Buddhism On The God Idea

[vicente]

WHY GOD CANNOT EXIST
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/beyond/beyond03.htm
For example:
The Problem of Free Will
The Problem of Evil
Why Create?
The Problem of the Hidden God
The Existence of the Universe
Also:
http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
http://website.lineone.net/~kwelos/parietal.htm
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html
http://bhidalgo.tripod.com/litreview.htm

:)

[Thomas Knierim]

These arguments are philosophically clever yet problematic. Buddhism does not generally take an atheist position, i.e. the position that God does not exist, neither does it affirm any theology. There is a good reason for this. The question is wholly irrelevant to Buddhist practice and enlightenment.

Does the Atman exist? Does truth exist? Does the Tao exist? Does God exist?

These question are obviously paradoxical, since the entities discussed are 'beyond' existence. Thinking about them is like contemplating a koan.

Thomas

[vicente]

Thinking about them is like contemplating a koan.

Exactly! A koan is answered when it disappears. Emancipation from the god idea is a prerequisite for enlightenment.

I found 'GOD OR THE BUDDHA -- WHO IS THE HIGHEST?' (page 4) quite informative.
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/beyond/beyond04.htm

:)

[Nick_A]

This is a classic example of what I've been experiencing as degenerated Buddhism speaking of Christendom or Christendom criticizing some degeneration of Buddhism. As Thomas said: "The question is wholly irrelevant to Buddhist practice and enlightenment."

Why does all this degeneration take place? I'm convinced that the following hits the nail on the head:

".......It becomes clear that throughout history as we know it, the very first idea that disappears from tradition when it begins to lose its power is the teaching about gradations of the being of man. When this happens, it is no longer possible to distinguish elements of a teaching meant to support the developmental process towards awakening, from the descriptions of the results of awakening; far less it is possible to see the real distance that separates ordinary human life from the moral and spiritual powers that are actually associated with the highest states of presence but which through a terrifying irony, have been assumed by whole societies to be the innate characteristics of every human being just by virtue of his physical existence.............

Modern Western Buddhism is similar to modern Chritendom in that it has lost its sense of scale and relativity.

Take for example the bodhisattva:

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/bodhisattva.htm

" A bodhisattva wishes to help all beings attain nirvana. He must therefore refuse to enter nirvana himself, as he cannot apparently render any services to the living beings of the worlds after his own nirvana. He thus finds himself in the rather illogical position of pointing the way to nirvana for other beings, while he himself stays in this world of suffering in order to do good to all creatures. This is his great sacrifice for others. He has taken the great Vow: "I shall not enter into final nirvana before all beings have been liberated." He does not realize the highest liberation for himself, as he cannot abandon other beings to their fate. He has said: "I must lead all beings to liberation. I will stay here till the end, even for the sake of one living soul."

Without a sense of scale and relativity it becomes one dimensional, flat, secular, and ethical losing, IMO its original intent.

Take for example Bob who has had the week off and is sitting on his recliner in his underwear in front of the TV watching football with cigar smoke coming out of his ears and his trusty beer cooler by his side.

The doorbell rings and a woman enters who announces that she has now become the neighborhood bodhisattva and will not enter Nirvana until he stops this foolish suffering and sees the light.

She tells him further that it is only because of his stubbornness in refusing to see the obvious benefits of the Eightfold Path that she has taken the vow "I shall not enter into final nirvana before all beings have been liberated.". The only reason she is stuck here is from greedy selfish people like him so he'd better stop his suffering.

He shudders and thinks to himself: "Good Lord! this surely must be the mother-in law from hell. She won't leave me alone until she's made me miserable so that I've stopped suffering. I need another beer".

Now this of course is not the real nature of "Bodhisattva" but taken as purely ethical and secular it becomes precisely this.

The author speaks of "free will" for example but in a one dimensional perspective with a sense of scale in regards to the being of Man. it is no wonder that he cannot understand free will. How many in this day and age could appreciate how Meister Eckhart describes free will in the following quotation? To do so requires returning to the additional dimension of relativity and scale that to a large extent has become forgotten:

"God...does not constrain the will. Rather, he sets it free, so that it may choose him, that is to say, freedom. The spirit of man may not will otherwise than what God wills, but that is no lack of freedom. It is true freedom itself."

This can only begin to be appreciated in the context of re-birth. Retaining the ideas of scale and relativity requires a conscious intent and inner experience. Since as a whole it is not something we do, it is no surprise that it becomes lost resulting in debates and condemnations of something completely misunderstood,

[Thomas Knierim]

Vicente: I found 'GOD OR THE BUDDHA -- WHO IS THE HIGHEST?' (page 4) quite informative.

