i mean there’s thousands of religions and unique beliefs, someone had to have the right answer at some point. and i know that we can’t, so a real “correct” answer isnt what im looking for.

background u can skip: im a catholic, although i love my faith and trust a lot of my beliefs, but i worry some of my ideas about sin and the supernatural are gonna send me to Hell if the Church is right and idk if i like that. for example, im bisexual; i need to quit my loving relationship with another girl and seek the same forgiveness as, for example, a rapist? his life wont change, and neither will his victim’s which he permanently traumatized. how can an all-loving God condemn love?

so basically i came on here to ask this and other things when i looked at the flair list, theres sooo many religions i didnt know about! it has me worrying tho. my real question is, how can we be so sure of 1 single religion being completely true, when there’s thousands of competitors? and if im wrong, im gonna suffer for all of eternity?? how do people not worry about that???

It is known that Zoroastrianism had a huge influence over the development of 2nd Temple Judaism.

However, could we even affirm 2nd Temple Yahweh to be an adaption of Ahura Mazda itself, rather than an evolution of the previous Yahweh ?

Original Yahweh was one of many gods, and he was the national god of Israel and reckoned to be the highest. But in no way anyone believed the concept of divinity to be shared by one entity only. The basic structure of 1st Temple Judaism was not so different from the rest of contemporary religions. They never saw the divine as absolute, but rather recognized multiple gods each with limited power.

By 2nd Temple Judaism, when the O.T. started to be redacted, there was a shift toward seeing Yahweh as an absolute, eternal, omnipotent being that was necessarily one and to whom all divine attributes belonged.

Such developments already happened before in Zoroastrianism, and, indeed, by the time 2nd Temple Judaism arose the Persian empire was influencing Israelites.

But can we go as far as affirming 2nd Temple Yahweh to be derived from Ahura Mazda, rather than original Yahweh ? Could the name Yahweh have shifted its meaning toward being the Israelite word for the same entity known by Persians as Ahura Mazda ?

Ahura Mazda itself was too, originally, one of many gods of the Sintashta religion, the ancestor of both Mazdeism and Vedic religion. In early Vedic religion this same god was known as Varuna and was the highest one of many gods. While between Iranic speakers it became an only god and overtime basically an impersonal cosmic force, in Vedic religion it was demoted to water god, and while Indra became the new chief deity, no monotheistic development took place.

At very least, the history of Iranic branch Varuna turning into Ahura Mazda and of Yahweh turning into 2nd Temple Yahweh is very similiar.

Inspired by a scene in Long Story Short where the family is teaching a younger relative how to light the sabbath candles and they demonstrate it with a gesture of fanning of the flames towards oneself with one's hands. She asks what it means, and none of them have an answer. It's just what you do.

In my Zen practice, we sit in a way that kind of forms a rectangle, with the master and one end and the senior students leading the ceremony at the other. It's a faux pas to walk through the center of the rectangle. If we need to get up for whatever reason, we walk around the perimeter. I've never really known why.

For me, I started by comparing the ideologies of different schools of thought and religions.

Christianity teaches that Jesus is God, the Son of God, and the Lord and Savior of humanity. Christians believe that Jesus died for humanity’s sins and that salvation comes through him. However, the concept of the Trinity, which describes God as one being in three persons, is something I personally find difficult to reconcile with the idea of absolute monotheism.

Judaism teaches that the Jewish people have a special covenant with God. However, I initially interpreted this as the belief that Jews consider themselves superior to everyone else, although I am open to correcting this understanding.

Hinduism encompasses a wide variety of beliefs, including the worship of multiple deities, as well as different interpretations of the divine. Many Hindus use statues and other physical representations as focal points for worship, although these are not necessarily understood as gods in themselves.

Buddhism, in many of its forms, focuses more on spiritual practice, ethics, and understanding the nature of existence than on belief in a creator God. For this reason, I initially viewed it more as a philosophy or a way of life than a religion, although I recognize that it is generally classified as a religion.

Atheism, on the other hand, rejects belief in God or gods. One of my initial objections was that I understood atheism to imply that the universe and the first living organisms came into existence through mere coincidence. However, I recognize that atheism itself does not necessarily make claims about how the universe or life originated. My concern was that, if I am going to base my worldview on evidence and science, I should also question the assumptions underlying my own position rather than simply accept one side.

