Whats Psychology got to say about God

[Aldebaran]

it's true that G-d created us in his image and so we have to become as much like he is, as possible, and that essentially means to live up to the ideal that you described ... so maybe we're saying the same thing but in different ways

I completely disagree with this idea that humans are created in the image of God. In my view any promoting of that idea is born out of human arrogance.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

i'm interested in what neuroscience finds about religion and the brain.

i've heard that frontal lobe damage can produce sensations of selflessness, like an 'out of body' experience or the feeling of a 'presence' besides self.

someone did look at the lives of one of the saints, a young girl who experienced 'visions'. they found that the 'visions' only started after she'd experienced a head injury.



http://www.onset.unsw.edu.au/issue4/neuroreligion/neuroscience and religion.htm

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm

I looked at the article under your first link.

They start with making a fundamental error and continue to reason following that fundamental error.
A belief in the existence of God does not come down, let alone that it would be confined to having "religious experiences". That is a completely different, completely separate matter showing a pattern in the brain function that I think can easily be observed with the current possibilities of neuroscience.
Also, when they talk about the observed experiences during meditation, they simply overlook that any type of focussed concentration gives the same result: You completely "forget" the world around you = you experience a disconnect wiht our reality.
Very amazing for any scientist to so completely disregard this simple observable fact. There is really nothing so very special about medidation and what happens in the brain. You can come to the same result by simply concentration while reading. How is brain activity during concentratred, focussed reading comparable with "religious experiences"? Quite a stretch if you ask me.

The part about the two parts of the brain sounds also very strange to me, since it is known that there seems to be an observable difference between the genders and their use of right and left parts of the brain. There is also a difference observed between left- and righthanded persons.
Where does the argument of "visitors experience" fits into these observed differences? Is a left handed more vulnerable to be "visited" then a right handed? (maybe that is why I am crazy) Is a woman more vulnarable to be "visited " then a man?

The helmet experience is interesting but not the twist they give it.

The feeling eventually leads subjects to have religious experiences, such as the feeling of infinite possibilities and the sense that there must be something greater.

Why do they conclude that "feeling of infinite possibilities" and "the sense that there must be something greater" must be "religious experiences"?
I heard the same story from drug users during a "trip". Are all drug addicts all of a sudden religious when under influence?

salaam.

 

[ZWord]

That's quite funny.

I read a spiel from a Sufi somewhere ages ago saying that the first line of the koran should be translated, "there is no God, there is only the one."

yeah and we're all one on e.

But that's just me messing about. Actually, I did pull up a couple of links that I think are kind of relevant to what psychology has to say about God

This one, http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1465665&displaytype=printable
Gives a good overview,

and this one,http://www.psypress.co.uk/pip/resources/slp/topic.asp?chapter=ch06&topic=ch06-sc-01 is about much the same thing

It will probably not be obvious how this has anything to do with psychology saying anything about God.

But briefly, my take on it is that more recent findings in the study of attention, in particular the approach pioneered by Alan Allport, have shown that there is a great deal more going on, both -out there- and within the brain than we are aware of. Essentially the argument is that we attenuate stimuli that aren't relevant to the task in hand, and filter them out of awareness, even though it is possible to show that the stimuli have been processed to quite a deep level, even to a semantic level of understanding.

One interpretation of the effect of psychedelics is that they switch off the inhibitors that operate normally, leaving the person overwhelmed by a flood of sensory signals, and suddenly realising, how much more is going on than they ever previously noticed, and how much more conscious it's possible to be, and incidentally, often quite awed, and incapable of doing anything, (the reason we filter out in normal life, is to make us more efficient, better at surviving.)

it's arguable that there is a whole bunch of "spiritual stuff" going on, but that is it doesn't have much survival value, we don't become aware of it, because we teach our children that signals of that sort aren't relevant, and they end up filtering them out and forgetting about them.

But the point is it suggests that our mode of consciousness is quite limited, and possibly culturally determined, and may well not be a very good guide to what is *really* going on.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's quite funny.

I read a spiel from a Sufi somewhere ages ago saying that the first line of the koran should be translated, "there is no God, there is only the one."

You must be mistaken or he never read Al Qur'an
Or maybe he talked about the first line (after the bismillah) of surat al-ichlaas (112) which is commonly translated as:
"Say: He is God as Only" an which you can translate as "Say: He is God the One".

