Posts Tagged ‘logical fallacies in Buddhism’

Why Buddhism Is A Logical Fallacy and Has The Dalai Lama Changed Since He Was Ostracized by the Chinese Government?

September 1, 2012 2 comments

Why Buddhism Is A Logical Fallacy, and Has The Dalai Lama Changed Since He Was Ostracized by the Chinese Government?

I wrote this due to the promotion of the idea by many that everyone should promote Tibet being free and that no country should be taken over by another, just because. It’s usually I find associated with atheism, whose individuals necessarily have “Because I feel this is true” morality, i.e. “just cause” morality.

There is a great irony in the DL’s ostracization of deity worship, his ostracization of the Shugdans: by opposing China’s rule, nonsensically, being that China allows Buddhism, and favors it over Christianity, he’s opposing atheism and so being self-defeating. He opposes Shugdan he claims because it’s spirit worship, not demon worship, not worship of an imaginary god, but simply because it’s not atheist Buddhism, and because it prevented him, PHILOSOPHICALLY, from being able to learn what he felt, as in, because his teacher was reluctant for him to study something other than Shugdanism he said that it wasn’t for him, does that sound rational? If an atheist says to me, “Be extremely careful about studying Christianity, for you may end up one of them, especially be weary of fundamentalism, and the worst, creationism,” should that mere reason alone be a reason to reject atheism and believe in theism, God or Christianity? He also claimed it was to unite the Buddhists. Because? To get them to lose their lives casting China off? Consider that mentality: I would have some of you die so that we can return to not just being a country on our own again, but unified atheist Buddhists, because you can learn about all the versions of Buddhism as one. He doesn’t even say, “Because theism is illogical, there are no spirits,” it’s just for the sake of unity and/or to put off China. What for? Buddhism is about nationalism?! Buddhism is about unity with Buddhist traditions? No. According to at least modern Buddhism, which the DL subscribes to fully: all ways lead to the truth, except the usual line from cults, which is that any religion that says ours is false doesn’t lead to truth, however Buddhists show their religion is false because they arbitrary approve of religions they don’t even know and don’t say “religions that rejects ours”, a sign of a cult, one that operates on the arbitrary arrogance of its leader rather than logic. According to one Buddhist, truth is reached by self-effort alone, so who cares about unity? It’s a contradiction. This too is a contradiction: the DL’s opposition to what he claims to be for: traditional Buddhism, which is this: nothing is lost, everything just changes, and whatever happens is due to karma. So then, if Tibet no longer exists as a nation, then that was simply part of the law of material change, and they were getting what they deserved. So it’s futile for the DL or anyone who supports him to CARE that change has occurred, especially when Buddha supposedly said, “The Buddha said, “No one can escape death and unhappiness. If people expect only happiness in life, they will be disappointed.” And what his solution? To stop desiring anything, which due to his ignorance, lead to another contradiction: if you don’t desire anything, you then shouldn’t desire to end suffering either, you would become like a heartless robot, something with zero motivation for its actions, something with no curiosity or lust or love or anger.

There are other problems with Buddhism I’ve mentioned earlier, which you can learn about through the Buddhism category I linked to.

For those who have studied narcissism disorder and religion/who are theologians, but not Buddhism in depth, if you read a large portion of Buddha’s supposed sayings, his self-affirmations (literal self-affirmations that would only apply to him, not others despite how they sound or what his followers give the impression of), you’ll find that they are the sayings of someone with narcissism disorder and all narcissists are insincere and despite their words, they act with, in general, a cold attitude towards those they give their smaller than a grain of mustard seed and hypocritical self-serving kindness too. That is why, despite the beautiful appearance Buddhism had and the peaceful demeanor the DL has, that Buddhism overall has a negative effect on those who practice it, a stagnating effect. The stagnation is due to giving priority of all you learn being directed by the limited teachings of the cult leader (especially limited if that person is a narcissist or one of his top leaders is or one directly above you is), and especially if you’re trying to memorize the sayings of Buddha and what you feel he taught or what some Buddhist teacher repeating what he said plus the usual claims of what they claim he did and also from doing the Buddhist practice of endlessly blanking your mind afterwards or simply focusing on those teachings, to achieve peace. Is stagnation good? No. Stagnation implies not going further along in truth, and according to Buddha even, one of the mistakes people make that prevents them from reaching “the truth” is to stop walking in it, to not go through with it. But what he meant by truth, who knows, since he himself was a liar. But the truth that matters, is the truth God says matters: who God is, what right and wrong truly are, and worshiping him with a morally clean heart, and one with a sincere love for him. How can you know what is truly right from wrong? Is it by worshiping the Pope, or the Dalai Lama, or believing in Catholic traditions because the Pope or your Catholic teacher told you to, or certain Buddhist traditions because the Dalai Lama said so, or memorizing the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith said that it’s the most correct book of any other (and what happened to God having a perfect word and being able to say what is fully true and not being a liar, Mormons?)? No, you can learn it by believing who God is (the God who gave the ten commandments and who said, “Do to others as you would have them do to you” and “The Lord your God is One, and you shall love him with all your heart and with all your mind and with all your soul and with all your spirit and with all your strength” and, as someone who is far from obedient to those laws, you will only learn the truth so far as you properly fear him, because he truly can, unlike karma, give you what you deserve, pain or pleasure, uncontentment or peace.

