Why are you in (that) religion?

[Evster2012]

How many ways have we learned to kill? Stoning, crusifiction, hanging, beheading, electrocucion, the gas chamber, lethal injection, the firing squad.. What is the commandment? Thou shall not kill? No, if you know your Hebrew it's Thou shall not MURDER. And what did the Isrealites do immediately after receiving this great law? Slaughtered the Midionites, the Edomites, the Cannaites.....Jericho. Leave no soul alive. No man, woman, child, goat or any other livestock. Take nothing of these peoples. This was god's command. Is it "murder" when it is the "will of god"? And so it goes. People die over religion to this day. Forgive me for feeling atheism is the better choice. At least if I choose to waste someone, it's on me. I don't hide behind god for my mistakes. And if I do wrong, don't kill me in his name. I didn't do it for him.

Greetings Gio and Celia! Forgive me my rant!

[FuzzyMerkin]

[2 of 2]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I wonder though, what makes you think your opinion about what "may not be the best way to go about reaching spiritual enlightenment" would be meaningful to me? Is "reaching spiritual enlightenment" even something you value, are interested in, have explored, or know anything about from personal experience or from having received instruction about it? Do you know what "reaching enlightenment" would mean or would look like? And what, pray tell, do you know of my motives? Answer: you know nothing of my motives. How could you possibly know if I'm fooling myself about my motives when you don't even know what my motives are?

It seems to me you're projecting all over the place. You're running amok with assumptions, presumptions, judgments, and ideas that may in fact have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of my spiritual practice and my motives. By all means please feel free to prove me wrong by accurately identifying my motives, by explaining to me what "reaching spiritual enlightenment" means, and by advising me of what you think would be the the best way to go about reaching enlightenment. Then I'll decide if I should take your advise about the best way to reach enlightenment or if I should stick with the advise offered by the likes of Ramana Maharshi, Tai Sutu Rinpoche, Karmapa, Sakyamuni Buddha, Milarepa, Papaji, Osho, Eli and Gangaji, RamaKrishna, Mingyur Rinpoche, Ponlop Rinpoche, Thrangu Rinpoche, Lama Pema,..

It's fascinating, aint it, that so much projection can be packed into the seemingly simple comment "I think you're fooling yourself about your acts as well as about your motives - which might not be the best way to go about reaching spiritual enlightenment".

You sure it's not personal, Fuzzy? "I think you're fooling yourself" , "you're a bit too impressed with yourself" , and "I simply judge your behavior" ..as a few quick examples.. all seem rather personal to me.

Fyi, I didn't set the level of the bar, my spiritual teachers.. including Buddha himself.. have set the bar. I'm merely trying my best to reach that level at some point in the course of my journey through this life. Even my best efforts fall well short of the goal so you can imagine how far short I fall those times (and there are many) when I don't give my best effort. If its any consolation to you, no one escapes their karma, not even me. If I cause harm to another, surely I'll get my comeuppance.

Thats pretty ironic ain't it,.. seeing as though you'd be wrong on both counts.

That's another example of you projecting your ideas, assumptions, expectations, and judgments.. positive and/or negative.. onto others. Bilbo fits your personal idea of what a Buddhist would be like, and yet he's not a Buddhist. I don't fit your idea of what a Buddhist should be like, and yet I am a Buddhist. Haha! Aren't projections a trip?!

Bilbo is a wonderful, sweet guy. No doubt about it. I hold him in the highest regard.

Really? You sure about that? In the communities of Buddhist monks at the monasteries I've visited, not only would you be unlikely to find "the same average number of overbearing idiots, utter assholes, selfish bastards and prejudiced intolerant cretins" as you would in any other community, you'd be hard pressed to find any "overbearing idiots, utter assholes, selfish bastards and prejudiced intolerant cretins". But why let one example get in the way of your assumptions, presumptions, judgments, and generalizations.. right?

It might be worth your while to examine the projections and assumptions that go into your assertion that "a good person will always be a good person.. and the same goes for the less likeable variety". Good people will "always" be good people and less likeable people will "always" be less likeable, eh? Gee, you don't leave people much room for change, do you?

Once good, always good. Once less-likeable, always less-likeable, eh?

Shall I guess what category you place me in? ..or yourself?

Ok, its reality check time: it's simply not true that anyone will "always" be the same. People have great capacity for change. In fact, capacity or not, people are in constant change. Nothing and nobody stays the same from one moment to the next. Not people, not objects, not anything. Everything changes. Constantly. Any appearance of permanence is merely an illusion.

Anyway..

thanks for the thought provoking discussion, Fuzzy.