Essentially the argument is that we attenuate stimuli that aren't relevant to the task in hand, and filter them out of awareness, even though it is possible to show that the stimuli have been processed to quite a deep level, even to a semantic level of understanding.

I am long convinced out of own experience that there is a constantly working process of filtering into the subconsciounce any information you don't experience in your awareness of the moment. One of the best examples I can give is the ability to memorize withouth even paying attention to what you listen to. It is enough to play a recording of a text (or for example vocabulary of a new language or music) in the background to memorize it while being fully focussed on doing something entirely different. I do this since I was a child.

Your description of the effects of drug abuse is an accurate. one for as far as I can imagine how that must influence on the functioning of the brain.

I had a very weird experience once - comparable with a delirium - as a consequence of being administered very heavy medication during months. It was said not to be addictive, yet when the treatment stopped I was not able to sleep for days. Hence a given moment a nurse gave me an innocent sleeping pill.
The result was that I experienced what long time ago some Dutch pop star made a song about (don't recall who that was). I experienced indeed the "little beasts" he sang about crawling all over me etc.. etc.. and thought I was awake while I was unable to move. Rather scary at the moment itself but on afterthought very interesting since now I know what "delirium tremens" actually stands for

it's arguable that there is a whole bunch of "spiritual stuff" going on, but that is it doesn't have much survival value, we don't become aware of it, because we teach our children that signals of that sort aren't relevant, and they end up filtering them out and forgetting about them.

It depends to begin with on what one classifies under "spiritual". I know a doctor who worked for years in Africa. He told some very strange stories. For example about a man who was found somewhere nearly dead. Nobody could warn his relatives or friends that he was sick since nobody even knew his name, let alone where he came from. The next weeks they nevertheless arrived one by one from a village at days walking distance and could find where his bed was without asking anyone.
I wouldn't classify this under "religious experience" but if the scientists we talk about could have done an observation of that man's brian functioning, warning his relatives about where he was from such a distance, it would easily risk to be classified as such.

But the point is it suggests that our mode of consciousness is quite limited, and possibly culturally determined, and may well not be a very good guide to what is *really* going on.

There is no doubt in my mind that our level of consciousness is very limited to begin with and that societies and their cultures have a very great impact on which level we use most and which we suppress most.

salaam.

 

[fela fan]

You also claim that no atheïst can ever do something evil, and that atheïsm is going to save the world from everything that goes wrong right now.
Where is your evidence? In my view reality speaks against you thus far.

salaam.

Funny, i've not even talked about atheists, not mentioned them once, so what that means is that i've made no 'claim' about them at all. Nor have i talked about 'atheism' saving the world.

You must have got me mixed up with someone else.

 

[ZAMB]

Nice to see Buddhism has a load of ludicrous diety crap as well. We can't just have great teachers - they all got to have super powers... Once the teacher is dead it's just literature - usually written by a load of stars-in-their-eyes accolytes of the original teacher.
Enlightenment is an experience like any other, seek it and you'll have it. But it won't last....

We don't have a lot of deity crap - Buddhists do NOT believe in a deity.

From a previous post
What your girlfriend may mean when she says 'up to buddha' is not "up to a diety in the sky," but up to the nature of the buddha that arose with the Buddha's enlightenment. A nature which had previously existed as potentiality in Shakyamuni himself, but which now extended beyond his body, as the earth became, in a way, the buddha's entire body exetended - mortal and immortal, limited in time and space, yet unlimited in time and space and inextinguishable.

Shakyamuni did not become a god - he awakened to the truth that within us all, as within everything in the universe, there exists a potential for Buddhahood, the highest life state. Some Buddhist sects explain it that within us all there exists the potential for ten lifestates - from 'hell' as the lowest to 'buddha' as the highest. Most people spend most of their lives moving mindlessly between the lower 6 [hell to rapture] - we can go from hell to rapture in a single moment - think about it. It takes effort to get beyond that, to learning, realization, Bodhisattva and Buddha, and that effort is our practice of Buddhism. It is of course, much more complex than this, but I don't want to bore you or get into an argument about religion.

 

[fela fan]

We don't have a lot of deity crap - Buddhists do NOT believe in a deity.

If i'm understanding you correctly i'm afraid that's not right. My girlfriend when she says 'up to buddha' is doing precisely that. She is saying that whatever fate decrees is up to the buddha, the very man who died 2549 years ago.

A deity therefore.

