All Encompassing Philosophy and Religion Thread: Open to all discussions

[Kees_L]

People shall try to understand what their scriptures are teaching.

True understanding of religion leads to this conclusion. All of humanity is but one family.

I'm glad you'd be finding conclusions satisfactory to you, although for me any elevating scriptures or deities or faiths cannot equate to what 'humanity' or 'love' or 'understanding' should essentially be to mean.

I do not search to acknowledge anything through any means of scripture or religion, since I'm a living individual myself which should be enough for living / loving / understanding and all that. It's likely not all people would feel the same as me, on anything.

As seeming more honest and less messy than any putting Faith in whatever failsafe deity in my book. I hold some stuff or ideas Dear plus I may cherish what traits I find in Others, but I won't obligate anyone to follow suit, since that would appear but thoughtless and wrongful to me personally, especially on matters such as morality or existential questions.

[Soubhagya]

You are wise my friend.

I'm glad you'd be finding conclusions satisfactory to you, although for me any elevating scriptures or deities or faiths cannot equate to what 'humanity' or 'love' or 'understanding' should essentially be to mean.

Love for humanity automatically follows love of God. God says every living being is my part and parcel. If someone loves God, automatically that person would love God's parts and parcels as well. That would be the natural progression of loving God.

I do not search to acknowledge anything through any means of scripture or religion, since I'm a living individual myself which should be enough for living / loving / understanding and all that. It's likely not all people would feel the same as me, on anything.

I am glad that's working for you. But its not necessary that it will work for everybody and at all times. Since, your thoughts and ideas depend upon you, you are essentially dependent 'only' upon yourself. But we know we are fallible.

Actually first we need to be human beings. For a human being its but natural to love and understand others. That's what humanity is about. That comes almost naturally on using intelligence.

At the same time i think its useful to have a compass outside of us. Our intelligence can fail. We can make mistakes. Since these ideas depend on us, what if we fail? I am not saying we will. But its possible. I think its better to have a compass within us as well as something outside. That's safer.

As seeming more honest and less messy than any putting Faith in whatever failsafe deity in my book. I hold some stuff or ideas Dear plus I may cherish what traits I find in Others, but I won't obligate anyone to follow suit, since that would appear but thoughtless and wrongful to me personally, especially on matters such as morality or existential questions.

The point i was making is due to a few reasons.

Religion is such a beautiful thing. But this is being twisted and used by people for nefarious purposes. Naturally, I won't be happy on seeing something like this. So, it was a request to everyone to try to be careful of such unscrupulous leaders.

And i don't think there was an idea of obligating anyone in my post. I can 'promote' what is right. But that's the choice of the person to receive or reject.

[Orunmila-Oni]

Really really interesting there. I've read about the idea of not touching anyone by one's foot, and it's something that I've seen only in documentaries. But it's interesting to get a different view point on this as most don't go into detail as to why that happens. Which brings up the point of other versions of the name of God as well in the Hindi religion. Visnu being only one of them, and one lady I've spoken to about this, has stated that each name has different attributes that make that name just as powerful as other names, or more appropriate at different times to use.

I like your simple use of the sunshine metaphor connecting to the idea of the spirit. It actually connects to the ancient religion of Egypt with the idea of the sun being Ra and his watchful gaze, warmth and growth. As he was seen in some version of their religion as the creator of the sky, earth and underworld, thus being both the god of life and death. Really interesting there.



Yup there's so much built in there and their history with the idea of kami and how they interact with people and things. Something as simple as an umbrella that's 100 years old can become a spirit, but others can come from the fact that they were blessed or touched by someone who is considered blessed by the gods in various ways. Shinto Funeral rights are also interesting as they've been merged a lot with some Buddhist traditions, and a lot of Japanese people seem to mix and match them as they go. The Matsuri could also be seen as similar to the catholic or Christian idea of having a small picture, or making a shrine where a person passed on. It's also interesting how the Japanese never really look at the dead in a gloomy way, but it's not like where the Irish tend to have a celebration of the dead with their wakes.




