Hindu hell

[Duty]

Wandering the earth for millennia as a "hungry ghost" famished is one punishment for killing bugs etc according to the Buddhism of Gesha Kelsang Gyatso. And to think this Buddhism is practised and promoted by many so-called middle-class intellectuals in the UK. Sad.

You gotta admit, followers of such belief are really brave people. It's a pure mind torture to believe in such stuff.

My mother had an interest in Buddhism once, and said her teacher had told her to cherry pick what seems useful and disregard the rest. Pretty enlightened (NPI) for a religious instructor, given that's how all but a few adherents deal with religion. Many are driven literally insane by the concept of torture in the afterlife (especially Xtian/Muslim hell, which is commonly thought of as being infinite agony) and I'm not sure I would call these people brave. Indoctrinated, yes. Far braver to publically deny the veracity of such doctrine based on, well, having a grip on reality RE there being no evidence for such things other than words written and told by human beings. Stephen King's IT was invented by a human too, and is VERY popular, but I doubt anybody who believed in infanticidal sewer-dwelling clown monsters would ever be termed brave. Also, believing is not a choice and so cannot be termed brave. We merely believe what we perceive to be the truth.

[Angrboda]

You gotta admit, followers of such belief are really brave people. It's a pure mind torture to believe in such stuff.

My mother had an interest in Buddhism once, and said her teacher had told her to cherry pick what seems useful and disregard the rest. Pretty enlightened (NPI) for a religious instructor, given that's how all but a few adherents deal with religion.

Buddhists are lucky in that they can appeal to the Kalama sutra, as well as the lack of any holy text, to justify their picking and choosing what to believe.

In response to the people of Kalama, when they asked the Buddha "How do we know what is true, when there are so many teachers, teaching various doctrines and religions, what is true and worthy of practice?" The Buddha responded;

Do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with liking for a view after pondering over it or with someone else's conclusions or with the thought "this man is our teacher". When you know in yourselves: "These things are wholesome, blameless, commended by the wise, and being adopted and put into effect they lead to welfare and happiness, then you should practice and abide in them..."

[Duty]

"Commended by the wise" - like the archbishop of Canterbury? Or Trump? They're wise right?

[deanabiepepler]

@hindus @buddhists "this is what happens when you not nice to me" all across earth and every religion > https://i.imgur.com/lYek9ME.jpg
so be nice hindus and buddhists islam judaism

[Brian37]

It is an absolute myth that only the big three religions of Abraham have concepts of punishment in the afterlife.

Even Japan and China and Tibet have their histories of claiming punishment in the afterlife and underworlds.

Most humans worldwide, in antiquity had bad guesses as to magical punishment/reward motifs.

Humans mistook good and bad being regulated from a divine place, be it a god world or spirit world or reincarnation. It is our species false perception that morality is something super natural.

Probably a clue that all religions in the world did start from the same point, with each culture twisting the original faith according to its own culture. One example is how the "one Christianity" turned into 3, and the "one Islam" turned into 2, and so on.

That's why everybody has news of a hell after death for sinners.

I wouldn't say the "same point" but more like the same era within several hundred years. But concepts of super natural afterlife reward punishment existed even in the oral tradition prior to the written era.

Oral or written it still amounts to humans looking at prior and surrounding claims and creating new stories to compete.

But even without direct or indirect contact, humans completely independent of each other came up with the same bad guesses in antiquity. Fear of celestial bodies like comets,  and seeing patterns in the stars were made in antiquity in places like Australia and South America and Africa and China.

Even building upwards to the sky was an idea of worship, that you can find worldwide. 

The new Cosmos Series that came out a few years ago hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson, brought this up in almost every one of the 13 episodes.

The reason motifs of god/s/dieties/ even just spirit worship of your ancestors all started worldwide in an age of ignorance. All those claims are merely a reflection of human qualities, desires, fears and narcissism.

