Will this convert you to believe in God?
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
Great answer.
look i am studying medical science, which can seem pritty mysterious. What your reaction be if there was someone convulsing on the ground. Thrashing around like they were possesed. I walk up to them and do something you dont see and they imediatly stop. I tell you that i excised the demon, would you belive me?
Hell no, you would ask what the drug i just injected into there but was
Hell no, you would ask what the drug i just injected into there but was
Star-gazer
Registered Member
If someone showed you a horse with a horn, whould you believe it was a unicorn.
Whom are you asking?
Kind of a broad subject
In short though there are 5 essential aspects to understanding god and how things relate to him
Isvara - god
Jiva - the living entity
Prakrti - material nature
Kala - time
Karma - material activity
You can find these things explained in more detail by scrolling down here till you come to "Tattva"
If these topics are understood properly and are practiced accordingly, one should be able to disassociate from the cultivation of issues of lust/anger/wrath.
Merely seeing something mystical won't cut the mustard - for instance science has been able to achieve many mystical things , but it hasn't made anyone more sober in their outlook of life.
Sometimes as a consequence of spiritual advancement mystical types of abilities develop, but they are not the fruits of actual spiritual discipline.
eg - SB 9.21.12 -I do not pray to the Supreme Personality of Godhead for the eight perfections of mystic yoga, nor for salvation from repeated birth and death. I want only to stay among all the living entities and suffer all distresses on their behalf, so that they may be freed from suffering.
they are working out of a different theoretical foundation (one of four)
this is dealt with here
Buddhists have access to a type of liberation (namely the cessation of material pangs) but because such a notion of perfection doesn't accommodate the existence of the living entity and god as eternal truths, eventually they fall down from such a state, being inevitably attracted to the sphere of activity again. (If one doesn't have recourse to spiritual activity - ie activity in connection to god - then that means one must seek activity in the material world)
Last edited:
Buddhism involves liberation from symbolic knowledge, such as "God". It's got nothing to do with perfection.
I don't know that. Now I'm just really fucking confused about everything like I was before. Thanks guys! (lol)
Lightgigantic,
Isvara - god
Jiva - the living entity
Prakrti - material nature
Kala - time
Karma - material activity
Ok, I read your link and see that they use a bunch of big words and say the same things over and over again (though I'm not really sure what that is).
I know we've talked about this before but that was eons ago and I forgot everything (my memory sucks). We were talking about what is the optimum relgion, or the optimum way to live life if I want to reach the pinnacle of existence (Nirvana, Heaven, being a God, etc.)
From your last post it seems to me (I may be wrong) that you are suggesting that Buddhism is NOT the optimum religion. There are ways of living which are "better" than Buddhism in terms of accomplishling the goal I mentioned above the fastest and most efficient way. Am I right with this (that you think Buddhism is inferior to other religions or ways of thinking)?
Aside from that, what truths have you personally found about the true reality that I should know. I know that guys like Victor Zammit (victorzammit.com) are saying that the Catholic church and the Christian doctrine as whole that "bad" people burn for eternity is bogus. He points out that whoever translated the Bible mistranslated the word "eon" to mean "eternity" only when eon was used in relation to punishment.
Clearly, Hinduism doesn't believe in an eternal "hell," only temporary hells where people get burned for a while but not forever. Would you say that Victor Zammit is correct in terms of this mistranslation of the word "eon" in the Bible as meaning eternal? If so, doesn't this say that the Christian/Catholic teachings of the true "reality" are FALSE in this sense, and that therefore the Christian/Catholic way of thought is INFERIOR to other ways of thought in this regard?
Again, you've always said that the best way to attaining the pinnacle of existence (Nirvana, Transcendence, etc.) is to have a better understanding of reality. You say that there is a supreme God being with his/her own personality. The Buddhists don't believe this, so according to you they are WRONG on this one fact of reality. You say that there is no eternal lake of fire (the literal one which the Bible speaks of). The current Bible translation says there is. Is this current Bible translation wrong?
Now you might say this isn't a big deal and that "every religion is right" like VitalOne and yourself to some extent used to constantly say.
But there is a quote in the Bhagavad Gita which says something like "where you end up immediately after you die depends greatly on what you are thinking at the moment of death." If this is true, then the Christians/Catholics who believe the current translation of the Bible (eternal hellfire) will most likely be very scared and think they are going to burn forever at the moment of death. This obviously will bring them to a bad place in the afterlife.
So my point is, is the Christian/Catholic teaching of the afterlife FALSE or not OPTIMUM?
One more thing:
In Christianity, one attains the highest level of existence (heaven) by simply believing a certain fact (Jesus was Son of God). That's it, there you go.
In Hinduism, one attains the highest level of existence (Nirvana, Moksha, etc.) by undertanding the truth of the reality of nature and through Dharma, correct actions (whatever those are).
So you can't say that Hinduism is true and also say that Christianity or any other religion is equal to Hinduism, because according to you it's not (otherwise you wouldn't be a Hindu and believe what your sect of Hinduism believes). According to you, Hinduism (or whatever specific sect of Hinduism you are) will lead you to Moksha or Nirvana much faster and much more efficiently than Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, a different sect of Hinduism, or any other religion or sect of a religion.
Last edited:
You because its just a hyothetical. I can't imagine ever seeing such a thing unless it were some kind of trick. The hum,an brain is irreversibly damaged withinh half an hour of death. That's a fact.
All statements are false.
women's intuition
What stock should I buy on Wall Street or London tomorrow ?
When I see that happen, or I see some concrete evidence, then I will believe.
Lol, okay. But there is something very wrong to me with the statement: "Nothing can prove to me that a God exists."
That's like saying, "Nothing can prove to me that the world is round." It is just as absurd as that statement.
Person 1: "Person 2, the world is round. See this picture from space? It proves it."
Person 2: "No it doesn't. The picture is fake. Someone created the picture. The world is definetely flat."
Person 1: "But if you fly around the earth you end up at the same point where you started."
Person 2: "All this proves is that the planes navigating equipment is fucked up."
etc. etc. etc.
No. I can imagine future technology that could take a sample of the corpse, e.g. dna, and reconstruct the person to an earlier live form. Reconstructing memory might be an issue.
The thread raises the idea though that if something qualifies as a god then it must be able to perform miracles. This issue was highlighted in the 300 year research on Q (the origins of Christianity) that showed that the earliest Christian writings made no reference to miracles and that the miracle stories all appeared at the same time later. The speculation was that as the Jesus idea began to take form it was noted that as a god he would need to be seen to have performed miracles to qualify - and hey presto - suitable stories were immediately generated.
The thread raises the idea though that if something qualifies as a god then it must be able to perform miracles. This issue was highlighted in the 300 year research on Q (the origins of Christianity) that showed that the earliest Christian writings made no reference to miracles and that the miracle stories all appeared at the same time later. The speculation was that as the Jesus idea began to take form it was noted that as a god he would need to be seen to have performed miracles to qualify - and hey presto - suitable stories were immediately generated.