I think there's a ton of them! Honestly if you look back you can see that there's connections all over the place. From the Egyptian Monotheistic idea of the sun being a creator of all things, to the Shinto idea of performing rites in a way that seem to have ties to some very old Chinese customs. For me, at least, I've always thought that religions were connected to each other, just different people wound up writing different books about it and, again for me at least, I tend to buy into the idea that God might be a mix (or like a group) that works together to watch over things. I know it sounds weird but there are aspects of Western, Eastern, Southern and Northern Religions that seem to intersect at points. The most common one I can think of at the moment is the whole idea of plagues and the flood. The flood is all over the place in so many religions and they all speak about it in different ways.

No that's fine, I love reading long winded ideas of connections between religions and myths. I actually think learning about other religions and view points helps people understand cultures more and by doing that you can grow to form a peaceful relationship because you can see both differences and similarities in your beliefs.

Darkspellmaster, I tend to feel the exact same way, kind of like we all see a fraction of the picture sort of deal, or that the way we see things is based on our ability to understand the whole picture. Or to put it a different way, a cultures understanding of the "truth" is determined by that cultures needs and ability to comprehend the small parts that are necessary for their needs at specific points in their mental and spiritual development. A child (even an adult) is not capable of understanding all things at once. They are introduced to concepts gradually and more so as they become better able to understand previous teachings. People are educated with fragments pertinent to their needs and roles (jobs etc), rarely able to see the whole "machine", let alone understand the numerous moving parts that make up the world allow it to continue moving. As above, so below they say; at least that's my perception and understanding of things.

The Biblical rule for not eating pork made sense in the Middle east 2500 years ago, but not so much today. Raw meats in general are contaminated. 90% of chicken is and about 25% of beef. The answer is to cook it through, not abstain because God is a dietician.

As far as why Christians don't keep kosher. From what I have been told, Jesus brought a new covenant for his followers. Many of the old Torah rules no longer applied. But this is put in practice very selectively, with some laws still in place and others not. There is big discrepancies across different Christian sects. And even among Jewish people, the adherence to the Torah is widely varied. From Ultra-Orthidox to Reform.

This seems to be my understanding from what I've learned from many Christian practitioners, especially about the old Torah rules no longer applying once Jesus arrived then proceeded to die for men's sins.

Sure there are differences. As well as similarities. There's only one God. Sun is called 'surya' in Sanskrit. You may call it sun, i may call it surya. But in the end we are indicating the same thing.

Differences in religions is mostly due to this. God's messengers, servants, prophets have appeared all over the world. And they have revealed the message according to their audience's ability to receive.

The teacher maybe a PhD in mathematics. But she teaches according to the level of the student. For an elementary student, 2-5 can't be done. But in high school does more complicated calculations. In college level the student studies stuff like calculus. All of this is mathematics. Whether subtracting two numbers, algebra or calculus. But the teacher teaches according to the capacity of the student to learn.

This is more or less the way I tend to look at things. From my admittedly limited understanding at least.

[Orunmila-Oni]

People shall try to understand what their scriptures are teaching. And be sincere in following that. Religious teachings have been misused by the leaders for their own nefarious means. By careful reading one can find that warwaging, exploitation, colonization etc. are anathema to religion. These people may think they are following the path of God. But they have been thoroughly cheated.

And if they read other religion's scriptures they will be surprised in finding similarities. I am quoting a few.

1. Scriptures recommend the chanting of the name of God

-Bible states: O Lord, Thou art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.

-Islam encourages chanting 99 names of Allah.

-Mahabharata recommends chanting 1000 names of Vishnu. (Also called Vishnu-sahasra-nama)


2. Religions teach that love of God is the ultimate perfection.

- Bible states: Love Thy God with all Thy soul and all Thy heart.

- ‘Islam’ means ‘complete surrender’.

- The Bhagavad-gita (18.66) states: sarva dharman parityajya mam ekam sharanam vraja- “Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me.”