I also found it informative, although in a different way. It gives us information about the state of mind of its author. The title ‘God or Buddha – Who is the Highest?’ is a bit odd. It immediately reminded me of children comparing their toys. “My one is better, bigger, nicer, truer, higher…” – the ego identification just leaps to the eye. It seems that the author is attached to the idea that Buddhism is the cardinal path, the higher teaching, the only truth, or something like that. This is unfortunate, because this is the attitude which makes religions unpalatable, whether it is Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu.

If it was the De Silva’s intention to disprove God’s existence in the paper ‘Why God cannot Exist’, for instance as counterexamples for the ontological proofs, it would have been fairly easy to do so. He could have used reductio ad absurdum from some materialist premise, or he could simply have appealed to language. Instead he enumerates contradictions intrinsic to certain Christian doctrines without actually fleshing them out and without addressing the well-known apologetics. Not very convincing.

The argument presentation in the second paper, “who is the highest”, is regrettably even worse. It is not too hard to collect Bible quotations to make God appear to be an angry, judgmental, and vengeful being, especially if you draw –like the author– mostly on the old testament. The Bible is a very strange collection of writings. It certainly lacks coherence and passages vary from wisdom to obscurity. It is wide open to such an attack. Only those who take the Bible literally would feel offended.

What I sense in this text is an agenda which is about trashing Christianity. I doubt this has something to do with spirituality. An analysis of the logical and metaphysical problems presented by Christian theology would certainly be in order. Such an analysis can only enhance understanding. However, De Silva’s essay falls short of that. It is propaganda. It is done from an unthinking standpoint of aversion and it is philosophically shallow.

There are certainly logical stumble blocks in the store of Christian theology, which few thinking individuals would deny. The whole branch of apologetics exists for no other reason than to “cover up” those stumble blocks. From a Buddhist perspective, such teachings are quite simply expendable. However, there is a core of teachings of Jesus that is identical or at least closely related with the teachings of the Buddha. They are mostly found in Jesus’ sayings in the Gospels. Most Christians probably regard these as the foundation of their tradition.

Thich Nhat Hanh writes in his book “Living Buddha, Living Christ” about the similarities and the differences of the teachings of Buddha and Christ. In the closing chapter he makes the following remark: “It is good that an orange is an orange and a mango is a mango. The colors, the smells, and the tastes are different, but looking deeply we see that they are both authentic fruits. Looking more deeply, we can see the sunshine, the rain, the minerals, and the earth in both of them.”

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

Thomas,...I personally find it ashame that Thich Nhat Hanh says stuff like that, but it must have been useful for him at that time,...now is time for a Cultural Challenge in America, a challenge to end the stranglehold christianity has on American ideals, whose intent was to nurture the Birthing of Human Beingness of its people.

As A.L. De Silva (who appears to be a Western Australian) says in his article:

(1) Deep down Buddhists are really searching for God.
(2) Buddhism is just a different expression of man's understanding of God
(3) Buddhists are Christians outside the church ...

-- Today one often hears liberal Christians make statements like these. Sadly, such statements are meaningless. One could simply reverse them and say "Deep down Christians are really searching for Nirvana", "The Christian God is just a personification of Nirvana", or "Christians are Buddhists outside the Sangha". Although such statements are often welcomed by Buddhists as indicating that liberal Christians are more tolerant than their fundamentalist brothers and sisters, this is actually not so. Such statements really show that Christians still wish to claim superiority for their own religion. They also show that the liberal Christian's supposed tolerance is dependent upon believing that Buddhism is just another form of Christianity. In short, it is based on a delusion. Liberal Christians will only be genuinely tolerant when they can admit that Buddhism is different from Christianity, very different, and be tolerant despite these differences.

Did you check out Buddhasasana's large website?
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebidx.htm

Vicente
:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Thomas,...I personally find it ashame that Thich Nhat Hanh says stuff like that, but it must have been useful for him at that time

I don't think that Thich Nhat Hanh was opportunistic here. He wrote a whole book on the topic, comparing the teachings of Jesus and Buddha. Since Thich lives in a Christian country, the motive for this disquisition is obvious. - He's not only eulogistic, by the way. The book also criticizes several aspects of Christianity, in particular the claim of universal and exclusive access to spiritual truth.

De Silva:

(1) Deep down Buddhists are really searching for God.
(2) Buddhism is just a different expression of man's understanding of God
(3) Buddhists are Christians outside the church ...

That's really like pretending a mango to be an orange.

(1) If this would be so, then it should be expected that Buddhist -> Christian / Muslim conversions occur at a higher rate than they do.
(2) Not really. Theology is pretty much out of the picture in Buddhism. It is rather a different understanding of spirituality.
(3) I don't think so. Buddhists have build their own churches (sanghas), and monstic centers.


Such statements really show that Christians still wish to claim superiority for their own religion.

Not every Christian makes this claim, but the tendency is certainly difficult to ignore. Unfortunately this also seems to be the case for the Jewish and Muslim faiths.

