Buddhists Don't Believe In God(s)?

[Joel]

Is it true that Buddhists don't believe in God(s)? I do believe that I heard somewhere that the Buddha often was asked about a supreme being but would not even talk about it. Nor would he talk about an afterlife... Which I find quite odd.

In my opinion the existence of a God makes perfect sense. The universe is too complicated and mysterious to just of popped out of nothing. Thats my opinion, at least. But if the Buddha was enlightened and all knowing then wouldn't he of been able to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer concerning the existence of a God or even Gods?

I know next to nothing concerning Buddhism but I have done some reading. So, please... Enlighten me. :)

[marleylinguistics]

some buddhists worship buddha as a god, i forget which particular sect it is, but i know its opposite of what buddha taught. but im not sure of their views on god exactly.

[scameter]

That's what I've heard too.

[Jampa]

Buddhist do not believe in a God who would have created the universe. The basis of the buddhist believe is karma, i.e. the law of cause and effects. It means that everything exist in dependance of a cause. It implies that if God exists, it must have a cause of this existence, implying that God depends of another phenomenon, which was not created by Him. You see the problem then!
But buddhists believe in gods, or deities, who are emanation of the qualities of the mind (compassion, wisdom, power,...). But those deities do not exist from their own side, independently. They exists is dependance of the mind.
I'm not sure if this is clear, this is not easy to express such concepts in English for a french speaker...
Big love

[Jampa]

Sorry, I forgot another point. If Buddha did not explicitely answered the question, it it probably to allow those with a simple mind to practice faith in an ideal God having all good qualities. I believe that all those superstitions that we can find in the Buddhism are ment as a support for people who have not the capacity to understand the esoteric explanation of the Buddha.

[______]

He would not answer. In so, he said so much! :D

It doesn't matter if there is a god or not. :)

[scameter]

And yet we're capable of thinking about it; so it must mean something, whether the realistic fact of God's existence matters or not.

[______]

:lol: If you think about it too long, Scam, it won't become any clearer.

:lol: You must either choose one way or the other? I think not. Personally, I ignore this issue as much as possible :D

[scameter]

:D I'm often incapable of doing that, because I enjoy thinking about such things, making connections, learning, intuiting. To me, thinking about God is as human as anything normally considered so, and even though it may mean nothing to reality or practicality, it can mean something to the curious individual, and thus does have value. :)

[Jampa]

I think that God, like chance, good luck, bad luck, fate are concepts created by human who do not understand the law of causes and effects (karma). I believe that this is human beings who created god, not the other way round....

[______]

Don't say that too loud, the "Bible thumpers" might rip you limb from limb! :lol: But I agree entirely if I must agree either way.

[scameter]

What if we created karma too? What if there are no causes and effects, only occuranes in existence, neither determined or determining, but simply occuring in an interdependant web of occurances where each thing depends on another for it's existence, and that each happen alongside each other, not before or after?

[Jampa]

Interesting, Scam... When I agree when you say that everything exist in dependance with everything. But for things to happen alongside each other, not before or after, the time parameter should not exist! Only present. In the conventional world, this is obviously not the case!
Even science agree with the law of causes and effects, which has been abundantly proven by the observation. Karma is just much more deep, profund and extansive....
Bises

[______]

What if we created karma too?
Well... we do create karma. :D

[scameter]

Interesting, Scam... When I agree when you say that everything exist in dependance with everything. But for things to happen alongside each other, not before or after, the time parameter should not exist! Only present. In the conventional world, this is obviously not the case!

:) Not that I believe that way, that is just what I observe, and study. But, oh? Is the present not the only thing that exists? The past is dead, and the future hasn't happened yet; the only thing alive right now is the present, and it is inescapable. This is why prediction, as well as the study of history, are so loose and uncertain, because we cannot know the past or future for certain, because neither are alive right now. Only the present is. This has been the center of many spiritual and philosophical teachings, most especially in the East with things such as Taoism and Buddhism.