3. There is something called 'returning to the kingdom of God'.

-Christianity

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light; and they shall reign forever and ever. [Rev.:22.5]

-Sanatana Dharma (which is mistakenly called Hindu religion by even its followers)

That abode of mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by electricity. One who reaches it never returns to this material world. [Bhagavad Gita 15.6]

There the sun does not shine, neither do the moon and the stars; nor do these flashes of lightning shine. What to speak of fire? He (Lord) shining, all these shine; through His luster all these are variously illumined. [Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:14]

-Islam

Every soul will have taste of death. The life of this world is but comfort of illusion. But those who keep their duty to their Lord, for them are Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will be safe forever.

-Sikhism

By one-pointed love and devotion to God, one attains to that place which is eternal, changeless and where there is pure happiness. There one enjoys the qualities and pastimes of the Lord. There exists an eternal kingdom of the Lord. In that place there is no fear, no illusion nor bewilderment, no miseries. And there, there is no birth and death. There is only pure eternal spiritual bliss in that abode. The devotees of the Lord in that abode subsist on the glories of the Supreme Soul, God.

[GGS RagGaud Guarerei Mahala 5 Asatapadiaa 4]

-Zoroastrianism

Vohuman says to that soul, “From the mortal world (you have come). You are welcome here in this blissful eternal world”. Vohuman tells the soul, “Oh Holy one! You are welcome in this world full of happiness having come from the world of misery”. [A.G.Z.R., Ch.2 p.85]



True understanding of religion leads to this conclusion. All of humanity is but one family.

I appreciate the way you view and understand things, focusing on the similarities and extracting those key teachings you find existing within each.

I'm glad you'd be finding conclusions satisfactory to you, although for me any elevating scriptures or deities or faiths cannot equate to what 'humanity' or 'love' or 'understanding' should essentially be to mean.

I do not search to acknowledge anything through any means of scripture or religion, since I'm a living individual myself which should be enough for living / loving / understanding and all that. It's likely not all people would feel the same as me, on anything.

As seeming more honest and less messy than any putting Faith in whatever failsafe deity in my book. I hold some stuff or ideas Dear plus I may cherish what traits I find in Others, but I won't obligate anyone to follow suit, since that would appear but thoughtless and wrongful to me personally, especially on matters such as morality or existential questions.

Ultimately I have to agree with you as well. I think far too many people tend to use religion and their faith as a crutch. I still believe that our faith is important and that there is nothing wrong with those who choose to have faith in a higher power. However, we've all seen the dangers in blind faith and devotion, the damage that can come from zealotry and refusing to ask questions or to think for ones self. For me, I believe it is just as important to develop whatever spark, divine nature, or part of "god" that exists within all of us. That part that connects us to one another and every other living thing on this planet. I believe our compassion, ability to care and feel, our sense of right, and our ability to grow; become better than we once were, comes from this.

There's nothing wrong with believing in, or attempting to follow/have a relationship with something greater than ourselves, but ultimately I have to believe that it starts with us. We have to take responsibility for our own actions and not allow whether or not we are a "good" person depend solely on an outside force. Such is the gift/curse of free will.

[Soubhagya]

Really really interesting there. I've read about the idea of not touching anyone by one's foot, and it's something that I've seen only in documentaries. But it's interesting to get a different view point on this as most don't go into detail as to why that happens. Which brings up the point of other versions of the name of God as well in the Hindi religion. Visnu being only one of them, and one lady I've spoken to about this, has stated that each name has different attributes that make that name just as powerful as other names, or more appropriate at different times to use.

Yes. That is the reason why people do this. Because God lives within the heart of every living being. But over time these can become rituals. Doing something without actually understanding the reason behind that. Loosing the associated benefits. For example trying to respect others would come naturally if they understand that other people's bodies are temples too.

I would point out that these are not versions of names. But rather names of God. And chanting God's names is the recommended process of self realization in this age according to the Vedas. There are no hard and fast rules for chanting God's names. One can simply sit anywhere and chant God's names. 'Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare/Hare Ram Hare Ram Ram Ram Hare Hare'. Chanting these names don't cost a thing. Yet the benefits are great. Definitely worth trying.

