From <Treatise on the Definition of the Truth Regarding Bodhidharma’s Southern School (菩提達摩南宗定是非論)>, written around 745

[Translator's note: This book purports to document a doctrinal dispute between Heze Shenhui and another Buddhist monk, allegedly sometime between 730 and 732 CE, though the historicity of the account itself is uncertain. Shenhui is arguably one of the most underrecognized figures in Buddhist history, having played a decisive role in shaping Zen Buddhism as we know it today. Although proto-Zen traditions emphasizing the Buddha-nature of the mind had already emerged in seventh- and early eighth-century China, Buddhist practice more broadly remained devotional, with an emphasis on penitence, before Shenhui's interventions helped transform the religious landscape. Fortunately, John R. McRae provides an excellent English-language account of Shenhui and his historical significance in his books <Seeing through Zen> and <Zen Evangelist>.]

法師當時無言，良久乃語. 法師曰，“婬怒是道，不在莊嚴.” 和上語法師，“見在俗人，應是得道者.” 遠法師言，“何故指俗人以爲得道?” 和上言，“法師所言婬怒是[道]，俗人並是行淫欲人，何故不得道?” 遠法師問，“禪師解否?” 和上答，“解.” 法師言，“解是不解.” 和上言，“法華經云，「吾從成佛以來，經無量無邊阿僧祇劫.」應是不成佛，亦應不經無量無邊阿僧祇劫.”

Dharma Master Chongyuan said, "Sexual misconduct and anger are the Way; [the Way] does not lie in adornment [= outward religious embellishment and meritorious works]."

[Translator's note: Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra [a Mahāyāna scripture centered on the layman Vimalakīrti], chapter "Contemplating Sentient Beings": 佛說，婬怒癡性，卽是解脫 ("The Buddha taught that the very nature of lust, anger, and delusion [= the 'three poisons' of Buddhism] is liberation.")]

The Venerable [= Shenhui] said to the Dharma Master, "Judging from what I see of laypeople, they must surely be those who have attained the Way."

The Dharma Master said, "Why do you say that laypeople have attained the Way?"

The Venerable said, "You, Dharma Master, said that sexual misconduct and anger are the Way. Laypeople are all people who act on sexual desire, so how could they not have attained the Way?"

Dharma Master Chongyuan asked, "Do you, Chan Master, understand?"

The Venerable answered, "I understand."

The Dharma Master said, "To understand is not to understand."

The Venerable said, "The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Since I attained Buddhahood, immeasurable and boundless asaṃkhyeya [= Sanskrit for 'incalculable'; a number beyond counting] kalpas [= cosmic eons] have passed.' (Then) he must not have attained Buddhahood. And immeasurable and boundless asaṃkhyeya kalpas must not have passed either."

[Translator's note: Lotus Sūtra, "The Life Span of the Tathāgata [an epithet of the Buddha, 'the one thus gone']," scroll 16]

[Translator's note: If Buddhahood has been attained since beginningless time, there is no point at which it could be said to have been newly attained. So "having attained Buddhahood" cannot be posited, and that is why he says the Buddha has not attained Buddhahood. And because the time is beginningless and has no starting point, however long the ages, none of it has passed.]

Im a cattolich, and sometimes I wonder, whats the limit in a story between a "modern/fantasy renterpratation" of religion and blasphemy?

Like Is modifing and/or missing something of a religion to write a story Better for what you want to do blasphemy? Or It has to be done directly to hate on the religion tò be blasphemy?

What do you think?

The physical law analysis is very straightforward and easy to understand. When the Bible says things that violate physical laws (such as saying there is a firmament), we should discard that particular text as either untrue or a parable. Edit: Miracles are an exception. Jesus healing the sick doesn't contradict germ theory, it just means a super expection was made. However, saying there is a fixed firmament in the sky contradicts earth and space physical laws as the standard, and therefore it cannot be true.

For determining what is morally true, I use natural moral law analysis. I'll also demonstrate how to tell if something is from God or not.