Namaste,

For somebody who doesn't care about what I think you are very verbose...and for somebody who claims to value humbleness you seem to take criticism very badly.

As for the part I put in bold letters: Bilbo's posts fit very much what according to your description Buddhism is like. Yours don't. The fact that he isn't a Buddhist and you claim to be one is not proof of my "misconceptions" but of my point: good people will always be good people (and in my opinion acting in a respectful loving way to your fellow beings makes you a good person) and overbearing twats will always be overbearing twats - whatever religious affiliation they claim for themselves. "Always" doesn't refer to time here but to the respective religious affiliation so whether people can change "with time" isn't the point - the point is that they don't change necessarily or automatically "with (and according to their respective choice of) religion".

Edited for further clarification.

And another edit since I didn't have the time to look for the quote before:

You said that it was "judgmental" and arrogant of me to judge your acts in the light of your religious believes.

So what is it you did in the Teddy Bear thread then?

Fwliw, I don't mind expressing my opinion that I think its hypocritical of Christians

who claim they value the sanctity of life and yet they support capital punishment.

But at least Christians don't kill people (anymore) for believing in other religions.

They merely consider them.. uhh.. damned to eternal suffering in hell, thats all.

Do you really think that it is your prerogative to call people out for not acting in accordance with what their religion teaches while you're exempt from the same scrutiny? Isn't that hypocritical?

[Firekisses]

I still feel religious belief is a personal decision of what makes sense to the individual and what makes that person feel comfortable. Whether or not we agree with one another's spirituality, we should all try to keep an open mind and be respectful to another's viewpoint.

No, I'm not saying anyone here was or wasn't keeping an open mind or being respectful, just making a statement.

[Bilbo the Rover]

I stopped "arguing" religion and faith long ago . Most of the time these types aguments boil down to ego, not spirituality. Most often, a person is not trying to "save" someone else when professing their faith, they are trying to validate their beliefs to themselves by trying to get someone to agree with them and adopt their doctrine. Orginized religion just does it on a grander scale, they are all to quick to tell you that you're gonna burn in hell if you don't see things their way. In more severe cases, like Brother Ev eluded to, it leads to violence and war, we're seeing a bit of that these days, right ? "Each Drew his sword on the side of the Lord." Religion and faith for me are a personal thing, I can't worry too much about the salvation of someone else's soul when I can't even be sure I can save my own ! All I can do is try to be accepting of everyone's different spiritual path , Funny story I've posted before, seems fitting "" When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said " Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe ? " - Quentin Crisp

[Muse]

"" When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said " Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe ? " - Quentin Crisp

That attitude still applies to the Britain of today. It's funny... and so very pathetic. While over there I saw (and felt) more than the average person what a joke Christianity has become. They still insist on keeping up those damnable marches. It wasn't all that long ago that people were blowing each other up in Ireland... and people are still mugged and knifed over the Celtic/Rangers nonsense ("I'm Catholic so I spport Celtic!!"... "I'm Protestant so I support Rangers!!") all while the churches and cathedrals that fill every city and town were and are turning into pubs and clubs.

It hurts me, to see that. Because I believe, - I know - how important the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, and what have we done with it? No small wonder why Europe has become a God-less culture in a single generation: How can the world take Christianity

at face value when this is the face we choose to show?

[wanna be drummer]

Because he was talented?

In all honesty, I'm done debating religion in this thread, i've done it too many times.

But why don't you think he's talented?

[Bilbo the Rover]

That attitude still applies to the Britain of today. It's funny... and so very pathetic. While over there I saw (and felt) more than the average person what a joke Christianity has become. They still insist on keeping up those damnable marches. It wasn't all that long ago that people were blowing each other up in Ireland... and people are still mugged and knifed over the Celtic/Rangers nonsense ("I'm Catholic so I spport Celtic!!"... "I'm Protestant so I support Rangers!!") all while the churches and cathedrals that fill every city and town were and are turning into pubs and clubs.

It hurts me, to see that. Because I believe, - I know - how important the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, and what have we done with it? No small wonder why Europe has become a God-less culture in a single generation: How can the world take Christianity

at face value when this is the face we choose to show?

I have to disagree with you on that point, it's a bit ridicuous to paint Europe as "Godless". You have to remember the relationship Europeans have had with the Church and organized religion goes back much farther than our own. Wars waged in the name of God, power plays, corrupt church leaders that ministered to Kings and Queens and didn't give a shit about the common man . My parents homeland of Spain is a good example, Spain was priest ridden, they were everywhere like vermin. The church ran the show from the Reconquista in 1492 to the death of Franco and facism in the 70's. It's unfair to pigeonhole Europeans, they have their faith, it's just not the all encompassing "truth" that Americans seem to think it is. They carry on quietly, not wearing their faith on their sleeve, which in my opinion is much better than the bombardment of religion that some of us must suffer through here in the U.S.

