SevenLeafs

Christianity even has a place of punishment; Taoism simply states that when a spirit is prepared for the afterlife, it will "take its chance" to merge with "the light" in its moment of material death. What other "forms" of Paradise exist?

Could you name other religions that have a paradise and how they conceive it?

7L

__________________

"A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit"
- Pink Floyd -

Just say KNOW!

Higher Logic

I was looking for another quote from a different guy, but on the topic of "true believers" they are always offered a better "after life" or paradise, as it is human nature to seek out paradise or a utopia. So yes, every religion has a form of afterlife and paradise. Not all have a place where you GO to "hell" but they have the concept.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

SevenLeafs

So every religion has a paradise where to GO to, but not every one of them has a hell, although they form the concept of it without identifying it as a place... that is interesting. I guess that the "conduct" can be psychologically explained by realizing that we always look for a perfect model on which to base our actions: architecture and physics base themselves on the perfection of math, for example. However, you state that "true believers are always offered a better "after life" or paradise", but by whom are they offered this place or state, I suppose by religions? Can we not offer it to ourselves?

Ancient greece had its myths which, much like religions, based their understanding of the world on stories of heroes who had accomplished many great feats that enabled them to grasp the "essence" of life. These heroes became virtuous because they understood to perfection what meaning the events had and achieved communication with gods and goddesses that favored their actions once they began their journey towards "rightness". However, didn't greek mythology only posses a realm of the dead: The Hades (or underworld, ruled by the god of the former name) where every soul went after its mortal body died? Heaven, for the ancient greek, would be a spiritual achievement in mortal life that would benefit the virtuous persona in many and all ways.

In their polytheistic religion, greeks would then have the opposite of what you state, HL, which would be a concept of paradise and an actual location of hell (which would not be a place of suffering, but only a place where souls went). The actual "hell" that modern-day Christianity makes reference to would be just a mere concept, sort of like a sentiment, in ancient greece. Now, taking all of this into account, does every religion have the concept of paradise and hell, be it that they proclaim it to be an actual location or just a state of mind (or the like)?

Does Buddhism, for example, talk about hell? What would it be? Where would it be?

7L

PS: Thanks for the quote HL, very interesting, although a little bit confusing. It seems to me that it is a mere observation, it does not appear to be an investigation looking to emphasize that our "supernatural beliefs" are just hoaxes... or is it?

Buzzby

Buddhism is a very complex system, consciously designed from the beginning to get out its message to people at all levels of spiritual development. This means that you will be instructed in ways that you are ready to comprehend. There are simple and fairly concrete versions for people who are just starting out on the path. At the other end of the scale there is Zen, which abandons all conventions of internal and external and deconstructs all conventional uses of language.

The accompanying picture is the Buddhist wheel of life, a learning aid attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, circa 6th century BC. It represent in its wedge-shaped segments the six realms of existence. The bottom segment is the realm of the hell-beings. The one to its left is the realm of the hungry ghosts. These would be the Buddhist equivalents of the Christian hell.

One is reincarnated into one of the six realms based on the karmic balance passed down from one's former incarnations. One can become a god, a titan, a human, an animal, a hungry ghost, or a hell being. None of these conditions are permanent. A basic tenet of Buddhism is that all composite things contain the seeds of their own dissolution, i.e. "this, too, shall pass".

The goal is not to live in the realm of the gods, for this is just another place to work out certain aspects of one's karma. The goal is to attain enlightenment, to be done with karma, and to get off the wheel altogether. In the Theravadan traditional, which is the older form of Buddhism, this is as far as you can go. In Mahayana Buddhism you can go one step further and return to the wheel to serve others. The Boddhisatva vow is to keep taking rebirth until all sentient beings achieve enlightenment.

Some Buddhists take this eschatology literally - the realms of existence are real places. Others see them as psychological states and believe that we are constantly undergoing rebirth into one of these states or another. Zen doesn't concern itself with this kind of stuff at all. In Zen, all that exists is the here and now.

__________________

Higher Logic

Well I brought up the "true believer" thing because people who follow religion are, in most cases, true believers. I'll elaborate more and you'll see what I mean when I bring it up and how it relates to paradise.

"Take man's most fantastic invention—God. Man invents God in the image of his longings, in the image of what he wants to be,then proceeds to imitate that image, vie with it, and strive to overcome it."

Paradise is another invention, similar to that of God. It's what man wishes he could live in, so he strives for it. Different religions have different "guidelines" for reaching this place.

Oh, and what I meant by some religions not having a "hell" is this: they do have a place where "evil" lives and comes from, but they don't have the concept of going there, like they don't believe they will be damned there eternally.

"The technique of a mass movement aims to infect people with a malady and then offer the movement as a cure."

Same concept, works with paradise. Offer a paradise and make the movement the only way to get there.

See, often times a movement gets people to join it by giving them hope of something better after they die. It makes what they do here "less important" (for example Muslim fundamentalists or Kami Kazes) and thus they strive for what is "in the end."

Buzzby

If you're using the meaning of "true believer" used in what you quoted, I don't believe that's true.

In order to be a true believer in that sense, one must continue to believe despite having been informed convincingly that what one believes in is a lie. The elements of most religions are not subject to that kind of situation. One can no more prove God's non-existence than his existence. I've never seen any convincing evidence one way or another. Was Jesus the Savior? Again, no evidence one way or the other. Will a warrior who dies in the service of Allah receive 71 virgins upon entering Paradise? Who can say?