Even science agree with the law of causes and effects, which has been abundantly proven by the observation.

:D And if science "proves" it, through "observation", it's undoubtable. I quote Descartes: "Dubito ergo sum. (I doubt; therefore I am)"

Well... we do create karma.

:lol: I meant conceptually, as if it doesn't exist except to our minds.

[Jampa]

Of course, scam, the "here and now" is the "real reality" for a realised mind. But in the conventional world, nobody can deny that there is also past. Your memory can recall it. This present state of mind comes from the immediately preceding state of mind, which itself comes from the preceding and so on and so forth since beginingless time. Time depends of space, and vice versa. When you do not perceive space anymore, then time also disappear, together with karma. Karma exists only when your mind is in a state where it can perceive space and time.
Reading the above, I'm not sure its understandable.... :lol:

And if science "proves" it, through "observation", it's undoubtable. I quote Descartes: "Dubito ergo sum. (I doubt; therefore I am)"

Observation is another word for experience. When you experiment something, it is true for you (always in the conventional world created by the perception of our 5 senses and the interpretation of our mind). Science tries to decode the "reality" with experiences. If those experiences works for anybody, then it is conventionnally accepted.
I thought Descartes said "Je pense, donc je suis" (I think, therefore I am). But I agree with you that doubt has a liberating power!
Ciao

[______]

I meant conceptually, as if it doesn't exist except to our minds.
:lol: I know. I was being somewhat of a smart elik. :lol:

[Thomas Knierim]

Joel: The universe is too complicated and mysterious to just of popped out of nothing.

Ah, the argument from design.

There are several counter-arguments to teleology, of course, but the strongest one appears to be this: Science shows that the existence of design does not imply a designer. Complex patterns evolve from simple ones and the dynamics are self-contained.

I tend to think that the God idea is the inevitable projection of an immature consciousness, i.e. one that hasn't yet discovered its own divinity.

Cheers, Thomas

[Jampa]

I tend to think that the God idea is the inevitable projection of an immature consciousness, i.e. one that hasn't yet discovered its own divinity.

:thumbsup:

[scameter]

Of course, scam, the "here and now" is the "real reality" for a realised mind.

I was speaking of the truth then. :)

descartes said both

That he did. :) I was simply quoting the doubt one, because of how highly I place doubt, even though what you say is true; doubting is, essentially, thinking. Although I don't think it's the other way around too.

[schrodinger]

Is it true that Buddhists don't believe in God(s)? I do believe that I heard somewhere that the Buddha often was asked about a supreme being but would not even talk about it. Nor would he talk about an afterlife... Which I find quite odd. ----Joel---

As always, when this question comes up, there is no direct answer, and that can be very frustrating to a typical Western interrogator who expects a straightforward answer. But to the Buddhist this is a very intricate concept that is very much open to interpretation. While it is true that the main objective of Siddhartha Gautama was to find a way to extinguish man’s suffering in this life, His teachings also reflected upon the ultimate release of all suffering, Nirvana, which can only be interpreted in terms of an other-worldly existence. That naturally leads to the question of a Soul and by extension to a Supreme Being.
Since we can never know Buddha’s own words in this regard, it is necessary to correctly interpret the Eastern way of thinking and writing. It is as much a case of understanding language, as it is the Dharma Teachings. Eastern languages make rich use of modifiers and classifiers that can completely change the meaning of words and entire sentences. The main thrust of the Dharma is to show man how to escape from the captivity of disappointment, suffering and sorrow, which leads to an endless cycle of death and rebirth. The Middle Way, of following the Eightfold Path leads man to that goal. The eight factors are: right view; right thought; right speech; right action; right livelihood; right effort; right mindfulness; and right concentration.

Buddha also pointed out that there is no Supreme Being who controls man’s destiny. Our destiny is in our own hands and everyone has the power to improve through self-effort. Here you see the use of a modifier “who controls man’s destiny”. This is not quite the same as saying flatly that there is no Supreme Being! The main idea here is to convey the concept that each person ultimately must take full responsibility for your own thoughts, words and actions. In other words, we are responsible for our own spiritual development and it would be wrong to rely on a Supreme Being to relieve us from suffering that we have caused by ourselves. It is all about being responsible for our own lives.