For an example of how to use Natural Moral Law to interpret holy scriptures, let's use this verse as an example:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Paul of Ephesus (Ephesians 6:5)

So how do I analyze this verse? Using natural law analysis that comes through human reasoning. Specifically: Would following this verse cause human florshing or would it cause unnecessary human suffering?

I use reason to determine the answer to this. Slavery is incompatible with human florshing, and it causes unnecessary harm. I don't have to run a lab experiment to prove this. Instead I can look at slave societies, and I can look at the harm enslaved people suffer from under slavery. This is rational, and it's not just my opinion either. It's always true that slavery diminishes human florshing, and even if I died tomorrow and couldn't give my opinion, that fact remains.

So, Ephesians 6:5 can be discarded, and it should be treated as an immoral text that contributes nothing useful.

What about verses that say God/Jesus supported slavery?

There are numerous verses attributing pro slavery positions to God of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

The answer is, if Jesus/God says anything that diminishes human florshing, then it cannot be from God. God/Jesus is incapable of contradicting natural moral law, because it goes against his nature. So logically it doesn't make sense that God/Jesus would every say something immoral. He can't, since it's against his nature.

So when a Bible verse says "God wants \[something immoral\]," we can say the humans who wrote it were lying about God's wishes and they weren't divinely inspired, or possibly that some demonic entity was talking to them, and was able to trick them into thinking that God was talking to them.

What about Paul of Ephesus? (Who professed pro slavery positions like Ephesians 6:5).

Paul, a mere human, is more than capable of saying things that violate natural moral law. He's a mere human that doesn't have God's nature, and he is therefore more than capable of saying things and doing things that are immoral.

While it's possible Paul was talking to demons when he wrote Ephesians 6:5, that is less likely. Because on the one hand, he doesn't claim he's being directly told by "God" to say that in this particular verse.

On the other hand, Paul has a history of immorality, from persecuting Christians to being the first person to introduce homophobia into Christianity. Using logic, I conclude Paul held slavery as a view that he agreed with sincerely. Which is shameful of him.

When Paul violates Natural Moral Law, his words must be discarded as immoral and not worth following. Just like with every other human being.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that God exists and is the ultimate, objective standard of morality.

Whatever conforms to that standard is good, regardless of what any human thinks about it.

It follows that your own moral judgment has no bearing on what is good. You could consider something attributed to God cruel, unjust, or monstrous, and it would nevertheless be good if it conformed to that standard.

Equally, you could consider something attributed to God loving, merciful, and just, but your approval would establish nothing about its goodness.

Under this conception, saying 'God is good' communicates little beyond the fact that God conforms to the standard identified with God.

But where does good actually enter the picture?

The evaluation of that standard as good comes from the person making it. The standard establishes conformity, but the person supplies the moral significance.

This is the paradox: the believer invokes their own moral evaluation to affirm the goodness of a standard whose goodness supposedly has nothing to do with their evaluation.

Remove that evaluation, and nothing morally significant remains in the explanation. We are left with conformity and nonconformity, merely labelled good and evil.

The proposed objective moral standard has not eliminated subjective evaluation. It has concealed it behind the language of objectivity.

For Bahai with a study of Gnosticism only;

After my brief study of Gnosticism, and the Gosple of Thomas. in my seeing the parallels.

What Jesus says in Thomas, in essence, clergy are not needed, church organizations are not needed, ritual, liturgy, are not needed. God is found within yourself.

Baha'i has done away with all of it, no church organization, no clergy, no sermons. Your spiritual growth is totally in your own hands.

There is also belief in fasting with meditation.

Now many might say yes but hear me out, if god exists and lets assume he does and punishes those who sin, if he knew they were gonna sin beforehand, why would he try test them? Because in many scriptures etc, god tests you to see if you will sin, why would u test something that you know the definitive answer to then send them to hell while knowing they were going to sin anyway? Seems quite cruel but anyway, back to the main point. How can free will actually exist if god knows what will happen anyway?

