I want to know where and when did the idea that God is one single entity --- the root of all religious conflicts (in fact the root of organised religion) start? And who started it?

I think it was Zoroastrian, though the religion he founded was nothing like Christianity or Islam.

the first "organized" monotheistic religion was judaism, as far as i know.

I want to know where and when did the idea that God is one single entity --- the root of all religious conflicts (in fact the root of organised religion) start? And who started it?

I think it was Zoroastrian, though the religion he founded was nothing like Christianity or Islam.
*************
M*W: The concept of monotheism began long before Moses established the popular (or not so popular, as it were) religion. Since the time of early humans, the feelings of fear and awe (worship) of the elements and the unreachable stars, planets and constellations, promoted the idea of religiogenesis (a new word I just made-up). They feared and awed what they couldn't understand. So, in order to bring some understanding to the elements and to the unattainable sky creatures wihch they did not understand, they created stories and legends about them. Some millenia later, the ignorant still believe these myths to be true.

So, to answer your question, this is where the root of all religion started.

~ Medicine*Woman

Moses

I want to know where and when did the idea that God is one single entity --- the root of all religious conflicts (in fact the root of organised religion) start? And who started it?

I think it was Zoroastrian, though the religion he founded was nothing like Christianity or Islam.
as far as i'm aware it began with 'Abraham' 'father of monotheism'....it is VERY revealing that his tomb has armed guards always at the ready to segregate Muslims and Jews, s both recognize Abraham as their first prophet

Then we get this mythic tal of 'Moses' receiving the 'Ten commandments' on 'Mount Sinai....of which one states categorically 'Noone shll have another god but me' ie., 'he' is a "jealous god">>>>>>>>>>>>

So, Moses comes down the mountain and finds worshippers idolizing a Golden Calf. He's then orderd by 'God' to slaughter 3000 of them. And this is the first recorded massacre

So then we have one city, one temple of God, one people. something never known before

Zoroastrinism was more the origans of dualim. they beliefed in one eternal bad god and one eternal good god, in eternal battle
It greatly influenced Judaism etc.!

Abraham was before Moses , but it seems there might have been monotheism even before that :

http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/monotheism.htm

I want to know where and when did the idea that God is one single entity --- the root of all religious conflicts (in fact the root of organized religion) start? And who started it?

I think it was Zoroastrian, though the religion he founded was nothing like Christianity or Islam.Well Aten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten) was pretty early 1200 BCE.

But, I think Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) is probably the oldest - as it is the world’s oldest religion. Don't confuse the Avatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar), which are manifestation of the Supreme Being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Being) with Polytheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism) which is actual differing Gods. It's not the same. Hindus are monotheistic.

So to answer the monotheism part - it's Hinduism, in at ~3000 BCE.

The root of religious conflicts is the root of all conflict and that’s nature - natural selection resulted in our having DNA that found balancing cooperation with competition results in the best dispersal of ones own DNA, as either alone doesn’t work as well as a balance of the two. Hence sometimes humans help one another and at other times they kill one another.

This cooperating/competing mentality is the root of all conflict.

Zoroastrianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrian) at its oldest is 1800 BCE. So, although an old belief system, its no where near as old as Hinduism.

Well Aten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten) was pretty early 1200 BCE.
Reading about Aten (even though its brief) gives me an idea. In the ancient world exemplary humans (apart from animals and other symbols from the nature) were made into deities after their death. Some powerful, over egotistic men, eager to become gods (and not sure if humans will deitify them after they're dead) forced humans to worship them while they were still alive. They used 'power' to ensure that. (interestingly, there are examples in various mythologies suggesting this phenomenon). The over ambitious of them -- perhaps even in the very ancient days --- wanted themselves to be considered the only god,

But, since 'spirituality' was not organised into religion in those days, their attempts mostly failed --- as soon as they died.

According to the Wikipedia source --- Zorroaster attempted for the first time to bring the concept of a single god, but there were key differences between Christianity and Islam that came later. Zorroastrianism is much closer to nature and has many of the 'nature' worshipping values of previous societies.

But yes, it did sew the seeds of monotheistic organised religions of Christianity and Islam.

The original system of worshipping exemplary humans and symbols from nature continued unabated, side by side with Zorroastrism. The best thing about these systems was that a.) they celebrated human being's relationship with the nature, and b.) the deities enjoyed universal reverrance --- someone from Greece will not have any qualms about worshipping a deity from, say, Persia or Germany. There was no competition --- only mutual reverence.

Even Jesus was worshipped as one of the 'gods' for three centuries before Christanity sought to appropriate him.

I think, what happened in 300 BCE was that need to exercise power over people through forms of worship surfaced again. But this time one person did not come forward to claim he was god. Perhaps people in those times were less likely to believe such a claim. Instead, taking clue from Zorroaster, A group of people probably with Jewish background appropriated Jesus Christ and ascribed the new Bible --- and a complete set of teachings which he never said, to him. Jesus Christ was probably the best choice because he enjoyed widespread following in those days --- although as a saint and in completley different forms.

For the first time in human history, the authoritian powers appointed a hierarchy --- a complete institution to plan and implement 'words of god' --- words which actually came from those in power to control lives of people by exploiting their blind faith.

Christianity brought in a concept of God that meddles with the social lives of people --- and worse, makes workshipping any other god a punishable offence (the latter has precedence though).

For the first in human history the 'God' that one worships was made into a basic social identity --- and given the name of 'religion'. This ensured that people saw each other as 'differnent', 'rivals' and 'enemies' based on whether they adhered to 'Christianity' or not. Interestingly, the earlier faiths failed to see Christanity as 'rivals' or 'enemies' since they were essentially inclined to consider anybody's form of workship as a valid form of worship. And since these earlier faiths were not organised they failed to put up a serious resistance.

But, people did not take to this conspiracy readily. What followed for the next several centuries was widescale mayhem and bloody massacres. Original deity and nature worshipping faiths were labelled 'pagans' and evil and especially targeted for 'ethnic cleansing'. Christ worshipping sects were labelled as 'heretics' and similarly targetted. I think what gave Christianity all that power was the Roman Kings conversion to Christianity.

And by 600 AD came another attempt at garnering social power through this new phenomenon called 'relgion'. They called it Islam.....

......Only there were no saints or holy people to ascribe it to. A person with no 'spiritual' background claimed to have visions from 'god' which ordered people to obey and worship him or face the consequences. What followed was a never ending drama of bloodshed and mayhem --- and at one time Christianity and Islam fought fierce battles to claim a larger portion of human population.