And lest i contradict myself about rituals, let me add that by doing this one can realize one's eternal spiritual nature. By self realization i meant that. We are not the bodies according to Bhagavad Gita. But rather spirit souls. These names are of a transcendental nature. One can chant these names everyday but one won't tire. Something mundane can become tiring. Try chanting something like 'coco cola' for half an hour. That will become boring real soon. But that won't happen with 'Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare/Hare Ram Hare Ram Ram Ram Hare Hare'.

I like your simple use of the sunshine metaphor connecting to the idea of the spirit. It actually connects to the ancient religion of Egypt with the idea of the sun being Ra and his watchful gaze, warmth and growth. As he was seen in some version of their religion as the creator of the sky, earth and underworld, thus being both the god of life and death. Really interesting there.

That was meant to be an analogy. I hope you understood what i meant to say by my analogy. Or else you ended up finding a connection but lost what i wanted to convey. I would be a bad communicator then.

Its said that God is all pervasive. So, a certain school of thought says because God is all pervasive, God won't be existing as an unique individual. God would be formless. It sounds sensible at first. I am an individual. I am not all pervading. I exist only in front of my laptop. So, if God is all pervading, God won't be able to exist as an unique individual.

For that the Vedic scriptures say God is all pervasive and yet exists as an unique individual. God is not formless. Sun pervades throughout the solar system by its light, And yet there's the form of the sun. Similarly, from God's divine body something called the 'brahman' emanates. That is formless. And that pervades all throughout the universe. That brahman is spiritual in nature. Indestructible. Imperceptible to the ordinary senses. Eternal. And that is the impersonal aspect of God. So, there's no contradiction if we say that everything has spirit. I meant to say that. (Though i think difference will arise if i ask whose spirit).

I am curious about what the Christians say about the Holy Spirit. Because what little i have heard about the Holy Spirit sounds like 'brahman'. But i don't know how they describe the Holy Spirit.

Darkspellmaster, I tend to feel the exact same way, kind of like we all see a fraction of the picture sort of deal, or that the way we see things is based on our ability to understand the whole picture. Or to put it a different way, a cultures understanding of the "truth" is determined by that cultures needs and ability to comprehend the small parts that are necessary for their needs at specific points in their mental and spiritual development. A child (even an adult) is not capable of understanding all things at once. They are introduced to concepts gradually and more so as they become better able to understand previous teachings. People are educated with fragments pertinent to their needs and roles (jobs etc), rarely able to see the whole "machine", let alone understand the numerous moving parts that make up the world allow it to continue moving. As above, so below they say; at least that's my perception and understanding of things.

Whoah! That's like the story of six blind men and the elephant.

There were six blind friends who never knew what an elephant looks like. Once an elephant arrived in their town and they wanted to 'see' that. Each friend touched one part of the elephant and said differently. One friend touched an ear. And said the elephant is like a fan. Another friend held the tail and came to the conclusion that the elephant is like a broom. Another friend touched one leg and concluded that the elephant is like a pillar. Thus, each of them came to a different conclusion. The story ends with a person who can see who explains the elephant so that they actually understand what an elephant is.

That is how there's a difference in philosophies. In India itself there are a number of schools of philosophy. The differences are explained by this, They are all searching for the 'Absolute Truth'. But the 'Absolute Truth' is multifaceted.

[Darkspellmaster]

Darkspellmaster, I tend to feel the exact same way, kind of like we all see a fraction of the picture sort of deal, or that the way we see things is based on our ability to understand the whole picture. Or to put it a different way, a cultures understanding of the "truth" is determined by that cultures needs and ability to comprehend the small parts that are necessary for their needs at specific points in their mental and spiritual development. A child (even an adult) is not capable of understanding all things at once. They are introduced to concepts gradually and more so as they become better able to understand previous teachings. People are educated with fragments pertinent to their needs and roles (jobs etc), rarely able to see the whole "machine", let alone understand the numerous moving parts that make up the world allow it to continue moving. As above, so below they say; at least that's my perception and understanding of things.