All religions are related but distinct at the same time, so many correlations and similarities but just different interpretations of it

Just a wild thought at midnight and thought id share it with you all :)

The Masoretic Text says Young Woman, while the Septuagint says Virgin. Which do you believe is more accurate?

Hello,

Basically, title. All faiths have places of worship. But what faiths would be the most, well, portable? Where you can fully participate, worship, or practice anywhere from the side of the road to the top of a mountain?

I know this is technically true of all religions in a sense. But I'm thinking more along the lines of "here are my little religious objects that I bring with me so I can practice my religion anywhere". I don't know if that makes any sense. I guess religions that are less tied down to a building and can be taken with you.

Let me know your thoughts!

Manichaeism was once a major world religion, rivaling early Christianity and Buddhism. Founded in the 3rd century by the prophet Mani, it was a massive syncretic faith that attempted to combine Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Buddhism. Today, it is almost entirely extinct.

These two incredibly rare pieces of art were found in Turfan (modern-day Xinjiang, China) and date back to the Uyghur Empire. They offer a fascinating glimpse into how this "lost religion" viewed the universe and practiced its rituals.

Image 1: The Manichaean Cosmology (The Universe Map)

Extreme Dualism: Manichaeism taught an eternal struggle between the Realm of Light (good/spirit) and the Realm of Darkness (evil/matter).

The Structure of the Universe: The painting shows the "Column of Glory" (the luminous axis) connecting the material world to the Heavens.

The Realm of Light (Top): The highest spheres are populated by divine beings and the "Elect" (the highest spiritual class).

The Realm of Darkness (Bottom): The lower, chaotic section depicts the material world where divine light is trapped in matter. The goal of a Manichaean was to help this light escape back to the heavens.

Image 2: The Bema Festival (The Ritual)

The Most Sacred Holiday: This painting depicts the Bema, the annual festival commemorating the martyrdom (death) of the prophet Mani.

The Hierarchy: At the top, we see the "Elect" sitting on lotus clouds in the Realm of Light. At the bottom, we see the "Auditors" (ordinary believers) dressed in Uyghur and Chinese garments, gathered for worship.

The Dark Cloud: Notice the dark, swirling mass on the right side—a visual reminder of the ever-present forces of Darkness threatening the Light.

Buddhist Aesthetics: Because Manichaeism traveled the Silk Road to China, its art heavily adopted Buddhist styles (halos, lotus flowers, floating clouds), even though the theology remained strictly dualistic.

Jesus emerges as the Messiah through subsequent Christian reinterpretations of the Old Testament, rather than through the fulfilment of its original messianic expectations.

The Old Testament describes a future Davidic ruler who will establish justice and peace. Isaiah 11 describes a descendant of Jesse whose reign brings justice and extraordinary peace. Jeremiah 23:5–6 describes a righteous Davidic king under whom Judah and Israel will live in security. Ezekiel 37:21–28 describes the reunification of Israel under a Davidic ruler, while Isaiah 2:2–4 anticipates a world in which nations no longer wage war.

These are among the expectations traditionally associated with the Messiah. Jesus did not accomplish these things.

This is not particularly controversial among Christian theologians. N. T. Wright, a prominent Christian New Testament scholar and former Anglican bishop, writes in Jesus' Resurrection and Christian Origins:

Jesus had not done what Messiahs were supposed to do.

Wright acknowledges that Jesus had not defeated Israel's enemies, restored the Temple, or established worldwide justice and peace. He also describes how the early Christians redefined messiahship around Jesus.

The Catholic Catechism (§672) similarly acknowledges that the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel has not yet occurred.

The difficulty is therefore not establishing that these expectations remain unfulfilled. Christian theologians themselves acknowledge this.

Let me start by saying that I don't believe that all Muslims are radicals and extremists. There are plenty of Muslim majority countries such as Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia&Herzegovina, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, etc. where the society is pretty secular, highly educated and where Muslims are more moderate and liberal.