[Knebby]

They still insist on keeping up those damnable marches.

No marches anywhere near me mate. No religion comes into my choice of footie team either. Maybe use a smaller brush next time you sweep?

[BrownSugar62]

"This is my simple religion, There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." - The Dali Lama

Nice quote, Bilbo. Says it all for me, really. I don't have any formal religious training. Which is strange, as I'm one of the few black people I know who haven't had some sort of indoctrination.

I definitely gravitate toward Buddhism and Advaita. My drum teacher is a Sufi initiate, so I'm interested in that as well (as my numerous quotations from Rumi show).

Sidebar: Hermit, I love your pics of the young monks; they look like they are having fun.

[Muse]

No marches anywhere near me mate. No religion comes into my choice of footie team either. Maybe use a smaller brush next time you sweep?

Perhaps I phrased my post poorly. I used the specific examples of Rangers and Celtic. I don't know of any other teams where this is a problem.

And the marches have never been as big a deal in England as they have in Ireland and Scotland.

[yahyoubetcha]

I don't think I've ever seen so many truly devout, intelligent people discuss religious philosophy with the use of emoticons. Somehow loses most of the oomph.

[Hermit]

Have you ever had a one-year old come up to you, stretch out their arms and look at you with all the trust in the world? That's all it takes - imagining people the way they were as toddlers...then think about what life has done to them to turn them into what they have become. No, it's not that hard.

Yeah, it's not that hard at all.. not on a conceptual level, anyway. But it is a very difficult thing (for most people anyway) to put into actual practice. Given that you (according to your own report) need to rely on "Iggy" to help you manage your feelings and behaviors in response to things people post at this internet message board, I doubt it would really be as easy for you as you'd like to think it would be to feel authentic, sincere loving kindness and compassion for someone like John Wayne Gacy who raped and killed 33 young boys,.. or a guy who abducts, rapes, and kills little girls,.. or Gary Ridgeway who murdered 50 or so prostitutes.. or a priest who abuses the trust that young boys place in him and sexually molests them.. or a dad who sexually molests his young daughter almost every night for several years.. or a guy who straps a bomb to his chest, walks into a public place and kills himself and 100 or 200 innocent men, women, and children.. etc, etc.

"No, its not that hard", you say, to feel loving kindness and compassion for perpetrators of such heinous violent acts as those? C'mon, Fuzzy, of course it's hard. It's not impossible, but unless one's practically a 'saint' it certainly is challenging and requires considerable conscious intention and effort.

Heck, forget about the perps of heinous cdrimes,.. most people have a hard time generating loving kindness and compassion for the person who cuts them off on the freeway, or the person who talks loudly on their cell phone while standing in line at the grocery store or while riding on a bus.

I wonder why you need a qualifiying adjective at all. If it isn't sincere and authentic it's not love. If you don't feel it, it's not a feeling.

I don't need the qualifier. It was for your sake, to help differentiate "(sincere and authentic) loving kindness and compassion" from the whimsical "(when struck by the mood) loving kindness and compassion" that you'd referred to.

I don't think the aim is to generate a whimsical "warm and fuzzy" feeling. I suspect that with some people that's the sole result of their efforts though.

You're surely entitled to "suspect" whatever you want about "some people",

Fuzzy, but the fact of the matter is you don't know,.. you merely "suspect".

..I guess we'll chalk that projection up to the cynic in you, eh?

That's exactly the point, Hermit. Can you show the most basic form of respect to another poster who gets on your nerves? I'm not even talking about somebody who's actually done you some harm...just a person with who's posts you don't agree. Going by what I've seen you can't. You haven't even been able to let go after that person stopped replying to you. What does that say about you?

Who says I have to (or should) stop commenting on someone's posts just because they don't respond to my comments? Is that a rule you have for yourself that you're assuming I should also abide by? If so, you're projecting.. again.

I frequently post comments in response to political posts made by TULed even though he very rarely ever responds. By your way of thinking I should stop posting comments about him or directing posts to him. Well, your way of thinking is just your way of thinking and I'm not beholden to your way of thinking. Even though TULed rarely responds to my posts, I still ask him questions and tease him on a regular basis. Even though Liz rarely responds to my comments anymore, I'll continue posting my comments when I feel so inclined to do so. If you have a problem with that,.. with all due respect, its your problem dear, not mine.