As for Islam, among the religions I considered, it stood out to me because of its uncompromising emphasis on the oneness of God (Allah). It also recognizes that non-Muslims are not necessarily all destined for Hell, with their ultimate judgment belonging to God. Furthermore, Islam offers not only a theological framework but also a comprehensive way of life.

Ultimately, I chose Islam because, even after reading the Quran several times, I personally could not find a contradiction or an error that convinced me it was false. Nor could I find a convincing argument against it online. In contrast, while reading the Bible and the Torah, I came across several passages that I interpreted as mistakes or contradictions, despite not having finished even half of their respective texts.

Of course, I am open to discussing and reconsidering any of these points. I am not claiming that my understanding of every religion or philosophical position is perfect, and I am willing to hear arguments that challenge my conclusions.

One final factor that influenced my decision not to embrace atheism was a more personal consideration. If I am going to choose a worldview, I would rather believe that my life has a purpose and that there is an afterlife than believe that existence ultimately has no greater meaning. I also worry that, given my current mindset, a worldview in which death is the absolute end could negatively affect my outlook on life and my future.

That said, I do not want to believe something merely because it comforts me. I would rather believe something because I consider it true, while acknowledging that my desire for purpose and an afterlife may also influence how I approach the question.

Allah never says there is a mistake in the other Holy books he just criticizes the believers on how they Interpretent these books.

The Trinity is not even biblical. If someone reads the bible he thinks Jesus is a Prophet.

I am curious to see everyone's feedback. I am not proselytizing; I am merely asking a question. All questions are welcome!

First of all, I'm not saying religious beliefs are real. Even if you are religious (as I am), you have to accept that some religious beliefs cannot be true because of contradictions between systems of belief.

Still, I do believe religion has a very grounding power in society. Let me explain myself.

Religion often offers or promotes a template of life and a set of values, such as caring for the kids, the elderly, getting married, joining a community, etc. I understand that many people reject such a template, and yet most people only slightly modify it. I understand some people see it as a "box" and yet even in religion itself, this template is often overridden, such as priests never marrying or a monastic lifestyle. People don't have many lives to test for themselves every lifestyle, so it makes sense to assume a default and built on it. This template slowly changes, such as most religions shifting to monogamy for cultural and social reasons, even when theologically polygamy may be OK in their holy books. I also understand that a Secular lifestyle can offer a template too, but usually secularism was founded as counterpoints to these social templates, so it may clash with them. Beside, I don't think a secular valuesystem will ever be as influential as religion unless it's practiced as a religion, which was the case in some communist anti-theistic countries, but it's not the usual.

Another criticism of religion as being "delulu" is that it believes in Heaven, helping people cope with death with a 'delusion'. My issue with this criticism is that religion does not necessarily believe that the afterlife is better; some religions believe in hell or reincarnation into lower beings, or that wee just stop existing. In this context, it seems more so that heaven/hell, at least in religions that have it, is more like a North and South. We may also argue that values such as equality are even more delusional, since they deny the reality that we all are different, and yet we see the value in them as ideals, just as we can see the value in heaven/hell as ideals or counterideals.

There is also the criticism that religions devalues this life in favor of the next. This makes the least sense to me, since religion encourages family building, community and culture, all which is on this life. In fact, religion itself is about this life, since arguably in the afterlife it's so obvious that it is not needed. Religion does discourage some "fun" stuff such as gambling or sex with strangers or being drunk, but that seems to be more of a focus on the consequences of those things rather than the things themselves. One may envy the experience, but never the consequences, and I don't think you need to be religious or "test it" to realize that.

Conclusion / TLDR: I do agree with atheists that religion sometimes act as a hivemind, but I think that is a good thing because Individuals can't experience or know everything. It makes sense they choose the safest path on most facets of life, while individuation is encouraged on either a choosen alternative lifestyle (such as ministry) or individual interpretations of the Path without going rogue or indiscriminate, which adds to the odds of losing. I guess that is why so many religions use terms such as the "path" to describe themselves.

Since Muslim claim that the Torah and gospel are actually Islamic scriptures...why would god can't preserve two of its divine scripture from corruption?