There is nothing in the Teachings, which prohibit a belief in a Supreme Being, as long as such a belief does not interfere with your own spiritual development. Anyone who follows the Eightfold Path soon discovers that there is no need to be concerned about whether there is or is not a Supreme Being! If we live our lives responsively with right conduct at all times, any such Supreme being will not find fault with us. In fact, being overly concerned about this question is one of the root causes of great suffering.

Again, all this is very much open to interpretation, and what you see here is just my interpretation.

:mellow:

[______]

Buddha also pointed out that there is no Supreme Being who controls man’s destiny. Our destiny is in our own hands and everyone has the power to improve through self-effort. Here you see the use of a modifier “who controls man’s destiny”. This is not quite the same as saying flatly that there is no Supreme Being! The main idea here is to convey the concept that each person ultimately must take full responsibility for your own thoughts, words and actions. In other words, we are responsible for our own spiritual development and it would be wrong to rely on a Supreme Being to relieve us from suffering that we have caused by ourselves. It is all about being responsible for our own lives.
I don't recall the Buddha ever saying such. I rememberhim saying nothing on the subject. He completly refused to speak of it. So what the frustrated monks did was interprete his silence with their own slight bias.

In only a few accounts that I've read has the Buddha said anything at all. His words were along the lines of, "You tell me."

[scameter]

Doubt.

[Arctic-Stranger]

Descartes was asked if he wanted cream in his coffee, and said, "I think not," and promptly disappeared.

I guess I am the minority theist in this thread. For me the question is more, "Can Buddhists believe in God.

Part of the answer to the that would revolve around what kind of God and what kind of Buddhism. Not being an orthodox anything, I don't have a problem with Buddhist and theism.

I will not put out any "proofs" for believing in God, and the only reason I can really give is that I just do. And other than the fact that you are all going to BURN IN HELL, I dont think this makes me any better than anyone else. (tongue firmly inserted in cheek)

Oh, and as to the issue of design, it all depends on where you start. If you believe there is a creator, you look at the complexity and say, "Wow, there must be a God." If you dont believe in a creator, you look at it all and say "Wow, nature is able to do all this." Neither are proofs of anything. Since we dont know HOW things manage to evolve and adapt, we really cannot say that they just "do it on their own."

[Jampa]

And what if the world is a mental projection created by the sum of all the sentient beings? No begining, just changing at every single moment depending of the general state of minds? When everybody believe the Earth is flat, then it is. When the collective mind is polluted, so is the world. So why don't we try to raise our mental vibration and project benevolence? Wouldn't it change the world immediately?
:think:

[schrodinger]

I don't recall the Buddha ever saying such. I rememberhim saying nothing on the subject. He completly refused to speak of it. So what the frustrated monks did was interprete his silence with their own slight bias. --SFT--

Your lack of recollection would only be significant if you had read the Tripitaka in its entirety, and that is extremely unlikely since only about 10% has ever been translated into English. Also, none of the Pali Canon was recorded in writing until about the first century B.C., a period of some 500 years since the actual words of the Buddha were spoken. No part of the Pali Canon can be regarded as being the actual words of the Buddha himself. However, the Suttapitaka, in particular does contain various discourses and dialogues that shed some light on the Buddha’s teachings regarding God and holy rites and rituals.
For one example, here in the Suttapitaka, or Sutrapitaka, we find this dialogue between the Buddha and the Brahmin Sundarika Bharadvaja:
Once the Buddha, addressing the monks, explained in detail how a seeker of deliverance should train himself, and further added that a person whose mind is free from taints, whose life of purity is perfected, and the task done, could be called one who bathes inwardly.
Then Bharadvaja, seated near the Buddha, heard these words and asked him: “Does the Venerable Gotama go to bathe in the river Bahuka?”
“Brahmin, what good is the river Bahuka? What can the river Bahuka do?”
“Indeed, Venerable Gotama, the river Bahuka is believed by many people to be Holy. Many people have their evil deeds (papa) washed away in the river.”
Then the Buddha made him understand that bathing in rivers would not cleanse a man of his dirt of evil, and instructed him thus:
“Bathe just here (in this Doctrine and Discipline, Dhamma-vinaya), Brahmin, give security to all beings. If you do not speak falsehood, or kill or steal, if you are confident, and are not mean, what does it avail you to go to Gaya (the name of a river in India at the time of Buddha)? Your well at home is also a Gaya.”
The interpretation here is that not only did the Buddha discourage blind belief and fear of an omnipotenet God as unsuitable approaches to understanding the truth, but he also denounced adherence to unprofitable rites and rituals, because the mere abandoning of outward things, such as fasting, bathing in rivers, animal sacrifice, and similar acts, does not tend to purify a man or make him holy and noble.