Furthermore, the Dalai Lama, thee supposed master of religion, the highest you can get, doesn’t even know what religion is. He claims Dorje Shugdan isn’t a religion. Religion is a way of life that centers around the worship of something. And usually the religion has a method to it, some tradition. Do Shugdans have any method to their worship or traditions? Do they have their own morality? Or are they of the disorganized liberal group who reject “organized religion” and walk into trees and pray with a tomato on their head and roll around in the dirt babbling random things and worshiping whatever for the moment for their religion? If that were the case then okay, it’s not a religion, it’s insanity, but if the opposite, then the Dalai Lama is confused, lying and being a hypocritical leader and teacher.

One more thing to consider for rejecting Buddhism: did Buddha say that truth can’t change? Or did he truly mean that all things change? Because if he meant that truth also changes, they he broke a law of logic (which, unlike physical laws/physics laws/laws of nature) is permanent, that is he broke the law of Truth aka Absolute Truth, which is that truth can never become a lie and a lie can never become a truth. And don’t think that you can make a thing either by simply doing something, like if someone says you didn’t murder someone and then you go out and murder to make it true, no that’s not breaking or showing that law false, because that doesn’t change that it was a lie at the time and still is since it can’t be undone at that time. It would be like someone murdering someone and then you bring that person back to life after they were dead and saying, “See he didn’t murder anyone.” Yes he did, he just was brought back to life afterwards, so the sin remains. Anyone who teaches against that law therefore is absolutely a liar.

Buddhism’s Sunyata Explained and Refuted

March 17, 2011 5 comments

Someone emailed me more than hour or more ago what I thought of the Buddhist concept of Sunyata. So I looked it up, and found a rant about it. Here is part of it, with my comments and questions with facts, not merely opinions, throughout.

“1. Sunyata (Emptiness) is the profound meaning of the Mahayana Teaching.”

What does it matter if it is “profound” or not? What matters is if it is true and beneficial.

“Two thousand five hundred years ago, the Buddha was able to realise “emptiness” (s. sunyata).”

What is the evidence for this?

“By doing so he freed himself from unsatisfactoriness (s. dukkha).”

What is the evidence for this? And what is meant by unsatisfactoriness? Does that mean he was a malcontented person, and unthankful person? That he was thankless towards God no matter how much God blessed him?

“From the standpoint of enlightenment, sunyata is the reality of all worldly existences (s. dharma).”

What does that mean? It’s nonsense.

“It is the realisation of Bodhi — Prajna.”

Nonsense talk.

“From the standpoint of liberation, sunyata is the skil[l]ful”

What makes it skillful, and what does it matter if it’s skillful or not? So far what I’ve read sounds like a rant from a conartist. Clearly this person is making up vain nonsense, and reapting old vain nonsense.

“means that disentangle oneself from defilement and unsatisfactoriness.”

What does that mean? It’s nonsense. And how if there is no God (and therefore no universal good or evil) can “one” be “defiled”?

“The realisation of sunyata leads one to no attachment and clinging.”

Where is the evidence for that? And what is wrong attachment and clinging? Why not just not have babies or kill them if it’s best that no one have any desires? Why not just nuke the planet till everything is dead? Wouldn’t that “free” them?