I get it the Quran was sent directly come from god and the previous two were written by men (which was never been an issue to start with but thata another story) but that just cause another problem since the Quran claim to be perfectly preserved yet ask it's followers to go back seeking knowledge from those corrupted scriptures "if they are in doubt"

And even innthr topic of corruption. while reading the Quran I actually didn't find any verse saying the the scriptures themselves were not preserve or had any change in it which surprise since I heard it so much from Muslim thata I thought it would be there. It only state that the people of the book(Jews and Christian) "twist it's words with their tongue"

Sorry if this sounds incoherent im just trying to describe my thoughts and put them into order

These past couple of months i have been having a sort of moral… reframing I guess

But these past couple of days I feel like my mental health has been declining. I feel like this is due to social media as my instagram feed has been filled to the brim with “woke” political conspiracy theories which has kinda distorted my perception. From things like our food has FOREVER CHEMICALS IN IT!? Climate change, AI, and the damn files bro like OMG this shit is horrible then I see that there is a literacy crisis and how “you should educate yourself or you're susceptible to manipulation” there is so much negativity and doom in gloom flowing through everything. I want to bury my head but I also don't want to turn a blind eye to serious issues. Another thing that gets me is a lot of people say that there is demon worship in the files and among “elites”. I already struggle with religious beliefs and this amplifies them almost ten fold. I've proclaimed myself to be atheist and that you don't need religion/god to tell you to be a good person but there is this little pervasive thought in the back of my head that I might be wrong but im not sure any more. What if there is this subversion of morality by those in power and the only way to stay true is to cling to god. But i have my issues with christianity and find this a difficult task.

Yea im not sure if this is the right sub-reddit but idk where to go and i was hoping for some advice to help me get through life. Im 18 and ALL i want to focus on is being young and doing things people my age do and worry about not existential crises

Consider Steve, who tells you that he has been talking to God. Predictably, you might dismiss him as being mistaken, delusional, or even dishonest. But Steve persists, and he seems genuinely convinced that God has spoken to him.

Scripture contains numerous accounts of God speaking directly to people, particularly prophets. It also contains accounts of people rejecting those prophets, refusing to recognize divine revelation, and even doubting Jesus himself.

But how would we recognize it if it happened today? What distinguishes someone genuinely hearing from God from someone who merely believes they are?

We might appeal to scripture, established doctrine, or our own judgment to evaluate Steve's claims. But these methods raise another difficulty: even if God really has spoken to Steve, we might still reject him.

Now suppose Steve really has spoken to God. We dismiss him as a fool, ridicule his claims, and refuse to listen.

What have we done?

What does you religion say or mean with rings? Is there any significant meaning, story, narrative, or symbolism surrounding rings?

A minor narrative significance for us (which isn’t really talked about deeply or practiced in any way today) would be the concept of signet rings found in Esther. The ring of Joseph of Egypt, and the ring placed upon the prodigal son. Symbolizing authority and I suppose repentance for the last one.

The more interesting one though and more significant is wedding bands.

marriage can extend beyond mortality through the temple sealing ordinance. A wedding ring can serve as a personal reminder of that commitment.

The circular shape of a ring lends itself to the idea of something without a beginning or end. This symbolism can be applied to eternal life, enduring relationships, and God's eternal nature.

An illustration attributed to Joseph Smith and recalled by President Spencer W. Kimball in his 1981 general conference address. The illustration uses a ring to explain eternity: an unbroken ring has no beginning or end, while cutting it produces an opening with two ends.

Separately, not speaking of marriage, Joseph also said: "I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part—because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two. Then it has a beginning and an end. But join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man."

Love to hear what yall have to say.

I know different sects have different methods, but it seems like most sects see the Bible as the holy word of God. Seems hard to deviate too far from literalism if that's your view of the text as a whole.

I’m hoping some practicing Muslims can give me advice from a more moderate bordering on conservative perspective.

I am a non Muslim F in a western country, interested in a practicing Muslim man. I’m potentially open to converting but he doesn’t know that yet. We’ve had long conversations about family, relationships, politics etc, but it wasn’t established that there was a potential romantic interest by either of us until I decided to be brave and give him my number (after about 5-6 weeks of frequent, long conversations). Of course, I went home and did some reading on Muslim dating, I’m realizing now this isn’t really a thing that happens normally. Did I mess up or come on too strong by giving him my number? Also, if typical western romance/dating isn’t really a thing before marriage in Islam, how do I know if this man sees me as more than a friend? I want to be respectful of his beliefs and not overstep or make him uncomfortable, so any advice is appreciated.