This is from the Vatthupama Sutta, M. No. 7. See Nyanaponika Thera, The Simile of the Cloth, (Wheel No. 61/62).

The dialogue and the interpretation are from this source:
The Honorary Secretary
Buddhist Publication Society
P.O. Box 61
54 Sangharaja Mawatha
Kandy, Sri Lanka

Rather than paste “links” I recommend you do your own research. I assure you there are many examples of the Buddha’s teachings on this matter.

[______]

I'm only speaking from what few books I've read that have mentioned this. I know that there are many different interpretations and many versions, but I still adhere to: The existance of a god or lack thereof does not matter.

[schrodinger]

I'm only speaking from what few books I've read that have mentioned this. I know that there are many different interpretations and many versions, but I still adhere to: The existance of a god or lack thereof does not matter. --SFT--

If you look just a bit above, in this same thread, I wrote this:

There is nothing in the Teachings, which prohibit a belief in a Supreme Being, as long as such a belief does not interfere with your own spiritual development. Anyone who follows the Eightfold Path soon discovers that there is no need to be concerned about whether there is or is not a Supreme Being! If we live our lives responsively with right conduct at all times, any such Supreme being will not find fault with us. In fact, being overly concerned about this question is one of the root causes of great suffering.-schrodinger-

So what's the problem? :lol:

[schrodinger]

I will not put out any "proofs" for believing in God, and the only reason I can really give is that I just do. And other than the fact that you are all going to BURN IN HELL, I dont think this makes me any better than anyone else. (tongue firmly inserted in cheek) --Arctic Stranger--

Perhaps, but you, on the other hand, have to contend with yellow snow, ice worms, and apparently an especially early case of cabin fever, eh stranger? :D

[______]

So what's the problem?
:lol: Not reading carefully enough I suppose! :lol:

[namtso]

According to Prof. Thurman, Tibetan Buddhism definitely acknowledges the existence of Gods but does not accept them as creators of worlds. There is a story the Thurman quotes (don't remember which) where he says that Prince Sidhharta approached Brahma to ask him something but Brahma ran him off only to catch up with him later. This is my somewhat stale recollection of Thurman's words in a recorded talk, but Brahma caught Prince Siddharta and told him "look, I didn't want to tell you the truth back there because there's a bunch of godlets that would freak out if they heard the truth. The truth is that I don't know who created the world. He said look, I know that you are going to become the Buddha, and when you do, please let them know that it's not my fault!"

In fact, in Tibetan Buddhism the Buddhas are known as "teachers of Gods and men". The god realm as just being one of the realms of existence. And when a God finally generates a certain amount of karma that counteracts their great acts of merit, they leave the god realm to be reborn in some other lower realm.

[namtso]

i am a clean freak (i use alcohol to clean the floor ) - psyche
Whoa, that is clean! I've currently got a mold experiment going in my shower but I think it's time I collect my data and clean the thing!

[namtso]

cleanliness is next to godliness - psyche
That would explain a lot .. I should attend to that shower!

