Prayer, Meditation and the Spiral Effect

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note Buddhists are non-theistic [atheists] and their central doctrine is empathy and compassion for all humans and living things. Buddhism isn't atheist, it does not claim answers to whether God exists or does not exist.
Has any Buddhist kill anyone in the name of the Buddha and his doctrines?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

How can you be so blind to what you linked and is so hasty.

I asked;
Has any Buddhist kill anyone in the name of the Buddha and his doctrines?

Note the last statement from what you have linked;

The relationship between Buddhism and violence includes acts of violence and aggression committed by Buddhists with religious, political, or socio-cultural motivations, as well as self-inflicted violence by ascetics or for religious purposes.[1] Buddhism is generally seen as among the religious traditions least associated with violence.[2]
However, in the history of Buddhism, there have been acts of violence directed, promoted, or inspired by Buddhists.[3]
As far as Buddha's teachings and scriptures are concerned, Buddhism forbids violence for resolving conflicts.[4]

If that is the case, i.e. Buddhism forbids violence for resolving conflicts,
logically,
any Buddhist who had killed cannot be relying on the teachings and scriptures of Buddhism and in the name of Buddhism.

Buddhism isn't atheist, it does not claim answers to whether God exists or does not exist.

I stated Buddhism is non-theistic i.e. generally term 'atheistic'.

Note this from Buddhanet;

Among all religions, Buddhism is one that has withdrawn itself from theistic thought.
http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f4.htm

Non-theistic Buddhism came about to contrast 180 degrees against the theism of Hinduism;

To understand why this [non-theism] is so, we need to know about the other religions in India during the Buddha’s time. During the period of the Vedas to the time of Upanishad, Brahmana influence was very extensive. The Brahmana believed in the mysterious creation of the universe. Theirs was a philosophy that believed in the existence of a time of cosmic origin. A god created mankind, and it was believed to be the origin of all things. It was called the God of Birth, the God of Prayer, the Brahman, or "I". Although the title for the creator varied over time, its implications were the same.

If you understand the core principles of Buddhism, it cannot accept theism at all despite some Buddhist groups introducing the idea of various abstract entities.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus when we find out the root causes of prayers and there is reason it to wean off and replace prayers with more effective alternative the drive to pray, then, there is no need to pray.

Don't worry I am not onto you praying but rather we will wean off prayers and critically believing in an illusory God in the future.
When there is no deity there is nothing for any person to pray to.
The alternative to prayer then is positive meditation.

Meditation still requires an observance of a form, and this form acts as a deity.
The observation of a deity is inevitable.

Your rhetoric is getting crazier and is due to ignorance.

Didn't you read the definition of prayer I listed earlier.

Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with an object of worship through deliberate communication.
In the narrow sense, the term refers to an act of supplication or intercession directed towards a deity (a god), or a deified ancestor.
-wiki

Meditation proper do not include the above activities of what is generally a 'prayer'.

Not all meditation require a vehicle e.g. a mantra and the likes.
Depending one's level of competence, certain specific meditation merely starts with a specific state of mind without a vehicle.

One of the most common method of meditation is to focus on the breath, surely the breath cannot be a deity. How dumb can that be.

[Eodnhoj7]

Note Buddhists are non-theistic [atheists] and their central doctrine is empathy and compassion for all humans and living things. Buddhism isn't atheist, it does not claim answers to whether God exists or does not exist.
Has any Buddhist kill anyone in the name of the Buddha and his doctrines?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

How can you be so blind to what you linked and is so hasty.

I asked;
Has any Buddhist kill anyone in the name of the Buddha and his doctrines?


Out of protecting doctrines, yes:



In Southeast Asia, Thailand has had several prominent virulent Buddhist monastic calls for violence. In the 1970s, nationalist Buddhist monks like Phra Kittiwuttho argued that killing Communists did not violate any of the Buddhist precepts.[39] The militant side of Thai Buddhism became prominent again in 2004 when a Malay Muslim insurgency renewed in Thailand's deep south.
At first Buddhist monks ignored the conflict as they viewed it as political and not religious but eventually they adopted an "identity-formation", as practical realities require deviations from religious ideals.