Hello! This question is more so for the polytheist's / non abrahmic followers i guess? If you have an earth deity in your faith, what gender are they commonly represented as? i posted a video previously about Geb (Egyptian god of the earth, i worship Egyptian gods) and i said "Lord of earth" and so many people tried to correct me and said "uhh you mean MOTHER nature?" etc etc, just wondering what the deity is represented in your faith as female seems the most common, but mine is male :)

I had a dream of this place, 3 TIMES, I'm not kidding

Song: Nirvana by Elbosco (1995)

Et erunt signa in sole

Et luna et stellis

Et presura gentium

Prae confusione sonitus maris

The Word was in

In the beginning

In the beginning with God

And all the things were made by Him

And without Him wasn't anything

The Word was in

In the beginning

In the beginning with Buddha

And all the things were made by Him

And without Him wasn't anything

The glory... Nirvana... eternal Nirvana...

The glory... Nirvana... eternal Nirvana...

Et erunt signa in sole

Et luna et stellis

Et presura gentium

Prae confusione sonitus maris

The Word was in

In the beginning

In the beginning with Allah

And all the things were made by Him

And without Him wasn't anything

The glory... Nirvana... eternal Nirvana...

The glory... Nirvana... eternal Nirvana...

Et erunt signa in sole

Et luna et stellis

Et presura gentium

Prae confusione sonitus maris

I was born in Canada but moved out of country when I was young. I have ancestry going back to Scotland, but as far as I know, my family has always been some kind of Christian faith. I was curious about what religious or spiritual faiths are native to Canada or Scotland exist and how they differ from Christianity.

Apparently, this is one of the few actual Zen sayings that is relatively well-known in the West. For example:

Video on Zen by Religion for Breakfast https://youtu.be/NZBDW8l4wIU?si=4wngCkElFPXlcijZ

Video on Zen by Let's Talk Religion https://youtu.be/yMC_8BjG3Cc?si=nIMbqFM3a7n9Ucje

I'd just like to give some fuller context for this Zen saying by Linji. Below are some excerpts from the collected record of his words (the Linji lu):

1. 大德 時光 可惜 祇擬傍家波波地 學禪學道 認名認句 求佛求祖 求善知識意度 莫錯

Venerable ones! You should value your time, yet you only rush busily along side paths, saying you are studying Chan [Zen] and studying the Way. You misconstrue names and phrases and say you are seeking buddhas and seeking patriarchs. You go to good teachers and gauge everything with your thoughts alone. Don't be mistaken!

道流 你祇有一箇父母 更求何物 你自返照看 古人 云 演若達多失却頭 求心歇處卽無事

Followers of the Way, you have only one father and mother. What else are you looking for? Turn back and look at yourselves. An ancient said: 'Yajñadatta thought he had lost his head, but the moment his seeking mind came to rest, there was nothing the matter.' [In the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Yajñadatta admires his face in a mirror one morning. Unable to see his own head directly, he runs about in a frenzy believing he has lost it.]

大德 且要平常 莫作模樣 有一般不識好惡禿奴 便卽見神見鬼 指東劃西 好晴好雨 如是之流 盡須抵債 向閻老前 呑熱鐵丸有日 好人家男女 被這一般野狐精魅所著 便卽捏怪 瞎屢生 索飯錢有日在

Venerable ones! If you wish to live an ordinary life, just as it is, do not put on any other form. There is a bunch of bald-headed slaves [monks, said in contempt] who can't tell good from bad. At once they see ghosts and see goblins, point east and mark off west [gesturing this way and that, making distinctions], and say, 'Fair weather is good!' and 'Rain is good!' All of their kind are in debt, and the day will come when they go before Old Yama [King Yama, lord of the underworld, who judges the dead] and swallow red-hot iron balls. Needlessly, fox-and-goblin spirits [in Chinese folklore, foxes turn into spirits that bewitch people] have attached themselves to the men and women of untroubled households. It has become like rubbing perfectly good eyes until weird phantom flowers appear in the empty air. You blind fools! The day will come when you are made to pay for the rice you have eaten.