“It is the skil[l]ful means towards enlightenment and also the fruit of enlightenment.”

Again, why does skill matter? What is the evidence that it is the fruit of e.?

“There are two ways for us to understand this concept of sunyata in the Mahayana context. One way is to try to understand the explanation about its true nature. The other way is the realisation through practice. What we are going to discuss now is about its true nature.”

Discuss means to talk back and forth; this person is ranting vainly, thinking that using eloquent-sounding words makes him wise and right.

“Mahayana teachings have always considered that the understanding of sunyata is an attainment which is extremely difficult and extraordinarily profound.”

What does that matter? It’s vain ranting, useless talk.

“For example, in the Prajna Sutra it says “That which is profound, has sunyata and non-attachment as its significance.”

The Bible is profound, but it teaches to desire what is good and not to go past clinging to good, but to be good and that goodness itself in the form of God will be in you forever if you are forgiven for doing what is wrong. Also, who defines what is “profound” and what does it matter if a thing is or not? And why does only “non-attachment” make a profound thing significant? What is the evidence? Is this person God to say what makes anything significant or not which is profound, let alone the Bible, is only significant because of a single thing? How stupid. Buddha said not to simply believe something because it was believed by everyone else, which is profound most people would agree in my opinion, but does “non-attachment” make that advice significant? No, what makes it significant is that it’s logical and that many or most people don’t realize that it’s illogical to believe something merely because many or most people do, and that Buddha realized this seemingly without having to be directly told by God, or that he may have come up with that on his own from the little he seemed to know (unless he was reading many works and sending out people to bring him back information about philosophies of other people).

“No form nor deeds, no rising nor falling, are its implications.”

Nonsense talk. If deeds cease then Buddha stopped helping anyone and never will.

“Again in the Dvadasanikaya Sastra”

What makes this “again”?

“(composed by Nagarjuna, translated to Chinese by Kumarajiva A.D. 408) it says: “The greatest wisdom is the so-called sunyata.””

Why is it the greatest wisdom?

“This sunyata, no creation,”

“No creation” means what? What stopped creating anything?

“calmness and extinction (s. nirvana)”

Calm but not “still”? Why only calm? What goes extinct?

“is of a profound significance in the Mahayana teachings.”

And? The point of mentioning this, is?

“Why do we see it as the most profound teaching?”


“This is because there is no worldly knowledge, be it general studies, science or philosophy, that can lead to the attainment of the state of sunyata.”

That is a contradiction, because this person and other’s who believe his nonsenses say that sunyata is the ultimate wisdom. wisdom includes learned knowledge. And it’s also an act: to stop desiring anything, and Buddhists claim that Buddhism is one of the baths to enlightenment, and if one of its fruits is sunyata, then by studying Buddhism and living it, you can cease to desire anything.

“The only path to its realisation is via the supreme wisdom of an impassionate and discriminating mind.”

…which would have to be learned since no one is born who one day just decides to have such a mindset. Man is driven by his desires, which is a point that is even central to Buddhism.

“It is beyond the common worldly understanding.”

And? The point of saying that is? It’s more vain talk to make this person look “profound” and “wise” and to get people to look up to him and give him his desires. This person obviously, to those who aren’t blind, desires to be worshiped, that is why he made a vain speech like this.

“2. The Significance of Sunyata and Cessation”

Wasn’t it already pointed out?!, that you no longer desire anything and have the ultimate wisdom? But it does seem insignificant if no one can tell you why it’s useful.

“The Buddha always used the terms void, no rising and falling, calmness and extinction to explain the profound meaning of sunyata and cessation.”

So what?

“The teachings of the Buddha that were described in words are generally common to worldly understandings.”

Why so much focus on Buddha? Obviously Buddhism is a “cult of personality”, a cult that worships Buddha, a person who ceased to be wise by trying to stop desiring to do good and to negate good. Also, what is the evidence that is was common to “worldly understanding”, and what does “wordly understandings” mean? It appears to be a nonsensical phrase to me. It sounds pretentious. A plain speech version would be, “understood by most people of the world.”

“If one interprets”

Saying, “one” over and over is vain and annoying. Why not say, “we” or “you”?

“the teachings superficially from the words and languages used,”

What? Does this person know how to teach plainly and not pretentiously like this? It’s nonsense.