But, I think Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) is probably the oldest - as it is the world’s oldest religion. Don't confuse the Avatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar), which are manifestation of the Supreme Being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Being) with Polytheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism) which is actual differing Gods. It's not the same. Hindus are monotheistic.

So to answer the monotheism part - it's Hinduism, in at ~3000 BCE.

Zoroastrianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrian) at its oldest is 1800 BCE. So, although an old belief system, its no where near as old as Hinduism.
According to Wikipedia:
Monotheism (in Greek μόνος = single and θεός = God) is the belief in a single, universal, all-encompassing deity. Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic religions are considered monotheist.

I don't think (and neither does Wikipedia) that Hinduism qualifies for a monotheistic religion. Hindus do say that god is one and it manifests itself in several forms --- but that is not what monotheism is all about. Also Hindus may have started saying that when 'criticised' by Islam and Christianity about their having too many gods, i.e., it may be an Islamic influence on Christianity or maybe a much earlier influence --- that of Zorroastrian --- the ancestors of Hindus and Iranians are the same.

The root of religious conflicts is the root of all conflict and that’s nature - natural selection resulted in our having DNA that found balancing cooperation with competition results in the best dispersal of ones own DNA, as either alone doesn’t work as well as a balance of the two. Hence sometimes humans help one another and at other times they kill one another.

This cooperating/competing mentality is the root of all conflict.
With all due respect, I think the above is a far-fetched and simplistic explanation --- even if it has been 'proved' by science.

the first "organized" monotheistic religion was judaism, as far as i know.
Is it possible that original form of Judaism was way different --- like other nature worshippers of the past.....and it's form was changed in later era --- with back effects, probably after Zorroastrian religion came along.

of course, judaism evolved as time passed. the original semite people from whom the religion springs were polytheistic.

as far as i know, however...zoroastrianism was practiced about 1500 years after the formation of what we would see as the judaism of the time of jesus. i may be wrong though. *shrug*

Abraham was before Moses , but it seems there might have been monotheism even before that :

http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/monotheism.htm
Yes, i have read this article before, and it is a bias pice. look t the autor's comment here:
"The truth is that man is the crown of God's creation, originally perfect (before his fall) and having a clear understanding
of the Nature of God"

hmmmm, well "HE" wouold woulnd't he??

ie it is bias. not mention of GODDESS notice, and how on of THEearliest archeological find was the'Venus' statuettes, which i belive were symblizing both Goddess, and screed muhroom.

Npwhere does articl show ny knowledge about the cpmmon usage of psychedelic sacraments ,by peopls since time immemorial. Hence it is VERY uperfical account, and male biased.

Really, for anyone familir with psychedelic exprience, you do not become momnotheisticlly-minded at all. Much rathe Nture--including universe, seems suddenly ALIVE. From thi insight it would be much morelikely early peoples believed Natur was alive--ie., animism...!!....and also from there or commensurate was the idea of a GOddess who ws/is immanent, rathe thn some hierarchical God on high. For th myth of the Goddess unlike the God myth, is that her body IS Nature and universe

Considering that first priority for ANYbody is nurture and sustenancerather than star gazing/worship, is it surprsing NATURE would take prominenc over some idea of a distant 'God' lordin over everyting?....surely that idea would come later wit the patrirchy who decided it ws the male fo the species who was superior

And look t who the main spokespeople are for the theory of monoetheism in your link...Sir this Sir that, Doctors. ie., establishment figures who it would benefit mintaining te patriarchl hierachical bias over mythology and belief. Look t how tey even drag Indigenous peoples under their propaganda

Having said that....i m aware from my own research that very nciently there eems to xist two streams, eg., shamanic and Goddess rligion .....i bewleve it is the former that we get the seeds of a monotheistic god, and idea of 'separate' spirit world where 'bad' spirits need to be placated etc . then shaman becomes sole male authority

According to Wikipedia:
Monotheism (in Greek μόνος = single and θεός = God) is the belief in a single, universal, all-encompassing deity. Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic religions are considered monotheist.

I don't think (and neither does Wikipedia) that Hinduism qualifies for a monotheistic religion. Hindus do say that god is one and it manifests itself in several forms --- but that is not what monotheism is all about.Well I suppose if you are talking about the dumbed down version of monotheism - where a God sits atop a throne and passes judgment onto His creations down here on planet Earth. Yeah, then perhaps Aten fits the bill, or Zoroastrian? -depending on which is older.

However, Hinduism IS the oldest religion and it is also monotheistic from a Hindus point of view. Just because thr Hindus religion is a little more sophisticated doesn’t make it any less monotheistic.

Also Hindus may have started saying that when 'criticised' by Islam and Christianity about their having too many gods, i.e., it may be an Islamic influence on Christianity or maybe a much earlier influence --- that of Zorroastrian --- the ancestors of Hindus and Iranians are the same. No I doubt that the concept of monotheism in Hinduism is a knee-jerk apologetic leftover from Xian/Islam conflict. Hinduism is 2 or 3 times older and already had developed a sophisticated monotheistic religion.

that of Zorroastrian --- the ancestors of Hindus and Iranians are the same. Yeah, that’s what they like to suggest.

Then it seems likely that Zoroastrianism is just a modified form of Hinduism. And really, it is. Akin to Islam being a modified form of Judaism. Keep the basics, mix in a messenger, and sprinkle in some local folk lore – whaaalaaa a New Religion.

With all due respect, I think the above is a far-fetched and simplistic explanation --- even if it has been 'proved' by science. Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor). The simpler explanation is the more likely.

We are what our DNA has made us. Our DNA codes for hate, love, empathy, ect… all of which were selected for because they increase our chances of survival and reproduction.

When we take a look at a bee hive we see a neat little genetic testament to the powers of DNA. Each Bee has a mathematical percentage of relatedness to the Queen. So long as that mathematical percentage remains favorable then everything progresses with apparent smoothness. However, this is a balance. If it should (and very occasionally does) swing to the point where it is no longer mathematically significant in terms of relatedness (amount of common DNA shared with the Queen) to protect and work for the Queen then all Hell Breaks Lose!

We humans have been selected for conflict. Conflict affords the best chances of reproduction. I think the underlying mechanisms of conflict are simply a reflection of the balance between cooperation and competition. Cooperate a little, enough to get something out of it, but not too much. Compete a little, enough to get something, but not so much as to lose the help of your fellow competitors - Else you lose out.

