I'd prefer that you just stay away from my threads because you are rude.

@JeffMesser who made you king of this site?

@Mofo1953 as I said you're rude and I'd appreciate it if you'd just leave. I don't wanna read your anger.

I agree with Jeff Messer, who wrote good, detailed explanations. I have read both the Upanishads and various Buddhist text translations. They do not believe in "god(s)." For you to say this explanation is BS indicates only that you are extremely RUDE, and that you should leave, rather than spread your hate. This explanation adds value to my appreciation of philosophies like Vedanta and and Buddhism, which neither proselytize nor believe in personal "god(s)." Perhaps you should proselytize yourself as "god," because you are as offensive as any religion. Since you choose to remain ignorant about the main point of this discussion (disbelief in gods), and believe you know everything in existence already, how about you just leave, as I said several times.

@JeffMesser get over yourself. Answer is no.

@JeffMesser, @AnonySchmoose you call it rude, I call it direct and to the point. Bullshit is just a word that means to write or say nonsense.

@Mofo1953 when it comes to social conduct YOU don't get to define it. that's determined by the people around you. it's perceptual. Had you read the vedas or taken an epistemology class you'd understand. Instead you just choose to be rude when you have been asked (kindly I might add) to leave. Now, one last time, please remove yourself from my threads. You aren't welcome here.

@Mofo1953 Point taken. I still think you missed the point of this post. "But Buddhists and vedantists have no deity ... relying instead on science and human nature for their beliefs .... All this is to say don't dismiss the final portion of the vedas, those upanishads, because they hold MUCH in common with modern secular philosophy." As an example of open-mindedness, the Dalai Lama commented, "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims." He also said, "However the tea is prepared, the primary ingredient is always water. While we CAN live without tea, we CAN'T live without water. Likewise, we are born free of religion, but we are not born free of the need for compassion."

I did not intend to single you out for being rude, as many others on this discussion revile the post's explanation as being BS basically the same as you. My words were meant as much for them as for you. If you haven't studied non-religious vedanta or non-religious buddhism, you may not understand that they are simple philosophies of human nature, and thus also of cause and effect. These philosophies do not proselytize. Therefore, I must say the amount of hatred and vitriol on this post was an eye-opener to me. I was not raised with any religion or any spirituality. My parents loved Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins and other philosophers. My interest in buddhism, and now vedanta springs from an interest in spirituality and compassion, which I never took as being any woo-woo imitation of religion, but more a form of meditation, and methods of training my mind to control itself, much like I learned from cognitive behavioral therapy. That is why I criticized your comments. Still, I am able to understand where you and others may be coming from though I reacted as I did.

@AnonySchmoose thank you so much for your extensive, and very calm, and respectful explanation. I'm an atheist, definitively, possibly even a devout one (take that as it comes), but like you, the venom, and vitriol, in the replies posted here has surprised me. At no point did I see @JeffMesser say "hey guys, let's all adopt The Vedas belief system". I found this to be a well-written essay examining the thoughts, and ideas of those in the past who may have had some insight. Not stating that they were correct necessarily, but examining parallels with more modern secular thought. Thanks to both of you, and keep up the good thought.

@OnTheInside No problem.

yep. the upanishads are the scholarly, philosophic portion of the vedas located at the end of the Rigveda, Artharaveda, Samaveda, and Yajurveda.

was there something in the very well-researched essay above that you didnt understand regarding the differences?

@JeffMesser
Stuff written 4000 years ago does not apply to modern times. The caste system is out of date. The caste system is about controlling people. All religions were made up by humans to control humans.

@xenoview well, let's see ...

1. things written 4,000 yrs ago most certainly have bearing on human beings today.
2. the caste system was merely a method for determining dharma. the vedas also contain zoning laws and ways to wear ones' hair. of course it can be updated. that's the whole reason for the puranas and the items that have become itihasa.
3. of course it's about controlling people. no shit. duh.
4. the difference here is what I wrote above which you obviously didnt read or just refused to acknowledge.

@JeffMesser
Do you think their gods are real? If so, provide objective evidence that any one of them is real.

fair enough. my assumption is that cause-and-effects with an explainable physical origin are science and those without are mystical. please correct my error.

@JeffMesser Sceience is the use of logic and reasoning to create and test hypothesis that will brig us close to observations of reality.

Science does not explain anything, it just tells you how wrong can you be if you follow that explanation.

Plus using statistics and some nice tricks to put biases out of the experiments, science brings us nice methods to test how far from the truth we are.

This is the difference between science and other "knowledge systems".

In all systems you find reasons to say you are right, in science you try to prove you are not and then discover how far you are. And this method makes us get close tot he truth faster than any other.

@Pedrohbds perhaps like this?
[sunypress.edu]

@Pedrohbds faster? and when was the renaissance compared to when math and physics were introduced in SE Asia??

@JeffMesser math is as old as civilization, also basic physics.
BUT the scientific method was only really formalized and started to be standard for studies in the beginning of 1600's.
In these 400 years we multiplied exponentially our knowledge production.

And this development can happen in a religious environment, but they are independent of the religion.
You don't tell that digital equipment are analogical just because the first digital equipment were created using analogical components.

Same for science and rfeligion, there was nothing else than religion, so science could only be born there.

But what religion failed in produce for thousands of years of civilization (to be honnenst, they did a lot, but was painfully slow), science did in a few centuries.

What you are doing is repeating the mantra of the hindu populists in India, It is the same speech of the "inteligent design" in USA. All religion trying to pose as equal as science.

Science does not atgue it is correct, and if you need to argue that it is correct, it is not.
Results show it is correct. Evolution is correct and precise, we can even forsee mutations and develop vaccines ahead and be correct in most of times (yes, flu shots are actually preparing you for a virus that did not existed when the vaccines were made).

Cars work, we went to space, we produce more food. Those things tells that the scientific method works.

Even if in some ways to interpret a text from ancient age you can see some distorted shape of scientific method, then is the method, does not matter where it comes from. But if it is not equal to the method, then... well. Show me the results.

@Pedrohbds you didnt read any of that did you? Perhaps Swami Tadatmananda can explain it to you because you're not seeing the forest of epistemology for the trees.

@JeffMesser question: WTH do you have to wear a diaper to be a swami?

@AnneWimsey the idea is to have as few material possessions as possible.

@JeffMesser I get that, but surely an actual diaper is Weird...how about just a bathing suit?

@AnneWimsey it's a piece of linen cloth wrapped in the manner that has been done for 2,500 years +

why would I want to control how people act in groups? I thought that was intuitively obvious.

@JeffMesser One would hope that this would eventually be the case

I’ll wait for the movie