Liberal Christians will only be genuinely tolerant when they can admit that Buddhism is different from Christianity, very different, and be tolerant despite these differences.

I would agree with that. There are many differences, but there are also some similarities.

Did you check out Buddhasasana's large website?
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebidx.htm

Thanks for the link. I had a brief look at it and I instantly recognized many of the writers, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi, Ajahn Cha, Ven. Sumedho, Ajahn Brahmavamso and others. These are fairly well known names in Thailand. Nice collection.

Cheers, Thomas

[Nick_A]

Vicente wrote

now is time for a Cultural Challenge in America, a challenge to end the stranglehold christianity has on American ideals, whose intent was to nurture the Birthing of Human Beingness of its people.

I must be mising something but of all things why would you be upset with this? What could possibly be wrong with becoming oneself or human; to realize the importance of what you are?

From Meister Eckhart:

"People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works."

Makes sense to me.

[vicente]

He wrote a whole book on the topic, comparing the teachings of Jesus and Buddha.

Please allow me to correct that,...he wrote a book comparing the alleged teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible to Buddha. Even in the late 1980's, nearly all credible Biblical scholars, unanamously agree that 80% of what is attributed to Jesus in the Bible could not have been said by him,...including the 'Sermon on the Mount'. What's most amusing about this is that scholars then say (as Dominic Crrossan) that this shouldn't shake their faith. LOL

What Thich Nhat Hanh compared was 2nd century Buddhist ideas from the Ephesus area with Buddha.

As a Center of Mysticism, Ephesus was famous for its great metaphysical Colleges, where Gnostic and Platonic philosophy was expoundable, and where priests at the Temple of Diana were said to recite the mystic words Aki Kataki Haix Tetrax Damnameneus Aision. Even Apollonius of Tyana, the ardent Pythagorean, had an esoteric school in cosmopolitan Ephesus. One could imagine this city as something like present day Sedona or Tepoztlan, but on a grander scale.

Serpent or Kundalini worship is prevalent in the records of the era. There were Naasenians, a Serpent Worshipping Gnostic sect, the Ophis-Christos, the Serpent Christ, the Nabians and Nabatheans, a sect almost identical with the Sabeans, whose secrete rite of baptism, according to the 1918 Theosophical Glossary, was taught by the Buddhist Boodhasp. In fact, Buddhists and Naga’s or Tibeto-Burmese wise men had already been traveling into the area for a few hundred years along the Egypt-India trade route.

Naga, meaning Wise Serpent, is one of the few words that span both centuries and continents. For instance, Nargals were Chaldean chiefs of the Magi, and Naguals were, and are, the title of the brujos of some tribes of Mexican Indians, dating back to at least Quetzlcoatl, the Plumed Serpent.

Not every Christian makes this claim, but the tendency is certainly difficult to ignore.


If we look at the 'Bigview', we must take into consideration what John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio said,...that is, despite many variations, Christians generally adhere to four core beliefs: the Bible is without error, salvation comes through faith in Jesus and not good deeds, individuals must accept Jesus as adults and all Christians must evangelize.

Vicente
:)

[vicente]

I must be mising something but of all things why would you be upset with this?

Why would one not be concerned with the christianization of America?

:)

[Nick_A]

Vicente

Even in the late 1980's, nearly all credible Biblical scholars, unanamously agree that 80% of what is attributed to Jesus in the Bible could not have been said by him,...including the 'Sermon on the Mount'.

It just means these "experts" do not understand the Sermon on the Mount". They are applying secular binary reasoning where it of very little value.

What do we know of Buddhism other than the Sutras?

It is natural to make the mistake of trying to bring the great knowledge of the paths initiated by a conscious source down to our level of understanding. To find those with the rare quality of humility during these times that will admit that they do not understand and try instead to acquire the ability to understand is not so easy. But it is these people that will benefit from the depths of these great teachings and not these "experts".

[Thomas Knierim]

Even in the late 1980's, nearly all credible Biblical scholars, unanamously agree that 80% of what is attributed to Jesus in the Bible could not have been said by him,...including the 'Sermon on the Mount'.

I guess we will never know. :knockout: The rate at which history is adulterated is probably greater than most people imagine. Some figures become immortal idols, others sink into oblivion. Such occurrences are not always related to the actual merits of these individuals. The question is: does it matter? Does it matter whether a carpenter's son uttered those words or someone else? Perhaps it was someone close to him, someone 'within the movement'. Perhaps it was himself. The symbolic relevance of both the Buddha and Jesus Christ exceeds by far their historic relevance. If it wasn't for the Sermon On The Mount and the words of Jesus in the Gospels (as conveyed through the canonical writings), the collection of texts known as the Bible would almost be meaningless.

Cheers, Thomas