[WinterHold]

Probably a clue that all religions in the world did start from the same point, with each culture twisting the original faith according to its own culture. One example is how the "one Christianity" turned into 3, and the "one Islam" turned into 2, and so on.

That's why everybody has news of a hell after death for sinners.

I wouldn't say the "same point" but more like the same era within several hundred years. But concepts of super natural afterlife reward punishment existed even in the oral tradition prior to the written era.

Oral or written it still amounts to humans looking at prior and surrounding claims and creating new stories to compete.

But even without direct or indirect contact, humans completely independent of each other came up with the same bad guesses in antiquity. Fear of celestial bodies like comets,  and seeing patterns in the stars were made in antiquity in places like Australia and South America and Africa and China.

Even building upwards to the sky was an idea of worship, that you can find worldwide. 

The new Cosmos Series that came out a few years ago hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson, brought this up in almost every one of the 13 episodes.

The reason motifs of god/s/dieties/ even just spirit worship of your ancestors all started worldwide in an age of ignorance. All those claims are merely a reflection of human qualities, desires, fears and narcissism.

The sentence I used: "same point" refers to the "same time in history"/"same era" too.

The common thing between all nations and races is that all of them can see the sky and the stars. But why did all of them had claims of a "God existing in the sky"?

Why not an army of monsters, if fear alone was the motive of the claim?
Why not sky beasts wanting to come kill all?

You see where I'm going: the sky is so big, even without telescopes. Why would a primitive, ancient human assume a God in the sky and not assume another kind of life? another kind similar to what they see on earth.
Not divine, not superior.

There is no smoke without fire.

The philosophy of religion -the concept of a God/s controlling earth and residing in the sky- is in itself a block that raises the question: why this scenario specifically? there are other scenarios as many as the stars themselves.

[Brian37]

I wouldn't say the "same point" but more like the same era within several hundred years. But concepts of super natural afterlife reward punishment existed even in the oral tradition prior to the written era.

Oral or written it still amounts to humans looking at prior and surrounding claims and creating new stories to compete.

But even without direct or indirect contact, humans completely independent of each other came up with the same bad guesses in antiquity. Fear of celestial bodies like comets,  and seeing patterns in the stars were made in antiquity in places like Australia and South America and Africa and China.

Even building upwards to the sky was an idea of worship, that you can find worldwide. 

The new Cosmos Series that came out a few years ago hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson, brought this up in almost every one of the 13 episodes.

The reason motifs of god/s/dieties/ even just spirit worship of your ancestors all started worldwide in an age of ignorance. All those claims are merely a reflection of human qualities, desires, fears and narcissism.

The sentence I used: "same point" refers to the "same time in history"/"same era" too.

The common thing between all nations and races is that all of them can see the sky and the stars. But why did all of them had claims of a "God existing in the sky"?

Why not an army of monsters, if fear alone was the motive of the claim?
Why not sky beasts wanting to come kill all?

You see where I'm going: the sky is so big, even without telescopes. Why would a primitive, ancient human assume a God in the sky and not assume another kind of life? another kind similar to what they see on earth.
Not divine, not superior.

There is no smoke without fire.

The philosophy of religion -the concept of a God/s controlling earth and residing in the sky- is in itself a block that raises the question: why this scenario specifically? there are other scenarios as many as the stars themselves.

For most, it is a hard concept to accept the truth of independent and not connected similar claims.

I am giving you the answer. Humans do not even have to know each other or ever meet each other to come up with the same independent bad claims.

The truth of our species is that evolution drives us to seek patterns, and to survive, and we don't like the idea of being finite. In the age of ignorance, even in our oral tradition, long before the first writings, humans whom never met, would project their human qualities on the world around them.

It is simple human psychology to try to associate the world around you to something you are familiar with, and back in antiquity the only thing we understood was that we existed. So when bigger events, such as volcanos, hurricanes, earthquakes, migration patterns, we stupidly, AND independently guessed that since we could think ourselves, there was a anthropomorphic human like/super natural force we had to bargain with, bow to or avoid the wrath of.