 

[ZAMB]

If i'm understanding you correctly i'm afraid that's not right. My girlfriend when she says 'up to buddha' is doing precisely that. She is saying that whatever fate decrees is up to the buddha, the very man who died 2549 years ago.

A deity therefore.

She must be practicing an obscure form of Buddhism different from any that I have encountered in over 20 years of study and practice. Buddhists do not worship Shakyamuni - they follow his teachings - which is totally different. Buddhism has a teaching 'Follow the Law, not the person' - and Shakyamuni was a person, who was born and died on this earth. As another Buddhist teacher said 'The real meaning of Shakyamuni's appearance in this world lay in his behavior as a human being'.

 

[ZAMB]

Is Buddhism a Religion?

A simple - maybe oversimplified - description of Buddhism.

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/is_buddhism_a_religion1.htm

This is a question which is often asked. It really depends upon how one defines religion. If it is thought of as a belief in a supreme being to whom one prays for redemption, security, favors or relief from suffering, then, no, Buddhism is not a religion.
The Buddha himself never claimed divinity -- only clear-sightedness and purity of apprehension of truth through deepest intuition, leading to equanimity and enlightenment. He was a great and rare individual but not a god. If some simple and mistaken few have elevated him to godship and worship him with requests for favors and special dispensations, this does not alter the situation one bit.

It seems that in these troubled times, as, indeed, since time immemorial, man has felt the need to have a faith in a supreme being, one who could redeem him from "sin" and relieve his suffering. This is a great fallacy. If indeed there were such a being, why should he be asked to give redemption? Isn't it more important for man to redeem himself? This is what the Buddha believed. Man, he said, is born to suffering. Life is suffering. That is the first of the Four Noble Truths he enunciates -- that there is suffering. In the Second Truth he points out that all suffering has its origins which we must learn to understand, because this is the only way we can arrive at the Third Truth, which is that cessation of this suffering can be achieved. His Fourth Truth clarifies the way out from suffering via the Eightfold Path which we will discuss later.

Therefore we ask, if Buddhism is not a religion, what then is it? Our reply is: Buddhism is a way of life, a philosophy, a psychology, a way of thinking, through which we may ourselves take on the responsibility of determining how our life-bearing kamma (karma) will work out for us. Meditation is one of the procedures of mental discipline and purification through which we may begin to learn such responsibility.

 

[Sid's Snake]

I'm not Islam, that is a concept and a religion. I practice Islam.



I wouldn't be Muslim if I said I don't think there is an after-life.
I would be one very arrogant Muslim if I said to know what constitutes that after-life.
Some would anwer such a quesiton with: "It is being in the presence of God".
My personal idea about this is a situation of all-encompassing peace; the ability to be in complete balance and understanding of everything we struggle with as living human being and are unable to overcome or understand because of the inherent limitations of our human nature.

Suicide is prohibited in Islam. What happens afterwards is for Allah to decide. We believe that only God knows "what is in people's heart" meaning that no human can be in knowledge of the motives and thoughts of others.




Why do you suppose I would be inclined to ignore your questions?

salaam.

But the London bombers did not believe they were committing "suicide," did they?

Thanks for your thoughtful answer, but I think you kind of sidestepped my question as to whether or not you believed they would be punished.

You say that is the condition of the soul after death, but, does it apply to all?

What is it to be "in the presence of God" if God is angry with you.

What do you think about the Sufi idea that we create our own Hell by our judgements on ourselves?

Would God even have to intervene?

 

[Sid's Snake]

'The real meaning of Shakyamuni's appearance in this world lay in his behavior as a human being'.

Don't agree, the real meaning of Shakyamuni's appearance in this world was his enlightenment. And the fact that potentially anyone can follow him. We are all potential buddhas, just as we all share buddha-nature. What then is a "human being." It's a word with no meaning, as there is no fixed state, no anthropolgical certitude. No place where "human being" begins or ends...

 

[Aldebaran]

If i'm understanding you correctly i'm afraid that's not right. My girlfriend when she says 'up to buddha' is doing precisely that. She is saying that whatever fate decrees is up to the buddha, the very man who died 2549 years ago.

A deity therefore.

No. Buddha is not a deity, I never heard any buddhist say that. Following his teachings does not make him a deity. (I consider him a prophet of God.) You probably misunderstand the meaning behind what your girlfriend says. Maybe you are influenced by a Christian type of reasoning.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Funny, i've not even talked about atheists, not mentioned them once, so what that means is that i've made no 'claim' about them at all. Nor have i talked about 'atheism' saving the world.

