6 ms·

> 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 cr

> 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?
  - yanonymator 12y ago
    Would you possibly be able to explain "enlightenment" to me? As far as I can tell, pretty much all of reality agrees with my understanding of it. Does that mean I'm already "enlightened"? My guess is you mean something deeper? Perhaps a self-awareness capable of formulating thought/actions to (successfully) modify ones own disposition/situation? (which I guess often means influencing other people?).
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Having looked at every one of them is not a necessary criterion for having proof that no religions have helpful teachings for enlightening yourself. Agreed, analytical proofs are possible without exhaustive examination. But you haven't provided one. > 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. The fundamental flaw -- well, at least a fundamental flaw, its not the only one -- in this argument is that it is about "teachings from a real enlightened being" but provides no justification for applying that to "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself." It may be the case (though you have done very little to establish it) that no religion contains "teachings from a real enlightened being", but even if one assumes that is the case, it provides little support for your claim that no religions has "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself". > However, Gautama warned people about religions for a reason. But this warning has been transmitted -- through religions. And clearly this warning is a teaching that must be viewed as useful for enlightenment. > That's why I'm quite certain that no religions properly transmit teachings that can enlighten people. A stronger form of this -- that the things that must be understood for enlightenment cannot be properly transmitted -- is also a religious teaching. (see, e.g., the opening of the Tao Te Ching.) > 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. There is a difference between arguing that religions enlighten people (an argument many active in religions I have known would oppose) and arguing that religions transmit teachings that, however imperfect, can be useful in the process of a person attaining enlightenment.
- blueprint 12y ago
  I'm guessing you've already made up your mind that you don't agree with me. But I've learned that it's important to defer belief and judgement until after having made a confirmation. So I'll answer as if you might be interested in a sincere discussion. > The fundamental flaw -- well, at least a fundamental flaw, its not the only one -- in this argument is that it is about "teachings from a real enlightened being" but provides no justification for applying that to "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself." That's incorrect. What you're missing is the fact that only an enlightened being knows how to make others be enlightened and only an enlightened being can give a teaching which can be practiced in order to obtain enlightenment. Let's say you want to learn how to fix cars… how can you learn such a thing? There are only two possible sources of the necessary information. One of them is much faster: learn from mechanics. The second one is not usually possible for ordinary people to undergo: learn from the world. In both cases, you'll be looking at the principle and problems concerning cars. Is it possible to learn how to fix cars from people who /only/ like cars but do not know anything about them? No. The best they can do is encourage you to find someone who really does know about how cars work and what kinds of problems and causes of problems they have. But encouragement from those who do not know anything is not an essential cause for enlightening oneself. If it were, wouldn't we have more than just one or two enlightened masters in our history? Please note my usage of the term, "cause". To me, it's quite clear that people hear what they want. There were different types of people that had interest in Buddha while he was alive, but few of them were genuinely interested in his teaching, itself. Most people had their own, individual aims for associating with him, like curing their diseases or becoming wealthier. You suppose that those who adhere to religions might know perhaps a small percentage about enlightenment. But if they did, they would be able to tell me what the basic teaching of the enlightened being is. That's like learning the number 1 when you start learning math. But the reality is that the only answers they can give are those they read in books written by others who are not enlightened. It's hard for you to believe me unless you travel with me and meet people. Unfortunately, if you have no intention to confirm the veracity of my words, I don't think you'll be interested in judging those cases with your own eyes either. > But this warning has been transmitted -- through religions. And clearly this warning is a teaching that must be viewed as useful for enlightenment. Have you ever heard of the telephone game? If not, have you ever tried to make photocopies of a photocopy? The fidelity of the signal degrades due to the inclusion of noise. The level of any monks and religious adherents has not been high enough to preserve the quality of truth which was in the teaching of the real enlightened being. As a matter of fact, most of the teachings have been completely changed, and intentionally so. In reality, spiritual teachings are rather like food for the consciousness. A fresh apple is quite nourishing, no? (Well, it used to be, a hundred years ago!) But if the apple goes bad, to eat it would be quite bad for you. Like eating a poisonous substance. Similarly, learning and practicing the deteriorated teachings will damage your consciousness. Perhaps if you've got quite a strong will, it will take up to a year. But those of weaker will fall into danger much more quickly upon contact. So the problem is not that a person of sound spirit can't recognize that a rotten apple probably used to be a fresh apple and can then have a fair opportunity to judge whether or not they want to eat it. The problem is that a person of sound spirit can be harmed into losing their own consciousness through contact with religious teachings and they are not informed that such things are even bad for them. If you have a connection with religious teachings that claim to be about enlightenment, it is a direct cause to damage your ability to see and transmit the truth. They make you go in the exact opposite way of enlightening yourself and only generate more bad 'karma', rather than diminishing the influence of that karma. But it is absolutely imperative to be able to stop your karma in order to achieve an enlightenment, because you cannot enter samadhi if your karma can act. Its habit is to control you. Just because you do not want to have bad karma doesn't mean that it will disappear. Karma can only be suppressed by correctly learning and making yourself aware of 'what is' at all times. It cannot be suppressed by an escape into fantasy, nor by making attempts not to think about anything, regardless of how temporarily peaceful you feel after having done so. It constitutes an intentional lie on the part of monks that they leave out the result of practicing meditation when they borrow Buddha's name and teach meditation to others. Suppose that a living Buddha came to the world? Those who would be the most afraid of him are the monks. But they're comfortable with a Buddha's statue within their temple because a dead Buddha doesn't speak, and cannot make any critique of their behavior. He just smiles at them. This only reinforces and is interpreted of encouragement of their hypocrisy. I mention modern Buddhism as an example. I hope that you can catch my meaning through the example, so that, suppose you're really interested, you can apply it to other cases which you think may exist in the world and check for yourself whether they do or do not have the same fundamental kind of problems. > A stronger form of this -- that the things that must be understood for enlightenment cannot be properly transmitted -- is also a religious teaching. (see, e.g., the opening of the Tao Te Ching.) I'm sorry to say that I can't verify whether Lao-tzu actually said or meant that. I would need his exact words, or closer to them, in order to check. But to tell you the truth, it's not the case that the things for understanding enlightenment can't be properly transmitted, as you have suggested. It's quite simple for me to do it. I can prove it anytime, on the spot. However, even if I tell you the truth or teachings about enlightenment right here, can you understand them? Only a truthful person can recognize and understand the truth. Those who are untruthful don't want the truth revealed. Have you heard of Lao-tzu's explanation on the three levels of people? He said that their level of cultivation of virtue can be seen through how they react when they hear the truth. Only those of a high level of cultivation of virtue react with delight when they hear the truth and try quite a lot to put it to practice. Those of the middle level seem to understand, but as a result, they don't really apply it. Meanwhile, those of low level can only ridicule the truth.

