Religions you have rejected

[FireDragon76]

Here's something else to consider, from Fr. Thomas Hopko, of blessed memory:

Fr. Hopko: 10 Essential Conditions for Coming to Know God’s Truth and Finding Life

I particularly think #1 is worth considering seriously:

The belief that the truth of things can be known, and the desire to know the truth and to do it, wherever it leads, is most essential. Indeed it is everything. When people have this desire and seek truth in order to do it, and are ready to do it whatever it takes to find it, know it and do it, God promises that they will find, and understand and live. In a sense, this desire and seeking is all that is necessary.

This just echoes what Jesus himself said in Matthew 7:7. God isn't the type to play tricks on people, he wants to be known. But our own sinfulness often clouds us to that reality.


In my case, my search for a life lived with integrity lead me out of the Orthodox church, but I still think it is good basic advice. Fr. Hopko is not wrong in that regard, that's all sound advice.

 

[ananda]

One theme of Hinduism is the idea that the Hindu is "one with everything" / "all is one" / "the entire universe can be seen in the tiniest grain of rice" / etc. Eating and defecating is a reminder of those "one with everything" ideas on a daily basis IMO. (As a disclaimer, my knowledge of Hinduism doesn't go much further than hearing these types of slogans and skimming the Bhagavad Gita one time. That being said, I have read that the common requirement for people to call their beliefs Hindu is a reverence for the Vedas (much like reverence for the Bible). That might be another reason to dismiss Hinduism by your standards?)

Another distinction I see between Hinduism and Buddhism is the idea that "Buddhism is Hinduism for export". Hinduism is hard to decouple from the people of India - much like Judaism. The ancient definition of religion was the culture of an ethnicity rather than a set of truths that could be accepted and practiced by any ethnicity. Hinduism fits that ancient definition of religion better than the modern definition. That is probably another reason for non-Indians to reject Hinduism.

As I understand it, Vedism is reportedly the cultural forefather of both Buddhism and Hinduism. The early Vedic scriptures which predates Buddhism focused mainly on rituals, sacrifice, and propitiation of the early Vedic gods.

Beginning around the time of the Buddha's life, various contemplative & meditative traditions started to spring up, which resulted in both Buddhism & sramana (contemplative) Hinduism. The early Buddhist writings has the Buddha stating that he was a "knower of the Vedas" and that he rejected them.

The early form of ritualistic Vedism, as I described above, gradually grew into what we see today as priestly Hinduism. Contemplative/meditative Buddhism transformed centuries later into devotional Buddhism (Mahayana). In that sense, I personally find little appeal in Vedism, priestly Hinduism, and late Buddhism. They are essentially faith-based religions.

Although early Buddhism and sramana Hinduism share some ideas (like causality aka kamma, the cycle of life, etc.), I wouldn't say Buddhism is "Hinduism for export". Their core ideas & end goals are radically different.

 

[cloudyday2]

Although early Buddhism and sramana Hinduism share some ideas (like causality aka kamma, the cycle of life, etc.), I wouldn't say Buddhism is "Hinduism for export". Their core ideas & end goals are radically different.

Where do you see the differences? As I understand it, the ultimate goal of both religions is to become enlightened and escape reincarnation. Or maybe that isn't true of Buddhism, and of course there is a lot more to each religion than that. But anyway, I am curious where you see the commonalities and differences if you have time to respond.

 

[FireDragon76]

Where do you see the differences? As I understand it, the ultimate goal of both religions is to become enlightened and escape reincarnation. Or maybe that isn't true of Buddhism, and of course there is a lot more to each religion than that. But anyway, I am curious where you see the commonalities and differences if you have time to respond.

Some forms of Hinduism are about that, others think of salvation in terms similar to Abrahamic religions. Hinduism is extremely diverse.

 

[dzheremi]

Magic and psi (ESP) claim that the believer is primarily in control rather than some deity. (Of course some forms of magic claim spirits are acting on behalf of the magician which is more like Christian prayer - particularly prayer asking help from saints or angels.)