[bito]

my spiritual desire is for purity

the desire that burns away desire

[MidnightSun]

cleanliness is next to godliness

Thats a bit sick...

[______]

Thats a bit sick...
Care to expand?

[scameter]

My spiritual desire is to be spiritual.

[MidnightSun]

Care to expand?

I think it would be better if i keep my opinion to myself this time.

[______]

:lol: okay :lol:

[traveler]

if we asume that god doesnot exist, ?where do we get off that we exist?

[______]

If we assume that we do not exist, where do we get off that god exists?

[traveler]

i know that god exists, thats why i don't end up talking and looking like the dog chasing his tail, please don't be offended it's not my intention.

[______]

There has been no offense here.

I'd like to know how you know that god exists. Please explain.

[traveler]

ah, finally a pertinent question, in an impertinent forum.
about 2K years ago, a promise was made that some individuals would get to actually see God, that has all ready happened.

[______]

I must not be catching on. You've seen god? I suppose that's not too farfetched. Not any more farfetched than my seeing a demon and falling under another's influence. But I can't say that your claim to have seen god is any sufficient evidence. What did he look like? Did you get to talk? Under what circumstances did he come to you?

[traveler]

yes. i understand about sufficient evidence at this moment, he looked like light, created by all the goodies rolled into one, for instance in the dictionary words like love, integrity etc are in their place and their own deffinition, can you imaging all the goodies into one word, all the happiness and music and the joy in infinite quantity, can you imaging perfection glowing like if light, yes we got to "talk" there was no need for words, He didnot come to me, i was invited to visit, there was a veil between us for my benefit otherwise i would have been vaporized.
please keep the questions coming.

[traveler]

it's past 4 am in my part of the woods, no hurry, take it easy.

[namtso]

if we asume that god doesnot exist, ?where do we get off that we exist? - traveler
"If you prick us do we not bleed?" (Yes, yes, I know how that story ends, but it's not pertinent here.)

i know that god exists, thats why i don't end up talking and looking like the dog chasing his tail, please don't be offended it's not my intention. - traveler
I'm terribly offended. No, wait, that's a lie. I hate it when I do that.

ah, finally a pertinent question, in an impertinent forum. - traveler
Ok, now I really am offended ... wait, no, still not offended yet. Why can't I just stop doing that?

I have to say, I personally would need WAY more proof from anyone who claimed they saw god, like giving me his home address and phone number. But first let me put on my camos and flak jacket and hide in the ... well I'm not telling you where.

Thinking ... thinking ... ok yes, now I'm feeling kind of offended, that's just great! Nice job travler, now I have to go kick the dog ... whose chasing his tail at the moment. (to everyone else, no of course not, I don't even own a dog. It's a cat. Ok, there I go lying again. I'd better go back to sleep now I imagine and let cooler, less impertinent individuals take over.)

it's past 4 am in my part of the woods, no hurry, take it easy. - traveler
But more importantly, do you live in a shack with a large supply of explosives or in a group of buildings that you also refer to as "the compound"? Damn. See, now I'm just being sarcastic and lashing out. I've just gotten completely out of control again. I always seem to end up there no matter what.

"Scruffy! Scruffy! Where are you hiding? ..... Scruffy ....." Ok, I'm just being totally ridiculous now. I don't even believe in dog.

[______]

:goodlaugh:
:rofl:
Nam, you're hysterical! :lol:
...yes we got to "talk" there was no need for words...
Exchanging meaning instead? This is what I wish man were naturally capable of.