You must have got me mixed up with someone else.

No, you must have an other idea of the meaning of the word atheist. You claim that without God the world is cleared of all evil ---> no God --> no religions-->no religious = everyone atheist is the condition to get all evil out of the world.

salaam.

 

[Jo/Joe]

No buddha is not a deity, one reason eastern religions are not as uptight as the Abrahamic ones.

 

[Aldebaran]

But the London bombers did not believe they were committing "suicide," did they?

I would think they were very much aware of it that they were going to kill themselves. That they did this and then even were convinced it was an act that owuld please Allah only demonstrates and underscores how indoctrinated they were with a false teaching on Islam, its commands and what is expected of a Muslim.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer, but I think you kind of sidestepped my question as to whether or not you believed they would be punished.

Why do you get the impression that I "sidestepped" when I say that only Allah can know what motivates people?
I believe that Allah's judgement, whatever it is, shall be the just one.

You say that is the condition of the soul after death, but, does it apply to all?

What is it to be "in the presence of God" if God is angry with you.

God is beyond what we experience and describe as emotions, beyond everything that constitutes our reality and also beyond what we experience as abstract.
It is naïve to try narrowing down Allah/God to our concepts, experiences, expectations.
Personally I don't believe anyone or anything shall be forever excluded from what I think could be understood under the word "heaven" or "paradise". Even if we believe "hell" to be the synonym of "eternal damnation", that is only our own understanding of the concept of time and of damnation. Although this "eternal damnation" is a generally accepted idea and dogma, it is clearly in opposition with the belief that Allah is ultimate justice and mercy.

What do you think about the Sufi idea that we create our own Hell by our judgements on ourselves?

I'm not educated in details of Sufi sectarian ideas and reasonings (maybe you have a source for this so that I can place it in context?). From a purely secular point of view it is of course a correct rational reasoning.

Would God even have to intervene?

In my view the idea of God actively "intervening" is a Christian line of reasoning.

salaam.

 

[Sid's Snake]

Why do you get the impression that I "sidestepped" when I say that only Allah can know what motivates people?
I believe that Allah's judgement, whatever it is, shall be the just one.
.

Why do I think you sidestepped?

Because you clearly believe that Allah does judge, that there is a judgement involved, that correct Muslim conduct leads a believer to a kind of unity with Allah after death and that incorrect behaviour works in the opposite direction, but you are coy as to what exactly the terms of that judgement and the consequences for transgressing it are.

I don't believe you have the anthropomorphic idea of God that some Christians do, but I think you must hold some more precise idea of the fate of sinners.

Popular characterisations of Islam hold that there is a vivid medievalism that colours Islamic hell, boiling oil and eternal physical torture. But I don't think you subscribe to, or are saying that. I just wish to get a clearer idea of what you are saying. Nothing crudely defined by concepts and limitations. But a personal and gut response, that I believe one would honestly feel about such a thing.

 

[Aldebaran]

Because you clearly believe that Allah does judge, that there is a judgement involved, that correct Muslim conduct leads a believer to a kind of unity with Allah after death and that incorrect behaviour works in the opposite direction, but you are coy as to what exactly the terms of that judgement and the consequences for transgressing it are.

I am not God. It would be the ultimate - and typical human - arrogance to claim I can even remotely know how God judges individual humans. I simply accept and hence state that I can't know.

I don't believe you have the anthropomorphic idea of God that some Christians do, but I think you must hold some more precise idea of the fate of sinners.

Again: I can't have any precise idea how Allah judges them.
Would it be that I had to judge someone who miraculously survived such an act of terrorism I can examine the case from within and with the help of Islamic jurisprudence, its reasonings and applications. Yet that is a subject far too large and complex for any type of interaction like this.

Popular characterisations of Islam hold that there is a vivid medievalism that colours Islamic hell, boiling oil and eternal physical torture.

I wouldn't call it "medievalism" (but I understand what you picture yousrself when using that word) and although you don't give an exact "description", what you make of it comes down to what one can make of it when reading Al Qur'an. Hence it isn't surprising that this is the popular picture in the minds of believers.

I just wish to get a clearer idea of what you are saying. Nothing crudely defined by concepts and limitations. But a personal and gut response, that I believe one would honestly feel about such a thing.

There is no "gut" response involved and no limitations. You received the response I came to for myself long ago.