Anyway, the fact that the magician or psychic is in control opens up more opportunity for scientific study. The results are not so subject to the whim of some fickle deity.

Is the magician or psychic thereby assumed to be less fickle than some deity?

Another appealing thing about magic and psi is the more hand-on approach. Rather than being told what is true and what is not true, the magician or psychic is probably expected to discover these things through experimentation.

The turn-off for me is the rituals. I imagine that rituals might be helpful to induce states of mind that allow for the magic or psi to happen (if anything supernatural actually happens), but in general rituals are not appealing to me.

Aren't the rituals the 'experimentation' itself?

 

[ananda]

Where do you see the differences? As I understand it, the ultimate goal of both religions is to become enlightened and escape reincarnation. Or maybe that isn't true of Buddhism, and of course there is a lot more to each religion than that. But anyway, I am curious where you see the commonalities and differences if you have time to respond.

IMO, the ultimate goal of sramana Hinduism is to escape reincarnation by realizing oneness - that one's individual soul (atman) is one and the same as God (Brahman). The ultimate goal of early Buddhism is to cease rebirth & realize nibbana - the unalloyed bliss of permanent cessation from delusion, discontentment, and suffering.

The former speaks in terms of a permanent self and deity. The latter does not.

 

[cloudyday2]

Is the magician or psychic thereby assumed to be less fickle than some deity?

Imagine you are trying to prove the existence of intercessory prayer (as many have attempted). If the experiment fails to prove prayer the believer might say that God was not supportive of the experiment. On the other hand an experiment to prove the existence of mind-reading cannot use this excuse when it fails. There are other excuses possible but "the Lord works in mysterious ways" isn't an option in magic. Of course some forms of magic supposedly enlist the aid of spirits, and any experiments become subject to the fickle attitudes of spirits.

Aren't the rituals the 'experimentation' itself?

No, I think rituals are designed to represent ideas in a way that is easier to grasp intellectually and psychologically (like a children's puppet show about morality might attempt to do). I suppose some might think the ritual is more than merely a tool to induce receptive psychological states in the participants, but that is all it seems to me. Like a witch might think that her magic spell requires only the freshest frog legs, but actually I think it is the psychological impact of the frog legs that is important to the spell rather than the frog legs themselves. A witch that has different feelings about frogs might need to use some different ingredient to get to a psychological state that enables her psi to effect reality. Also some spells apparently include things that are supposed to be noticed by the target of the spell to create a more receptive psychological state. Like cursing a person often involves putting something on their doorstep that will disturb the target psychologically. It is the psychological states of the spell-caster and the targets that is important and not the specifics of the ritual items. ... That is my theory anyway. I think witchcraft if it exists is probably the same as psi. Each person's psyche is different so the rituals need to be customized. (Of course I'm not interested in casting spells on people. I am just curious if these supernatural things actually exist or if they are only psychological.)

 

[cloudyday2]

IMO, the ultimate goal of sramana Hinduism is to escape reincarnation by realizing oneness - that one's individual soul (atman) is one and the same as God (Brahman). The ultimate goal of early Buddhism is to cease rebirth & realize nibbana - the unalloyed bliss of permanent cessation from delusion, discontentment, and suffering.

The former speaks in terms of a permanent self and deity. The latter does not.

To be honest, it is hard for me to see a significant difference between the ultimate goals. I am aware that there were certain questions that Buddha refused to answer pertaining to the soul, and maybe that is where you see the difference - in areas where Hinduism makes definite claims and Buddhism leaves uncertain?

As an aside, the oneness of Hinduism might be a good explanation for paranormal phenomena. If my consciousness is only connected to my body because I have become bamboozled by the dream of reality and forgotten that this body and this reality is not truly my prison, then awakening can allow me to be conscious of things that are remote in time and space from my body and senses. I can know things from the past or the future or in another person's mind and even affect these "remote" things, because all is one. What do you think of that idea?