I like the way you put this. Teaching of religion and philosophies are very much something that is a gradual thing, just as roles and every day common sense. What I find interesting is the idea that over time, as a person grows and expands their views, by using the lessons that they have learned they can then look for similar lessons in other texts or oral histories. It's like learning an language, a child at a young age can learn duel languages because the mind is picking up vocal cues from their parents or teacher, so for some kids its easy to become bilingual. Where as adults, once you've learned something it's hard to add to it. Again, like a language, if you grow up your whole life speaking one language and you start to learn another at an older age, a lot of what you've learned for your first language needs to be somewhat unlearned for a second, since they're very different in some ways. Such as, for example, English to Japanese or Chinese, since the written and spoken language is very different and you have to learn that a Ka sound in Japanese is different than a Ka sound in English.

I appreciate the way you view and understand things, focusing on the similarities and extracting those key teachings you find existing within each.

Ultimately I have to agree with you as well. I think far too many people tend to use religion and their faith as a crutch. I still believe that our faith is important and that there is nothing wrong with those who choose to have faith in a higher power. However, we've all seen the dangers in blind faith and devotion, the damage that can come from zealotry and refusing to ask questions or to think for ones self. For me, I believe it is just as important to develop whatever spark, divine nature, or part of "god" that exists within all of us. That part that connects us to one another and every other living thing on this planet. I believe our compassion, ability to care and feel, our sense of right, and our ability to grow; become better than we once were, comes from this.

There's nothing wrong with believing in, or attempting to follow/have a relationship with something greater than ourselves, but ultimately I have to believe that it starts with us. We have to take responsibility for our own actions and not allow whether or not we are a "good" person depend solely on an outside force. Such is the gift/curse of free will.

Exactly my thoughts! Very well put. I'd like to add that our Free will allows us to adapt and grow and understand and comprehend other cultures or ideas, and that, if one is willing to listen and find the common ground, it shows that while there is differences, there is similarities in all of us. If we can grasp that, it might make it easier to find ways to create a more peaceful world, I would like to think.

Yes. That is the reason why people do this. Because God lives within the heart of every living being. But over time these can become rituals. Doing something without actually understanding the reason behind that. Loosing the associated benefits. For example trying to respect others would come naturally if they understand that other people's bodies are temples too.

I would point out that these are not versions of names. But rather names of God. And chanting God's names is the recommended process of self realization in this age according to the Vedas. There are no hard and fast rules for chanting God's names. One can simply sit anywhere and chant God's names. 'Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare/Hare Ram Hare Ram Ram Ram Hare Hare'. Chanting these names don't cost a thing. Yet the benefits are great. Definitely worth trying.

And lest i contradict myself about rituals, let me add that by doing this one can realize one's eternal spiritual nature. By self realization i meant that. We are not the bodies according to Bhagavad Gita. But rather spirit souls. These names are of a transcendental nature. One can chant these names everyday but one won't tire. Something mundane can become tiring. Try chanting something like 'coco cola' for half an hour. That will become boring real soon. But that won't happen with 'Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare/Hare Ram Hare Ram Ram Ram Hare Hare'.

I really do like the idea of seeing the body as a temple, and that it's a housing not only for our parts, but also for the soul and that the heart and mind can both be used to create a larger understanding in the world, both physical and spiritual.

Ah see, this is very different then what she was implying, and it makes me wonder if she was from a different sect? I know that there are a number of Hindu sects but they don't all see the stories in the same way and such. Now, my question is, is the chanting used as a meditation because of the repeating nature of chanting the name? I know some people who do meditate sometimes do chanting while doing so, so I'm curious if a lot of their techniques come from the idea of linking to a higher spirit or plane of existence?

Really fascinating, because from a Catholic perspective, we tend not to chant but to pray in silence. To me it makes sense to vocalize, but to others it might seem odd because of the fact that you're supposed to invoke the feelings inside you and have a one on one with God and the saints, and not say things aloud. (I suppose it's also going on the idea that you don't want others to know the wrongs you've done, lest they think 'Hey I can use this to blackmail so and so.' )

Something interesting came up the other day. I was talking to a friend who is finishing up her English class, and they're doing final exams this week. The teacher's last lessons focus on the hero's journey and one student, who's Jewish, brought up something that surprised my friend. He mentioned that the role of Moses could be seen within the confines of the Heroes journey, and that, if you look at other scriptures, a lot of stories from the Old and new Testaments seem to have this journey in there as well.