What does it say about me? One obvious thing it says is that what I post is not determined by whether or not I get a response. It says that I don't always post with the expectation of getting a response. If it's clear that I am seeking a response and I don't get one, I may tease the person about their failure to respond, but really it's no big deal. For example, you haven't responded to probably 80% of the questions I've asked of you in this exchange and you haven't so much as acknowledged any of the points I've made about projections. Do I mind that you're ignoring (and/or avoiding *ahem*) those questions and points? Not really; its no big deal. But I am aware of it.

I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. No you haven't treated Liz with respect. It's not what she thinks - I don't know what she thinks about this - it's my impression. It doesn't have anyhting to do with the way she treats people btw - by your own admission that shouldn't be a criterion anyway.

You say you don't know what she thinks or feels about my posts, and yet based on your "impression", you think I should stop posting comments about/to her? Seriously? That's real cute! I appreciate your spunk, kiddo, but sorry.. your "impressions" aren't gonna dictate what I post. Thanks for the feedback though.

Gawd love her, Liz sure as shit ain't shy about speaking her mind, now is she? No, she's certainly not. She doesn't hesitate to tell people to "shut the fuck up"; I've seen her do it any number of times. Regardless of what your "impressions" are, you might take note of the fact that she's never once told me to shut the fuck up. Yeah, she's disagreed with me on some issues (*cough*A-Rod's history of no showing in the playoffs*cough*), but she's never told me off or suggested in any way that I've ever hurt her feelings when I tease her about her temperament or her harsh treatment of others. Not once. Maybe that's cuz she recognizes the validity of my comments, eh? Or maybe thats cuz she knows I would (as I've done a time or two already) be the first one to jump in and defend her if someone was mean to her, eh? Who knows? In any case, maybe you oughta go ahead and file your "impressions" in the same place with what you "suspect about some people". You know, in the "just my opinion" file.

And just so you're clear about it, I never said suggested that Liz's behavior toward others is a criterion for how I treat her. I merely asked if you're able to acknowledge the simple fact that I treat her with a heckuva lot more respect than she treats others. That you can't, or won't, acknowledge such an obvious fact indicates that you're not able to be very objective on this issue.

Fwiw, I do hear you loud and clear that you don't think that I've been showing Liz so much as even "the most basic form of respect". I happen to disagree. I think I've been quite respectful.. and humorous usually.. in how I point out her ill-tempered treatment of others. Aw well, so you and I disagree. It's not the first time, nor will it likely be the last, huh? You're entitled to your opinion and I certainly don't begrudge you your opinion.

It's quite obvious that the truth hurts you, Hermit.

Sometimes the truth hurts; that's a fact of life. I'm certainly not exempt from that fact of life. But, uhh,.. exactly what truth are you referring to in this case? And what is it that leads you to the conclusion that I'm "obviously" feeling hurt? This wouldn't happen to be another of your "impressions" or another something you merely "suspect", would it Fuzz?

[Hermit]

For somebody who doesn't care about what I think you are very verbose...and for somebody who claims to value humbleness you seem to take criticism very badly.

When did I say I don't care about what you think? I might have indicated that I don't care about something specific you've had to say, but I certainly haven't, and wouldn't, make any blanket statements about not caring what you think, Fuzzy. Thats not my style, babe. By and large, of course I care about what you (and anybody else) think and says. [is it possible, do you think, that maybe you're projecting your own sense of "I don't care what you think" onto me? ]

Fyi, you're not the first person to point out my tendency to be verbose. If by any chance you said that as a slam, you might be disappointed to know that I don't take it that way. I take it as an acknowledgement (even if its not intended as such) of my willingness to put forth a genuine effort to be thoughtful and to communicate articulately and thoroughly in a discussion that I consider to be quite thought-provoking and worthwhile. The facetiousness of your comment notwithstanding, you are right: my verbosity is an indication that I do care.

I take criticism "very badly", you say? Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but I have a difficult time understanding where that opinion comes from (you projecting again certainly springs to mind as a likely culprit though. *wink*). I've acknowledged my personal shortcomings on a number of occasions, haven't I? I've responded with sincerity to most of your points and criticisms, having done so respectfully and thoughtfully, with a balanced mix of both seriousness and light-heartedness; where I've disagreed with you I've tried to explain why that is; and I've brought into the discussion information that I thought would enrich the discussion. I've acknowledged your role in the discussion, and have specifically thanked you for engaging in such a thought-provoking discussion.