EDIT: Another idea that seemed to be suggested by the Bhagavad Gita is that our souls are actually only observing our bodies. Our bodies are deterministically taking actions, and a sleeping soul might think that it is "deciding" and therefore "responsible" for these actions, but in actuality the soul is merely observing and should not feel pride or shame due to the outcomes. It would seem that our souls cannot actually affect anything local or remote but only observe. ... There is a lot that I don't understand and probably misunderstand though. Some of the ideas seem incoherent at first glance.

 

[ananda]

To be honest, it is hard for me to see a significant difference between the ultimate goals. I am aware that there were certain questions that Buddha refused to answer pertaining to the soul, and maybe that is where you see the difference - in areas where Hinduism makes definite claims and Buddhism leaves uncertain?

As an aside, the oneness of Hinduism might be a good explanation for paranormal phenomena. If my consciousness is only connected to my body because I have become bamboozled by the dream of reality and forgotten that this body and this reality is not truly my prison, then awakening can allow me to be conscious of things that are remote in time and space from my body and senses. I can know things from the past or the future or in another person's mind and even affect these "remote" things, because all is one. What do you think of that idea?

EDIT: Another idea that seemed to be suggested by the Bhagavad Gita is that our souls are actually only observing our bodies. Our bodies are deterministically taking actions, and a sleeping soul might think that it is "deciding" and therefore "responsible" for these actions, but in actuality the soul is merely observing and should not feel pride or shame due to the outcomes. It would seem that our souls cannot actually affect anything local or remote but only observe. ... There is a lot that I don't understand and probably misunderstand though. Some of the ideas seem incoherent at first glance.

IMO the core difference is this: the Buddha correctly observed that action is a consequence of dissatisfaction (and thus ignorance), so an acting god like Brahman/Brahma indicates that it cannot be the greatest good.

Buddhism also addresses paranormal phenomena, but in a different way. For most people, the consciousness is strongly bound to the mind, and the mind in turn to the body. Conscious attention is thus almost always tuned into this physical world through the five natural senses as a result, and they rarely experience paranormal phenomena.

Through rupa jhanic exercises (meditation), the consciousness learns to detach the mind from attention to the body & its senses. This allows the mind to focus instead on the mental (aka "astral") realms and its activities in samsara where it is freed from the limitations of space. Or, through higher arupa jhanic exercises, the consciousness learns to detach itself from the mind and the body, and allows it to focus on the highest "spiritual" realms in samsara where it is freed from the limitations of space and time.

 

[cloudyday2]

IMO the core difference is this: the Buddha correctly observed that action is a consequence of dissatisfaction (and thus ignorance), so an acting god like Brahman/Brahma indicates that it cannot be the greatest good.

A professor in one of Great Courses lectures on Hinduism mentioned that inaction is also an action. Apparently any action creates karma, and the only way to escape rebirth in Hinduism is to end action, but inaction is also an action so there is apparently no escape. However, the answer is to have action without attachment to outcome. (To be honest, none of that makes any sense to me, but apparently that is one of the most important ideas in the Gita.)

As a practical matter, I think the teaching can be implemented by following our social duties without concern for their outcomes. If we are a soldier then we must perform our duty by killing our friends and family if necessary. This would fit with the importance of social order in India with the caste system and so on.

With respect to God, if he is acting indifferently simply because that is his duty in the cosmos then I don't think it indicates any dissatisfaction. The Gita shows Vishnu continuously creating and destroying the universe with indifference to human concepts of good and evil. That seems like an appealing and sensible view of God to me.

Buddhism also addresses paranormal phenomena, but in a different way. For most people, the consciousness is strongly bound to the mind, and the mind in turn to the body. Conscious attention is thus almost always tuned into this physical world through the five natural senses as a result, and they rarely experience paranormal phenomena.

Through rupa jhanic exercises (meditation), the consciousness learns to detach the mind from attention to the body & its senses. This allows the mind to focus instead on the mental (aka "astral") realms and its activities in samsara where it is freed from the limitations of space. Or, through higher arupa jhanic exercises, the consciousness learns to detach itself from the mind and the body, and allows it to focus on the highest "spiritual" realms in samsara where it is freed from the limitations of space and time.