“one will only gain worldly knowledge and not the deeper implication of the teachings.”

The evidence for this is? And “deeper implication of the teachings” would also be knowledge. This person is ranting, which means talking without care if he is making sense or not, and because of that, not making sense.

“The teachings of the Buddha have their supra-mundane”

What does supra-mundane mean?

“contexts that are beyond the worldly knowledge.”

What is the evidence for that? And so what?

“For example, sunyata and the state of nirvana where there is no rising nor falling, are interpreted by most people as a state of non-existence and gloom.”

You said earlier that it was non-existence. And of course you would FEEL depressed eventually from trying to repress natural desires, like the desire to taste, touch, feel, see and hear what is pleasing to the mind, heart and body.

“They fail to realise that quite the opposite,”

Not according to you who said that earlier it was non-existence, so you are contradicting yourself.

“sunyata is of substantial and positive significance.”

You’re repeating yourself and throwing in “high” words which don’t show you to be right. It shows you are vain. In a way, it’s like harassment, because you’re wasting a person’s time, and the more you rant, the more weary of it.

“The sutras often use the word “great void” to explain the significance of sunyata.”

And a void is existence? And what makes “nothing” significant?

“In general, we understand the “great void” as something that contains absolutely nothing.”

Why did you say, “great void” rather than “the void”? How is this void, great? Also, if you didn’t say what void you are referring to, why would anyone think that it is great?

“However, from a Buddhist perspective, the nature of the “great void” implies something which does not obstruct other things,”

What do you mean by “it’s nature”? Does something other than “it’s nature” get in the way of things? And why if it does not obstruct desire and evil is it a good thing or “significant” or “the greatest wisdom”? And what is the evidence that this “great void” exists? And when is the usefulness of this void going to be pointed out? How much more ranting to I have to read?

“in which all matters perform their own functions.”

What does that mean? More vain ranting.

“Materials are form, which by their nature, imply obstruction.”

Obstruction of what? And why does it matter?

“The special characteristic of the “great void” is non-obstruction.”

You’re repeating yourself uselessly. I’m getting ready to stop reading this stupidity.

“The “great void” therefore, does not serve as an obstacle to them.”

You’re repeating. This is making me angry.

“Since the “great void” exhibits no obstructive tendencies, it serves as the foundation for matter to function.”

What is the evidence for this, and why did this idiot say, “tendencies”? I thought it DOESN’T BLOCK ANYTHING AT ALL? Obviously this person is using “big words” to make himself appear to be wise and right about whatever he’s ranting about.

“In other words, if there was no “great void” nor characteristic of non-obstruction, it would be impossible for the material world to exist and function.”

No, it wasn’t “in other words” because you didn’t say in another way before this that it was impossible. Besides that, what is the evidence for this?

“The “great void” is not separated from the material world.”

If there is no evidence for its existence then to say it exists is a lie and presumption, especially if it is undetectable since everything passes through it. It’s also a contradiction to say that matter can’t exist without it because this void doesn’t touch anything, and so can’t be a base for anything.

“The latter depends on the former.”

You’re repeating, and seemingly trying to come up with big words to sound wise, again.

“We can state that the profound significance of sunyata and the nature of sunyata in Buddhism[,] highlights the “great void’s” non-obstructive nature.”

This is big worded nonsense. Who is “we”? Why does it matter if you can state this? Why is it profound? Why is it and it’s “nature” significant in Buddhism? What is meant by “nature”? How does the significance of either “highlight” the void’s nature? Why doesn’t it highlight the void completely? Why does it matter if it highlight’s the void’s nature in Buddhism? RANTING! This is demonic, disgusting, ranting. A confusing Hell of words meant to fool people into thinking Buddhists are good and wise.

“Sunyata does not imply the “great void”. Instead, it is the foundation of all phenomena (form and mind).”

What is the evidence for this? So far I have read mere claims without evidence.

“It is the true nature of all phenomena,”

Where is the evidence?

“and it is the basic principle of all existence.”

Evidence? And what does this mean? This person isn’t explaining anything. If this were a math course the teacher would eventually be fired and ignored, or put into a mental institution.

“In other words, if the universe’s existence was not empty nor impermanent then all resulting phenomena could not have arisen due to the co-existence of various causes and there would be no rising nor falling.”