I guess I haven't done quite enough (*cough*haven't agreed with you enough*cough*) to

qualify me as humble or as able to take criticism very well, as far as you're concerned, eh?

As for the part I put in bold letters: Bilbo's posts fit very much what according to your description Buddhism is like. Yours don't. The fact that he isn't a Buddhist and you claim to be one is not proof of my "misconceptions" but of my point: good people will always be good people (and in my opinion acting in a respectful loving way to your fellow beings makes you a good person) and overbearing twats will always be overbearing twats - whatever religious affiliation they claim for themselves. "Always" doesn't refer to time here but to the respective religious affiliation so whether people can change "with time" isn't the point - the point is that they don't change necessarily or automatically "with (and according to their respective choice of) religion".

I never suggested that people "change necessarily or automatically with (and according to their respective choice of) religion", so I'm not sure why you feel the need to make a point of disputing such an absurd pov [*straw man argument*].

Sorry to break it to you (again), but your point that 'good people will always be good people and overbearing twats (previously referred to by you as 'less-likeables') will always be overbearing twats' is simply not valid. As a belief its extremely naive.

You've stated very specifically that you believe being a "good person" means "acting in a respectful loving way to your fellow beings". By your own definition then, your friend Liz is decidedly not a good person. Unless you'd be willing to stretch the meaning of "acting in a respectful loving way" such that it would include telling your fellow human beings to "shut the fuck up!" and "get a life!", your definition of a "good person" doesn't leave room for her, does it? Perhaps your "idea" of what constitutes a "good person" is a wee bit too limited and rigid, eh?

And when someone whom you (based on your "impressions" or "suspicions" anyway) have decided is an "overbearing twat", one day reaches down to give a homeless person some money and gets puked on while doing so, and yet still gives with a generous, caring, compassionate heart without any concern or anger over having been puked on by that filthy alcohol-reeking-breathed homeless person, even you might have to acknowledge that maybe he's a good person afterall and that your assumption that he's destined to "always" be an "overbearing twat" has more to do with you, your cynicism, your limited thinking, and your judgments than it has anything to do with what kind of person he really is, eh? And that revelation might be all the more made clear should you then learn that that so-called "overbearing twat" volunteers 4 days a week to work with homeless people and otherwise disenfranchised "fellow human beings". eh?

Perhaps your categorization of people as "always" being either "good" or "twats" (bad)

is based on a very limited and overly rigid.. ie, a fundamentally flawed.. paradigm, eh?

You said that it was "judgmental" and arrogant of me to judge your acts in the light of your religious believes.

You're the one who specifically said "I judge your behavior..". So if I've said you were being judgmental, that would be an accurate statement, right? Yes, it would be accurate. For validation refer to your quote reading "I judge your behavior..".

On a deeper (and far more interesting, imho) level, I've frequently pointed out in this discussion how we all (I've specifically included myself) tend to project our ideas, assumptions, presumptions, and judgments onto others, resulting in a skewing of our perceptions. As far as I can tell (based on the fact that you've yet to so much as acknowledge any of my comments and examples about projections) you haven't given much thought to what I've suggested about projections, and as such may have failed to grasp the context in which I've been referring to judgments.

If I suggested you been arrogant, that's merely an opinion about the manner in which you've been judgmental. Maybe you've been arrogant, maybe you haven't. The real challenge is: if you have been, can you admit it?

You've certainly expressed your opinion (in any number of ways, both direct and indirect) that you think I'm arrogant. I own that I certainly can be arrogant at times. At this board my arrogance is particularly apparent in political debates where I tend to play it up at times.. as do most who regularly engage in the political debates at this board .. its part of the shits-and-giggles good, clean fun of political debate. We knock each other around while also managing to have informed, thoughtful discussions and debate. When it comes to political debate, if ya can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen.. ya know? ^-^ Anyway, the point is, I don't deny that I can be arrogant, just as I don't deny that I have any number of other flaws as well.