One hang-up for me on these types of ideas is the mind-body problem. I don't know the definitions for consciousness, mind, and body and how they interface. Can the mind affect the body? Is the mind the same as the brain? What part of me is reading and understanding ideas in the Gita? If my supernatural part is merely a passive observer then what purpose do the exhortations in the Gita make (of course they affect the brain even if it is deterministic).

Also another issue is falsifiability. It seems that when Buddhism addresses paranormal it becomes unfalsifiable, and one of Buddhism's merits has been its emphasis on falsifiable concepts IMO. Or maybe the scientific laboratory moves into the paranormal realm so that paranormal claims in Buddhism can still be falsified?

 

[ananda]

A professor in one of Great Courses lectures on Hinduism mentioned that inaction is also an action. Apparently any action creates karma, and the only way to escape rebirth in Hinduism is to end action, but inaction is also an action so there is apparently no escape. However, the answer is to have action without attachment to outcome. (To be honest, none of that makes any sense to me, but apparently that is one of the most important ideas in the Gita.)

As a practical matter, I think the teaching can be implemented by following our social duties without concern for their outcomes. If we are a soldier then we must perform our duty by killing our friends and family if necessary. This would fit with the importance of social order in India with the caste system and so on.

With the respect to God, if he is acting indifferently simply because that is his duty in the cosmos then I don't think it indicates any dissatisfaction. The Gita shows Vishnu continuously creating and destroying the universe with indifference to human concepts of good and evil. That seems like an appealing and sensible view of God to me.

I agree with the professor: action (a choice to act) & inaction (a choice to not act) are properties of volition, of conscious beings who are endlessly practicing various ways to achieve a temporary measure of cessation of suffering.

IMO early Buddhism does not teach either inaction or action, but rather targets the cessation of delusion and ignorance which is seen as the root cause of both action & inaction, and thus, discontentment and suffering.

One hang-up for me on these types of ideas is the mind-body problem. I don't know the definitions for consciousness, mind, and body and how they interface. Can the mind affect the body? Is the mind the same as the brain? What part of me is reading and understanding ideas in the Gita? If my supernatural part is merely a passive observer then what purpose do the exhortations in the Gita make (of course they affect the brain even if it is deterministic).

Also another issue is falsifiability. It seems that when Buddhism addresses paranormal it becomes unfalsifiable, and one of Buddhisms merits has been its emphasis on falsifiable concepts IMO.

The Buddhist definition of "consciousness" involves awareness & volition. "Mind" involves thoughts, reasoning, memory, desires, etc. (a gestalt synergy which arises from the brain). "Body" is our physical manifestation. All three parts interact with one another, influencing each other (side note: thats why physical ritual can be helpful to push the mind and consciousness towards greater skillfulness for those early on the path), but ultimately the consciousness controls the mind, and the mind controls the body.

When I'm reading the Gita, my consciousness is that which chooses to read it & is aware of reading it, while my mind is the part that works under the direction of the consciousness to process the contents of the Gita by ingesting it by forming conceptual boxes through which it separates "self" from "others" and remembering it, and the body provides the physical interface with the book.

Nothing is really "paranormal" in Buddhism - things we call "paranormal" are said to be merely manifestations of other parts of reality that our consciousness and minds don't normally access, but can be trained to access. Since blind belief in those things are unnecessary parts of the Path, fasifiability is not an issue in my eyes.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

I have been thinking about alternatives to Christianity and atheism. In particular I have been wondering about Hinduism, Buddhism, or some sort of freelance investigation of magic, psi, and paranormal.

I imagine there are people here who have followed these paths and ultimately rejected them, and I was hoping you might share your experiences and reasons. I don't know very much about religion except for Christianity. I have been hoping to find some way to think about Christianity so that I can believe in it, but I am getting discouraged with that path. Atheism is fine except that I have a lot of experiences that suggest a supernatural dimension to reality.