This is called “word salad”, mixing up a bunch of high and fancy sounding phrases and words in an attempt to sound wise, but not making sense. Simply put: this person is ranting. And in reply to him I also say: Because you said so.

“The nature of sunyata is of positive significance!”

Because you keep repeating so! Sickening. And what makes it “positive”? And what do you mean by “positive”? What matters is if something is good or evil, useful or useless, true or false, there or not.

“Calmness and extinction are the opposite of rising and falling.”

No they are not: Rising is the opposite of falling. Calm is the opposite of upset or great force. Existence is the opposite of extinction.

“They are another way to express that there is no rising and falling.”

So what?

“Rising and falling are the common characteristics of worldly existence.”

And rising and falling is a sin. No.

“All phenomena are always in the cycle of rising and falling.”

Why did this person say “phenomenon” instead of “things”? This person is still using big words to sound wise and right, showing a DESIRE to be worshiped. Also, what is his evidence that rising and falling is a cycle? Also, information doesn’t rise or fall, only those things that represent it can, like a book. Information is spiritual not material. And what does it matter if it’s a cycle or not? Also, things move sideways and spin and go around in a circle, why isn’t that mentioned and why isn’t that significant or as significant?

“However, most people concentrate on living (rising).”

Living is not “rising.” This person is an idiot, and I will not read anymore of his vain, pretentious, redundant, nonsensical, hysterical, lying and ranting, which by the way, goes on for a very long time. I’m not going to waste my life listening to such extremely sickening insanity and stupidity. No wonder Asia has to copy nearly all it’s technology and science from Christians. They’ve been deceived into believing this nonsense, waste their time thinking about it often, and for those that don’t, have to deal with tons of idiots that are immoral, psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists from having believed this evil nonsense. It isn’t evil, bad, or negative to desire to obey God or to obey God. Buddhism is an obstacle in the way of everything. Buddhism is a void in morality and wisdom. Buddhism causes voids. God is a creator who turned the void, a chaotic-like mass of something unknown (not “nothing”), into this beautiful highly organized universe, which became cursed with suffering and death. God is perfectly good and perfectly truthful.

Related Post:

Buddhism Refuted: Buddha’s Paradox Exposed

Contradictions In Buddhism (Note: the author of this PDF tries to rationalize clear contradictions, but doesn’t realize it seems that he is missing the bigger picture: nothing he is trying to justify has any value for learning the truth and improving your life. (In fact he stated what is the root of all contradictions in his attempt to justify Buddhism, “There are no ultimate truths.” aka “There are no absolute truths” which is known by a great many by now, especially true Christians I am sure, that that statement itself is a contradiction. Though the author speaks eloquently, he is also ranting in various parts of the PDF and trying to justify useless and pretentious rants. He repeatedly makes the logical fallacy of “mere claims” aka “statements said as a fact but which are not based on any evidence”, saying things are true, but without any explanation, and is it any surprise that he doesn’t being that he doesn’t believe there are any truths anyways? So for you who are Buddhists: your religion is futile, hurt, and a lie. You may not feel pain now, but you will be in pain if you don’t throw away this misleading religion and believe and heed the truth).

Categories: Buddhism Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Edison and Blavatsky’s Reasoning Against Darwinism and the Influence of Buddhism and Hinduism On Them

January 30, 2010 3 comments

Blavatsky’s Reasoning Against Darwinism, Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution”:

Suppose an Occultist were to claim that the first grand organ of a cathedral had come originally into being in the following manner. First, there was a progressive and gradual elaboration in Space of an organizable material, which resulted in the production of a state of matter named organic PROTEIN. Then, under the influence of incident forces, those states having been thrown into a phase of unstable equilibrium, they slowly and majestically evolved into and resulted in new combinations of carved and polished wood, of brass pins and staples, of leather and ivory, wind-pipes and bellows. After which, having adapted all its parts into one harmonious and symmetrical machine, the organ suddenly pealed forth Mozart’s Requiem. This was followed by a Sonata of Beethoven, etc., ad infinitum; its keys playing of themselves and the wind blowing into the pipes by its own inherent force and fancy. … What would Science say to such a theory? – SD ii 348

But there are certainly “designers,” though these are neither omnipotent nor omniscient in the absolute sense of the term. They are simply Builders, or Masons, working under the impulse given them by the ever-to-be-unknown, (on our plane) Master Mason — the ONE LIFE and Law. Belonging to this sphere, they have no hand in, or possibility of working on any other, during the present Manvantara, at any rate. That they work in cycles and on a strictly geometrical and mathematical scale of progression, is what the extinct animal species amply demonstrate; that they act by design in the details of minor lives (of side animal issues, etc.) is what natural history has sufficient evidence for.