[40]





Note the last statement from what you have linked;

The relationship between Buddhism and violence includes acts of violence and aggression committed by Buddhists with religious, political, or socio-cultural motivations, as well as self-inflicted violence by ascetics or for religious purposes.[1] Buddhism is generally seen as among the religious traditions least associated with violence.[2]
However, in the history of Buddhism, there have been acts of violence directed, promoted, or inspired by Buddhists.[3]
As far as Buddha's teachings and scriptures are concerned, Buddhism forbids violence for resolving conflicts.[4]

If that is the case, i.e. Buddhism forbids violence for resolving conflicts,






logically,
any Buddhist who had killed cannot be relying on the teachings and scriptures of Buddhism and in the name of Buddhism.

Buddhism isn't atheist, it does not claim answers to whether God exists or does not exist.

I stated Buddhism is non-theistic i.e. generally term 'atheistic'.

Note this from Buddhanet;

Among all religions, Buddhism is one that has withdrawn itself from theistic thought.
http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f4.htm

Non-theistic Buddhism came about to contrast 180 degrees against the theism of Hinduism;

To understand why this [non-theism] is so, we need to know about the other religions in India during the Buddha’s time. During the period of the Vedas to the time of Upanishad, Brahmana influence was very extensive. The Brahmana believed in the mysterious creation of the universe. Theirs was a philosophy that believed in the existence of a time of cosmic origin. A god created mankind, and it was believed to be the origin of all things. It was called the God of Birth, the God of Prayer, the Brahman, or "I". Although the title for the creator varied over time, its implications were the same.

If you understand the core principles of Buddhism, it cannot accept theism at all despite some Buddhist groups introducing the idea of various abstract entities.

Buddhism is neither theistic nor atheistic as the sole foundation is the allievement of suffering, it does not address whether God exists or does not exist.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Buddhists-theists

[Eodnhoj7]

Thus when we find out the root causes of prayers and there is reason it to wean off and replace prayers with more effective alternative the drive to pray, then, there is no need to pray.

Don't worry I am not onto you praying but rather we will wean off prayers and critically believing in an illusory God in the future.
When there is no deity there is nothing for any person to pray to.
The alternative to prayer then is positive meditation.

Meditation still requires an observance of a form, and this form acts as a deity.
The observation of a deity is inevitable.

Your rhetoric is getting crazier and is due to ignorance.

Didn't you read the definition of prayer I listed earlier.

Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with an object of worship through deliberate communication.
In the narrow sense, the term refers to an act of supplication or intercession directed towards a deity (a god), or a deified ancestor.
-wiki

Meditation proper do not include the above activities of what is generally a 'prayer'.

Actually it does. The act of meditation on some image acts as a vehicle of change.

Not all meditation require a vehicle e.g. a mantra and the likes.


Depending one's level of competence, certain specific meditation merely starts with a specific state of mind without a vehicle.

One of the most common method of meditation is to focus on the breath, surely the breath cannot be a deity. How dumb can that be.

The act of breathing observes a universal pulse as a vehicle. Meditation on breathing necessitates an objective rhythm.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note Buddhists are non-theistic [atheists] and their central doctrine is empathy and compassion for all humans and living things. Buddhism isn't atheist, it does not claim answers to whether God exists or does not exist.
Has any Buddhist kill anyone in the name of the Buddha and his doctrines?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

How can you be so blind to what you linked and is so hasty.

I asked;
Has any Buddhist kill anyone in the name of the Buddha and his doctrines?


Out of protecting doctrines, yes:

In Southeast Asia, Thailand has had several prominent virulent Buddhist monastic calls for violence. In the 1970s, nationalist Buddhist monks like Phra Kittiwuttho argued that killing Communists did not violate any of the Buddhist precepts.[39] The militant side of Thai Buddhism became prominent again in 2004 when a Malay Muslim insurgency renewed in Thailand's deep south.
At first Buddhist monks ignored the conflict as they viewed it as political and not religious but eventually they adopted an "identity-formation", as practical realities require deviations from religious ideals.
[40]



Note the last statement from what you have linked;

The relationship between Buddhism and violence includes acts of violence and aggression committed by Buddhists with religious, political, or socio-cultural motivations, as well as self-inflicted violence by ascetics or for religious purposes.[1] Buddhism is generally seen as among the religious traditions least associated with violence.[2]
However, in the history of Buddhism, there have been acts of violence directed, promoted, or inspired by Buddhists.[3]
As far as Buddha's teachings and scriptures are concerned, Buddhism forbids violence for resolving conflicts.[4]

If that is the case, i.e. Buddhism forbids violence for resolving conflicts,


logically,
any Buddhist who had killed cannot be relying on the teachings and scriptures of Buddhism and in the name of Buddhism.