Even today, you could literally put say 20 kids whom are 3 to 5 years old, and without indoctrination, being in that same room would manufacture their own bad guesses as to why things happen. 

The simple truth is humans were projecting their own qualities on the world around them because they didn't know any better.

---

You gotta admit, followers of such belief are really brave people. It's a pure mind torture to believe in such stuff.

My mother had an interest in Buddhism once, and said her teacher had told her to cherry pick what seems useful and disregard the rest. Pretty enlightened (NPI) for a religious instructor, given that's how all but a few adherents deal with religion. Many are driven literally insane by the concept of torture in the afterlife (especially Xtian/Muslim hell, which is commonly thought of as being infinite agony) and I'm not sure I would call these people brave. Indoctrinated, yes. Far braver to publically deny the veracity of such doctrine based on, well, having a grip on reality RE there being no evidence for such things other than words written and told by human beings. Stephen King's IT was invented by a human too, and is VERY popular, but I doubt anybody who believed in infanticidal sewer-dwelling clown monsters would ever be termed brave. Also, believing is not a choice and so cannot be termed brave. We merely believe what we perceive to be the truth.

Cherry picking is not enlightened, not even for Buddhists. Other Buddhists have also "cherry picked" to the point of justifying harm to Myanmar's Muslims. And it isn't like Tibet's Buddhists agree with Chinese Buddhists and it isn't like China's Buddhists agree with Japanese Shinto Buddhists.

I wouldn't put it like that. I'd say, considering humanity cant force any religion off the face of the planet without starting a nuclear war, I'd say if any "cherry picking" is to be done, it should lean towards non violence and protecting human rights and pluralism. 

But the problem for well intended liberals, whom have the empathy, it still remains that religious zealots read the same holy writings to come to a different conclusion.

[WinterHold]

The sentence I used: "same point" refers to the "same time in history"/"same era" too.

The common thing between all nations and races is that all of them can see the sky and the stars. But why did all of them had claims of a "God existing in the sky"?

Why not an army of monsters, if fear alone was the motive of the claim?
Why not sky beasts wanting to come kill all?

You see where I'm going: the sky is so big, even without telescopes. Why would a primitive, ancient human assume a God in the sky and not assume another kind of life? another kind similar to what they see on earth.
Not divine, not superior.

There is no smoke without fire.

The philosophy of religion -the concept of a God/s controlling earth and residing in the sky- is in itself a block that raises the question: why this scenario specifically? there are other scenarios as many as the stars themselves.

For most, it is a hard concept to accept the truth of independent and not connected similar claims.

I am giving you the answer. Humans do not even have to know each other or ever meet each other to come up with the same independent bad claims.

The truth of our species is that evolution drives us to seek patterns, and to survive, and we don't like the idea of being finite. In the age of ignorance, even in our oral tradition, long before the first writings, humans whom never met, would project their human qualities on the world around them.

It is simple human psychology to try to associate the world around you to something you are familiar with, and back in antiquity the only thing we understood was that we existed. So when bigger events, such as volcanos, hurricanes, earthquakes, migration patterns, we stupidly, AND independently guessed that since we could think ourselves, there was a anthropomorphic human like/super natural force we had to bargain with, bow to or avoid the wrath of.

Even today, you could literally put say 20 kids whom are 3 to 5 years old, and without indoctrination, being in that same room would manufacture their own bad guesses as to why things happen. 

The simple truth is humans were projecting their own qualities on the world around them because they didn't know any better.

The bold part of your reply Brian, the assumption of the existence of a super-deity itself is very strange, why a God controlling the volcano; why not a clan of dragons, or the volcano itself being alive?

The idea of natural objects being alive -for example- were known since ancient times but it never gained popularity as an explanation. It was always the theory of a God in the sky that wins in the end.

We do project our qualities on our beliefs; that's why it's innate capacity to assume that the mountain is alive or the volcano can see. But why a "God/s" controlling it? and across all earth, for thousands of years? why did this idea win and stay alive until today?