1. 師示衆云 道流 切要求取眞正見解 向天下橫行 免被這一般精魅惑亂 無事是貴人 但莫造作 祇是平常 你擬向外 傍家求過 覓脚手 錯了也 祇擬求佛 佛是名句 你還識馳求底麽

The Master addressed the assembly: Followers of the Way! What truly matters is to seek true and correct insight, so that you can go wherever you please in the world without being bewitched by these goblins. The person with nothing to do is the truly noble person. Just don't force or contrive anything. Simply live an ordinary life, just as it is. If you turn outward and wander from house to house looking for some method, you will only go wrong. You only try to seek the Buddha, but 'Buddha' is just a name and a phrase. Do you know the one who rushes about outside, seeking?

三世十方佛祖出來 也祇爲求法 如今參學道流 也祇爲求法 得法始了 未得 依前輪廻五道 云何是法 法者 是心法 心法 無形 通貫十方 目前現用 人信不及 便乃認名認句 向文字中求 意度佛法 天地縣殊

The buddhas and patriarchs of the three times and ten directions [past, present, and future, throughout the entire universe] came into the world only to seek the Dharma. You who now take part here and study the Way are likewise here only to seek the Dharma. Only when you attain the Dharma can you be done. If you do not attain it, you will still fall into the five paths [the realms of rebirth] and go on transmigrating. What is the Dharma? The Dharma is the Dharma of mind. The Dharma of mind has no form; it pervades all realms throughout the ten directions and functions right before your eyes. But people do not believe this thoroughly, so they misconstrue names and phrases and seek within written words. They try to understand the Buddhadharma by gauging it with their thoughts, and so they end up as far apart as heaven and earth.

1. 師云 你一念心疑處 是箇魔 你若達得萬法無生 心如幻化 更無一塵一法 處處淸淨 是佛 然 佛與魔 是染淨二境 約山僧見處 無佛無衆生 無古無今 得者便得 不歷時節 無修無證 無得無失 一切時中 更無別法 設有一法過此者 我說如夢如化 山僧所說 皆是

The Master said: The single thought of doubt in your mind is precisely the demon. If you penetrate the principle that the myriad dharmas [all phenomena] are originally unborn, your mind will become like a conjured illusion. Then there will no longer be a single speck of dust or a single dharma, and everywhere will be pure. This is buddha. Yet buddha and demon are the two realms of the pure and the defiled. In the view of this mountain monk [Linji's modest way of referring to himself], there are no buddhas and no sentient beings, no past and no present. What is to be gained is gained at once; it does not take long ages. There is nothing to cultivate and nothing to realize, nothing to gain and nothing to lose. At all times there is no other dharma. Even if there were a dharma surpassing this, I would say it is like a dream, like a phantom. Everything this mountain monk wishes to say comes down to this.

1. 道流 大丈夫兒 今日 方知本來無事 祇爲你信不及 念念馳求 捨頭覓頭 自不能歇 如圓頓菩薩 入法界現身 向淨土中 厭凡忻聖 如此之流 取捨未忘 染淨心在 如禪宗見解 又且不然 直是現今 更無時節 山僧說處 皆是一期藥病相治 總無實法 若如是見得 是眞出家 日消萬兩黃金

Followers of the Way! A true man would realize only today that from the very beginning there is nothing to do. It is only because your faith falls short that thought after thought you run around seeking, leaving your own head aside to look for another head, and cannot rest of your own accord. Those bodhisattvas of the Perfect teaching and the Sudden teaching [“perfect” and “sudden” are categories the doctrinal schools used to rank Buddhist teachings] enter the Dharma realm [the totality of reality], manifest bodies, and dwell in the Pure Land [a buddhist paradise], despising ordinary people and delighting in sages. Such types cannot forget the mind that grasps and rejects, because the mind that says 'defiled' and 'pure' remains in them. But the view of the Chan school is not like that. It is simply this very moment, right now; there is no other time. Everything this mountain monk says is only a one-time prescription, a medicine given for each illness as it arises. There is no real Dharma at all. If you can see it this way, you are a true home-leaver [a monk]. You could spend ten thousand taels [a tael was a Chinese unit of weight for precious metals] of gold a day.