I asked;
Has any Buddhist kill anyone in the name of the Buddha and his doctrines?

You reply:
Out of protecting doctrines, yes:

That is off tangent. Where is your rationality?
Those Buddhists who killed above were not commanded by the Buddha within Buddhist Doctrines.
A Buddhist may get angry at someone who tore up some Buddhist scriptures and kill the person; that has nothing to do with Buddhism per se.

It is like Christians who killed for the greater good from their own personal views, but it has nothing to do with Christianity's doctrine which commanded explicitly 'a Christian must love even his enemies' thus no killing of enemies.

Buddhism isn't atheist, it does not claim answers to whether God exists or does not exist.

I stated Buddhism is non-theistic i.e. generally term 'atheistic'.

Note this from Buddhanet;

Among all religions, Buddhism is one that has withdrawn itself from theistic thought.
http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f4.htm

Non-theistic Buddhism came about to contrast 180 degrees against the theism of Hinduism;

To understand why this [non-theism] is so, we need to know about the other religions in India during the Buddha’s time. During the period of the Vedas to the time of Upanishad, Brahmana influence was very extensive. The Brahmana believed in the mysterious creation of the universe. Theirs was a philosophy that believed in the existence of a time of cosmic origin. A god created mankind, and it was believed to be the origin of all things. It was called the God of Birth, the God of Prayer, the Brahman, or "I". Although the title for the creator varied over time, its implications were the same.

If you understand the core principles of Buddhism, it cannot accept theism at all despite some Buddhist groups introducing the idea of various abstract entities.

Buddhism is neither theistic nor atheistic as the sole foundation is the allievement of suffering, it does not address whether God exists or does not exist.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Buddhists-theists

Quora?
Buddhanet definitely has more credibility than Quora.
What is stated in the Quora reply is merely half true.

Here is a more credible Buddhist Site;

Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods.

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings.

On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... didea.html

As I had stated the core principles of Buddhism, e.g. Anatta do not provide the real existence of any deva at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism).
The term deva representing higher human beings is merely metaphorical tied to the mental states of a person.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Meditation still requires an observance of a form, and this form acts as a deity.
The observation of a deity is inevitable.

Your rhetoric is getting crazier and is due to ignorance.

Didn't you read the definition of prayer I listed earlier.

Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with an object of worship through deliberate communication.
In the narrow sense, the term refers to an act of supplication or intercession directed towards a deity (a god), or a deified ancestor.
-wiki

Meditation proper do not include the above activities of what is generally a 'prayer'.

Actually it does. The act of meditation on some image acts as a vehicle of change.

Not all meditation require a vehicle e.g. a mantra and the likes.


Depending one's level of competence, certain specific meditation merely starts with a specific state of mind without a vehicle.

One of the most common method of meditation is to focus on the breath, surely the breath cannot be a deity. How dumb can that be.

The act of breathing observes a universal pulse as a vehicle. Meditation on breathing necessitates an objective rhythm.

Not all meditation need a vehicle.

Yes, most meditation need an image or focus on the breath to start with, but such activities is not 'prayer' as defined.
How can you be so thick when I have provided the definition of what is a prayer.

Note a child is advised the 'count sheep' to help him to sleep - this is more like meditation. This repetitive activity is obviously different from the 'prayer' he made to his God before settling to bed.
See the difference?

[Eodnhoj7]

How can you be so blind to what you linked and is so hasty.

I asked;
Has any Buddhist kill anyone in the name of the Buddha and his doctrines?