Whaalaaa conflict :)

We humans have been selected for conflict. Conflict affords the best chances of reproduction.
Oh no! not Darwinism again :rolleyes:

who was it that claimed that Darwinism is dead!

If you'd like to offer an alternative explaination ........

If you'd like to offer an alternative explaination ........
There is an entire discussion going on in the thread: Darwin was wrong about sexuality (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50460)

Caution: The thread is extremely inflammable. :o

I'm waiting for some more insights on the topic of this thread!

So "Aten" is the same deity as "RA" ?

I'm confused becasue i always associated "RA" as being the Egyptian Son God.

So "Aten" is the same deity as "RA" ?

I'm confused becasue i always associated "RA" as being the Egyptian Son God.
Can you explain what is RA? :confused:

Can you explain what is RA? :confused:

I have no tongue for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra :m:

The story goes something like this. After death the pharaohs ascended to become one of the stars, one of the celestial objects. Heaven(!) knows where this idea came from. Somewhere along the line one of the pharaohs decided he would have more authority if he was descended from one of them.
He decided to call himself the son of the biggest one, Son of the Sun, Ra m’s’s, RAmosis or Rameses as he is better known. Now there are three celestial objects which move around but always stay close to each other, the sun, Venus and Mercury. Another pharaoh took the name son of Venus and a third son of Mercury. Hence Thoth m’s’s and Her m’s’s
So here we have Rameses, Thothmosis and Hermes. They always, to a degree, stayed together and could, therefore be regarded as a group, or even, in a manner of speaking, one. Three in one, anybody heard that idea anywhere else? The Holy Trinity? Could this be where the idea of Thrice great Hermes, Hermes Trimigestus, came from?
It looks as if this monotheistic idea all sprang from ancient astronomy and all the, what we would now call, astrological mumbo jumbo that went with it.

The story goes something like this. After death the pharaohs ascended to become one of the stars, one of the celestial objects. Heaven(!) knows where this idea came from. Somewhere along the line one of the pharaohs decided he would have more authority if he was descended from one of them.
He decided to call himself the son of the biggest one, Son of the Sun, Ra m’s’s, RAmosis or Rameses as he is better known. Now there are three celestial objects which move around but always stay close to each other, the sun, Venus and Mercury. Another pharaoh took the name son of Venus and a third son of Mercury. Hence Thoth m’s’s and Her m’s’s
So here we have Rameses, Thothmosis and Hermes. They always, to a degree, stayed together and could, therefore be regarded as a group, or even, in a manner of speaking, one. Three in one, anybody heard that idea anywhere else? The Holy Trinity? Could this be where the idea of Thrice great Hermes, Hermes Trimigestus, came from?
It looks as if this monotheistic idea all sprang from ancient astronomy and all the, what we would now call, astrological mumbo jumbo that went with it.
Interesting theory, but we need more evidence to say that.

Monotheistic religions and Pharaohs are too distanced from each other in terms of time. Christianity seems to be a quickly hashed up religion without such elaborate time and efforts to understand older philosophies. It was more like cut and paste.

There may be some truth in the idea that the idea of a holy trinity started from Pharaohs. But then it would have influenced the Hindu idea of a supreme trinity --- although these things are difficult to establish --- too far back, and too little evidence.

Christianity could have borrowed this idea from Hinduism, although it doesn't really fit into its theology of there being only one 'authoritative' god.

It looks as if this monotheistic idea all sprang from ancient astronomy and all the, what we would now call, astrological mumbo jumbo that went with it.
I wouldn't brush off the ancient knowledge as Mumbo-Jumbo. It may not be 'scientific' (but thenScience is not perfect (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50433)), but it was a much more comprehensive way to understand life and its relation to the universe --- something science with its dry statistics can never accomplish.

One God theology --- where did it originate?

GOD

There are Egyptologists who claim the ancient Egyptians were monotheists, believe it or not. The many different Gods we see in their pantheons were just multiple aspects of the original singular deity.

And originally, Judaism was not monotheistic, rather polytheistic following the newest scholarly information on this, Mark S. Smith, "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism," Oxford Univ. Press, 2001; and William G. Dever, "Did God Have a Wife?," Eerdmanns publishing, 2005, a most stimulating and startling book! He contends that yes God did have a wife, and it was Asherah, and she *was* worshipped by the faithful because she was a part of the Israelite religion and belief. The archaeological evidences he brings to the front in this book are quite eye opening and powerfully presented. I shall return to it again and again and again............

Buddha1
I wouldn't brush off the ancient knowledge as Mumbo-Jumbo. It may not be 'scientific' (but thenScience is not perfect), but it was a much more comprehensive way to understand life and its relation to the universe --- something science with its dry statistics can never accomplish.

I agree with you fundamentally. Leonora Leet's four book set on the Kabbalah has just totally blown the walls out of the house, and taken the roof off on the serious importance, use, and viability of the ancient Jews using the science of harmonics, geometry, and math, to show that their Kabbalistic insights into creation are very much advanced. In fact, it is her Kabbalah model which for the first time, has shown scientists the model to arranging and connecting and understanding the relationships of all the known Quantum Physics particles, their spins, colors, etc. And it is from the ancient Kabbalah! This is NOT........ this is ***NOT**** New Agey guru mush junk Leet is presenting. Hers is the most sober, detailed, scholarly, astonishingly spiritual works I have read, bar none.

Her four books are the most astonishing set of books on Kabbalah and the ancient sciences of the Jews that I have ever read, and read into.

1. Renewing the Covenant, Inner Traditions, 1999
2. The Secret Doctrine of the Kabbalah: Recovering the Key to Hebraic Sacred Science, Inner Traditions, 1999
3. The Kabbalah of the Soul, Inner Traditions, 2003
4. The Universal Kabbalah: Deciphering the Cosmic Code in the Sacred Geometry of the Sabbath Star Diagram, Inner Tradition, 2004

These works are by far, the most comprehensive, detailed, delightful, and difficult reading I have ever found on the Kabbalah. They stretch your mind, the enlighten your spirit, they astonish your soul. MUST reading for serious folks.

There are Egyptologists who claim the ancient Egyptians were monotheists, believe it or not. The many different Gods we see in their pantheons were just multiple aspects of the original singular deity.