1. 道流 你取這一般老師口裏語 爲是眞道 是善知識 不思議 我是凡夫心 不敢測度他老宿 瞎屢生 你一生 祇作這箇見解 辜負這一雙眼 冷噤噤地 如凍凌上驢駒相似 我不敢毁善知識 怕生口業

Followers of the Way! You hear the sermons of certain old masters and take them to be the true Way. Saying that such a good teacher is inconceivable, you say, 'I have the mind of an ordinary person and dare not fathom that old master's meaning.' You blind fools! You spend your whole lives caught in this view, living with your perfectly good eyes blocked. Shivering with cold, you are like a donkey foal walking on the ice. And you say, 'I dare not disparage a good teacher. I fear the karma made by the mouth.'

道流 夫大善知識 始敢毁佛毁祖 是非天下 排斥三藏敎 罵辱諸小兒 向逆順中覓人 所以 我於十二年中 求一箇業性 如芥子許不可得 若似新婦子禪師 便卽怕趁出院 不與飯喫 不安不樂 自古先輩 到處人不信 被趁出 始知是貴 若到處人盡肯 堪作什麽 所以 師子一吼 野干 腦裂

Followers of the Way! Only a great good teacher can disparage buddhas and patriarchs and judge the good teachers of the whole world, right or wrong. He can reject the teachings of the Tripitaka [the Buddhist canon of scriptures, monastic rules, and treatises] and rebuke all who are like little children. He can seek out the person amid adverse and favorable circumstances. That is why for twelve years I searched for the nature of karma and could not find so much as a mustard seed of it. A Chan master who is like a new bride is fearful and anxious that he will be driven out of the monastery and not be fed. But since ancient times, outstanding predecessors were driven out wherever they went because people did not believe them, and only later did people realize how precious they were. If people everywhere approved of someone, what use would such a person be? So it is that at a single roar of the lion, the jackal's skull splits open.

1. 道流 諸方 說有道可修 有法可證 你說證何法修何道 你今用處 欠少什麽物 修補何處

Followers of the Way! The good teachers in all quarters say that there is a Way to be cultivated and a Dharma to be realized. What Dharma do you say you will realize, and what Way do you say you will cultivate? In what you are using right now, what is lacking, and what is there to cultivate and patch up?

後生小阿師 不會 便卽信這般野狐 精魅 許他說事 繫縛他人 言道 理行 相應 護惜三業 始得成佛 如此說者 如春細雨

Foolish junior monks, not understanding, put their faith in these fox-and-goblin spirits and accept their words and deeds. Then they even tie others up, saying, 'Only when principle and practice accord and you carefully protect and guard the three kinds of action [body, speech, and mind] can you at last attain buddhahood.' Those who talk like this are as many as the drizzle in spring.

古人 云 路逢達道人 第一莫向道 所以 言若人 修道 道不行 萬般邪境 競頭生 智劍 出來 無一物 明頭未 顯暗頭明 所以 古人 云 平常心 是道

An ancient said: 'If you meet someone on the road who knows the Way, above all don't talk to him about the Way.' And so it is said: 'If anyone cultivates the Way, the Way does not take effect; instead, myriad deviant realms vie to arise. When the sword of wisdom is drawn, there is not a single thing. Before the bright appears, the dark becomes bright.' That is why an ancient also said, 'Ordinary mind is the Way.'

1. 問 如何是心心不異處 Someone asked, "What is the state in which the mind does not differ from moment to moment?"

師云 你擬問 早異了也 性相 各分 道流莫錯 世出世諸法 皆無自性 亦無生性 但有空名 名字亦空 你祇麽認他閑名爲實 大錯了也 設有 皆是依變之境 有箇菩提依 涅槃依 解脫依 三身依 境智依 菩薩依 佛依 你向依變國土中 覓什麽物 乃至 三乘十二分敎 皆是拭不淨故紙 佛是幻化身 祖是老比丘 你還是娘生已否 你若求佛 卽被佛魔攝 你若求祖 卽被祖魔縛 你若有求皆苦 不如無事

The Master said: The moment you try to ask, it has already become different, and nature and form have split apart. Followers of the Way, don't be mistaken! All dharmas, worldly and world-transcending, are without self-nature [any independent essence] and without any nature of arising and ceasing. They are only illusory names, and even the letters that write those names are empty. Yet you take those idle names to be real, and that is a great mistake. Even if such things exist, they are all realms of dependent transformation. Namely, there is dependence on bodhi [awakening], on nirvana, and on liberation; dependence on the three bodies [the three bodies of a buddha: the Dharma body, the reward body, and the manifested body], on object and wisdom, on bodhisattvas, and on buddhas. What are you looking for in these lands of dependent transformation? Even the Three Vehicles [the paths of the disciples, the solitary buddhas, and the bodhisattvas] and the twelve divisions of the teaching [the twelve genres of the scriptures] are all paper for wiping off excrement. The Buddha is an illusory, conjured body, and the patriarchs are old monks; but don't you have a real body your mother gave birth to? If you seek the Buddha, you will be seized by the buddha-demon. If you seek the patriarchs, you will be bound by the patriarch-demon. If there is anything you seek, it is all suffering. Better to have nothing to do.