Out of protecting doctrines, yes:

In Southeast Asia, Thailand has had several prominent virulent Buddhist monastic calls for violence. In the 1970s, nationalist Buddhist monks like Phra Kittiwuttho argued that killing Communists did not violate any of the Buddhist precepts.[39] The militant side of Thai Buddhism became prominent again in 2004 when a Malay Muslim insurgency renewed in Thailand's deep south.
At first Buddhist monks ignored the conflict as they viewed it as political and not religious but eventually they adopted an "identity-formation", as practical realities require deviations from religious ideals.
[40]



Note the last statement from what you have linked;



If that is the case, i.e. Buddhism forbids violence for resolving conflicts,


logically,
any Buddhist who had killed cannot be relying on the teachings and scriptures of Buddhism and in the name of Buddhism.

I asked;
Has any Buddhist kill anyone in the name of the Buddha and his doctrines?

You reply:
Out of protecting doctrines, yes:

That is off tangent. Where is your rationality?
Those Buddhists who killed above were not commanded by the Buddha within Buddhist Doctrines.
A Buddhist may get angry at someone who tore up some Buddhist scriptures and kill the person; that has nothing to do with Buddhism per se.

It is like Christians who killed for the greater good from their own personal views, but it has nothing to do with Christianity's doctrine which commanded explicitly 'a Christian must love even his enemies' thus no killing of enemies.

They where not commanded, but the question was if they killed in the name of buddha...and history shows it has been done regardless of it being right or wrong.

I stated Buddhism is non-theistic i.e. generally term 'atheistic'.

Note this from Buddhanet;



Non-theistic Buddhism came about to contrast 180 degrees against the theism of Hinduism;



If you understand the core principles of Buddhism, it cannot accept theism at all despite some Buddhist groups introducing the idea of various abstract entities.

It doesn't accept atheism either. Which Nhat Hanh has been known to have statues of Christ in his prayer room

Buddhism is neither theistic nor atheistic as the sole foundation is the allievement of suffering, it does not address whether God exists or does not exist.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Buddhists-theists

Quora?
Buddhanet definitely has more credibility than Quora.
What is stated in the Quora reply is merely half true.

Here is a more credible Buddhist Site;

Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods.

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings.

The Tibetan book of the Dead makes references to gods and dieties.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fierce_deities




On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... didea.html

As I had stated the core principles of Buddhism, e.g. Anatta do not provide the real existence of any deva at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism).
The term deva representing higher human beings is merely metaphorical tied to the mental states of a person.

Those mental states are still referenced as dieties.

[/color]

[Eodnhoj7]

Your rhetoric is getting crazier and is due to ignorance.

Didn't you read the definition of prayer I listed earlier.



Meditation proper do not include the above activities of what is generally a 'prayer'.

Actually it does. The act of meditation on some image acts as a vehicle of change.

Not all meditation require a vehicle e.g. a mantra and the likes.


Depending one's level of competence, certain specific meditation merely starts with a specific state of mind without a vehicle.

One of the most common method of meditation is to focus on the breath, surely the breath cannot be a deity. How dumb can that be.

The act of breathing observes a universal pulse as a vehicle. Meditation on breathing necessitates an objective rhythm.

Not all meditation need a vehicle.

Yes, most meditation need an image or focus on the breath to start with, but such activities is not 'prayer' as defined.
How can you be so thick when I have provided the definition of what is a prayer.

Because the forms in meditation act of vehicles which mediate a person's wants and needs.

Note a child is advised the 'count sheep' to help him to sleep - this is more like meditation. This repetitive activity is obviously different from the 'prayer' he made to his God before settling to bed.
See the difference?

The sheep still act as a mediator, they are thought forms which mediate a person's needs.

Prayer is "a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods.

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings.

The Tibetan book of the Dead makes references to gods and dieties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fierce_deities


On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... didea.html

As I had stated the core principles of Buddhism, e.g. Anatta do not provide the real existence of any deva at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism).
The term deva representing higher human beings is merely metaphorical tied to the mental states of a person.

Those mental states are still referenced as dieties.

Read my point again;

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings.

Yes they are deities within the mind of the individual not deities like a creator God, angels, ghosts that exist independently of the human mind.

One of the core principles of Buddhism, i.e. anatta simply do not provide for any entity to exists independent by itself and independent from the human mind.

Within Buddhist philosophy just like the Kantian or Hume philosophical-anti-realism, the table we perceived external to our self are perceived as independent from the self, but ultimately from a meta-level, the external table is interdependent with the self.