Practicing Buddhism doesn't magically eliminate one's flaws, but it does give one a method by which some of those flaws might be slowly transformed and, more importantly, it helps one to develop the wisdom to recognize one's inherent true nature: inseparable emptiness, awareness, and bliss/love. The recognition that the essence of everyone and everything is the same emptiness, awareness, bliss/love reveals that the appearance of individual separateness is merely relative; its an illusion. Having full experience of this realization is what might be referred to as "enlightenment" (though "enlightenment" as a word.. a "concept".. does not begin to convey that which is beyond all concepts). Those who have tasted this realization "know" (although actually its beyond all "knowing") that there is no real distinction between "me" and "you"; even though there appears to be a separation, that appearance is merely an illusion. We Buddhists strive to develop a sense of loving kindness and compassion for all beings because that intention, in and of itself, helps break down the illusion of the separateness of beings, and ultimately leads to the realization on non-duality. Out of that realization spontaneously and naturally springs forth.. yup,.. loving kindness and compassion for all beings. Consciously striving to generate loving kindness and compassion for all beings helps lead to the realization, and the realization the results in the spontaneous, effortless arising of loving kindness and compassion for all beings. The path/method and the result are beautifully intertwined. Thus the emphasis in Buddhism on loving kindness and compassion for all beings. Even though we lowly practitioners frequently fail in our striving to generate loving kindness and compassion for all beings, the very intention itself is beneficial, to us as practitioners and to those around us and to the world at large. So, what may seem to you to be a disingenuous aim with solely a self-aggrandizing result, you are only seeing but a mere fraction of the overall process (practice/method) and you are only seeing but a mere fraction, if that, of the result. Mental habits and personality flaws become ingrained/habitual over many years, and can take many years to be fully 'liberated'. We just keep plugging away at it, both taking it seriously and yet also not taking it too seriously (it is, afterall, merely relative and illusory). There is no downside to generating loving kindness and compassion for all beings; there is no downside to having the intention of generating loving kindness for all beings; there is only benefit.. for the one with the intention and for all beings,.. even if that benefit at times is barely, if at all, perceptible. I have no idea if this is coherent or if it makes any sense; typing is not the best way for me to express such dynamic, cloud-like "concepts". Words tend to stick in place; words are limited; these things I'm trying to convey don't stick, al they're beyond words and concepts; they cannot be spoken or written, they can only be pointed to and experienced directly [by whom though? Who is the experiencer of the experience? LOL! Nevermind]. . Anyway, coherent or not, I'm not editing this paragraph.

So what is it you did in the Teddy Bear thread then?

Do you really think that it is your prerogative to call people out for not acting in accordance with what their religion teaches while you're exempt from the same scrutiny? Isn't that hypocritical?

When have I ever claimed or suggested myself to be exempt from anything, Fuzzy? Answer: I haven't. You seem to be making assumptions again,.. or at the very least simply drawing your own conclusions regardless of the facts. I welcome scrutiny; I welcome feedback; I welcome being called on my shit, whether it be arrogance, judgmentalism, offensiveness, or whatever. Bring it on, babe.

Namaste.

[FuzzyMerkin]

It's quite simple, Hermit - treat people in a way that is in line with what you claim Buddhism is all about and I'll take you seriously. The way it is, it's all just talk...and we all know you're good at that.

[Hermit]

Sidebar: Hermit, I love your pics of the young monks; they look like they are having fun.

Hi Shugah!

Yeah, the little guys sure are cute arent they? They're monks, but they're also still little boys and they still like to do little boy things. It was so wonderful meeting and getting to know some of the hundred or so young monks at the monastery. I was amazed every morning, hearing them up before dawn practicing their prayers and chants; a cacophony of exuberant young voices enthusiastically belting out their prayers and chants.. and then later in the day seeing them running around the monastery grounds playing and being little boys.. albeit little boys in monks robes. It warmed my heart seeing them playing with balls and other goodies I brought them. They have so little as far as personal possessions and comfort items go, and yet they're so very sweet and happy. It was very humbling getting to know them. I look forward to seeing these little fellas again in April when I go back.

Rigzen Nima and his cousin Ben Norbu in their room.

[Katuschka]

In all honesty, I'm done debating religion in this thread, i've done it too many times.

I don't think anyone here has said anything to make you sound so defensive. Well, maybe that just my impressing, and you're simply tired of discussing it?

All in all, it doesn't make much difference. I just thought there was some neat discussion concerning the manifestation of beliefs going on. Pity you don't want to carry on, since you were the first one who replied to Klu's post, if I'm not mistaken.

But why don't you think he's talented?

Where or when have I said that? I think he was extremely talented. My point is that his talent has nothing to do with the reason why people tend to make their sanctuaries beautiful and pompous. He's not the one who should be asked the question. He was an artist who was told to do something, and who was paid for it. Period. If you really want to know the reason why cathedrals are so grand, the people who should be asked this question are those who entrust artists with such tasts, not the artists themselves.

I also think it's sweet that there are such buildings as Notre Dame (de Paris...I hope you mean this one, because there are many more cathedrals called Notre Dame). They are indeed beautiful, and they are also wonderful memorials to those who designed and built them...and therefore historically very valuable. Nevertheless, that has nothing to do with why they were built in the first place. It is no coincidence that protestant churches have never been so grand as catholic churches. Now I'm by no means defending protestantism, just pointing at the original doctrine which does not recognize any mediators between a man and the God. Protestants obviously don't think that the precious relationship between these two entities has to be gilded. Think about it.