The only religion I was part of was Christianity and my rejection of it was mostly just being part of something I had little interest in, nor did I choose to be in it. Since I became interested in spirituality from about 2009 I looked at Christianity again with a keen interest in what people believe and why, but felt no compulsion to become Christian.
At that time Hinduism was probably most aligned to my experince and worldview but there were far to many elements to it that I didn't feel drawn towards, or the cultural identification that comes from being Hindu. So I rejected becoming more deeply involved in Hinduism and the terminogies used.

These experinces you've had, what value did they have to your life? I mean if there was none, why would they qualify for further investigation.

 

[cloudyday2]

These experinces you've had, what value did they have to your life? I mean if there was none, why would they qualify for further investigation.

Some of the experiences seemed to highlight problems in my beliefs. Other experiences seemed to reassure me that God existed and loved me and wanted me to think for myself. Other experiences seemed to remind me that this world is not what it seems. And finally there were experiences that seemed to be hostile.

The experiences are all different. One experience I have been remembering lately is an example. I was walking and I noticed a dime on the sidewalk. The dime seemed to be almost glowing. I had an inner debate about whether I should ignore the dime or pick it up. Either way, I was giving the dime a lot more attention than it deserved and this made me feel superstitious. I never slowed down or stopped and just ignored the dime. ... Near the end of my walk after I had forgotten about the dime I passed a bus stop and a man said "do you have a dime?". That seemed very odd, because people don't ask for dimes nowadays due to inflation. A dime won't even buy a pack of gum. ... It seemed to be more than a coincidence, because that dime had almost seemed to glow when I saw it on the sidewalk. On the other hand, what did it mean? Was I supposed to pick up the dime so that I could give it to the man when he asked instead of saying "no"? Was it a reminder that things are not what they seem - that there is a supernatural world too? That is what I suspect, but what am I supposed to do in response to that reminder? ... Those are the experiences that make me suspect that something wants me to get over my fear and laziness and explore the supernatural a little bit. But laziness usually wins anyway LOL. ... Stuff like that seems to stalk me through life even though I have never done much in response beyond scratching my head.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Some of the experiences seemed to highlight problems in my beliefs. Other experiences seemed to reassure me that God existed and loved me and wanted me to think for myself. Other experiences seemed to remind me that this world is not what it seems. And finally there were experiences that seemed to be hostile.

The experiences are all different. One experience I have been remembering lately is an example. I was walking and I noticed a dime on the sidewalk. The dime seemed to be almost glowing. I had an inner debate about whether I should ignore the dime or pick it up. Either way, I was giving the dime a lot more attention than it deserved and this made me feel superstitious. I never slowed down or stopped and just ignored the dime. ... Near the end of my walk after I had forgotten about the dime I passed a bus stop and a man said "do you have a dime?". That seemed very odd, because people don't ask for dimes nowadays due to inflation. A dime won't even buy a pack of gum. ... It seemed to be more than a coincidence, because that dime had almost seemed to glow when I saw it on the sidewalk. On the other hand, what did it mean? Was I supposed to pick up the dime so that I could give it to the man when he asked instead of saying "no"? Was it a reminder that things are not what they seem - that there is a supernatural world too? That is what I suspect, but what am I supposed to do in response to that reminder? ... Those are the experiences that make me suspect that something wants me to get over my fear and laziness and explore the supernatural a little bit. But laziness usually wins anyway LOL. ... Stuff like that seems to stalk me through life even though I have never done much in response beyond scratching my head.

I have had similar experinces regarding things being more than coincidence. I conclude these episodes to be synchronicity, an experince more than coincidence.
My experince was to show me I'm connected, that I am part of some greater mechanism. It's like a cosmic hello, lol.