Within Buddhist philosophy, it is the same if a person perceived deities that are "external" to oneself, but ultimately the deity is not absolute independent of the mind/self.

[Eodnhoj7]

As I had stated the core principles of Buddhism, e.g. Anatta do not provide the real existence of any deva at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism).
The term deva representing higher human beings is merely metaphorical tied to the mental states of a person.

Those mental states are still referenced as dieties.

Read my point again;

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings.

Yes they are deities within the mind of the individual not deities like a creator God, angels, ghosts that exist independently of the human mind.

Change is the generation of one phenomena into another, creation is change, thus not a contradiction.

One of the core principles of Buddhism, i.e. anatta simply do not provide for any entity to exists independent by itself and independent from the human mind.

The human mind is a recursive reflection of a single Divine Mind in Christianity.

Within Buddhist philosophy just like the Kantian or Hume philosophical-anti-realism, the table we perceived external to our self are perceived as independent from the self, but ultimately from a meta-level, the external table is interdependent with the self.

Within Buddhist philosophy, it is the same if a person perceived deities that are "external" to oneself, but ultimately the deity is not absolute independent of the mind/self.

All minds as recursive reflections of the one Divine Mind are extensions of the One Mind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Read my point again;

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings.

Yes they are deities within the mind of the individual not deities like a creator God, angels, ghosts that exist independently of the human mind.

Change is the generation of one phenomena into another, creation is change, thus not a contradiction.

One of the core principles of Buddhism, i.e. anatta simply do not provide for any entity to exists independent by itself and independent from the human mind.

The human mind is a recursive reflection of a single Divine Mind in Christianity.

Within Buddhist philosophy just like the Kantian or Hume philosophical-anti-realism, the table we perceived external to our self are perceived as independent from the self, but ultimately from a meta-level, the external table is interdependent with the self.

Within Buddhist philosophy, it is the same if a person perceived deities that are "external" to oneself, but ultimately the deity is not absolute independent of the mind/self.

All minds as recursive reflections of the one Divine Mind are extensions of the One Mind.

Where are you going to?

Note the point is Prayer per se is not Meditation per se.

[Eodnhoj7]

Read my point again;



Yes they are deities within the mind of the individual not deities like a creator God, angels, ghosts that exist independently of the human mind.

Change is the generation of one phenomena into another, creation is change, thus not a contradiction.

One of the core principles of Buddhism, i.e. anatta simply do not provide for any entity to exists independent by itself and independent from the human mind.

The human mind is a recursive reflection of a single Divine Mind in Christianity.

Within Buddhist philosophy just like the Kantian or Hume philosophical-anti-realism, the table we perceived external to our self are perceived as independent from the self, but ultimately from a meta-level, the external table is interdependent with the self.

Within Buddhist philosophy, it is the same if a person perceived deities that are "external" to oneself, but ultimately the deity is not absolute independent of the mind/self.

All minds as recursive reflections of the one Divine Mind are extensions of the One Mind.

Where are you going to?

Note the point is Prayer per se is not Meditation per se.

Buddhism does not negate a creator diety(s) due to all change existing as an act of creation.

Prayer is natural and unavoidable and is synonymous to meditation in that a vehicle is presented, it is not necessarily a result of an existential crisis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Buddhism does not negate a creator diety(s) due to all change existing as an act of creation.

Prayer is natural and unavoidable and is synonymous to meditation in that a vehicle is presented, it is not necessarily a result of an existential crisis.

Note, I'd spent two years full time researching into all the schools of Buddhism.

I have already stated and reminded you of this a few times;

Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods.

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings.

On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... didea.html

Read the above again, this time, carefully!

It is very linguistically stupid and committing a categorical error to equate 'meditation' and 'prayer' as synonymous.
see synonyms for 'prayer' in https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/prayer
which do not include 'meditation' at all.

It is the same with meditation;
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/meditation?s=t
There is no 'prayer' in its synonyms listing.

Meanwhile the synonyms for 'prayer' has relevance to the existential crisis, i.e. especially the bolded;

• appeal, invocation, plea, service, worship, application, begging, benediction, communion, devotion, entreaty, grace, imprecation, litany, orison, petition, pleading, request, rogation, suit, supplication, answer adoration, beseeching, imploration, imploring, request for help,