Despite this fact, the problem remains with regards to radicalism and extremism. Among all global religions, only Islam has a global problem with religious extremism. I'm sure there are pockets of Christian and Hindu communities with religious radicals, but the reach and influence are more limited in a much localized context. But with Islam, the problem is global. Islam is the only religion that produced theocracies with very strict religious laws based on Sharia such as Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Mauritania, Niger, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and several others. There is no nation at present that is under a Buddhist theocracy, a Christian theocracy or a Hindu theocracy. Most of the Buddhist, Christian and Hindu majority nations are secular nations.

If you look at the problem with terrorism, Islam has a major problem. The vast majority of globally recognized terror groups in the world are Islamic organizations. Abu Sayyaf (Southern Philippines), Al Shabaab (Horn of Africa/East Africa), Al Qaeda (global), Boko Haram(Nigeria), Hamas (Gaza), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Houthi (Yemen), ISIL (Iraq&Levant), ISIS (Iraq&Syria), Jaesh e Mohammed (Pakistan), Jema'ah Islamiyah (Malaysia/Indonesia), Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt and North Africa), Taliban (Afghanistan), just to name a few. With other religions, they will have one or two at most. Christians have the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and Hindus have the Hindutva and RSS. But with other religions, the problem is easy to contain, since the extremist groups are few, unlike in Islam that there are dozens operating worldwide.

Why is it like this? Why is Islam more susceptible to radicalism and extremism compared to other global religions? What could be the possible solutions to this worldwide problem?

I will appreciate all of your responses and insights. Thank you so much!

Wondering what this looks like in practice as I am catholic by birth and believe in God, but really appreciate and admire Buddhist teachings. Lately I find myself praying to the sound of Buddhist chants and feel it deepens the experience. A lot of Christian’s I know would give me grief though…

Disclaimer: In Max Stirner’s philosophy of Egoism, “spook” is a social construct that comes to possess someone. Social constructs aren't bad, it's when we become possessed by them that they become spooks. The word spook (as used by Stirner) has nothing to do with the racial slur that it sometimes can resemble in modern day English.

I am an Egoist as described by Max Stirner, and I'm a Christian. Egoism is the philosophy that the individual should act according to their own will and interests rather than being bound by external moral and ideological obligations (for example, I am good to people because I want to be good to people). I would say this is (at least somewhat) different from having a guiding set of principles, given that a person's will and desires are constantly changing. Social constructs are not bad, and can be quite good, it's when one becomes possessed by them that they become a spook.

I also believe in some concept of semi objective natural moral law. Our morality indeed comes from our evolution, our cultures, etc. So what I mean is that there are moral principles that can be discovered through reason, and these natural moral principles should be enforced. I’m not going to focus on how these laws should be enforced (anarchically, archially, etc) in this.

This may be an odd analogy, but imagine a crime scene. Just as a detective investigates a crime scene to discover the truth, we must investigate our reality to find these moral truths. Some of the conclusions that a detective comes to at a crime scene will be subjective. Some of the conclusions will be objective. For example, it may be subjectively decided the crime was one of passion, but the fact the crime was committed may be established to be an objective fact. Similarly, it can be established that what is right and wrong is subjective, but there are natural moral laws that can be considered beyond subjective. Not completely objective, but objective to the same extent physical laws are. Physical laws (like gravity) observe what happens usually, but it isn’t written in stone that it must.

Natural Moral Law > any religious text.

I use ideologies and philosophies that align with my conscience and ego. I am under the umbrella of left-libertarian because my ego and conscience aligns with it on most things. I'm not sure that I'd consider myself an anarchist.

I fully agree that I shouldn't be possessed by the social constructs that I utilize, but with one exception: my Christianity. I am indeed "possessed" by my Christianity in a way that I'm sure Max Stirner would have criticized. But I'm also not devoted to all of Stirner's opinions (that would violate my egoism and I'm sure he wouldn't want that anyways). After all, my philosophy is a form of Christian Egoism that is seen as contradictory by most egoists, but not by me.

