Yet Wiki states that Buddhists believe there are gods. :shrug:
Some forms of Buddhism acknowledge the “
devas”, but these “beings” can hardly be called gods, Buddha says they are living is some sort of “parallel universes” or different “realms of existence”; and that they are not “higher” in any way than human beings. It is pointless to debate on whether these realms are real or just elaborated metaphors, as they are just ways to explain how our actions accumulate as karma and how is this karma fulfilled. And not meant to worship or try to contact these beings in any way. It is important to notice that none of the realms explained by the Buddha were eternal or timeless, but all temporary just as this reality we are living in.
Buddha explicitly denies the belief in any god or gods is necessary, and explicitly denies the belief in a soul, and declares again and again statements like:
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own commonsense”.
Through the centuries, Buddhist philosophers have formulated detailed arguments refuting the doctrine of a creator god.
Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion. Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word "atheism," however, like the word "godless," frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching.
Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nirvana. In making this statement, however, we must point out that
Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now.
Source.
“Not far from here do you need to look!
Highest existence — what can it avail?
Here in this present aggregate,
In your own body overcome the world!” – Gautam Buddha
Similar to Jesus statement huh? If not exactly the same, and neither of those taken “out of context”. Here is another example of the last one I posted, but this time from what I understand to be a better source (Thomas Gospel)”
“...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.”
Taken out of context in that, AFAIK, those quotes are not representative of the core teaching. Which is what you said.
Yes it is representative of the core teaching, and if someone would study philosophies such as Buddhism/Zen or Tantra and then re-reads Christian scriptures with this understanding of religion it can easily understand many parables and statements of Jesus that declare this very point. That otherwise have no sense whatsoever and orthodox Christians try to defend this parables and teachings in an ugly, memorized way, instead of explaining these things through their own insight.
[ENC]Science[/ENC]Which does not include metaphysics...
And I note that you haven't answered this question when I asked it of you.
Science: “A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.”
Well that is what the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra is, and no tantra method has been disproved by science, in fact many studies have been made of meditation giving
measurable results . It is absolutely testable and supported with evidence.
Still much to be discovered though, this is just the beginning.
Er, the discussion is about what religions teach (or don't).
Also if science will ever validate religious teachings, I would think Einstein is a valid scientist to quote, even more if his statements are in harmony with the teachings of many religions.
See my previous answer. The rest of the world disagrees with you. Get over it.
I don’t think I’m alone, even skeptics have a problem with defining religion as something to do with the belief in god; cause this definition discredit non-theistic religions, religion as a subjective way of life or contradictory religions. There have been many arguments of the complexity on defining religion
for legal purposes , and others argue the same as me (
that religion doesn’t necessarily include the belief in the supernatural ).
Many times definitions of the dictionary have been redefined, and religion is a very likely word to be redefined in the future.
Um, fail.
Knowing oneself, no matter how hard you look, does not supply answers about the universe or how it works.
How do you know that? Do you truly know yourself?
It's not a fact at all.
One example of your claims:
If you expect it to be proven don't believe it's real and just waiting to be proven?
I don’t “believe” in reincarnation, I just think it is the most likely “afterlife” outcome; and it also explains many things.
Also, you can’t tell a person who has experienced past lives that reincarnation is not a fact; I think someday science will be able to read people’s thoughts accurately, and true scientific evidence will come up.
Where have I said it will be proven wrong? On the other hand, there is no evidence that supports it is real. therefore it becomes a question of probabilities. Zero evidence despite claims and searching leads one to suppose that there's no substance to those claims.
You are claiming that science will kill religion, no?
‘Cause before religion disappears, important religious teachings such as reincarnation must be discarded by science; because if science proves reincarnation, it will validate the experiences of the sages who have described the process accurately, gaining much credibility from scientist.
To some people maybe.
How so?
The gradual changes we see from one species to another, both among current living beings and in fossils, can be explained by reincarnation: a gradual subtle change of the consciousness (evolving through the experiences of each life) of individual beings, reflected in the form of their bodies.
It is like saying “the memory remains”, I’m not including a soul in this equation, just something that remains that has the accumulated memory of our experiences.
Claiming (or, in some cases, having claims made on their behalf) to remember past lives.
Ah, yes. The crank. Try reading the opposing views of his "work".
I have nothing really has been proven or disproven scientifically, but you are right from a scientific standpoint it is not yet a fact. My point is that in the future there can be, and I really think that will be the case (merely based on logic).