In the creation of new species, departing sometimes very widely from the Parent stock, as in the great variety of the genus Felis—like the lynx, the tiger, the cat, etc.—it is the “designers” who direct the new evolution by adding to, or depriving the species of certain appendages, either needed or becoming useless in the new environments. Thus, when we say that Nature provides for every animal and plant, whether large or small, we speak correctly.

“I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States.” – Thomas Edison

“I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. [And whatever I can’t see” cannot exist.]” – Thomas Edison

“So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake… Religion is all bunk.” – Thomas Edison

“To those searching for truth – not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” – Thomas Edison

Below are selected quotes (with my comments between brackets, except one which is “[]” showing that I deleted a useless literary device) from the book Edison[:] Inventing the Century, by Neil Baldwin:

Mme. Blavatsky sent Edison a gift copy of Isis Unveiled along with application forms for membership in the Theosophical Society, which included among its diverse American adherents, Doubleday and William James. Edison immediately signed the papers, returning them to Mme. Blavatsky’s colleague Colonel Henry Steel Olcott, cofounder of the [Theosophical] Society… Edison’s cordial note read, “Please say to Madame Blavatsky that I have recovered her curious work and I thank her for the same. I SHALL READ BETWEEN THE LINES!” (A decade later however, perhaps in reaction to a report published in England by the Society for Physcical Research asserting that Mme. Blavatsky was a fraud, Edison vehemently denied articles in the press” the article’s appearing in the press quoting Colonel Olcott as stating that the famous inventor [Edison] was a card-carrying dues-paying Theosophist. Edison insisted that Olcott was mistaken even after the Colonel wrote to Edison [saying] that the signed membership form as well as a second letter from Edison acknowledging receipt of the Diploma of Fellowship were [both] enshrined in the Society’s international headquarters in Madras, India.)
Toward mid December 1878, four days before leaving America permanently for India, Mme. Blavatsky, who had become a naturalized citizen because, she said, “America is the only land of true freedom in the whole world,” and Colonel Olcott arranged a trip to Menlo park, as two members of the still ongoing celebrity parade to New Jersey. [Note, that previous paragraph seems to be grammatically wrong, perhaps because it says “and” when it shouldn’t. The author also should have said, “decided to become a naturalized citizen”]. When Mme. Blavatsky fell ill with discomfort from an emergency tooth extraction, and much to her chagrin was unable to make the journey, the Colonel went alone. He approached Edison not only as a fellow Theosophist, but also as honorary secretary to a Citizen’s National Committee created to act as a liason with the French government for the purpose of planning a major international industrial exposition in Paris for the coming year. Olcott hoped that the inventor would want to participate, which he most assuredly did. [“most assuredly did”? Pretentious.]
Having accomplished their business, the two men strayed off naturally enough into a conversation about “occult forces,” a field in which Edison had already done some exploring. Edison regaled (and intrigued) Olcott by telling him that he had attempted through the dynamism of will power (conducted via rubber tubes extending from his forehead) to move a pendulum suspended on the wall of his laboratory. Olcott narrowed the discussion of mental energy in general into the directly psychological realm…
Over the years up to and even beyond the flap over Edison’s affiliation with the Theosophical movement, Mme. Blavatsky, who was extremely prolific–her Collected Works take up more than ten thousand pages in fourteen volumes–published several articles discussing in partisan terms her ideas about his work; even though they never actually met, she was a deep admirer with a clear sense of the affinities between what Edison was after and what Theosophy valued: “Had our Brother Theosophist, Thomas Alva Edison, the inventor of the telephone and the phonograph, lived in the days of Galileo,” she wrote in her essay, “Magic” [yeah magic is just such a big contribution to science, hypocrite pagan], published in the Dekkan Star, Poona, India, in March 1879, “he would have surely expiated at the stake his sin of having found the means to fix on a soft surface of metal, and preserve for long years the sounds of the human voice; for his talent would have been pronounced the gift of Hell [oh yeah and don’t you know the pagans never did anything wrong and were such great scientists who peacefully gave us science, NOT. And what a cheap shot idiot: perpetuating the myth that Galileo was physically tortured and killed, when the truth is that he was given a luxury confinement. At least she didn’t say “The Church” or “Christians would have burned you alive.” Interesting also that she failed to mention that atheists had persuaded certain Catholics to persecute Galileo.] . . . Divine Wisdom has been discovered by Mr. Edison . . . in eternity of sound.”
In a March 1890 essay, “The Cycle Moveth,” [nope no pretention there, not] she approvingly cited Edison’s Monadic conception of matter, his intimation that there was a supreme unity manifesting itself within all particulate life, as expressed during an interview with G. Parsons Lathrop in a recent issue of Harper’s: “I do not believe that matter is inert, acted upon by an outside force. To me [] it seems that every atom is possessed by a certain amount of primitive intelligence; look at the thousand ways in which atoms of hydrogen combine with those other elements. . . . Do you mean to say they do this without intelligence?”
One month later, incensed to discover that “Brother Edison” was ridiculed and demeaned in the Review of Reviews as a “dreamer” for these Harper’s remarks, Mme. Blavatsky leaped to his defense yet again as a holistic think, a man with the spiritual wherewithal to accept the feasibility of a universal reality. [I can see from that nonsense statement where some of the New Age nonsense teachings came from.] In a provocative, indignant piece called “Kosmic Mind,” she took Edison’s side: “Would to goodness the men of science exercised their ‘scientific imagination’ a little more and their dogmatic and cold negations a little less. Dreams differ,” she wrote. [‘Whatever’ plagiarizing pagan. But you were right about (mainstream) scientists, the neo-skeptics, being dogmatic and (spiritually) short-sighted.] – pages 94-95