Which makes me wonder if globally we use the idea of the heroes journey as part of a connection to those that we worship or see as prophets.

[Soubhagya]

Exactly my thoughts! Very well put. I'd like to add that our Free will allows us to adapt and grow and understand and comprehend other cultures or ideas, and that, if one is willing to listen and find the common ground, it shows that while there is differences, there is similarities in all of us. If we can grasp that, it might make it easier to find ways to create a more peaceful world, I would like to think.

I agree with both of you. Its necessary that the intelligent persons of our society come together and be more. Its for everyone but its most necessary for the leaders.

I really do like the idea of seeing the body as a temple, and that it's a housing not only for our parts, but also for the soul and that the heart and mind can both be used to create a larger understanding in the world, both physical and spiritual.

And i have barely scratched the surface. I really recommend reading Bhagavad Gita As It Is.



https://www.amazon.com/Bhagavad-Gita.../dp/0892131349

Bhagavad Gita has a number of writers and commentators. Its perhaps the most popular book of philosophy from India. The special thing about 'Bhagavad Gita As It Is' is it comes not from an ordinary writer or philosopher. But a teacher in a line of teachers going back to thousands of years. Someone can put one's own philosophy while explaining Gita, obscuring what it really means to say. But this is as it is. As Krishna, its original speaker meant it to be.

Its a most important contribution to human society. And i recommend and request humbly to everyone to read it. Whether its you or anyone else reading this post.

Ah see, this is very different then what she was implying, and it makes me wonder if she was from a different sect? I know that there are a number of Hindu sects but they don't all see the stories in the same way and such. Now, my question is, is the chanting used as a meditation because of the repeating nature of chanting the name? I know some people who do meditate sometimes do chanting while doing so, so I'm curious if a lot of their techniques come from the idea of linking to a higher spirit or plane of existence?

Yes there are a number of sects in India. With a different understanding. Part of the reason is because Vedic literatures are like this. Followers of the Vedas are called Hindus nowadays. But the correct term is 'Sanatana Dharma'. Now what 'Sanatana Dharma' means is a topic in itself. I will give its meaning in another post.

The Vedas are very inclusive. They are written with the idea that not every person's 'consciousness' is same. Not everyone can follow the topmost religion. So, there's a gradation among the scriptures. The idea is to gradually take the follower from a lower level of consciousness to higher. Finally, to the highest. A good analogy would be a university where there are classes from Kindergarten to Doctorate. Each one is a student. But not everyone is of the same level. But one gradually comes to the highest level by sincerely practicing what is prescribed for that person.

And you are correct about chanting as means of meditation. Idea is to chant and hear. So, if you are attentive your mind is fixed on the sound vibration, that's meditation. And you are correct. This is meant to link into a higher spirit or plane of existence.

Really fascinating, because from a Catholic perspective, we tend not to chant but to pray in silence. To me it makes sense to vocalize, but to others it might seem odd because of the fact that you're supposed to invoke the feelings inside you and have a one on one with God and the saints, and not say things aloud. (I suppose it's also going on the idea that you don't want others to know the wrongs you've done, lest they think 'Hey I can use this to blackmail so and so.' )

Praying in silence is good. And praying loudly is good too. As a means of meditation chanting is more effective. Mind's tendency is to wander. But when there's sound vibration its easier to fix the mind. As soon as one's mind wanders one can bring it back to the sound of chanting.

And this 'Hare Krishna maha mantra' is also a prayer. Krishna and Ram are names of God. And Hara means the energy of God. When its addressed Hara is changed into Hare in the vocative. It actually means O God. O God's energy please engage me in your service. That's the best prayer one can ever have.

