It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1.
2.
3.
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)
The more we are able to listen and not express our own opinion, the sooner we rise to immediate insight and direct spiritual sight. For someone who does not understand the effect on the human soul of this holding back of one’s own opinion, this is unbelievable. But in the same way that power is collected in a battery, we can collect forces in our souls, when we suppress our opinions. It will result in inner power and strength.
“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”
In giving it out, you might be losing a part of self.
Aphorism
reply to post by FyreByrd
I'm not sure where you got that quote from, but Here's the original. Buddha, who was not a Hindu, clearly states:
“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”
Kalama Sutta
Maybe a few mistranslations. Nonetheless I agree what your quote was trying to say.
edit on 1-2-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)
The historical Buddha was born a Hindu prince, it's a matter of historical record.
And your point? The quote you list further points to discrimination based upon reason and personal experience rather then 'faith in authority. Your OP states that "all religions.....".
Or, in authoritarian manner, are you just pointing out that I'm wrong about something?
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
Aphorism
reply to post by FyreByrd
The historical Buddha was born a Hindu prince, it's a matter of historical record.
Hinduism wasn't even around in his time, so I'm not sure what histories you're reading. Buddha also didn't see authority in the Vedas, Hinduism's scripture. No mention of him being "Hindu" can be found in any of the texts.
If you mean Hindu as in associated with India, you are using an outdated term. He was the Sakya-muni, the Śākya-sage, from the Śākya clan.
And your point? The quote you list further points to discrimination based upon reason and personal experience rather then 'faith in authority. Your OP states that "all religions.....".
Or, in authoritarian manner, are you just pointing out that I'm wrong about something?
I am pointing out that your quote points to "discrimination based upon reason", while the one I posted clearly points to discrimination based on if it makes one happy or not.
I'll add a little more context:
The history of Hinduism is unique among the world religions in that it has no founder or date of origin. While most major religions derive from new ideas taught by a charismatic leader, Hinduism is simply the religion of the people of India, which has gradually developed over four thousand years. The origins and authors of its sacred texts are largely unknown.
And perhaps (HPPFM) the reason you think religions tell you to do 'what they say, not what they do' is because you recognise the behavior from your own communication. There is a saying "You spot it, you got it"
Aphorism
reply to post by FyreByrd
And perhaps (HPPFM) the reason you think religions tell you to do 'what they say, not what they do' is because you recognise the behavior from your own communication. There is a saying "You spot it, you got it"
My typing? I do enjoy writing in a negative tone. But I don't think I've written about how one should conduct their own lives. However, I do recognize the urge to tell people what to do. And you're right to say that I am gathering my own understanding from my own psychology.
Do you think I am being unreasonable in my observations?
I don't really think you are unreasonable. I do recognise habits of speech (?) that I've used myself and Always (hmmm there I go again) get myself into trouble with. Saying "All religions" just invites trouble. "Most religions" would have been less authoritarian of your - which was what you topic is about.
The nit picking over Buddha, his name and his origin - was really irrelevant to the discussion. The idea was all that truly matters. Your knowledge is impressive but not comprehensive - Buddhists have as many sects and texts and stories plus the entire "Hindu" lexicon to draw from.
The idea of checking out stuff for yourself is pretty basic to all form of Buddism that I've seen (not comprehensive in the least). I would venture to say that, in some form, it is probally the most often quoted quote of the Buddha, in the West.
Aphorism
I agree. To be fair I never mentioned "all religions", but I tried to refine my generalization to prophets and those who would tell us how to live. What I meant to imply was that they formulate a doctrine that we are supposed to follow, yet they never say that we should formulate our own doctrines as they did. They tell us to follow, obey and step in line (do as I say), when they themselves disobeyed, stepped out of line and lead (not as I do). I think this can be said of most prophets, gurus and sages.
I think Buddha failed miserably at following and trying to be religious, trying to be a prince, but he never teaches failure. I think we can learn more from their actions than what they say.
Habitual exposure to authorianism of all types, we tend to see it everywhere. And - and we don't see opportunities for creative individual cooperation.
Another good topic. Want to collaborate??
Aphorism
To be fair I never mentioned "all religions", but I tried to refine my generalization to prophets and those who would tell us how to live. What I meant to imply was that they formulate a doctrine that we are supposed to follow, yet they never say that we should formulate our own doctrines as they did. They tell us to follow, obey and step in line (do as I say), when they themselves disobeyed, stepped out of line and lead (not as I do). I think this can be said of most prophets, gurus and sages.
Aphorism
I think Buddha failed miserably at following and trying to be religious, trying to be a prince, but he never teaches failure. I think we can learn more from their actions than what they say.
You want to refine (your) generalization?
What is this sage, prophets, and gurus obedience and disobedience in regard to? Your concepts/ideas of what is needful action for them?
All the sages and men of wisdom offered in their words /pointers to your Self completeness. There are many givers of this knowledge, but few takers.
You can recognize and use the wisdom of sages and gurus and save yourself much pain and suffering or you can just judge them and look at their lives as failures.
What failure?
I perceive no failure in Buddha.
Aphorism
They disobeyed prevailing doctrines and created their own.
Aphorism
I agree. It is common for people to want to satisfy their base desires for pleasure and ease of pain—that's probably why greed is rampant in the world—but the prophets themselves never followed anyone else's "path to happiness" but their own, they created their own pleasure and ease of pain. Prophets and gurus are for those who are incapable of formulating their own principles that they need to follow someone else's.
Advice is good, but being told how to look at the world, as if we were doing so through someone else's eyes, is the exact opposite of completeness.
Aphorism
Did he succeed at being a prince? a yogi? an acetic? His enlightenment was found in the midst of his failures.
Bluesma
Many years ago, while reading of Krishnamurti ( his teachings noted by his followers), I got to the realization that he repeatedly put emphasis on this being the wrong way to find any real freedom or enlightment.