So what did you "talk" about? Did he let you in on any "secrets"? Did he advise you on how to live? Why did he invite you? Have you seen him since? Are you Christian/Muslim/Jewish now (if you weren't before)? Did he say anything about his noninvolvement with mankind since the ancient Hebrew times? How did you accept the invitation? Did you "talk" in a dream/vision or were you "raptured" into heaven for a quick chat? Am I asking too many questions at once? ;) I'm curious! :P

[traveler]

your curiosity is more rational than nam's lack of it or psyche belief in her cat.. man is to some extent capable of it, watch a wedding, notice how those two "talk" to each other without words... i did not talk He did all the talking... actually the whole experience was and is today about things we do not know (if you care to call them secrets that is o.k. also)... i have come to understand that He did, at the time i did not know what was happening and like the idiot i am i did not jot down things that did not seem relevant, now i can not remember with clarity than fresh memory 20 years ago, or remember some things at all... yes some of the "words" have an application to my life, for instance the word friendship, i still have not sorted it out if i need it or should be wary about it, probably depends of the context... no it has not happened again...i did not belong to any religion before and can not belong to any now.

[traveler]

again He did not "say" anything as you and me understand it... He still is involved with creation in general and mankind in particular every split second it's something like we are highwire walkers and every time we loose balance He holds the other end of the pole to keep us still involved and going to the abiss (an unbalance or debt is generated though ?kharma?)... i am not sure what rapture is or means we have two bodies physical and spiritual (lets be responsible to one and accountable to the other) it was the spiritual body that was there, looked the same as my physical body, it was still me, my life, my family were like in a far away place, like one of those childhood memories we can barely remember and do not have motion anymore. afterwards i had to tell my wife i did not love her like that, the love between us is more like two winos proping each other up, she was the first person i told, she knew something had happened during the six months it took to vocalize anything, i would open my mouth and nothing would come out. this last comment seems irrelevant but i learned my lesson about what is relevant... Yes i think it's to many questions at once, also to many smilies, we don't want to surf over this.

[traveler]

psyche you sound like a nice person, just don't put to much stock on unicorns

[traveler]

that is the beguining of wisdom, the only person capable of generating thought, we can not generate but an erzats thought, except if our thoughts are his thoughts.
take care.

[traveler]

bye all, seems our conversation is over, i don't like much to hear me talk anyway, take care each and every one of you.
Love and Light.
traveler.

[namtso]

Nam, you're hysterical! - SFTI had fun, glad you got a laugh out of it.


bye all, seems our conversation is over, i don't like much to hear me talk anyway, take care each and every one of you.
Love and Light.
traveler.
You need to wait at least a full 24 hour cycle before you start assuming you are getting the cold shoulder. Folks work, go to school, sleep and stuff.

Although I'll admit, your experience sounds like it was very cool, it's essentially impossible to prove the event to anyone else. And so far from what you have written, it could have been an alien from off planet, a mayavirupa, a Buddha taking temporary form, a being that normally exists right here but on an "invisible" frequency (different plane of existence) or something else I'm completely unaware of. Consequently, just for the sake of conversation, I don't "believe" in any of those things. I do however keep an open mind because there's way way more stuff we don't know compared to the amount of stuff we do. Worse still, at least based on your story, is that there is no real way to know whether or not you just had a hallucination. Why do you maintain that it was "god" and not something else, even though it too could have communicated great compassion and warmth?

it was the spiritual body that was there, looked the same as my physical body, it was still me, my life, my family were like in a far away place, like one of those childhood memories we can barely remember and do not have motion anymore. afterwards i had to tell my wife i did not love her like that, the love between us is more like two winos proping each other up, she was the first person i told, she knew something had happened during the six months it took to vocalize anything, i would open my mouth and nothing would come out. this last comment seems irrelevant but i learned my lesson about what is relevant... Yes i think it's to many questions at once, also to many smilies, we don't want to surf over this.
Can you elaborate on this in more depth and clearer terms?

[namtso]

i believe in my cat - he an is all white angel cat with kinda punk attitude
- psyche
My family (extended) is mostly a cat family. We only had one dog when I was growing up but we've had lots of cats. I never had a pet after I moved out. I've got plants, they are easier to train, ha ha. It is a bummer when pets die. We had two cats go from feline leukemia, that was a real drag (I'm apparently speaking hippie this morning). My advice to anyone who has a cat that gets feline leukemia, release them from their pain before it gets bad. The first cat we had that got it, we let it go way too long and the cat suffered a lot. The second cat, we helped it go to the afterlife much sooner. Didn't want to force it to suffer like the first.