And originally, Judaism was not monotheistic, rather polytheistic following the newest scholarly information on this, Mark S. Smith, "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism," Oxford Univ. Press, 2001; and William G. Dever, "Did God Have a Wife?," Eerdmanns publishing, 2005, a most stimulating and startling book! He contends that yes God did have a wife, and it was Asherah, and she *was* worshipped by the faithful because she was a part of the Israelite religion and belief. The archaeological evidences he brings to the front in this book are quite eye opening and powerfully presented. I shall return to it again and again and again............
Thanks for the useful information. This is the kind of information that I hope to generate from this discussion.

I don't think a single god worshipped in multiple forms as various gods and goddesses is really monotheism. Monotheism (like Christianity) sees God as a single human like entity who has no other forms, behaves like an autocrat, and communicates with people only through prophets.

And I always suspected that Judaism originally must have been a polytheist religion. I don't remember now what made me think that. Perhaps it is that it is such an old tradition, and I think monotheism as we know it --- that is the idea that God only has one form, and there is only one way to get to it, and that all other gods are fakes, did not come before Christianity (or was it Zarathushtra!).

I think basically all religions which are described as polytheists saw the original god as one --- and other gods being either its forms or its 'descendants'. This tradition was mixed with perhaps forms of worship of an even earlier era --- i.e. of worshipping nature and symbols from nature.

Monotheist religions have the following basic elements:

- For them God is only one entity. It has no other forms, than what it has revealed to a said prophet.

- There is only one way to reach that god. And it is through the prophet that the god has himself chosen. The chosen prophet is crucial here. It is he who is 'worshipped' and is the centre of human devotion, rather than the actual 'god'.

- All other gods or symbols of nature or any other forms of worship or of spirituality are fake, evil and to be destroyed.

- Monotheistic religions also tend to be highly organised and institutionalised with a clear cut appointed/ elected heirarchy that decides 'religious' matters.

- Monotheistic religions treat 'religion' as an important, even basic human/ social identity.

- Monotheistic religions believe in proselitysation --- the root of all religious conflicts.

- Monotheistic religions have a very thin line between worship/ spirituality and politics.

In my mind the only two true monotheistic religions are Christianity and Islam. Judaism although today is monotheistic it perhaps started off as a polytheistic religion, and was later changed into a monotheistic religion with retro effect. It still lacks some important aspects of a monotheistic religion, e.g. lack of proselytisation.

I'm sure, there are many things that I've said here which may not exactly be true. But really knowledgable people can correct me.

One God theology --- where did it originate
From the One God, of course.

One God theology --- where did it originate

From imagination of ancient men, where else?

Bicameralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_th e_Bicameral_Mind)

Summary of evidence (http://www.julianjaynes.org/evidence_summary.php)

Godless

Jayne's work is highly plausible and worthy, at the very least, of serious consideration. His book, despite the title (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind), is also very readable.
Anyone with a serious interest in these matters should read it.

From imagination of ancient men, where else?

Bicameralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_th e_Bicameral_Mind)

Summary of evidence (http://www.julianjaynes.org/evidence_summary.php)

Godless
I think it is from the mindset of 'medieval men' rather than ancient men. Ancients believed in god having several forms, which is not monotheism.

I think it is from the mindset of 'medieval men' rather than ancient men. Ancients believed in god having several forms, which is not monotheism.

As the mind evolved, gods changed. The epic of the monotheists is to have an entity no one can easily refute. ;)

But non the less, the idea of gods are remnants of a primitive bicameral mentality.

Godless

As the mind evolved, gods changed. The epic of the monotheists is to have an entity no one can easily refute. ;)

Of course, since the mind (or self) is "god". Naturally when we understand more about ourselves (god), the idea of "god" changes. Later, we will no longer even call it god, we will call it our higher self. You know psychology.

what you said has nothing to do with psychology.

I mean that the higher self is a part of psychology (freud) and that is what people have always called god.

freud's studies can hardly be construed as psychology, as any 1st year psychology student can tell you.

he mostly just made things up, and is largely considered a joke in psychology circles.

but to not be completely belligerent, yes...i understand what you are saying :)

I think Freud said some very intelligent things, that's probably why many people think he's a joke. I heard that Freud was so intelligent because he took cocain. What do you think about Carl Jung? Was he a joke too?

I would suggest that zoroaster's religion isn't monotheistic as there is (or was at some time) a possibility that ahura mazda's side could lose.
There seems to be a bit of confusion about whether ahura mazda is supreme or equally opposed to the other guy (i forget his name).
If they are equally opposed, which is my understanding, then there are multiple gods, only one good one, but still not monotheism. No self-respecting monotheist would have a God that wasn't supreme.

carl jung is a different kind of psychologist.

freud may have said some intelligent things in his time, but almost everything he ever contributed to the psychology world has been disproven.

he used to be the michael jordan of psychology, and just ended up being a charles barkley footnote in the annals of psychological history.

people often think that something has been "disproven" even though it hasn't. people are so limited and ignorant. they couldn't understand freud.

im pretty sure they understood him quite well. thats why he is laughed at today, when he was respected during his life.

Wrong.

ok, im sitting next to a psychology major in a european university, that just confirmed everything i said.

freud is hardly respected today. his theories have all been tossed aside as outdated.
FACT.

ok, im sitting next to a psychology major in a european university, that just confirmed everything i said.

Like I care what a psychology major says. The wise are not learned and the learned are not wise. Many ordinary people know more about psychology than those who have studied. Psychologists talk a lot of bullshit, except some (Freud and Carl Jung). It's just like with those who study physics. When they study, they become more stupid, they know less and become more confused.

freud is hardly respected today.

Of course he's not respected because people are ignorant and stupid. It's just what I heard when I was in a psychology class. Everyone laughed and said he was a wacko. Stupid people ridicule geniuses. They hide behind their stupid masks. I hate them all.

his theories have all been tossed aside as outdated.