There was an old story that, on the day of his wedding to Mary Stilwell, the preoccupied Edison had to be roused from an experiment to get to the proverbial church on time. True or not, here was a man who, although he did give in to the tropical tranquility and sleep later than his accustomed dawn-breaking hour, needed to be close to his work. [And the author knows this how? And could you get any more pretentious with the pointlessly fancy wording?] The intellectual nature of that labor does seem to have been shaped by the major changes to his emotional life; it had returned, for a while at least, to a more spiritual plane, the kind of thinking that had been so seductive to Mme. Blavatsky and her followers. Ever since Mary’s death, Edison had spoken on occasion publicly of metaphysical concerns, his belief that within every atom, every subdivision of nature, there could be found “a certain amount of primitive intelligence . . . Look at the thousand ways in which atoms of hydrogen combine with those of other elements, forming the most diverse substances. Do you mean to say that they make animals of the lower orders. Finally they combine in a man, who represents the total intelligence of all the atoms.”
“But where does this intelligence come from originally?” he was asked.
“From some greater power than ourselves,” was the reply.
“Do you then believe in an intelligent Creator, a personal God?”
“Certainly,” said Mr. Edison. “The existence of such a God, in my mind, can almost be proved by chemistry.”
“This of it! A man in this skeptical century who dares believe in a discovery beyond all discoveries,” Edison’s shamelessly editorializing visitor concluded. “Here is a student of nature who is not afraid to have the spirit of a Galileo or a Kepler or an Isaac Newton . . . And so we discover down on Avenue B, in the prosaic city of New York, a philosopher who believes in a personal God.”
In the wonderful opening scene of the 1940 MGM classic, Edison, the Man, Spencer Tracy, playing the elderly but mellowed curmudgeon to fairytale perfection, is surrounded by a group of adoring children, smiling benignly upon them as the innocent questions come thick and fast, until with ultimate humility he smiles and points heavenward, saying, “That’s the real Inventor!” This was a statement from life, not a life concocted by the scriptwriter. – page 172

So, Edison was a creationist, he believed in intelligent design, but he rejected the designer’s master plan of salvation.