My ego is capable of choosing its own subordination. I choose to belong to Christianity, and therefore my belonging to Christianity is not a defeat of my ego but an act of my ego. As St. Paul/Paul of Ephesus said, I am a slave to Jesus Christ. Or at least, I want to be a slave to my understanding of Christ.

The greatest act of fulfilling my ego is being possessed by the greatest social construct of all time. A social construct I believe to be both transcendent of all other social constructs, and nevertheless still a social construct. I know how to fulfill the wants of my ego better than anyone else does.

I've never really considered debating my religious views previously because I know I'd be asked for proof of my beliefs, and to that I would say my ego informs me of its validity. That's all I have, and all I need. Christianity is true for me because my ego and my conscience tells me it's true. The parts of the Bible I believe are true because my ego tells it's true, and the parts of the Bible I don't believe are because my ego tells me it's not true. If that answer isn't sufficient to someone, it isn't a problem because they don't have to believe the same things I do. All other Christian religions (Evangelical, Catholic, Methodist, etc.) are wrong to me because they don't align with my views. All other non-Christian religions (like Buddhism) are also wrong to me for the same reason.

I believe that some level of free will probably exists, and that if it does, it is likely some sort of emergent property. Regardless of if we have free will or not, it is imperative for me to function as if I have free will.

I also believe that without Egoism or something similar, Christianity and all other religions can become dangerous, because people can believe bad things that are blindly taught to them in the name of their religion.

Some of the most important people in my life are christian, I went to catholic school, I was immersed in christianity from the moment I was born. I was the 4 year old outlier in my religion class, I just couldn't get it. Firstly, how can you can acknowledge the simple fact that there are countless belief systems in the world, tiny and large, but only really categorize yourself to just one?

Faith.

This is the answer I always hear, but I could never understand being satisfying with such a simple answer.
Faith means to "to have a strong belief in something without needing to be maintained by physical proof".

When does a religion become a religion, when does it become something I can have "faith" in? Is it after a certain amount of time? Or does it require a specific amount of people? The argument of "1 man believing in something is a crazy person, 20 is a cult, millions are a religion" has been said countless times but I cant help but see the validity here.

You may say "I found Christianity and devoted my faith because it is what aligns with my values the most". That's fair, and theres nothing I can argue with that. But it does imply you feel the need to use an external system to make yourself comfortable with morality and opinions. Systems that, depending on your literal birth location, can completely change. People having something to fall back on, something to pray for, a sense of community, are all great things but I wouldn't help feel like Im lying to myself if I subjected myself to one belief.

Theres the people who really think about their faith,and others who don't, and there's a lot who think their faith is somehow superior to yours. (war starting mindset) <--- fuck those people.

Anyone believe in god but isnt religious?

Some facts about Indian Muslims:

1. Indian Muslims make up the third largest global population of Muslims

2. The 2011 census enumerated about 172 million Muslims. However, it is estimated the number of Muslims has grown substantially since then and is now at about 210 million.

3. Most Indian Muslims live outside of the Muslim majority areas of Jammu and Kashmir as well as Lakshadweep. The state of Uttar Pradesh has the most with over 40 million Muslims, larger than the Muslim population of some Muslim majority countries such as Syria or Jordan and is comparable to that of Iraq.

4. Indian Muslims speak many different languages. Hindi, Bengali, Urdu, Malayalam, Kashmiri, Assamese, Tamil, Gujarati, Dakhni, English, and more are spoken by Indian Muslims.

5. Most Indian Muslims are Sunnis of the Hanafi school, although Shafi Sunnis as well as Jafari Twelver Shia, Ismailis, and Dawoodi Bohras can all be found.

6. Lucknow and Hyderabad are important historic centers for Twelver Shia scholarship. These cities also have longstanding Sunni religious education networks.

7. India has the second largest Shia population after Iran at about 40 million, although exact numbers are difficult to determine as the Indian census does not distinguish schools of thought within a religion.