Of course.

as a side note, i have examined about 150 of your past posts, and i have decided that you frequently argue without knowing anything about a subject.

if the teachers and students of psychology dont give the man credence anymore, who are you to say they are wrong? if you were honestly interested in anything but arguing, you would pick up a copy of "american psychologist" or any of the current psychological periodicals that are at your disposal.

or better yet....do a google search on "freud modern psychology" and you will find that while much of the modern study is based in subjects he studied, he contributed almost NOTHING to the current face of psychology.

period.
welcome to my "idiots to ignore" list.
:m:

Devil,while I agree with your assessment of c7ityi, I would suggest your assessment of Freud is rather harsh. It seems to be a fashion to laugh at the man and his theories, but fashion and fact are not always commensurate.
What Freud did was to open a door onto aspects of the human condition that had never been considered before. It is true that he got most of it wrong, but he should be honoured for his pioneering efforts.

i agree, ophiolite.
i was a bit too harsh on old man freud. he WAS a pioneer of sorts, and opened the door to "pop psychology". his findings DO have a place in psychology, but not nearly as big a place as the uninformed public has given him.

poll 100 americans and europeans of all backgrounds to "name a psychologist". i speculate that over 75% of them will name freud. its simply an uninformed public, swallowing what the media has fed them for the last 50 years.
*shrug*
it is important to note, however.... psychology is an IMperfect study. modern psychologists still know almost nothing about the human condition, and they mostly grope around in the dark, just like the rest of us. so i suppose i cant fault freud for his mistakes.
thanks ophiolite. i dont like to get dogmatic, and you dragged me back to being reasonable. :)
:m:

Like I care what a psychology major says. The wise are not learned and the learned are not wise. Many ordinary people know more about psychology than those who have studied. Psychologists talk a lot of bullshit, except some (Freud and Carl Jung). It's just like with those who study physics. When they study, they become more stupid, they know less and become more confused. I teach medical students at Uni. Offering an option of psychiatric help is of course part-and-parcel of being a GP (I’m not a GP but I need to teach up and coming GPs).

It is widely accepted that for the majority of people - Behavioral Cognitive Therapy is the best option for people to change their life for the better. Freudian psychoanalysis is considered the poorest. It’s such a poor method of therapy that going it alone and dealing with things by oneself, with no outside help, results in a higher curative rate than to go and see a psychoanalysis!
This has lead many of us to believe that psychoanalysis is actually harmful.

As a neuroscientist this also makes sense, each time you some to think of the negative aspects of childhood you reinforce these neural connections. To actually dwell on them for years on end, would undoubtedly cement these neural connections (as almost permanent neural structures in your brain) ultimately affecting your mental health and thus physical health; hardly an appropriate strategy of neural modulation to employ if you’re looking to impact positively on a persons physical well being.

In my opinion, for most people, it is much better to accept the past and work on the future; rather than live in the past and thus have no future.

It’s funny that you should defend Freud and Jung as the unconscious is by it’s very definition an impossible state to ascertain - Much like God.

However, I wouldn’t toss Freud to the wolves, he shouldn’t be slandered in psychology class. He was a man interested in a topic that until then few had any scientific leanings toward. And he tried to put together a theory as all we scientists try. That's fair enough.

Most people today do believe in or have at least heard of the unconsciousness, whether it is or is not true, that is a testament to the lasting legacy of Freud. Much of the same can be said of Jung, as a psychoanalysts his method and ideas are equally as compelling and as likely to succeed in a better state of mental health. Hardly. But still they are theories and that's fair enough aye.

Monotheism orginated from Hinduism (the oldest religion), the Vedas, the Upanashinads, Vedanta, Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, and numerous Hindu scriptures are either purely monotheistic or mention monotheism.

"Truth is one, the wise call it by different names" - Vedas

"Neither the Devas nor the great sages know My origin, because I am the origin of all Devas and sages also" - (BG 10.2)

"The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul,who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else..." - (SB 11.28.6)

Monotheism being that there is only supreme God, being, truth, or force, Hinduism clearly supports this stance only.

Monotheism orginated from Hinduism (the oldest religion), the Vedas, the Upanashinads, Vedanta, Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, and numerous Hindu scriptures are either purely monotheistic or mention monotheism.

"Truth is one, the wise call it by different names" - Vedas

"Neither the Devas nor the great sages know My origin, because I am the origin of all Devas and sages also" - (BG 10.2)

"The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul,who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else..." - (SB 11.28.6)

Monotheism being that there is only supreme God, being, truth, or force, Hinduism clearly supports this stance only.
You're clearly wrong.

The pop Hinduism being sold to the westerners by a few 'sects' (e.g. ISCKON) do show Hinduism as monotheist, and try to proselytise Christian style. But it is against the spirit of Hinduism or other great ancient spiritual traditions.

Monotheism is not exactly the same as saying there is one god with several forms (all of 33 million gods and goddesses). And there is no scope for nature worshipping in a monotheistic religion.

Monotheism is a negative term, that is responsible for the downfall of spirituality and the rise of religion (especially as a socio-political phenomen)

Hinduism is very accomodative of new ideas and sects, in fact there is no controlling 'church' or authority, and this means that anyone can represent Hinduism or start a sect claiming to represent Hinduism. Using this many sects have opened shops in the west that try to gain converts by projecting Hinduism in a typical Christian style. The main objective is money and power that comes with it.

hmmmm, but i tend to feel itis a false move to look to the East--as the Hippies did--as a way to 'get to the truth'...as with monothesism, Hinduism has a lot to answer for.....for example it doctrine of 'karma' and 'reincarnation'---tis dogma hs created such poverty. and a prticular indifference by the culture to the poverty. why? cause it is believed to be 'their karma' if they are sufering and your karma if you is rich, or comfportable

altho it may seem less offious wit ot its sole fascitic 'God' laying down thelaw, yet still it has its guru-system. te idea that men can become god-like due to 'pure birth' and/or some form of 'transcendental experience' etc

cause it is believed to be 'their karma' if they are sufering and your karma if you is rich, or comfportable

but it is so... and the belief in karma may have also caused some karma...

interesting idea.
buddhist feeling almost.
but you arent a buddhist.

but it is so... and the belief in karma may have also caused some karma...
no it ISN@T 'so'....how do you know it's so? you mean that if someone is poverty-stricken that's her karma?....and you the rich onelookin down , that's your karma?

and the belief in karma doesn't cause KARMA , it causes the BELIEFin karma which creates unequal awful social systems as described

actually the term 'karma' really only means 'doing'---ie., 'action'. obviously if you are going to drin a pint of gin every day your liver will rot, etc. Bt to further extrapolate and suggest that people are born so and so because of past lives is propaganda. for no one can ctually prove it. itbecomes social controlling propaganda which benefits the staus quo

no it ISN@T 'so'....how do you know it's so? you mean that if someone is poverty-stricken that's her karma?....and you the rich onelookin down , that's your karma?

and the belief in karma doesn't cause KARMA , it causes the BELIEFin karma which creates unequal awful social systems as described

actually the term 'karma' really only means 'doing'---ie., 'action'. obviously if you are going to drin a pint of gin every day your liver will rot, etc. Bt to further extrapolate and suggest that people are born so and so because of past lives is propaganda. for no one can ctually prove it. itbecomes social controlling propaganda which benefits the staus quo
While, what you're saying is not really wrong --- the 'karma' thing may be abused to manipulate people (the lack of an authoritative power, is a great relief though!), poverty in itself is not bad.