It is also curious that the churches from the (early) renaissance era are much less pompous (yet not less beautiful) than medieval ones.

[Katuschka]

Churches in centuries past were designed with a sense of majesty in mind and to direct one's attention heavenward. Interesting that Michangelo painted on the ceiling as to direct one's attention upward. Sitting in a building in which Michangelo painted or Bach wrote the music had to have been pretty inspiring I would think. Even the placement of the pulpit meant something then. It was during a time when people recognized that art and music were a gift from God and they actually used it for higher purposes (as in a place of worship) as opposed to someone getting their groove on.

If you're still talking about the era in which Michelangelo lived, I must say that you are rather mistaken.

It's true Michelangelo himself was indeed a very religious man, but this comment is rather generalizing, and in fact not very true.

[Hermit]

It's quite simple, Hermit - treat people in a way that is in line with what you claim Buddhism is all about and I'll take you seriously. The way it is, it's all just talk...and we all know you're good at that.

With all due respect, you taking me seriously is neither a priority nor a concern for me; that's your business. Even though you're indicating that you don't take me seriously, I was happy to share my thoughts with you; I enjoyed responding to your challenges and questions; and I've appreciated your feedback.. all every bit as much as if you were to take me seriously. Same-same, afaic.

Thanks for the lively and thoughtful exchange.

Namaste, friend,

[MS1]

Where or when have I said that? I think he was extremely talented. My point is that his talent has nothing to do with the reason why people tend to make their sanctuaries beautiful and pompous. He's not the one who should be asked the question. He was an artist who was told to do something, and who was paid for it. Period. If you really want to know the reason why cathedrals are so grand, the people who should be asked this question are those who entrust artists with such tasts, not the artists themselves.

I also think it's sweet that there are such buildings as Notre Dame (de Paris...I hope you mean this one, because there are many more cathedrals called Notre Dame). They are indeed beautiful, and they are also wonderful memorials to those who designed and built them...and therefore historically very valuable. Nevertheless, that has nothing to do with why they were built in the first place. It is no coincidence that protestant churches have never been so grand as catholic churches. Now I'm by no means defending protestantism, just pointing at the original doctrine which does not recognize any mediators between a man and the God. Protestants obviously don't think that the precious relationship between these two entities has to be gilded. Think about it.

It is also curious that the churches from the (early) renaissance era are much less pompous (yet not less beautiful) than medieval ones.

When I went to Peru I toured cathedrals in Lima and Cusco. There were some interesting features they all seemed to share: gigantic alter pieces, two stories high, that were made entirely of gold or silver. Some were permanently set, some were carried in parades on festival days. This was entirely calculated; the Incan religion worshiped at gigantic golden representations of their gods, and the spaniards simply melted them down and recast them; it's the exact same thing that happened with the Pagan winter holiday and Christmas.

Another thing I saw in all the Peruvian cathedrals: beautiful 16th and 17th C. paintings of the last supper, which may have fallen short of Da Vinci though not through lack of trying. The funny thing, though, is that every one of these paintings had guinea pig served up on the table. A traditional Andean food staple, this was obviously calculated for effect.

Put it in a box with the blond haired blue eyed Christ as evidence of Christianity's willingness to alter itself to appear attractive to any given group of potential converts. There are great works of art and music and architecture that I'm sure were passionate, true expressions of faith- Bach leaps immediately to mind. But just as many religious art works are rife with ulterior motive.

[Katuschka]

But just as many religious art works are rife with ulterior motive.

When I went to Peru I toured cathedrals in Lima and Cusco. There were some interesting features they all seemed to share: gigantic alter pieces, two stories high, that were made entirely of gold or silver. Some were permanently set, some were carried in parades on festival days. This was entirely calculated; the Incan religion worshiped at gigantic golden representations of their gods, and the spaniards simply melted them down and recast them; it's the exact same thing that happened with the Pagan winter holiday and Christmas.

Another thing I saw in all the Peruvian cathedrals: beautiful 16th and 17th C. paintings of the last supper, which may have fallen short of Da Vinci though not through lack of trying. The funny thing, though, is that every one of these paintings had guinea pig served up on the table. A traditional Andean food staple, this was obviously calculated for effect.

Yeah, for the same reason we celebrate Christmas right during the time of Winter Solstice.

But just as many religious art works are rife with ulterior motive.