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?
- yanonymator 12y ago
  Would you possibly be able to explain "enlightenment" to me? As far as I can tell, pretty much all of reality agrees with my understanding of it. Does that mean I'm already "enlightened"? My guess is you mean something deeper? Perhaps a self-awareness capable of formulating thought/actions to (successfully) modify ones own disposition/situation? (which I guess often means influencing other people?).

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Having looked at every one of them is not a necessary criterion for having proof that no religions have helpful teachings for enlightening yourself. Agreed, analytical proofs are possible without exhaustive examination. But you haven't provided one. > 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. The fundamental flaw -- well, at least a fundamental flaw, its not the only one -- in this argument is that it is about "teachings from a real enlightened being" but provides no justification for applying that to "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself." It may be the case (though you have done very little to establish it) that no religion contains "teachings from a real enlightened being", but even if one assumes that is the case, it provides little support for your claim that no religions has "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself". > However, Gautama warned people about religions for a reason. But this warning has been transmitted -- through religions. And clearly this warning is a teaching that must be viewed as useful for enlightenment. > That's why I'm quite certain that no religions properly transmit teachings that can enlighten people. A stronger form of this -- that the things that must be understood for enlightenment cannot be properly transmitted -- is also a religious teaching. (see, e.g., the opening of the Tao Te Ching.) > 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. There is a difference between arguing that religions enlighten people (an argument many active in religions I have known would oppose) and arguing that religions transmit teachings that, however imperfect, can be useful in the process of a person attaining enlightenment.