I think you can't really love nature if you hate poverty. Because wealth and especially luxury comes from exploiting and harming nature. As long as man is 'poor' he will keep his connection with the nature.

Such a vast human population cannot be afforded a rich life for all, without ruining forests for agriculture, polluting the air with factories and vehicles, and so on and so forth. The Karma thing does help psychologically --- whether it is true or not to deal with or to accept one's fate. But not before doing your bit --- that is also Karma --- i.e. your action in this birth to change your situation. What the philosophy says is do your bit (present Karma) and leave it at that. Don't get attached to the results, because you have no control over them. They say your past karma will determine your results. It helps not to fight with your fate psychologically, when you can't control it. I've tried it myself.

But, I think the idea of being punished for things committed in the past life does seem absurd and unfair.

altho it may seem less offious wit ot its sole fascitic 'God' laying down thelaw, yet still it has its guru-system. te idea that men can become god-like due to 'pure birth' and/or some form of 'transcendental experience' etc
I believe men can become god like through an exceptionally spiritualistic and exemplary life. That was part of the idea of deity worship, when exemplary figures were turned into gods.

As far as Hinduism is concerned --- it's base is nature and deity worship (paganism) but it has gone through a lot of changes and influences over all these years (after all its the oldest living spiritual/ religious system). Most, but not all of the latter influences have been for the worse.

Around the same time that Christianity was taking birth to manipulate spirituality and people's faith in worship/ god, Hinduism too underwent important changes that were meant to control people (including their sexuality). There were several negative things that happened (including the caste system). But the good thing was that there was no Church like authority, and the basic structure remained that of a pagan religion. Thus it remained a flowing and changing system, that allowed people to learn and change according to new influences and information. Which means that if you have new idea or want to rejuvenate the spiritual (or social) system, you still have the power, as an individual to do it --- if you are capable and gifted that is.

Afterall, Buddha did come from Hinduism. He had the gift and power to change this world for the better.

There have been several negative influences from Christianity and Islam, but the potential remains for a true spiritual leader to rejuvenate the system.

....how do you know it's so?

Cause and effect.

you mean that if someone is poverty-stricken that's her karma?....and you the rich onelookin down , that's your karma?

I can only judge myself. My life is 100% suffering and it will be so until I die. Karma is not punishment or reward, it's teaching. But in the end, life and karma is "unfair". I didn't choose to exist, yet I exist. It's not my fault. It's not Hitler's fault that he was like he was, yet he will receive bad karma for it. There are no evil humans, there are only ignorant humans.

Karma exists because of attachment to things. It's because of our mind. When we learn to do things without attachment, when we live in the present moment, we will not receive karma anymore.

But life is eternal. Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and many others attained "perfection", but for what good? Suffering still exists. What does it help that every human being on earth defeats suffering, it still exists on other planets, and life always comes back, it is impossible to destroy it.

In the end, there might be no way out of here. It's possible that sin is never-ending and the only hope is "false" hope.

for no one can ctually prove it.

Past lives have been proven many times by people who have remembered. Karma was taught by people who knew that it existed, but today it's no longer understood the same way.

and the belief in karma doesn't cause KARMA , it causes the BELIEFin karma which creates unequal awful social systems as described

That is karma.

~ the gravestonewitch

You're clearly wrong.

The pop Hinduism being sold to the westerners by a few 'sects' (e.g. ISCKON) do show Hinduism as monotheist, and try to proselytise Christian style. But it is against the spirit of Hinduism or other great ancient spiritual traditions.

Monotheism is not exactly the same as saying there is one god with several forms (all of 33 million gods and goddesses). And there is no scope for nature worshipping in a monotheistic religion.

Monotheism is a negative term, that is responsible for the downfall of spirituality and the rise of religion (especially as a socio-political phenomen)

Hinduism is very accomodative of new ideas and sects, in fact there is no controlling 'church' or authority, and this means that anyone can represent Hinduism or start a sect claiming to represent Hinduism. Using this many sects have opened shops in the west that try to gain converts by projecting Hinduism in a typical Christian style. The main objective is money and power that comes with it.
No, you're clearly wrong, really really wrong.

Hinduism is monotheistic, monotheistic meaning by definition "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God".....How is it against the spirit of Hinduism to be monotheistic? That is all that Hinduism teaches, there is only one (narayana).

Fools translate the term "devas" to mean God, when it does not. They think Krishna is a God, Hanuman is a God, Shiva is a God, etc...however it is not like that at all if you read the actual Hindu scriptures.

You are also wrong in saying that Hinduism says there is one God with many forms. It does not say that, it says there is one separate, independant, "God" (narayana), that only exists.

"All states of being--be they of goodness, passion or ignorance--are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything--but I am independent. I am not under the modes of this material nature." - (BG 7.12)

Ofcourse, Hinduism does say that God is everything, but you incorrectly state it as if all the "33 million" devas are the forms of God, making it seem as if everything else is not a form of God. In Hinduism, everything is a form of God, from the 5 senses, thought, to a rock, to the sky, to the devas, to stage of deep sleep, yet "God" is not everything.

Krishna explains it like this:
"Gold alone is present before its manufacture into gold products, the gold alone remains after the products’ destruction, and the gold alone is the essential reality while it is being utilized under various designations. Similarly, I alone exist before the creation of this universe, after its destruction and during its maintenance" - (SB 11.28.19)

That explains how "God" is everything, yet separate from everything.

If anyone reads Hindu scriptures, they'll find them to be monotheistic in nature, virtually EVERY Hindu scripture supports the stance that there is only one. For instance, if someone even reads the Puranas, you'll find many of them state that you should worship only one deity. However, almost NO ONE actually reads the scriptures.

There are many anti-polytheistic verses in Hinduism, for instance Krishna states:
"Men of small intelligence worship the devas, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the devas go to the planets of the devas, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." - (BG 7.23)

You are right that the concept of God is different in Hinduism. In Hinduism, "God" is described as the supersoul, the absolute truth, the origin of existence, "all that is", etc...Krishna states that there are an infinite number of ways to describe God.

I do not know what you're talking about how people market Hinduism as monotheistic, no marketing is neccessary, just read the Hindu Scriptures and find out yourself.......