Will I attain a better rebirth because I spend so many hours in meditation? Yes. I already have and I didn't even have to die. That's why I'm a Buddhist.

BTW, Buddhism doesn't recognize the concept of "evil". Actions that we would call "evil" are the result of ignorance. You wouldn't do them if you understood the nature of reality. It may takes thousands of lifetimes but eventually you'll figure it out.

SevenLeafs

I have many things I want to address, but I will start first addressing this:I agree with this, but I do classify it as something evil; not the ignorance, but the actions. You see, one can be aware of the nature of reality, and thus, their actions, but some still do them. For example, I know someone (who is very close to me), that constantly falls under what Christianity would call the sin of gluttony. This person eats junk food when desired, with the excuse that every other "junk food" has been abandoned (by the person) and that the one eaten is "excusable" because of the former reason. Thus, this person eats and eats and eats popcorn, knowing that, to put it in good terms, it is not the best thing to eat.

I was reborn, just as you say you also have, Buzz, not long ago, and I began to see all that you have mentioned very clearly. Then I came into a period where, because I was on vacation, I started to act "slothfully", as in lazy. This new person I had become died very rapidly because I knew that my actions where not the best, but I did them anyways. Striving to be the psychologist I know I can be, this period of "rebirth" had been (and still is) very important for me, it was like all of the doors to all the solutions of the more immediate problems I had had been opened, but I decided to wait a little while until I passed through any of them.

Now to address this:I agree with what Buzz says to this, Higher Logic, because many people follow a religion because they simply do not like the idea of being "atheist"; or of believing in God but belonging to another religion than the one they where raised in; or because they feel that they have to follow the/a religion, but they do not actually understand why. It is those kids of people that go to church, for example, know all the prayers, when to sing, when to dance, when to do whatever the religion is accustomed to do to worshiping God, but they have never stopped two seconds to even think, really think, if a God exists or even if s/he feels that the rites and prayers are the ones that are correct (or even if there are any correct ones, or if all are correct, or if all are bad, etc...). These are not, "true-believers", I do not know i you understand the message that Buzz and myself try to cross over.

This would be much like having a model of what you want to draw, let's say a drawing by another person for example, and you sketch it hoping, striving, to make the sketch exactly like the drawing, but it will never be the same as the other. When you say "and strive to overcome it (God)" (and I suppose that these are not your own words, but a quote from somewhere in the void) you express the faults that most people have when trying to understand God: in a way, many are looking to overcome Him.

Trying to overcome God (this is more simple than it sounds, it could be that you want to be the best at something, anything, selfishly) is projected in our everyday actions. If you do not understand Him or His ways, you will get angry, or maybe just a little stressed, when another person surpasses you in any activity, God, in a way, has surpassed you, and your goal to overcome Him (remember, this is all symbolic) is now, clearly, distant. If you really understand God, you will not look to achieve this, you will accept the nature of things and understand that sometimes you loose, and sometimes you win, but more importantly, you will understand that without giving it your most humble and best effort, you will not achieve anything. Thus, the Boddhisatva vow: to keep helping others, it is as simple as that.

Second Part:

Buzz, I had some questions for you, that I do not know you are capable of answering, but here they go:

In the picture you posted, what does the purple giant holding the wheel represent? God?

What are the 2 little circles on the uppermost left and right corner? What do they mean? What about the drawings on the edge of the circle (12 drawings to be exact)? What about the one in the middle?

What are the other drawings in the circle?

Thank you dood

Peace.7L

Zubi420

Islam has a heaven and hell and purgatory. I is actually a physical place. It is more a world than a place actually. BUt it does actually physcically exist. I guess our view is exactly the same as the christian view.

Btw i agree with some buddhist philosphies. And i believe there is probably something similar to karma that exists.

SevenLeafs

It has been a long time since I read this thread and, if I recall correctly, the last time I wrote in this forum or read anything in it (before once again dropping in a few days ago) was when I read your final reply Buzz.

Reading it again I understand why it all happened: lost in my point of view, I said some stupid things to you that were absolutely close-minded, yet I can see now that we were both a little like that: I was trying to get you to understand what I was saying (which seems to me you never really get) and you were doing the exact same thing. That just made it a debate instead of a discussion. Now Zubi420 posts in the thread again and I wonder if the discussion that was originally intended can be reached...

I said: "PS: Buzz, please try to argue your points of view, you fall short of what you usually do: argue with solid bases. That way we can both understand ourselves better; thank you." And I excuse myself because of this, it was totally out of place and I have never really considered that you do not argue your points of view with solid bases. This, and other similar statements of mine, may have led to the destruction of any discussion we might've had.

Today, after having developed my views further, I still consider that Buddha and Christ are very much alike in many ways, and it has little to do with my being "christian", for although I was raised as so (well, as catholic), I am not, today, part of any religion. In fact, it was only after embracing Taoist philosophies that the point of view expressed in this thread, by me, came to be. However, I did not ignore the differences you pointed out, I just accepted them and didn't see them as reasons for considering two things completely different: I saw them as details of a whole. To me, the differences are like saying that a nerve cell and a liver cell are different, yet, they are part of the same person and are both cells, among other things.

Again, my sincerest apologies.7L