1. 道流 眞佛 無形 眞法 無相 你祇麽幻化上頭 作模作樣 設求得者 皆是野狐精魅 幷不是眞佛 是外道見解 夫如眞學道人 幷不取佛 不取菩薩羅漢 不取三界殊勝 逈然獨脫 不與物拘 乾坤 倒覆 我更不疑 十方諸佛 現前 無一念心喜 三塗地獄 頓現 無一念心怖 緣何如此 我見 諸法 空相 變卽有 不變卽無 三界唯心 萬法唯識 所以 夢幻空花 何勞把捉

Followers of the Way! The true Buddha has no shape; the true Dharma has no form. Yet upon those illusions produced by transformation you make this form and that form. Even if you seek such things and get them, they are all fox-and-goblin spirits and never the true Buddha. This is precisely the view of the outsiders [non-Buddhist teachings]. One who truly studies the Way would not grasp even at buddhas, nor at bodhisattvas and arhats [saints who have attained nirvana, the ideal of early Buddhism], nor at the excellent states of the three realms [the whole cosmos of rebirth: the realms of desire, form, and formlessness]. Far off and alone, he has broken free and is not constrained by things at all. Even if heaven and earth were overturned, I would have no further doubt. Even if all the buddhas of the worlds in the ten directions appeared before me, not a single thought of joy would arise. Even if the hells of the three evil paths [the lowest rebirths: hell beings, hungry ghosts, and animals] suddenly appeared, not a single thought of fear would arise. Why is this? I see that all dharmas are empty in form: when they transform, they exist; when they do not transform, they do not exist. For the three realms are mind only, and the myriad dharmas are consciousness only. Therefore it is said: 'Dreams, illusions, phantom flowers [the spots seen by a diseased eye, a stock image for illusion]: why trouble yourself trying to grasp them?'

1. 道流 你欲得如法見解 但莫受人惑 向裏向外 逢著便殺 逢佛殺佛 逢祖殺祖 逢羅漢殺羅漢 逢父母殺父母 逢親眷殺親眷 始得解脫 不與物拘 透脫自在

Followers of the Way! If you wish to attain a view in accord with the Dharma, do not let others delude you, and whatever you encounter, inside or outside, kill it at once. If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat. If you meet your parents, kill your parents. If you meet your kin, kill your kin. Only then will you attain liberation, unconstrained by things, breaking clean through and free.

1. 道流 你欲得作佛 莫隨萬物 心生 種種法生 心滅 種種法滅 一心不生 萬法無咎 世與出世 無佛無法 亦不現前 亦不曾失 設有者 皆是名言章句 接引小兒 施設藥病 表顯名句 且名句不自名句 還是你目前昭昭靈靈 鑑覺聞知照燭底 安一切名句

Followers of the Way! If you wish to become a buddha, do not follow the myriad things. When mind arises, all kinds of dharmas arise; when mind ceases, all kinds of dharmas cease. When the one mind does not arise, the myriad dharmas are without fault. In the world or beyond it, there is no buddha and no dharma. They have never appeared, and they have never been lost. Even if buddha and dharma existed, they would all be nothing but names, words, and sentences. They are for coaxing little children, medicine used according to the illness, nothing but names and phrases that express. Yet names and phrases do not call themselves names and phrases. It is that person right before your eyes, perceiving, hearing, knowing, and illuminating so clearly and distinctly, who has made all names and phrases.

Do you believe that other animal species have their own religions, mythologies, ancestral stories?

What does your religion teach about this, if anything?

i am danish and traditionally asetro like many of my people and once i started talking about it online some people started calling me racist for my religion which just didnt make sense to me as theres nothing about racism in it

Hinduism has it's roots in the Vedas.

Vedas have been for long considered the base with which modern Indian culture stands.