You insist to receive an other answer then the one I gave you already for the third time now. That comes across as if you would very much like me to say "they are doomed" or "they did a good deed" or something.
Why do you think I am likely to be of such a simple mind?

salaam.

 

[Sid's Snake]

With your definitive statements and haughty dismissal you sound as arrogant as those, with the temerity to form 'pictures,' you condemn

You're not much of an advertisment for the compassion and tolerance of a religion that might speak for the whole of humanity. It sounds more like you are only really interested in reiterating what is reserved for the so-called "elect."

Your reasoning is weak. You allude to Eternal Damnation and then say Allah is mercy and forgiveness and will never exclude anyone for eternity.

Even an idiot would have to conclude there is some progressive washing away of sin somewhere, some equivalent of the Christian purgatory.

I won't expect an answer because I realise anything but your own assertion and generality deserves to be loftily dismissed or reserved for the closed chambers of the 'elect'

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm not Islam, that is a concept and a religion. I practice Islam.



I wouldn't be Muslim if I said I don't think there is an after-life.
I would be one very arrogant Muslim if I said to know what constitutes that after-life.
Some would anwer such a quesiton with: "It is being in the presence of God".
My personal idea about this is a situation of all-encompassing peace; the ability to be in complete balance and understanding of everything we struggle with as living human being and are unable to overcome or understand because of the inherent limitations of our human nature.

Suicide is prohibited in Islam. What happens afterwards is for Allah to decide. We believe that only God knows "what is in people's heart" meaning that no human can be in knowledge of the motives and thoughts of others.




Why do you suppose I would be inclined to ignore your questions?

salaam.

Do you believe in the seventy five kohl-eyed virgins?

 

[Aldebaran]

With your definitive statements and haughty dismissal you sound as arrogant as those, with the temerity to form 'pictures,' you condemn

Interesting to see such a rude reaction as thanks for my time spent on politely writing and politely repeating what I already wrote in a language I don't master.

You're not much of an advertisment for the compassion and tolerance of a religion that might speak for the whole of humanity. It sounds more like you are only really interested in reiterating what is reserved for the so-called "elect."

Here you get even more hostile. I can only guess the reason, but I guess it is correct to assume it is because you don't get what you wanted: a Muslim claiming that suicide bombers are heros.

Your reasoning is weak. You allude to Eternal Damnation and then say Allah is mercy and forgiveness and will never exclude anyone for eternity.

No, I say that the idea of eternal damnation is in contradiction with the idea of Allah being the ultimate justice and mercy. That is my reasoning as theologian.

Even an idiot would have to conclude there is some progressive washing away of sin somewhere, some equivalent of the Christian purgatory.

There is no equivalent of Christian "purgatory" anywhere in Islam. That is a Christian invention. I did study Christianity but that only got to academic level after I had my degree at an Islamic university. I do not follow Christian theology. I follow my own.

I won't expect an answer because I realise anything but your own assertion and generality deserves to be loftily dismissed or reserved for the closed chambers of the 'elect'

Again an example of rudeness clearly stemming form some feeling of frustration for which I can hardly be responsible.
You come across as someone who has problems with everyone overclassing your knowledge on a subject and wanting to brush that aside by dismissing this as "elitism".

If you have that attitude in real life, chances are that you are not going to learn much from people who try to teach you something. Maybe you don't need teachers (or maybe you don't want to learn) but why then did you post your questions to me?

salaam.

 

[Sid's Snake]

If you have that attitude in real life, chances are that you are not going to learn much from people who try to teach you something. .

 

[fela fan]

No. Buddha is not a deity, I never heard any buddhist say that. Following his teachings does not make him a deity. (I consider him a prophet of God.) You probably misunderstand the meaning behind what your girlfriend says. Maybe you are influenced by a Christian type of reasoning.

salaam.

I'm not personally saying buddha is a deity. And nor have i hear anyone say buddha is one. I don't have christian type reasoning either, whatever that might actually be.

And i emphatically don't misunderstand the meaning of what she says! She is putting what happens in life down to buddha, in a similar way to 'if God wills it', or 'up to God', or just simply the fates.

In other words a higher force than oneself.

That was my only point.

But, observing thais going through their religious and every day rituals, i'm not sure anyone here can say buddha is not seen as a deity. Buddha is often called upon to protect thais from various bad karmas from happening. It doesn't really matter what the theory is, or what one studies, it matters what people are actually doing.