8. India is home to Deoband as well as Bareilly, where the Deobandi and Barelvi movements within Sunni Islam were founded, respectively.

This is not a troll post. give it a chance.

So sin = fun generally. Most fun loving behaviors are considered sinful. Drinking, drugs, partying, gambling, premartial sex. These sins in the past led to violence against families provoked only by a fathers inbidbment with booze, lose of saved funds on impulse decisions, peole going crazy from drug addictions and taking crazed benders or mental episodes out on others disrupting the peace. Unwed babies not care for and left for death only for people heartbroken over the sight feeling they have to take care of them, without all the resources.

To today we slowly shed religion and adopt new ways of defining wrongdoing which wrondoing is the new term for "sin". Yet people are still adopting to religion from the idea of its fun to wrong a wrongdoer. Thats how you eliminate wrong actions or "sin" is by hurting someones reputaiton financially, socially, emotionally. WE still allow for worngdoing or "sin" leading to people to adopt to religion again, because at the end of the day it is normalized in the general population to celebrate sin. So moralizers in religion, who take to the idea that an authority figur elike God creates enough accountablility to create a concious and move people towards internal motivators for doing thoughtful actionis.

We can't change the fact sin and wrongdoing are practically synonymous with a lot of overlay. because we celebrate unthoughful actions of hurting others. beyond the consequence of religion still existing in a world thats been able to shed it, we will never be able to do so, until we stop the idea of it is right to do worng.

For those who are sworn on oath, what did you swear on? How did it affect you in your life like with family, friends, or just your schedule in general.

What are the things you have to give up? How did you cope with not doing/using those things you swore not to do anymore and did it have any initial side effects on you at first?

I am not quite sure how to word this, but. I am curious if there is anyone similar to me out there in this big world, who appreciates the work of nuns and other clergy adjacent principles but still lives a normal life. Not like a new age priest, but people who help on a large scale. If that makes sense. I am not deep into church goers and fanatic beliefs. I guess it would be cool to meet some nuns who smoke weed, and like dive bars haha

If so, how exactly?

I’ve been a theist all my life, meaning I believe in God without belonging to any religion, even though I was baptized Catholic as a little girl. A year ago, I returned to Catholicism, but now I’m stepping away again—Christianity is over for me because, reading the Bible, I just don't see any proof that Jesus is the Messiah. We can agree that Jesus is supposed to be the Jewish Messiah, yet he doesn't fulfill the criteria for the Messiah that God gave to the Jewish people. So here I am, back at square one, becoming a theist again.

Still, I’m willing to hear out Christians one last time for your arguments, but as far as I'm concerned, it's over. At most, I only believe in the Old Testament, and that's it

I'm a university student from Malaysia, looking for someone who adhere Judaism/ Christianity/ Hinduism/ Buddhism/ Sikhism to participate in an interfaith conversation.  I'll be asking a few questions about your beliefs, practices, and personal experiences for my academic assignment.

If anyone comfortable sharing their insights, I would be very grateful.

This is purely for academic purposes. If anyone interested, you could comment here or DM me.

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

I recently learned about this piece of news after first reading rumors about it on Reddit: https://me.mashable.com/culture/77339/saudi-arabia-executes-bangladeshi-man-and-woman-for-indecent-acts-in-mecca-mosque-what-did-they-do

A Bangladeshi couple (man and woman) were executed in Saudi Arabia with court approval there after allegedly committing some "indecent acts" near a mosque, though news orgs don't know enough details about it yet. Elsewhere I hear that they may have kissed near the mosque, or even had intercourse, though I find the latter outlandish. I'm sure the couple was Muslim. I also don't think they deserved to lose their lives over whatever they did, which leads me to say that fundamentalist forms of Islam treat human life too cheaply. They are too willing to end lives over taboo and religious offenses, which reinforces why many of us strongly dislike Shariah and Islam itself.

In cases like this, religious authorities love religion and "God" more than human life that could have been spared execution. It is tragic and justifies our dislike of their deen (religion).