Since Vedas by themselves cannot be understood by the lay person, we can depend on its sister texts i.e Upanishads, Ramayana and Mahabharata to understand it's essence.

Scholars agree that the Vedas, Upanishads, Ramayana and Mahabharata form the crux of Vedic teachings and culture and is the essence of Hinduism.

However what about the Puranas? The Puranas as we have today are considered heavily manipulated.

An example of such manipulation is localised appendices and companion texts which glorify certain temples and pilgrimage sites. These texts further go on to mandate donations to be made to the local priests in those places.

These localized chapters were often sponsored or written by temple authorities and priests to drive pilgrimage traffic, legitimize their local deity, and mandate financial contributions (dakshina) to the priests presiding over that specific temple. Example of these is the Skanda Purana and Padma Purana.

Mahabharata which mentions the origin and acts of a pantheon of Gods make no mention of Ganesha or Durga other than the first page or a couple of hymns which are stated to be an interpolation and are removed in the English translation by BORI (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute) who have spent more than 50 years to compile the translation by analysing over 1200 ancient manuscripts . The critical edition of Mahabharata is recognised as an authentic and critical baseline of text stripped of later interpolations. The Sanskrit text of Mahabharata as we have today also has no mention of the Durga hymns (www.sacred-texts.com)

Both Ganesha and Durga seem to owe their authenticity to a Purana. Historians and textual critics argue that the Puranas did not merely "record" pre-existing worship of Durga and Ganesha but they actively manufactured and codified it.

Durga: Scholars trace Durga from localized, fierce protector goddesses up to a unified cosmic force. Historians like Thomas Coburn and Wendy Doniger note that early mother-goddesses were often fierce, localized deities worshipped by indigenous or forest tribes for protection against diseases, wild animals, or military defeat.

Durga was seems to having her origin during the Devi Mahatmya (circa 5th–6th century CE).

Wealthy feudal landlords (Zamindars like the Tagore family or the Rajahs of Nadia) popularized grand community celebrations (Baroyari and Sarbojanin Durga Puja) in Bengal. Originally designed to display aristocratic wealth, social status, and loyalty to (or defiance of) rulers, it later evolved in the late 19th and early 20th centuries into an anti-colonial nationalist platform.

Ganesha: In early texts like the Manava Grhyasutras (around 500–400 BCE), the term Vinayakas referred to a group of four malevolent spirit-beings or demons who caused obstacles. Concurrently, various folk traditions worshipped animal-headed spirits or yakshas (nature spirits). Over centuries, these separate traditions—the obstacle-creating Vinayakas, the elephant-headed folk icons, and wisdom symbols—gradually merged into a single deity.

Ganesha having no previous mentions seems to be originated by Adi Shankaracharya. During this era, the Ganapatya sect emerged, elevating Ganesha to supreme status.

While Ganesha worship was always popular privately and in temple settings, the public mass celebration of Ganesh Chaturthi as a massive community festival (Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav) was explicitly engineered in 1893 by the nationalist leader Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak in Maharashtra (Pune/Mumbai).

Tilak recognized that British colonial laws banned large political assemblies. By transforming a private household/temple ritual into a massive public festival featuring music, processions, and political speeches, he created a legal loophole to mobilize the masses, unite different castes against colonial rule, and foster national consciousness.

Viewing Jesus' crucifixion through the lens of the archetypal 'killing of the king ritual'. 

First one notices that Christ, didn't die. He was not the sacrifice. Even if you accept death and resurrection a resurrected man sacrificed nothing. He did not even harrow his way through the underworld to be reborn.

His death is performative, but it establishes him as the king in absentia waiting for the power the ritual brings about. 

What was the sacrifice that empowered this ritual? It was two fold the first sacrafice was the 30 silver. The Romans require sacrifices to ceaser first. Symbolically Rome offers the first offering showing that ceaser is accepting 2nd place. 

The blood sacrafice/offering was Judas. The only one in this tale to actually die. His death is the scapegoat death for the king, Jesus. His is the sacrifice that pushes Jesus to Christhood.

This begs some serious theosophical questions concerning the birth of Christianity. Judas' sacrifice was not one of a pure vessel ie virgins, it was not one of power ie enemies, it was not one of sacred or political prowess. 

It was a sacrifice born from the sin of suicide. Is that the best offering for the one true god? Or is that the corrupted offering to a demiurge or something worse?