blueprint 12y ago
I'm guessing you've already made up your mind that you don't agree with me. But I've learned that it's important to defer belief and judgement until after having made a confirmation. So I'll answer as if you might be interested in a sincere discussion. > The fundamental flaw -- well, at least a fundamental flaw, its not the only one -- in this argument is that it is about "teachings from a real enlightened being" but provides no justification for applying that to "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself." That's incorrect. What you're missing is the fact that only an enlightened being knows how to make others be enlightened and only an enlightened being can give a teaching which can be practiced in order to obtain enlightenment. Let's say you want to learn how to fix cars… how can you learn such a thing? There are only two possible sources of the necessary information. One of them is much faster: learn from mechanics. The second one is not usually possible for ordinary people to undergo: learn from the world. In both cases, you'll be looking at the principle and problems concerning cars. Is it possible to learn how to fix cars from people who /only/ like cars but do not know anything about them? No. The best they can do is encourage you to find someone who really does know about how cars work and what kinds of problems and causes of problems they have. But encouragement from those who do not know anything is not an essential cause for enlightening oneself. If it were, wouldn't we have more than just one or two enlightened masters in our history? Please note my usage of the term, "cause". To me, it's quite clear that people hear what they want. There were different types of people that had interest in Buddha while he was alive, but few of them were genuinely interested in his teaching, itself. Most people had their own, individual aims for associating with him, like curing their diseases or becoming wealthier. You suppose that those who adhere to religions might know perhaps a small percentage about enlightenment. But if they did, they would be able to tell me what the basic teaching of the enlightened being is. That's like learning the number 1 when you start learning math. But the reality is that the only answers they can give are those they read in books written by others who are not enlightened. It's hard for you to believe me unless you travel with me and meet people. Unfortunately, if you have no intention to confirm the veracity of my words, I don't think you'll be interested in judging those cases with your own eyes either. > But this warning has been transmitted -- through religions. And clearly this warning is a teaching that must be viewed as useful for enlightenment. Have you ever heard of the telephone game? If not, have you ever tried to make photocopies of a photocopy? The fidelity of the signal degrades due to the inclusion of noise. The level of any monks and religious adherents has not been high enough to preserve the quality of truth which was in the teaching of the real enlightened being. As a matter of fact, most of the teachings have been completely changed, and intentionally so. In reality, spiritual teachings are rather like food for the consciousness. A fresh apple is quite nourishing, no? (Well, it used to be, a hundred years ago!) But if the apple goes bad, to eat it would be quite bad for you. Like eating a poisonous substance. Similarly, learning and practicing the deteriorated teachings will damage your consciousness. Perhaps if you've got quite a strong will, it will take up to a year. But those of weaker will fall into danger much more quickly upon contact. So the problem is not that a person of sound spirit can't recognize that a rotten apple probably used to be a fresh apple and can then have a fair opportunity to judge whether or not they want to eat it. The problem is that a person of sound spirit can be harmed into losing their own consciousness through contact with religious teachings and they are not informed that such things are even bad for them. If you have a connection with religious teachings that claim to be about enlightenment, it is a direct cause to damage your ability to see and transmit the truth. They make you go in the exact opposite way of enlightening yourself and only generate more bad 'karma', rather than diminishing the influence of that karma. But it is absolutely imperative to be able to stop your karma in order to achieve an enlightenment, because you cannot enter samadhi if your karma can act. Its habit is to control you. Just because you do not want to have bad karma doesn't mean that it will disappear. Karma can only be suppressed by correctly learning and making yourself aware of 'what is' at all times. It cannot be suppressed by an escape into fantasy, nor by making attempts not to think about anything, regardless of how temporarily peaceful you feel after having done so. It constitutes an intentional lie on the part of monks that they leave out the result of practicing meditation when they borrow Buddha's name and teach meditation to others. Suppose that a living Buddha came to the world? Those who would be the most afraid of him are the monks. But they're comfortable with a Buddha's statue within their temple because a dead Buddha doesn't speak, and cannot make any critique of their behavior. He just smiles at them. This only reinforces and is interpreted of encouragement of their hypocrisy. I mention modern Buddhism as an example. I hope that you can catch my meaning through the example, so that, suppose you're really interested, you can apply it to other cases which you think may exist in the world and check for yourself whether they do or do not have the same fundamental kind of problems. > A stronger form of this -- that the things that must be understood for enlightenment cannot be properly transmitted -- is also a religious teaching. (see, e.g., the opening of the Tao Te Ching.) I'm sorry to say that I can't verify whether Lao-tzu actually said or meant that. I would need his exact words, or closer to them, in order to check. But to tell you the truth, it's not the case that the things for understanding enlightenment can't be properly transmitted, as you have suggested. It's quite simple for me to do it. I can prove it anytime, on the spot. However, even if I tell you the truth or teachings about enlightenment right here, can you understand them? Only a truthful person can recognize and understand the truth. Those who are untruthful don't want the truth revealed. Have you heard of Lao-tzu's explanation on the three levels of people? He said that their level of cultivation of virtue can be seen through how they react when they hear the truth. Only those of a high level of cultivation of virtue react with delight when they hear the truth and try quite a lot to put it to practice. Those of the middle level seem to understand, but as a result, they don't really apply it. Meanwhile, those of low level can only ridicule the truth.