Apparently Tesla undertook a self-imposed vow of chastity, having been influenced in part by Swami Vivekananda, who preached chastity as the path to self-transformation and enlightenment.
Tesla met the Swami on February 13, 1896, at a dinner with Sarah Bernhardt after one of her performances in the play Iziel. As with the rest of the world, Tesla had first heard of the Swami during the summer of 1893 when the “Hindoo” gained overnight prominence after speaking at the Congress of World Religions, which had been held at the Chicago World’s Fair. As Tesla had been in Chicago within a month of the talk, it is conceivable that he met or saw the Swami speak at that time.
Vivekananda told “the great electrician” about “Vendantic Prana [life force] and Akasa [ether], which according to [Tesla], are the only theories modern science can etertain.”
Having studied Madam Blavatsky’s theosophical teachings, Tesla was already versed in the idea of Akasa and the Akashic Records, which are, in essence, the records of all historical events existing in some vibratory state in this ether.
“The Brahma, or Universal Mind,” the Swami continued, “produces Akasa and Prana.”
Tesla agreed with the essential premise of this Buddhist view, replying that the theory could be “proved mathematically by demonstrating that force and matter are reducible to potential energy,” and then the inventor invited Swami Vivekananda, some of his devotees, and Sarah Bernhardt to his laboratory for the following week to demonstrate through experiments this principle.
After Tesla showed the swami some of his “creations,” the swami advised that pure creation, in the sense that “something” was born from “nothing” was not possible. To Swami Vivekananda, creation was a process of combining existing elements into a new synthesis. This idea of the eternal nature of existence with no beginning and no ending was appealing to Tesla, and he later referred to this and related concepts in some of his writings. – Wizard: the life and times of Nikola Tesla, biography of a genius, pages 164-165, by Marc J. Seifer

all the great religions contain wise prescriptions relating to the conduct of life, which hold good now as they did when they were promulgated.

There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without. Owing to the similarity of our construction and the sameness of our environment, we respond in like manner to similar stimuli, and from the concordance of our reactions, understanding is barn. In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call “soul ” or “spirit,” is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the “soul” or the “spirit” ceases likewise.

I expressed these ideas long before the behaviorists, led by Pavlov in Russia and by Watson in the United States, proclaimed their new psychology. This apparently mechanistic conception is not antagonistic to an ethical conception of life. The acceptance by mankind at large of these tenets will not destroy religious ideals. Today Buddhism and Christianity are the greatest religions both in number of disciples and in importance. I believe that the essence of both [is what] will be the religion of the human race in the twenty-first century.

The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man’s new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct, Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.

Hygiene, physical culture will be recognized branches of education and government. The Secretary of Hygiene or Physical Culture will he far more important in the cabinet of the President of the United States who holds office in the year 2035 than the Secretary of War. The pollution of our beaches such as exists today around New York City will seem as unthinkable to our children and grandchildren as life without plumbing seems to us. Our water supply will he far more carefully supervised, and only a lunatic will drink unsterilized water.

More people die or grow sick from polluted water than from coffee, tea, tobacco, and other stimulants. I myself eschew all stimulants. I also practically abstain from meat. I am convinced that within a century coffee, tea, and tobacco will be no longer in vogue. Alcohol, however, will still be used. It is not a stimulant but a veritable elixir of life.” – Liberty, February, 1937, by Nikola Tesla, as told to George Sylvester Viereck

God would have made Tesla’s life one of constant joy and success if Tesla’s mind had rejected the mental Darwin virus and the myth that Christianity was a myth and asked God for forgiveness and accepted the way he commanded us to live. The same for Edison who oppressed and betrayed Tesla greatly.

It’s interesting to see that neo-pagans like Blavatsky and Edison could still see the error of Darwinism clearly, and that Tesla seemed to avoid endorsing evolution, that the New Age movement didn’t embrace Darwinism, but that eventually, thanks to atheists and the desire of neo-pagans to hold high-paying positions and to repel Christians, because Intelligent Design was one of the first and basic teachings of the Bible, which it stated clearly and specifically and that God creating the universe and all the life in it is used as a reason by the Bible and many Christians (especially Calvinists, of whom there are millions) to revere and obey God.

Related Articles:

More information on Madame Blasphemy:

Scientific Errors in Hinduism (it’s misleading to say “Scientific Errors” as if only a select few people were scientists (everyone is a scientists because we all learn using a scientific method that God naturally programmed into us all, some just ignore that instinct it at times and choose folly).
Contradiction in Buddhist Argumentation:
Karma Contradiction in Buddhism: (even an atheist can see a contradiction in Buddhism)