But these combination of words are not mere words. They are done on a spiritual platform. It goes beyond the platforms of mind and the intellect and acts on the platform of the soul. Thus, its not necessary to understand what it means. It acts automatically because we are all spiritual beings. Even a child or a dog can take part in it.

We have some experience of this. Music goes far deeper then any other kind of stimuli. And Hare Krishna is spiritual sound vibration recommended by Vedic authorities for this age. It helps us connect with the higher plane of existence.

Plus, chanting has another advantage. It can be done anywhere. While walking. While riding a bus. While cooking. It has no hard and fast rules. If you have to pray silently you need a place like that where you won't be disturbed. But chanting can be done both in one's room or on the street.

Something interesting came up the other day. I was talking to a friend who is finishing up her English class, and they're doing final exams this week. The teacher's last lessons focus on the hero's journey and one student, who's Jewish, brought up something that surprised my friend. He mentioned that the role of Moses could be seen within the confines of the Heroes journey, and that, if you look at other scriptures, a lot of stories from the Old and new Testaments seem to have this journey in there as well.

Which makes me wonder if globally we use the idea of the heroes journey as part of a connection to those that we worship or see as prophets.

I had heard of this term. And i had a very vague idea of what it means. I searched for it and read it up a bit. I read this article.

https://thewritingkylie.com/blog/the...fferent-stages

Now that i think of it there are a number of similarities globally in these. Now someone may say that's good storytelling. But it would be weird if it is found across so many cultures and across time periods*.

In almost all cases there's a journey. Which starts from mundane and reaches the divine/spiritual. And then its shared to others. These prophets, messengers take the journey and share its fruits with us.

Another thing which looks like its common to everyone.

* The author of Bhagavad Gita As It Is, had a similar story. I can see elements of a hero's journey in his life story. Except his journey started at the age of 69! If you are interested you may check out his biography.

https://www.amazon.com/Srila-Prabhup.../dp/0892133570

[Kirby101]

I was posting in the Bible thread, but really this is the better place for such things.

About God and evil.

Epicurus asks these questions, which I have never been answered to my mind, except, "can't understand God" or "mysterious ways.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

I have one way of looking at the Biblical God. How would we react if a man did the same thing.

What if a king told one of his subjects to kill his own son, and then stop the blade just as he was about to kill him.
How would we see this act of cruelty or a loving test of loyalty? Would we say it shows how faithful the man is? Or how caring the Ruler is for stopping it?
Is this a benevolent and loving King?

[Rob Allen]

I have one way of looking at the Biblical God. How would we react if a man did the same thing.

What if a king told one of his subjects to kill his own son, and then stop the blade just as he was about to kill him.
How would we see this act of cruelty or a loving test of loyalty? Would we say it shows how faithful the man is? Or how caring the Ruler is for stopping it?
Is this a benevolent and loving King?

Another commentary about that story, from a former member of this forum:

[Kirby101]

That's pretty good.

I love Dylan'd take from Highway 61

"God said to Abraham kill me a son.
Abe said, God you must be putting me on..."

[Soubhagya]

I was posting in the Bible thread, but really this is the better place for such things.

About God and evil.

Epicurus asks these questions, which I have never been answered to my mind, except, "can't understand God" or "mysterious ways.



I have one way of looking at the Biblical God. How would we react if a man did the same thing.

What if a king told one of his subjects to kill his own son, and then stop the blade just as he was about to kill him.
How would we see this act of cruelty or a loving test of loyalty? Would we say it shows how faithful the man is? Or how caring the Ruler is for stopping it?
Is this a benevolent and loving King?

Pardon me as i am not giving a total answer. I mentioned in Bible thread that this requires study. So, this is what i will do. I will give short answers. This will bring more questions. And i will try to answer them.

My answering would be like a grade 8 student explaining to his friend. The student is not an expert like the teacher. But still he understands and 'tries' to explain. If i speak too much it can be confusing.

Your first point. Is God not capable of preventing all evil? God is not omnipotent? Answer: God is omnipotent.

