Religous views

[mahawirasd]

lol it's ok. People could attest that i too like walls of text...

anyhoo, thank you for the insight. I have heard/read/studied Buddhism a bit here and there. Nowhere near to your extent of knowledge, but sufficient to understand what you are talking about.

First off the bat would be "sects". IMHO most "religions" are but "sects" or re-formulation of previous belief(s).
If i was so brave as to retell the advent of religion i would say it first happened when man started to flock in a community and the first "sign" would be "fire"; most probably sparked by a lightning hitting a tree. That red fruit upon the tree which imparted knowledge to humans, or at least when humans learned to harness it "fire" turned out to be very instrumental. So instrumental even, especially in preparing food, that perhaps human intelligence started with it. Cooked food meant less energy spent on digesting, thus more energy available for the advancement of humans (probably started with basic tools which led to abstract thoughts, etc).
Anyway, starting out from basic mysticism up to the GUT of religion (monotheism), there has and probably always will be other people with their own view on things. Thus the many "versions" or "sects".

I wouldn't go so far as saying "all religions are true", well they might be 'true' in their own terms i'll give them that, but not necessarily always 'true'. But i am still naive enough to believe that "most religions were based on good intentions". Alas it is always wise to remember that "the road to hell is lined with good intentions"

anyway, as Lord Acton said: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and paired with how the "priest" class (starting from the first one who handled the fire) has always been given a higher pedestal than mere citizens (sometimes in the rank of kings or even higher), i wouldn't be surprised at all on how things turn out.

One of the main reason i myself believe that the way Buddhism is practiced is not for me is mainly because of how the monks are told to live. Not that i don't agree with self-restraint or the notion that religious leaders should be humble, i actually applaud the notion that monks have to "beg" so to speak for their food. BUT it is my believe that one should try their best to not be a burden to society, especially in the path to enlightenment. I agree with the notion that not everyone can or even should be a monk in this lifetime as they also have to be in tune with the world, especially their families. And I understand the notion that to shy away attachments is to relieve oneself from worldly jobs, but i believe one should be able to support oneself and still be able to rid oneself from worldly attachments. Thus one would understand that one's choice to remain existent bears a subsistence cost and that one should try one's best to bear that cross and still attempt to free one's self from that burden. Basically i believe that although one may not be able to choose on many things (birth, parents, general upbringing, etc.), one still has a choice and that by having a choice one is held accountable for that choice. I acknowledge that many things may not be up to us, especially force majeur events, but i believe that to keep on living is a choice and that we are culpable for that choice.

Anyhoo (sorry i tend to stray... a lot... /heh, i've talked with Buddhists regarding monks and their way of life and to some extent i can understand how having handphones might help them in setting up meetings etc and how people nowadays tend to give money rather than food. And i understand to some extent the need to copyright, but i believe in a level of tolerance, especially if conducted properly and does not stray from the original intentions.

Regarding the Nikayana, i personally believe that one should help one's self before attempting to help others. A basic approach i learned from emergency first aid training; Secure yourself, Secure the surroundings/victim(s), conduct first aid, call the emergency line.
Taken to religious believes i tend to opt for personal religions as i believe everyone has their own religion. One word from Buddha/Jesus/Mohammad/Moses/etc. can evoke 101 understanding from 100 people. Who is right?
Who knows. Thus one should be helpful to society, but never so much as to say that "my way is right, come with me if you want to be saved"...

as i said way beforehand, humans are limited and would be great if everyone realized that. We can't really really know anything. To know one thing we must assume a multitude of things. I'm not saying that one should not believe in anything, but rather that one should believe in whatever gives one piece of mind without disturbing others while still knowing the difference between "believing" and "knowing". I believe that once people realizes that distinction the world will become a much safer and more peaceful place.
Religious evangelism/recruitment is so absurd imho. I feel that man mostly believe in "power by numbers", and it is apparent that throughout history those with more power (usually markedly obvious by their numbers) tend to oppress those with less feeling that they are "right" and the others are "wrong", leaving us with the question: "what are you trying to do, hold elections in the afterlife?"

Thus i understand your need for support from a community, but i would say: be steadfast. One need not worry about being alone, birds of a feather will flock together. I understand the human need to commune, but that doesn't mean that one should be averse to being alone. Loneliness is probably the most frightening thing out there (the main reason most people are afraid of death and why religion sells), but it doesn't mean that one cannot master oneself (and the universe in the process /heh...


-w-