"Hinduism" is an incorrect term, depending on which scripture you read, it may support atheism, monotheism, polytheism, or even pantheism.

The bottom line, Hinduism has the earliest teachings of monotheism (preceding Judeo-Christianity), therefore monotheism originated in Hinduism...right?

While, what you're saying is not really wrong --- the 'karma' thing may be abused to manipulate people (the lack of an authoritative power, is a great relief though!), poverty in itself is not bad.

me))))))hmmm, but i very much see the karma doctrine AS an authoratative power. in rthis case claiming theuniverse is some kind of machine that dishes out punismehnts and rewards.

I think you can't really love nature if you hate poverty. Because wealth and especially luxury comes from exploiting and harming nature. As long as man is 'poor' he will keep his connection with the nature.

me)))))))no i dont believe this. why ashould anyone be expected to love poverty, which means 'lack'. pverty is a CURSE. it destroys one's being. it is causwed by peoplee exploiting others.
however i am NOT wishing for everyone to be middle class, with a SUV in te drive----all that crap. not at all. there is term i love which is abundance. thismeans that when we realize how wondrful this Earth is is when we can live abundantly. grow the food we want, live intelligently with Nature. for me that isn't poverty

Such a vast human population cannot be afforded a rich life for all, without ruining forests for agriculture, polluting the air with factories and vehicles, and so on and so forth. The Karma thing does help psychologically --- whether it is true or not to deal with or to accept one's fate. But not before doing your bit --- that is also Karma --- i.e. your action in this birth to change your situation. What the philosophy says is do your bit (present Karma) and leave it at that. Don't get attached to the results, because you have no control over them. They say your past karma will determine your results. It helps not to fight with your fate psychologically, when you can't control it. I've tried it myself.

me)))))))no sorry Buddha1. i have no trust in such belief. why should i when it an justify inequality. why should theperson in poverty not want to NOT be exploited?? all tis karma belief does is in-timid-ate theporr into accepting the shitty end of te stick, like Christianity des in its turn wit its so-called glorification of poverty, in SOME...interpretations. thewse ae all social controllingpropagandas to make teporr accept their exploitation

But, I think the idea of being punished for things committed in the past life does seem absurd and unfair.
well tat is central to te karmic doctrtine, which is also why i throw it out

I believe men can become god like through an exceptionally spiritualistic and exemplary life. That was part of the idea of deity worship, when exemplary figures were turned into gods.

me))))))))sorry, i have to challenge you here too. i find the idea men can become gods abhorrent and dangerous theory. reallymit fits in the eugenics---ie., the idea that some people are superior t others. i just wont hafve some inflated pereson claiming to me they are near OR god. NOT. i will let them haveit if they do....hehe

As far as Hinduism is concerned --- it's base is nature and deity worship (paganism) but it has gone through a lot of changes and influences over all these years (after all its the oldest living spiritual/ religious system). Most, but not all of the latter influences have been for the worse.

me))))))))it is interesting to note Hinduism forbids psychedelic experimentation---tho admitedly some Shiva cults smoke Bhang, but enerally psyhedelic mushrooms are demonized.
Also -as you pointed out-the base of Hinduism is patriarchal belief structure, much based on the Adviata Vednta which claims Nature is an 'illusion/Maya' and 'a 'seductress/delusion'--so clearly again we see tis FEAR of Nature. which aint a good thing at all

Around the same time that Christianity was taking birth to manipulate spirituality and people's faith in worship/ god, Hinduism too underwent important changes that were meant to control people (including their sexuality). There were several negative things that happened (including the caste system). But the good thing was that there was no Church like authority, and the basic structure remained that of a pagan religion. Thus it remained a flowing and changing system, that allowed people to learn and change according to new influences and information. Which means that if you have new idea or want to rejuvenate the spiritual (or social) system, you still have the power, as an individual to do it --- if you are capable and gifted that is.

me)))))))yes ---te last part of your sentence being the operative tems. IF.....you happen to be a 'guru' with a 'pure births lineage'. ctually the authoritarianism is tese little pyramids of guru at top and followers beneath!

Afterall, Buddha did come from Hinduism. He had the gift and power to change this world for the better.

me))))))and did it/has it happened...???

There have been several negative influences from Christianity and Islam, but the potential remains for a true spiritual leader to rejuvenate the system.
'
i feel we simply cannotdepend on leaders no more. all that is a scam. te idea we are children in need of 'leaders'

Cause and effect.

me)))))))yes. like i said. you eat too much you get fat. that we know. but from there te karma doctrine justifies someone living in poverty thru birth and someone living in luxury via birth. this is a massive extrapolation from natural cause n effect. it is social controlling propaganda, it cannot be proven neither!

I can only judge myself. My life is 100% suffering and it will be so until I die. Karma is not punishment or reward, it's teaching.

me)))))))so you've been told. look, of course we can learn from life changes. sure. but to justify oppression by this hogwash is another thing entirely. can you not see it is propaganda. they can come an rape you and claim thats yer karma!!!

But in the end, life and karma is "unfair". I didn't choose to exist, yet I exist. It's not my fault. It's not Hitler's fault that he was like he was, yet he will receive bad karma for it. There are no evil humans, there are only ignorant humans.

me))))again....like te mental illness myth, tis karmic 'exolanation absolves te individual of reponsibility. like as in 'oh i didn't know whati was doing' and 'it is my karma'


Karma exists because of attachment to things. It's because of our mind. When we learn to do things without attachment, when we live in the present moment, we will not receive karma anymore.

me)))))))ohhh i'e heard this time n agin. has it happened fo you??...las i said. karma really just means 'doing'--ie., action. are you telling me action can stop..??

But life is eternal. Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and many others attained "perfection", but for what good? Suffering still exists. What does it help that every human being on earth defeats suffering, it still exists on other planets, and life always comes back, it is impossible to destroy it.

me)))))your conundrum is your belief that there have been people who have been 'perfect'. i am NOT beliving this. itis false. there is no such thingas static perfection. you cannot have one-sided reality.

In the end, there might be no way out of here. It's possible that sin is never-ending and the only hope is "false" hope.

me)))pagin the one-wsided cage of thinking. why ONLY sin. sometimes ther e is 'sin' and then not. sometimes your bored then not. its the ROUNDof experiential potential which is lifedeahregeneration. your..pain/discofort is you wanting to escape from your very self which is Nature. how can you escape from your self??