[traveler]

bye nam, no nam i don't need to do anything specially willfuly, i don't have a right to an opinion on what you think, i'll tell this much more, i don't believe in God, i repeat i do not believe in god, believing is sometimes for the blessed, now is sometimes for the birds, excuse me if i decline to walk down the path you would like to take me, it makes me feel like going down with a cheap confounding twisting woman (no insult intended words are such a primitive contraption some times) i honestly can see your closed mind so far in the distance that you would not hear me if i shouted, i do not care to go there, and you have no right to ask me.

[______]

i don't believe in God, i repeat i do not believe in god
Even after seeing him?

[namtso]

i don't believe in God, i repeat i do not believe in god

Even after seeing him?
What he's saying it that he "knows" it was god, not believes.


bye nam, no nam i don't need to do anything specially willfuly, i don't have a right to an opinion on what you think, i'll tell this much more, i don't believe in God, i repeat i do not believe in god, believing is sometimes for the blessed, now is sometimes for the birds, excuse me if i decline to walk down the path you would like to take me, it makes me feel like going down with a cheap confounding twisting woman (no insult intended words are such a primitive contraption some times) i honestly can see your closed mind so far in the distance that you would not hear me if i shouted, i do not care to go there, and you have no right to ask me.
* - traveler



it makes me feel like going down with a cheap confounding twisting woman (no insult intended words are such a primitive contraption some times)
First off, you are definitely intending to insult, don't pretend you aren't. It's not difficult to choose different words that are clearly not insulting. I personally know all about that. At least take credit for your insults.

i honestly can see your closed mind so far in the distance that you would not hear me if i shouted, i do not care to go there, and you have no right to ask me.
Now, what you are doing here is using this sort of ethereal/spiritual new age-speak to attempt to sound as if you have like taken this sort of spiritual initiation that has shown you "truth". And claiming that it was this experience that occurred on it's own apparently giving it the stamp of authenticity. An event which of course no one else has any direct first hand knowledge of. I've seen this stuff before and I am not fooled by it. It's the same as a person getting up in front of a group and using that "reverent voice" to indicate "now I am speaking the truth of god" stuff. Then the collection plate goes around. Without actually knowing more about you personally I would not know more about what your game is. I'm finding it hard to believe that my questions are upsetting your mental/emotional balance so I figure you are just playing a game. What I conclude is that you just didn't plan your game well enough. And to say I don't have the right to ask you questions about your experience is the silliest thing I have ever heard. If you didn't want anyone to ask you questions then you shouldn't be talking about your experience in the first place. Or you are implying that I personally am not allowed which is just another poorly disguised insult aimed directly at me. Either way it's utter nonsense.


So I figure you are:
a. someone just trying to purposely illicit a reaction out of people. This is my first choice and I'm getting the impression you are pretty young too.

b. truly had an experience but are so irrationally committed to your interpretation that you don't want to consider other explanations for what happened.

c. practicing your new age spirituality speak on people, trying to refine your craft

Others have suggested that I need to be more compassionate and I guess that's true. I respect those who have brought this up with me. But I have a problem being nice when others throw out this sort of stuff combined with insults and then immediately saying "don't take any offense, it was not intended". That's just a silly and immature game. But hey, thanks for the mental exercise.

[traveler]

:ph34r: bye SFT, believing stops when you see, this has been a learning experience for me, now i know more about buddhists.

[Thomas Knierim]

Arctic Stranger: Neither are proofs of anything. Since we dont know HOW things manage to evolve and adapt, we really cannot say that they just "do it on their own."

I think we DO KNOW how things manage to evolve and adapt; in fact there is an ever-growing body of scientific literature about this topic, and there is even an emerging branch in biology that combines developmental with evolutionary biology.

Arctic Stranger: I will not put out any "proofs" for believing in God, and the only reason I can really give is that I just do.

Maybe because there is no proof?