I once had some internal dialogue in a semi meditative state (for want of a better word) with this voice asking me if I wanted answers to questions. Before I could say yes the voice said that I already had the answers, meaning I already knew what I needed to do, that i had my answers to my life, but my apathy and fear were holding me back. Over time this voice said on various occasions "rise like a Phoenix from the fire my son", meaning get going you lazy bugger with what you know and take flight, to act on what you know. I suppose the question for all of us is, what do we know?
In relation to the Phoenix experince (which was a little odd on a certain level, like was it just stuff in my head perhaps) a friend rang me out of the blue and said she had had a dream about me. She said I was a bird glowing with light that was flapping it's wings not being able to take flight. She asked if it meant anything to me. It showed me that it wasn't just words in my head and that I am connected to some greater guidance. That guidance shapes itself to suit out own particular perspective and worldview. So stop scratching your head and act on what you know, lol. Life is the best scripture.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I've studied quite a few religions over the years, and I've consistently found that the closer I looked, the less convincing they became. There is no consistent, "closed" religious world view that strikes me as wholly believable, though some traditions at least contain practices, insights, or other elements that are valid and worthwhile to me.
For example, I think Buddhism is unparalleled in providing insights into the otherwise mostly opaque workings of the human psyche, and anticipates discoveries that modern psychology and neuro-sciences are only now gradually discovering, roughly 2,5k years later. Yet still, it was rooted in a world where certain metaphysical concepts that I'd consider patently false were just taken for granted: reincarnation, literal hells, literal personal deities, etc. Buddhist traditions are just as brimming with dogma, myth, and legends as the (to westerners, more familiar) Abrahamics.

In general, I appreciate mystic traditions in any religious or non-religious world view, as these are usually experiential and rooted in personal understanding rather than appeals to the supposed authority of priests or scriptures.

 

[Noxot]

I like to reject occultism in general because their goals don't seem grand enough. well actually the thelema religion at a glance looks okay. Thelema - Wikipedia

heck even max stirner individualist/egoist anarchist philosophy is a bit spiritual to me, but is person focused.

i'm suspicious of pagans because I see it as more of a cool fad but i'm sure there are authentic people concerned with that stuff too.

in general anything of somewhat a worth I can find some seed to plant in my own garden. I like the synthesization and development of as much as I can. everything that rings of truth and goodness is fine with me.

I can't accept religions in their childish and baby forms though as I am no longer a newbie. acceptance and rejection come as a spiritual process in me. it is foolish to lump something complex into something as simple as a yes or no. as much as I am and everything I can ought to be pushed in the direction of the truth and of God.

maybe reading a few philosophers that appeal to you would do you some good?

 

[Noxot]

I have been thinking about alternatives to Christianity and atheism. In particular I have been wondering about Hinduism, Buddhism, or some sort of freelance investigation of magic, psi, and paranormal.

I imagine there are people here who have followed these paths and ultimately rejected them, and I was hoping you might share your experiences and reasons. I don't know very much about religion except for Christianity. I have been hoping to find some way to think about Christianity so that I can believe in it, but I am getting discouraged with that path. Atheism is fine except that I have a lot of experiences that suggest a supernatural dimension to reality.

have you been to 4channel.org/x ? it's the funniest thing because there is both paranormal stuff but also a lot of spiritual people of various kinds. it's pretty funny but you can find some nice things there sometimes.

 

[Noxot]

After much study, I rejected all paths 1. where its central tenets were based wholly on evidence instead of proof, and 2. could not explain all aspects of reality, and 3. where its end-goal is consistent with #2.

#1 caused me to reject all mainstream theistic religions. #2 then caused me to reject gnostic atheism, mystical Christianity, sramana Hinduism, and Jainism. Finally, #3 caused me to reject Taoism, etc. This left me with early Buddhism.

but why do you reject zen?

 

[Noxot]

IMO, the ultimate goal of sramana Hinduism is to escape reincarnation by realizing oneness - that one's individual soul (atman) is one and the same as God (Brahman). The ultimate goal of early Buddhism is to cease rebirth & realize nibbana - the unalloyed bliss of permanent cessation from delusion, discontentment, and suffering.

The former speaks in terms of a permanent self and deity. The latter does not.

I think that once you reach what you seek you will see that everything was speaking about the same thing.