind or positive thinking. These types of things, even if I wanted to, I could not deny to reality of God. It is not I who heal these people for praying for them, but it is God. There are many times when I wish people would get healed, but they don't... no matter how hard I wish for somethng, or how many possitive thoughts I have, it won't heal the person. There has to be a supernatural explination to something that happens super-naturally. It is the very definition of the word, super-natural (above/over nature). Something that is impossible to be accomplished or done by natural means.

I hope this helps.

Youshen

[gougou]

However, I do not see there being a huge difference between religion and philosophy. Religion is "living life based on personal beliefs in a greater power" and philosophy is "living life based on personal beliefs in man's potential." I think that philosophy has placed man's potentional as the "greater power"

But isn't that a huge difference?

[Song You Shen]

Does this mean that you should stop thinking? (Serious question here.)

I was reading through the book of Romans tonight and I came across a scripture that might help answer this question. The reference is Romans 8:6-8

v.6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

v.7 Because the carnal mind is enmity againt God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

v.8 So then, those who in the flesh cannot please God.

So to answer youself. Yes, I should stop thinking carnally, but I should continue be spiritually minded. This does not mean that I am open to different religions or whatever. What it is talking about is being spiritually minded with the things of God. Hope that helps explain it a little better.

But isn't that a huge difference?

Actually no, it isn't a big difference. Basically what those sentences are saying is...

Religion = the ultimate purpose is to serve a supernatural/spiritual being. There is a god to serve.

Philosophy = the ultimate purpose is to serve man. There is a god to serve, and that god is man and the intellect of man.

So if you look at it like this, man and the intellect of man is elivated to a god-like satus in philosophy. Because this happens, the both of these things (philosophy and religion) share the same common goal = the purpose of man is to serve their gods. Does this make more sense?

Youshen

[gougou]

So if you look at it like this, man and the intellect of man is elivated to a god-like satus in philosophy. Because this happens, the both of these things (philosophy and religion) share the same common goal = the purpose of man is to serve their gods. Does this make more sense?

Yeah, I see what you mean. I suppose in general, both serve to give life a purpose. But the ways to this purpose, aren't they fundamentally different?

It's a bit like football, both teams' aim is to score a touchdown. They are basically the same, but they keep on running in different directions...

[Jun Heng Clinic]

Hi Youshen!

SONG YOUSHEN WROTE:-

Originally Posted by Jun Heng

Does this mean that you should stop thinking? (Serious question here.)

I was reading through the book of Romans tonight and I came across a scripture that might help answer this question. The reference is Romans 8:6-8

v.6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

v.7 Because the carnal mind is enmity againt God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

v.8 So then, those who in the flesh cannot please God.

So to answer youself. Yes, I should stop thinking carnally, but I should continue be spiritually minded. This does not mean that I am open to different religions or whatever. What it is talking about is being spiritually minded with the things of God. Hope that helps explain it a little better.

DAVID: Interesing. I have some things to say on this, but need some time. Ciao.

[Jun Heng Clinic]

BATTOSAI WROTE:-

When I examine the present I see it full of misery and anxiety . In Buddhism we make a separation between an experience called ‘absorption’ and another called ‘awareness’. If you meditate you will probably reach a stage where you are no longer worrying about the future or thinking about the past. This sort of concentration has many levels ,it is also called an absorption and it's a very pleasant experience. For the Buddhist practitioner these stages are only a tool for examining reality. When reality is examined deeply and patiently , one sees that the sensations that arise in the body-mind complex create a reaction . This reaction is misery. If the sensation is pleasant, craving is generated (however subtle- but it sows the seed for future misery). If unpleasant, aversion is generated (again sometimes a very subtle reaction). This awareness is what makes following the Buddhist path a ‘difficult’ one. Ultimately though Buddhism is about freedom and not about suffering. It is a tough path but for me its well worth it.

I am glad to hear that you experience joy. How do you practice?

I hope my less than adequate explanation gives you at least some idea of how I see it. I am not so good at expressing myself.

All the best to everyone,

DAVID: Hi Battosai. This is very interesting. I would love it if you could explain your experience in a little more detail, in particular where the suffering comes from. But it seems to me that it is coming from your appreciation of the WHOLE of life, and therefore you are really sensing the suffering of others.

Maybe I am less developed and cannot see the whole of nature. When I meditate (basically following Mantak Chia's method, though only a complete beginner) I find I can understand my self (motivations etc) very clearly and see my whole life in balance. This brings me peace since while living everyday life (at work etc) I tend to get 'worked up' about things that are really not that important to me at a deeper level - but the more superficial things have a way of coming to the surface in everyday life and thereby get more attention - because they shout louder. But when you meditate it seems that the quieter, deeper thoughts can be sensed, bringing deeper understanding of yourself and your life.

I have also, only very recently, noticed that when I meditate, the greater understanding of myself is freeing me to show love and compassion to others. But this is only beginning - watch this space.

I don't really have any deep experience of the pain of others.

What do you think?

Taoism, as I understand it, does not really teach compassion directly; it teaches naturalness - following the way of nature. I understand that it teaches that when your mind is quiet and centred and your qi is flowing then you are in a place to sense what is right and what is wrong - and how you should move in the world. In other words, it leaves it up to the adept to learn about rightness and compassion from within. I suspect this is slightly different from Buddhism, which positively teaches benevolence. Am I right? Maybe this is part of the reason for our different experiences?

Also, interstingly, Mantak Chia has I think been influenced by Buddhism (his esoteric yoga systems are quite ecclectic) and he does write about love and benevolence quite a lot and it might be that I will encounter this later in his books - as I have said I am only a total beginner.

All the best to you!

[Jun Heng Clinic]

Hi elina.

Just wanted to say thank you for starting this thread. I'm getting a lot out of it!

All the best

(Ps: I can't get into my email server at the moment for some reason - though I was checking it regularly up to 6 hours ago. Don't know why I haven't seen your emails yet. Anyway, could you please use the same postage address as last time? David Gordon, c/o Inspired HR Ltd, 3-5 Islington High St, etc. Thank you!)