Why are there so many religions in the world?

For my own part, the only aspects of buddhism that are of any interest to me are the actual techings of the buddha and the insights and opinions of practicing buddhists.

But it is somewhat of a paradox, because to be a true buddhist one must reject buddhism, as I see it, and find one's own way.

I am glad you are back, Ricky, and sorry if I have misunderstood you. I guess it was because you kept repeating going to heaven or hell.

I agree with you it is difficult to accept a religion if your questions don't have answers. So far, me too, I only have questions and no answers. And I had exactly the same question like you that if God is real (i.e. God for all humans), why did he appear only to a select group of persons or even to one single person? That is the reason I don't follow any religion because it seems to me each one has its own God. I do believe in God though, very strongly, the God for all humans.

I don't know what you mean by giving you an answer, not to say a direct or an intelligent answer, to your question which, if I understand well, is why would there be so many religions if there was just one God. I think all of us have been trying to answer the question partly, in one way or other, directly or indirectly, in our own ways, by saying different things. We can't answer things we don't have ourselves an answer for.

I just want to add that these past few days, I have learned a lot from discussions with the various members in this topic. This topic is a very deep one that made me think and ask myself questions. There is so much more to discuss, for me at least.

I am really glad that I joined this forum for it had allowed me to "meet" with so many wonderful members.

Cryacuz, I believe your statement that the practice of Buddhism entails a paradox "because to be a true buddhist one must reject buddhism...and find one's own way" is reflected in the famous zen saying that if you meet the Buddha you should kill him.

One only needs to establish a principle of life to live without religious' dogma. Mine is " treat all living things with dignity and respect/kindness." What religious' teaching can beat that?

Except if they're Christians, right?

The lack of respect, kindness and dignity you show to those who disagree with you is evidenced countless times in these threads, CI.

Real Life,

Re to your reaction to c.i..........

Your concept of "respect" remains simplistic. The thrust of this thread about the proliferation of "religions" is that no label like "Christian" is worthy of "respect" per se. People who embrace such labels as what they are continue to acquiesce in the historical saga of devisiveness. It seems be the case that the majority lack the intellect to understand that their concepts of "themself" have been "enmeshed" by such labels.Their "self-repect" is unable to function without the organizational props devised by others, (proliferation being the antithesis of "unique divine origin"). Such persons are worthy of "respect" as fellow humans, but their allegiance to their labels can only be "tolerated" up to a point. The very act of labelling is essentially an act of disrespect to "others".

In the words of one philosopher quoted by Harris "Religion is an insult to the dignity of man".

I once heard a parable about a man seeking elightenment from Buddha, and getting very mad because he was ignored. After some time Buddha finally addresses the man after he become irrate. Buddha says something to the effect of: "Do you really need me to teach you that life is beautiful, that love is precious? etc.." Basically Buddha rejects the man, and tells him to study elsewhere.

The paradox itself is very profound. Sorry Cyracruz if I have butchered the story badly.

Diest

You didn't butcher the story. It is told, and you told another, related story. All good.

JL

I think you are right. I've heard the saying you refer to. Another one goes that if you meet an enlightened person on your way the best thing you can do is give him an uppercut.

As I understand it the "self" which "accepts" Buddhism must be rejected for transcendence to the "no-self" position. This is the essence of the "paradox".

By similar reasoning he would demand "respect as a Christian (etc)" is unworthy of "respect".

real wrote: Except if they're Christians, right?

The lack of respect, kindness and dignity you show to those who disagree with you is evidenced countless times in these threads, CI.

This is the individual that thinks a zygote has more moral, legal, and human rights than the mother or woman, but does absolutely nothing to help those children already born and starving. Crawl back into your cave, real.

C.I., as far as it goes you are right to say that "One only needs to establish a principle of life to live without religious' dogma. Mine is " treat all living things with dignity and respect/kindness." What religious' teaching can beat that?".
But this does reduce religion to morality. I think it is more than that--remember: antheists like you and me can be moral.
Religion in the mystical sense that I most appreciate amounts to the personal realization of one's own "no-self" nature (Fresco).

C.I., as far as it goes you are right to say that "One only needs to establish a principle of life to live without religious' dogma. Mine is " treat all living things with dignity and respect/kindness." What religious' teaching can beat that?".
But this does reduce religion to morality. I think it is more than that--remember: antheists like you and me can be moral.
Religion in the mystical sense that I most appreciate amounts to the personal realization of one's own "no-self" nature (Fresco).

I must say that I agree. But I am wary of applying the term religion to this, even though it is an appropriate term based on it's true meaning.

To most people the term religion implies something magical, supernatural or fantastical. Pretty much everyone assumes a deity when they hear the word religion. It is a way to raise people's defenses if they feel annoyed or threatened by religion, or people's need to explain their own god if they're religious.

By invoking the term religion we simultaneously burden our words with a myriad of misconceptions that make communication much harder than it already is.

You're not taking Ricky's question entirely seriously are you Dys?

Steve, it only seems that Dys is not taking Ricky seriously because you are not familiar with Dyslexian metaphysics.

Cryacuz, I take your point. Zen buddhism should be referred to as a form of non-theistic* religion in order to avoid confusion.

* to call it a form of a-theistic religion would be equally misleading in that that suggests a religion that believes in a No-God and worships Him.

Re: Why are there so many religions in the world?


Control. That is why. We as humans want to control something. Religion is a great means to control many.

JL
I think I'd call it a non-theistic approach to the spiritual re-rendering of the world that we know as human existence.
Or, a method of correct percepton.

this is true. Is anyone?

Cryacuz, "re-rendering"--interesting. We might also use the term, "re-framing" our perceptual orientation; and what about "perspective shift"?

"Correct perception" is good too: to see the world as it is; this includes seeing perceptions nondualistically. I AM my perceptions, there is no perceptual (only conceptual) distinction between subject and object of perception. Remember the Hindu dictum, "that are thou" (tat tvam asi); you ARE (you do not HAVE) your perceptions.

Then "correct perception" is "correct existence".

Re-rendering seemed appropriate to me because it implies that perception is a "duplication" of reality. As Kant stated, we cannot see objective reality, only a representation thereof. But since all aspects of this dualistic interplay; what's observed, the observing and the observer are all aspects of reality we can say that this process is nothing but "reality percieving itself".
If we cannot see objective reality, then we cannot see ourselves. We are part of reality.

But all these words can only circle around the core of what we're trying to express, as you've reminded us of so many times. I don't really feel it neccesary to say much more on it, since the dictum you quote pretty much says it all.