Second point. Is God malevolent for not willing to stop evil? Answer: God is not malevolent. In fact, there is no one more benevolent then God.

Your last points flows naturally from those points. If God is unwilling or incapable, why call Him God? If God is both capable and willing, where does evil come from?

Where does evil come from?
Answer: Evil comes due to misuse of our free will. Just like criminals are put inside jail due to misuse of their independence. Had they been law abiding citizens they wouldn't be in jail in the first place.

And why God does not stop this?
Answer: Everyone is responsible for their own suffering. The prisoner may blame anyone. But in the end only the criminal is responsible. Not the policeman, not the jailer, not the court, not the government.

[Kirby101]

Pardon me as i am not giving a total answer. I mentioned in Bible thread that this requires study. So, this is what i will do. I will give short answers. This will bring more questions. And i will try to answer them.

My answering would be like a grade 8 student explaining to his friend. The student is not an expert like the teacher. But still he understands and 'tries' to explain. If i speak too much it can be confusing.

Your first point. Is God not capable of preventing all evil? God is not omnipotent? Answer: God is omnipotent.

Second point. Is God malevolent for not willing to stop evil? Answer: God is not malevolent. In fact, there is no one more benevolent then God.

Your last points flows naturally from those points. If God is unwilling or incapable, why call Him God? If God is both capable and willing, where does evil come from?

Where does evil come from?
Answer: Evil comes due to misuse of our free will. Just like criminals are put inside jail due to misuse of their independence. Had they been law abiding citizens they wouldn't be in jail in the first place.

And why God does not stop this?
Answer: Everyone is responsible for their own suffering. The prisoner may blame anyone. But in the end only the criminal is responsible. Not the policeman, not the jailer, not the court, not the government.

I will quote my post in the Bible thread. "Free will" is not a good excuse for God to allow evil.

So I ask, why is the free will of the evil doers more important than the free will of their victims?

I am sure the Jews did not choose to be shipped in cattle cars to their death. What about their free will to choose to live? Was the free will of the Nazis more important that he could not intervene?

Did God think the free will of John Wayne Gacy more important that the dozens of children he killed?

Is Kim Jong Un's free will more important to God than the free will of all his people?

Telling me, "God has a plan" doesn't explain the billions who have suffered and died over the millennia, because he allowed evil to take place.

[Soubhagya]

I will quote my post in the Bible thread. "Free will" is not a good excuse for God to allow evil.

The best way is to go from general to specific. First understand the principles. Then one can understand how it is working. Your questions should have been like this: What is this free will? And how is is it misused? Evil is not only human. Suffering also comes from nature. How does this 'misuse of free will' work here?

I wish to make you think about what i posted. After that you ask more questions. And i will answer more. That is more useful then giving a long speech.

Think about what i have said. God is not the cause of someone's suffering. My suffering is due to my own actions. An intelligent person can thus rectify one's behavior.

[Tendrin]

Think about what i have said. God is not the cause of someone's suffering. My suffering is due to my own actions. An intelligent person can thus rectify one's behavior.

This seems like a route to victim blaming.

[Soubhagya]

This seems like a route to victim blaming.

Knowledge can be misused. Just like a knife in the hand of a surgeon can save a life. And in the hand of a killer it can be deadly. That's why one shall be very careful with it.

Just because someone suffers due to their actions does not mean that one who is in knowledge shall be hard hearted and insensitive.

In fact, real knowledge makes a person more sensitive to other people's pains. There is a saying.

Matravat para daresu
Para dravyesu lostravat
Atmavat sarva bhutesu
Yah pasyati sa panditah

Panditah means learned. Who is a learned person? Matravat para daresu. One who sees every woman except one's wife as mother. Para dravyesu lostravat. Sees other's wealth as garbage on the street. Atmavat sarva bhutesu. Thinks every living entity as one's own self. Yah pasyati sah panditah. Such a person is called learned or pandita.

Thinking of others as one's own self means one feels haapy in their happiness and pain in their suffering.


Partial knowledge can be dangerous in wrong hands. There is no question of victim blaming here. It would be illogical. Isn't it?