 

[fela fan]

No, you must have an other idea of the meaning of the word atheist. You claim that without God the world is cleared of all evil ---> no God --> no religions-->no religious = everyone atheist is the condition to get all evil out of the world.

salaam.

Again, you've mixed me up with someone else, coz i've made no such claims. And i never would. Where do your claims come from? Where do you get this perception from?

My clear point is that by subscribing to the idea that there is a higher force than oneself allows one to absolve one's responsibilities for one's own actions.

That makes doing evil possible. So in that respect i'd say that with God around, this leaves the opportunity for humans to do bad things.

On the other hand if one has come to realise that there is no God, we must take full responsibility for our own lives. In doing this we achieve total freedom, and within that state of being causing harm to nature, people, others, the self, becomes the antithesis of living and being.

In this state, one achieves and carries within him/her religiousness. A reverance for nature, and compassion for all living beings and things. You cannot do harm, you cannot even want to do harm.

With God around, humans have an excuse to abuse power. With him gone, power cannnot be abused for the simple reason that power over others is anathema to one's existence.

 

[fela fan]

Why do you get the impression that I "sidestepped" when I say that only Allah can know what motivates people?
I believe that Allah's judgement, whatever it is, shall be the just one.

Can you not see that this allows harm and violence to be committed? That we actually HAVE to accept violent acts by others? Because God/Allah deemed it to be so. It is such a cop out by humans, such a shirking of responsibility.

I'm afraid that God/allah chappy is responsible for rather a lot of evil down the years. And he was a human creation!!! And a damn fine one for those that wish to exercise power over other human beings.

 

[frogwoman]

I completely disagree with this idea that humans are created in the image of God. In my view any promoting of that idea is born out of human arrogance.

salaam.

But why? It doesn't mean that you're the same as G-d or that you have any of His powers ...

 

[frogwoman]

Look at obl. Look at bush. Look at blair. All in the name of religion, and God.

Nah, they just use religion as a justification for their deeds. Hitler always went on and on about G-d but he didn't actually believe, he never did, in fact he had a plan to abolish religion after the war and replace the bible with Mein Kampf, that kind of thing. It's the same with Bush - look how much his supporters idolise him, how they think he was "chosen" to be their president, how he has a divine mandate to rule etc. OBL's followers are using religion to justify the "struggle" against the West, who they think (with some justification) has stifled development in the Arab world and oppressed people with a biased middle eastern policy, in their greed for oil. You read Osama's speeches, they're about geopolitics not religion, although it's dressed up in a religious garb. They're doing what they do for economic and political reasons, not because of G-d.

 

[frogwoman]

all sorts of things are used to jsutify oppression, like "freedom", "democracy", capitalism, socialism, nationalism, communism, anything. its not only a religious thing, and it doesnt mean all those ideas are bad as well.

 

[ZAMB]

And i emphatically don't misunderstand the meaning of what she says! She is putting what happens in life down to buddha, in a similar way to 'if God wills it', or 'up to God', or just simply the fates.

In our practice, the Buddha that we get in touch with is the Buddhahood which exists within our own lives. Buddhism is all about taking total personal responsibility for everything that happens in our lives and our environment. Sometimes this is very hard, it is so much easier to sit back and blame others - to think 'that person did that to me' than to take responsibility and think 'This happened because of something in my own life - I must find it and change it'.

But, observing thais going through their religious and every day rituals, i'm not sure anyone here can say buddha is not seen as a deity. Buddha is often called upon to protect thais from various bad karmas from happening. It doesn't really matter what the theory is, or what one studies, it matters what people are actually doing.

I don't know about Thais - but I know that this is not traditional Buddhist practice in any sect that I have studied. I have seen it happen in converts who were brought up as christians - a sort of lingering bad habit. As I have said, it's hard to take personal responsibility rather than look for some deity to save you. But........

Enlightenment--that magnificent escape from anguish and ignorance--never happens by accident. It results from the brave and sometimes lonely battle of one person against his own weaknesses.

-Bhikkhu Nyanasobhano, "Landscapes of Wonder"

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hey Aldebaran:

Do you believe in the seventy five kohl eyed virgins?

Up there in heaven, waiting for the martyrs?

 

[ZAMB]

Hey Aldebaran:

Do you believe in the seventy five kohl eyed virgins?

Up there in heaven, waiting for the martyrs?

This is an insult to Aldebaran, who has already explained his thoughts on the suicide bombers at length, and with great clarity, on his own thread.