[Brian37]

For most, it is a hard concept to accept the truth of independent and not connected similar claims.

I am giving you the answer. Humans do not even have to know each other or ever meet each other to come up with the same independent bad claims.

The truth of our species is that evolution drives us to seek patterns, and to survive, and we don't like the idea of being finite. In the age of ignorance, even in our oral tradition, long before the first writings, humans whom never met, would project their human qualities on the world around them.

It is simple human psychology to try to associate the world around you to something you are familiar with, and back in antiquity the only thing we understood was that we existed. So when bigger events, such as volcanos, hurricanes, earthquakes, migration patterns, we stupidly, AND independently guessed that since we could think ourselves, there was a anthropomorphic human like/super natural force we had to bargain with, bow to or avoid the wrath of.

Even today, you could literally put say 20 kids whom are 3 to 5 years old, and without indoctrination, being in that same room would manufacture their own bad guesses as to why things happen. 

The simple truth is humans were projecting their own qualities on the world around them because they didn't know any better.

The bold part of your reply Brian, the assumption of the existence of a super-deity itself is very strange, why a God controlling the volcano; why not a clan of dragons, or the volcano itself being alive?

The idea of natural objects being alive -for example- were known since ancient times but it never gained popularity as an explanation. It was always the theory of a God in the sky that wins in the end.

We do project our qualities on our beliefs; that's why it's innate capacity to assume that the mountain is alive or the volcano can see. But why a "God/s" controlling it? and across all earth, for thousands of years? why did this idea win and stay alive until today?

Huh?

Humans made up all sorts of hybrids of animal/nature deities with human like qualities. 

Horus the Egyptian savior son of Osiris and Isis was depicted as a falcon. Pele in Hawaii was the female goddess who controlled fire/volcanos.

And have you not looked at Asia's mythology? That is full of dragons. 

I think you are missing my point. It is BOTH that humans thought a human like controler controlled the ocean, or sun, or volcano, AND or THEY thought the thing itself, was a super cognition, so not either or, but BOTH, depending on the society in geographical history.

BOTH are still a projection of human qualities on non human events/life. 

The projection of human qualities on non human events/life wins mostly because parents hand down their traditions/mythologies to children long before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills.

[WinterHold]

The bold part of your reply Brian, the assumption of the existence of a super-deity itself is very strange, why a God controlling the volcano; why not a clan of dragons, or the volcano itself being alive?

The idea of natural objects being alive -for example- were known since ancient times but it never gained popularity as an explanation. It was always the theory of a God in the sky that wins in the end.

We do project our qualities on our beliefs; that's why it's innate capacity to assume that the mountain is alive or the volcano can see. But why a "God/s" controlling it? and across all earth, for thousands of years? why did this idea win and stay alive until today?

Huh?

Humans made up all sorts of hybrids of animal/nature deities with human like qualities. 

Horus the Egyptian savior son of Osiris and Isis was depicted as a falcon. Pele in Hawaii was the female goddess who controlled fire/volcanos.

And have you not looked at Asia's mythology? That is full of dragons. 

I think you are missing my point. It is BOTH that humans thought a human like controler controlled the ocean, or sun, or volcano, AND or THEY thought the thing itself, was a super cognition, so not either or, but BOTH, depending on the society in geographical history.

BOTH are still a projection of human qualities on non human events/life. 

The projection of human qualities on non human events/life wins mostly because parents hand down their traditions/mythologies to children long before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills.

I did say that we project our qualities on our beliefs; my question was "why is the produced creatures/humanoid/natural disaster" is controlled by a God?

Where did the idea of the "God" came from; and why did it survive and win across history to this day?

I get your point: just like we have "leaders/kings/presidents"; we assume nature is also running like that.
But why assume that the CEO is a God? why assume this model; even?

Why assume that life is like an organization with a CEO on top? isn't it more logical to say that the "employees like volcanoes" are alive?

The religious model was favored; and won.