Past lives have been proven many times by people who have remembered. Karma was taught by people who knew that it existed, but today it's no longer understood the same way.

me))))))))yu trust all that, i dont. it doesn't make sense to me to say 'i' had 'past life' for what i AM is me NOW. tis dynamic process



That is karma.

~ the gravestonewitch
that is your belief structure...which i have o say c7 doesn't seem to make yu very happy

me)))))))no i dont believe this. why ashould anyone be expected to love poverty, which means 'lack'. pverty is a CURSE. it destroys one's being. it is causwed by peoplee exploiting others.
however i am NOT wishing for everyone to be middle class, with a SUV in te drive----all that crap. not at all. there is term i love which is abundance. thismeans that when we realize how wondrful this Earth is is when we can live abundantly. grow the food we want, live intelligently with Nature. for me that isn't poverty
I have a special fondness for poor people. They have a charisma a zest for life missing in richer people.

I grew up in a family which had a long period of financial hardships (even though we were not poor) --- spanning my entire childhood and adolescence. But that made us really a close-knit family. I remember my 8 or 9 year old sister getting the goodies she got in school back in the house to share with everyone.

This closeness weakened as we got better off. With wealth we kept getting more and more individualistic and distanced from each other. But even today the closeness that we share with each other is more than other people of our social 'status' have. Amongst my siblings, I was the one who left the pursuit of wealth for the pursuit of knowledge. And I feel much closer to the others and to the basic family unit than the rest do.

When I went out to work in a small town --- closer to nature, I made friends with young men from the lower middle class. I cherished the closeness and warmth they had. I did not like the company of richer people, who thought it was odd that I would mix with the gentry, because they were vain, pretentious and 'sophisticated' --- something i don't appreciate.

We tend to think that humans should have a particular level of lifestyle, which is a misplaced concern. I remember when my mother saw a programme on discovery channel with naked and semi-clad people living in jungles, she was very concerned for them. She wondered why their governments don't help them. I tried to tell her that they were people living with nature. How I wish I could live like that --- one with the nature.

it is interesting to note Hinduism forbids psychedelic experimentation---tho admitedly some Shiva cults smoke Bhang, but enerally psyhedelic mushrooms are demonized.
Also -as you pointed out-the base of Hinduism is patriarchal belief structure, much based on the Adviata Vednta which claims Nature is an 'illusion/Maya' and 'a 'seductress/delusion'--so clearly again we see tis FEAR of Nature. which aint a good thing at all
'
Maya, does not refer to nature. Maya refers to the materialistic world. Leaving Maya infact means leaving the materialistic world, often including the society, and living like an ascetic together with the nature.

I don't think what you're saying amounts to a fear of nature --- neither in Buddhism nor in Hinduism.

The roots of Hinduism may actually go much earlier than the patriarchy came --- in paganism. In fact, to be frank I don't really gel with the word 'patriarchy'. It sounds biased against the man/ masculinity and has probably been invented by the feminists.

'
i feel we simply cannotdepend on leaders no more. all that is a scam. te idea we are children in need of 'leaders'
The average human being is so engrossed in his worldly affairs, in making both the ends meet, in raising his family, that he does not have the time to look after his or the humankind's larger interests or to seek spirituality or knowledge on his own. Humans (and I guess animals too) need leaders in various fields, including leaders who sacrifice their own personal needs to work for the humanity as a whole.

We are all born with our own special talents (like dinosaur was saying in a different thread). There is a very ancient saying in my society, which also acknowlegdged this. Some of us are born artists. Some born actors. Some born players. Some born businessmen. And some are gifted with the ability to be spiritual. If this person decides to sacrifice his personal life, in order to help the spiritually not so gifted benefit from spirituality, he would be known as a spiritual leader and I think is needed.

I'll have a better grasp of your position if I knew what psychedelic sacrament is all about!

but from there te karma doctrine justifies someone living in poverty thru birth and someone living in luxury via birth. this is a massive extrapolation from natural cause n effect.

karma is true, but because people are material and personal, it has become "social controlling propaganda"

if we didn't think, it would do no harm.

me)))))))so you've been told.

no, i've not been told so, that's how i think it is.

me))))again....like te mental illness myth, tis karmic 'exolanation absolves te individual of reponsibility. like as in 'oh i didn't know whati was doing' and 'it is my karma'

That's what I said, the belief in karma creates karma. It makes so that people think they're not responsible for anything.

karma really just means 'doing'--ie., action. are you telling me action can stop..??

Yes, if there is no "doer", if there is no self. The death of the personal self is nirvana, isn't it?

there is no such thingas static perfection. you cannot have one-sided reality.

It isn't one-sided. It is like a coin. A coin appears to have two sides, yet it is still one wholeness, and only the whole is real, not the sides.

So, if we can't become perfect (nothing), what is your vision? What will humans evolve into? What is the goal? Will suffering never end? Is there no hope? We just have to endure the same shit every day?

how can you escape from your self??

Because I am non-existent.

it doesn't make sense to me to say 'i' had 'past life' for what i AM is me NOW. tis dynamic process

Of course, we don't usually remember our past lives since we get a new brain and body and stuff, but young children often remember. There is no past or future, there is only the presence, which is non-existent, because it has no duration. Everything exists now. There is only one self, but it clothes itself in many bodies.

The feeling of "I am" will never stop... so I can never die. We are the same being, all of us. Not just humans, everything. It's all "me"

that is your belief structure...which i have o say c7 doesn't seem to make yu very happy

What I believe has nothing to do with my happiness. I don't believe things to make me happy, I believe them if they're true! I know that "nothing" can make me happy. Non-existence is paradise.

well tat is central to te karmic doctrtine, which is also why i throw it out
Well, eventhough I am not quite comfortable with the idea of being punished for a crime committed in the past life, or even to be rewarded for some good done in the past life, I do believe that people can take birth again after they die --- i.e. the concept of reincarnation.

I myself am supposed to have known about my past birth and used to talk about it till I was about 2 1/2 years old. I remember one such 'flash' where I'm telling my aunt about how I drowned in the water and and came up again (in this birth).

One of my aunt (another one) says that I actually remembered a lot of details about my past life, and that I even remembered about my sons, my wife, my home address etc. She says, my father wrote these guys a letter and they confirmed it. According to my aunt, my father did not want to pursue this so he did not pursue it further. I am supposed to have forgotten everything about this as I grew older.

My father absolutely denies this, so does my mother. My aunt had told me not to tell my father as he did not want me to know. I don't know who to believe.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51990