6 ms·

"No religions have any helpful teachings when it comes to enlightening yourself." So you've studied them all and know with certainty that none could possibly b

by pc2g4d 12y ago

"No religions have any helpful teachings when it comes to enlightening yourself." So you've studied them all and know with certainty that none could possibly be useful to the poster? Blithe anti-religious sentiment like this abounds on HN and it drives me crazy.

blueprint 12y ago
> So you've studied them all and know with certainty that none could possibly be useful to the poster? Having looked at every one of them is not a necessary criterion for having proof that no religions have helpful teachings for enlightening yourself. We don't need to input every possible number into an equation in order to make true statements about the nature of the equation. My claim about the reality of religions is due to the fact that there is a fundamental disagreement between religious teachings and teachings from a real enlightened being. How about looking in the most likely of places for a religion which should have some teachings from an enlightened being? After all, we can be quite certain that Gautama Buddha attained a perfect enlightenment. Only someone who did attain such a level would have been able to see what he could tell others about how the world operates. However, Gautama warned people about religions for a reason. Organizations and bodies of knowledge become religions when those who are not enlightened try to teach others what they do not actually know. The result is that they put their own words into the texts/scriptures, but use the name of the one who was enlightened in order to convince others and propagate their own words. Because they are just ordinary people, the only thing they can do is tell others their own knowledge (answers), but they cannot give others guidance on the basis of problems in the living reality. As a matter of fact, in order for something to be a teaching, it must include a problem/question. But religions only have answers that lack questions. The moment we have the questions, we do not need to remember or tell others to learn the answers. So it is certainly not the religions which have the helpful teachings, and the activities of the religions are not in any way contributive to the activities of the one who could see the reality, as they only contribute to mislead adherents. That's why I'm quite certain that no religions properly transmit teachings that can enlighten people. People only engage in religions because they do not have the correct teaching. That's why anyone who can recognize what religions really are would never want to be tied to them and would never recommend the possibility that they can enlighten people.
- pc2g4d 12y ago
  You're right about equations---but you're far from convincing me that no religion in existence could be helpful to the OP. I'm not saying I know the right path for this person, but claiming that such a vast and varied body of ideas, philosophies, and practices as are included in religion as a whole cannot be helpful is a vast and sweeping claim that I don't feel you've substantiated.
  - blueprint 12y ago
    If I tell you that you haven't understood my words, would you be able to go back and try to check my meaning again? Ideas are not helpful for obtaining enlightenment, and no enlightened teacher tells others their own ideas. They only tell people 'what exists' in the world, just as it is. As it happens, there is a specific, and mandatory process which must be undergone in order to obtain enlightenment. You cannot gain enlightenment through the variety of spiritual practices promulgated by modern religions. I know this because none of them make the practitioner undergo that mandatory process. Additionally, there are no examples in the entirety of human history of people who have gained enlightenment through such practices. Philosophies? I'd like you to show me any religions which have any true philosophy in them. Philosophy means the pursuit and revelation of what exists in the world. What religion can accurately reveal what exists in the world? You've only got to find one example of a religion which has 'truth' in it. In any case, no one can learn a precise 'truth' from a religion, because truths can only be seen and verified through specific problems. As a matter of fact, every religion only hinders you from opening your eyes to the reality of the religion. I think it will be important for you to understand that. This world already contains all the teachings that we need. Every truth is in the world. So what reason do religions have to exist? There's an important reason why the true teachers in human history did not want to start any religions. Some of them were killed by religious people for telling the truth about religions. Practices? Those can be right or wrong, and to practice anything is not by any means limited to religious people. In that case, do you need to be part of a religion to perform whatever practice you refer to? If not, then it is not the religion which contributes the benefit of the practice. If so, then what practice are you referring to? If you don't want to have your knowledge verified, and you only are willing to make abstract claims, then it is not right to try to suggest your opinion to others. It's also not right to deny what someone says unless you have concrete proof –– and how much more so when it comes to such important matters as what we are discussing?

by pc2g4d 12y ago

blueprint 12y ago

> So you've studied them all and know with certainty that none could possibly be useful to the poster? Having looked at every one of them is not a necessary criterion for having proof that no religions have helpful teachings for enlightening yourself. We don't need to input every possible number into an equation in order to make true statements about the nature of the equation. My claim about the reality of religions is due to the fact that there is a fundamental disagreement between religious teachings and teachings from a real enlightened being. How about looking in the most likely of places for a religion which should have some teachings from an enlightened being? After all, we can be quite certain that Gautama Buddha attained a perfect enlightenment. Only someone who did attain such a level would have been able to see what he could tell others about how the world operates. However, Gautama warned people about religions for a reason. Organizations and bodies of knowledge become religions when those who are not enlightened try to teach others what they do not actually know. The result is that they put their own words into the texts/scriptures, but use the name of the one who was enlightened in order to convince others and propagate their own words. Because they are just ordinary people, the only thing they can do is tell others their own knowledge (answers), but they cannot give others guidance on the basis of problems in the living reality. As a matter of fact, in order for something to be a teaching, it must include a problem/question. But religions only have answers that lack questions. The moment we have the questions, we do not need to remember or tell others to learn the answers. So it is certainly not the religions which have the helpful teachings, and the activities of the religions are not in any way contributive to the activities of the one who could see the reality, as they only contribute to mislead adherents. That's why I'm quite certain that no religions properly transmit teachings that can enlighten people. People only engage in religions because they do not have the correct teaching. That's why anyone who can recognize what religions really are would never want to be tied to them and would never recommend the possibility that they can enlighten people.

pc2g4d 12y ago
You're right about equations---but you're far from convincing me that no religion in existence could be helpful to the OP. I'm not saying I know the right path for this person, but claiming that such a vast and varied body of ideas, philosophies, and practices as are included in religion as a whole cannot be helpful is a vast and sweeping claim that I don't feel you've substantiated.
- blueprint 12y ago
  If I tell you that you haven't understood my words, would you be able to go back and try to check my meaning again? Ideas are not helpful for obtaining enlightenment, and no enlightened teacher tells others their own ideas. They only tell people 'what exists' in the world, just as it is. As it happens, there is a specific, and mandatory process which must be undergone in order to obtain enlightenment. You cannot gain enlightenment through the variety of spiritual practices promulgated by modern religions. I know this because none of them make the practitioner undergo that mandatory process. Additionally, there are no examples in the entirety of human history of people who have gained enlightenment through such practices. Philosophies? I'd like you to show me any religions which have any true philosophy in them. Philosophy means the pursuit and revelation of what exists in the world. What religion can accurately reveal what exists in the world? You've only got to find one example of a religion which has 'truth' in it. In any case, no one can learn a precise 'truth' from a religion, because truths can only be seen and verified through specific problems. As a matter of fact, every religion only hinders you from opening your eyes to the reality of the religion. I think it will be important for you to understand that. This world already contains all the teachings that we need. Every truth is in the world. So what reason do religions have to exist? There's an important reason why the true teachers in human history did not want to start any religions. Some of them were killed by religious people for telling the truth about religions. Practices? Those can be right or wrong, and to practice anything is not by any means limited to religious people. In that case, do you need to be part of a religion to perform whatever practice you refer to? If not, then it is not the religion which contributes the benefit of the practice. If so, then what practice are you referring to? If you don't want to have your knowledge verified, and you only are willing to make abstract claims, then it is not right to try to suggest your opinion to others. It's also not right to deny what someone says unless you have concrete proof –– and how much more so when it comes to such important matters as what we are discussing?