Oh, yes. The more and passionate the work of art is, the more it shows about the artist himself/herself. Renaissance was exactly the age when artists became artists, instead of being treated (and often behaving) as mere craftsmen that serve a higher purpose. It was suddenly more personal and individual. Paintings in Sistine Chapel can have an immense impact even on those who do not believe in what they illustrate. I know they can. They are magnificent by themselves.

[StringBender]

If you're still talking about the era in which Michelangelo lived, I must say that you are rather mistaken.

It's true Michelangelo himself was indeed a very religious man, but this comment is rather generalizing, and in fact not very true.

Well, I guess if you say so then that settles it then doesn't it?

I just used a couple of many examples that spans centuries. I mentioned Bach (whom to me is the greatest musical mind who ever has or ever will, walk the earth) signed all of his manuscripts with Latin inscrriptions of Soli Deo Gloria indicating "to God alone be the glory".

If you deny that works of art were used to convey a spiritual message then I must say you are rather mistaken.

[StringBender]

Oh, yes. The more and passionate the work of art is, the more it shows about the artist himself/herself. Renaissance was exactly the age when artists became artists, instead of being treated (and often behaving) as mere craftsmen that serve a higher purpose. It was suddenly more personal and individual. Paintings in Sistine Chapel can have an immense impact even on those who do not believe in what they illustrate. I know they can. They are magnificent by themselves.

I don't believe that someone must say "I'm gonna paint a religious work of art" or a "religious piece of music" is the only way that expresses somenthing that ultimately gives God glory. Since all talent, human ability comes from a Creator I believe whether its a painting, music, or someone throwing a baseball 99mph all testifies to this.

That may seemingly contradict what I said earlier but some do specifically set out to express a certain message such as the Sistene Chapel or a cantata - others do not...yet it is all a gift from a Creator.

[MS1]

Yeah, for the same reason we celebrate Christmas right during the time of Winter Solstice.

Didn't they used to call it "Saturnalia"? That is a much nicer name.

Oh, yes. The more and passionate the work of art is, the more it shows about the artist himself/herself. Renaissance was exactly the age when artists became artists, instead of being treated (and often behaving) as mere craftsmen that serve a higher purpose. It was suddenly more personal and individual. Paintings in Sistine Chapel can have an immense impact even on those who do not believe in what they illustrate. I know they can. They are magnificent by themselves.

I believe it. You've pointed out several instances where artists depicting religious ecstasy layered in emotions that we don't necessarily equate with religion. It was the constraint under which they had to work, but sometimes working within a constraint inspires- something to make sparks against. Was it faith moving through them that infused their paintings with life, or was it what they brought of themselves? Their emotions, their experiences? I think it's the latter. Anyway, I'd love to see the Sistine Chapel. Works of art always are so much more dramatic when you see them in person.

[Katuschka]

Well, I guess if you say so then that settles it then doesn't it?

What is the difference between me thinking I'm right and you thinking you're right? The knowledge? You haven't shown much knowledge concerning renaissance ideals in your last post, I'm afraid.

I just used a couple of many examples that spans centuries. I mentioned Bach (whom to me is the greatest musical mind who ever has or ever will, walk the earth) signed all of his manuscripts with Latin inscrriptions of Soli Deo Gloria indicating "to God alone be the glory".

....which makes your generalization even more blatant. Mainly when you mention one single composer. I already said that Michelangelo was a religious man, who was undoubtedly keen on producing art with strong spiritual messages...though he wasn't very keen on decorating the interior of Sistine Chapel; the pope basically forced him to do it. it was a job for which he was paid, and hardly anything else.

If you deny that works of art were used to convey a spiritual message then I must say you are rather mistaken.

String, could you please show me where have I denied it? They definitely were used to do that. I thought we were discussing why and on who's request. Architects didn't start building cathedrals just because they thought it was a good idea.

[Katuschka]

I believe it. You've pointed out several instances where artists depicting religious ecstasy layered in emotions that we don't necessarily equate with religion. It was the constraint under which they had to work, but sometimes working within a constraint inspires- something to make sparks against. Was it faith moving through them that infused their paintings with life, or was it what they brought of themselves? Their emotions, their experiences? I think it's the latter. Anyway, I'd love to see the Sistine Chapel. Works of art always are so much more dramatic when you see them in person.

Heh, you mean....Blessed Ludovica Albertoni?

Yeah, that's very sensual...yet very Baroque. I won't go as far as to decide whether it equates with religion or not, but it certainly shows the constraint under which he had to work. It's rather curious that the expressions of faith in art hugely depend on the demand of the church and the fashion of the age.