Cheers, Thomas

[______]

i don't believe in God, i repeat i do not believe in god


Even after seeing him?

What he's saying it that he "knows" it was god, not believes
bye SFT, believing stops when you see, this has been a learning experience for me, now i know more about buddhists.
:duh: DOH!

I should've caught on to that. Thank you for putting it into layman's terms. :lol: I'd give an excuse as to why I didn't catch on, but I'd be lying. Honestly, I can't remember what may have caused it. Just a mistake. :dunno:

[namtso]

bye SFT, believing stops when you see, this has been a learning experience for me, now i know more about buddhists.* - Traveler

SFT might be Buddhist, you'll have to ask him, but I am not. I am interested in Buddhism. However your last statement is both insulting (no problem, I can take it just as much as I can deal it out) and it is also very very short sighted. You can't possibly make any judgement about Buddhists in general by spending a short amount of time on this discussion board. And certainly not by observing my behavior. And making a sweeping generalization about any group is the easy way out and it's not fair to individuals. And if you don't care about fairness, you might want to know that it's also just not accurate about every member in a particular group. It's a mistake to draw conclusions that way.

Regarding the whole "i don't have a right to an opinion on what you think" mularky, that's just a cop out. You may have actually experienced something or you are just pulling our leg. If you really did experience something and you are refusing to answer questions, why would that be unless you just are afraid to critically analyze the experience? I could really get rolling but I don't want to just keep throwing out hypotheticals. And you are unwilling to actually discuss your story, you are only doing a hit and run. A drive by. If you want to get into it deeper, I'm surely curious. I'll still be a skeptic though, it's my nature.


I should've caught on to that. Thank you for putting it into layman's terms. I'd give an excuse as to why I didn't catch on, but I'd be lying. Honestly, I can't remember what may have caused it. Just a mistake. - SFT
I'm pretty sure we can forgive you but we may need to take a poll on the matter.

[namtso]

i don't believe my eyes are blue

my eyes are blue whether i believe it or not
- psyche

Yes, and that defines the statement traveler made about not believing in god. If we could see your eyes, a number of us could confirm that they appeared to be blue (barring any colored contact lenses or anything), but as far as the experience that traveler describes, none of us were witness to it. Further, traveler him/herself has only described the experience but has not explained how he/she can be sure it was "god". If I had that experience I'd be thinking "ok, you say you are god, but I have no way to verify that". I would have no frame of reference to compare this entity to. No yardstick to measure the authenticity of that experience. The entity that allegedly appeared was unique in nature and if the event was legit, the entity clearly had much greater abilities than a normal human being. Why would those abilities not also include a highly developed ability to deceive people? Didn't David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear?

[traveler]

a buddhist monk was approached by the crowd from the town, a woman claimed he was the father of her baby, and demanded that he took care of it, he said o.k. and took the baby in.
a year later the crowd came back, it turns out the woman had lied, it wasn't his baby after all and they demanded he give it back, he said o.k. and returned the baby ... bye o.k.?

[namtso]

a buddhist monk was approached by the crowd from the town, a woman claimed he was the father of her baby, and demanded that he took care of it, he said o.k. and took the baby in.
a year later the crowd came back, it turns out the woman had lied, it wasn't his baby after all and they demanded he give it back, he returned the baby, and again said o.k. bye o.k.?** - traveler

No way dude/dudette, you have to stay here. I have more questions for you. Sorry, it's the rules. Don't tell me you haven't read the rules?

[bito]

:goodlaugh: to namsto

and to traveler:

If you choose to be :silent:, then the :dance: dies.

Where is the fun is that?

Methinks that God is a Fun Guy.

[namtso]

rules

no stone tablets

no burning bush

no rules
- psyche
I swore those were the rules, I'll have to double check that. So you didn't believe traveler's story at all or just the interpretation?

[traveler]

-I neither believe or disbelieve traveler- is right on target, at this point in time there is no grounds for either.. however a straight question will get a straight answer.. it may be relevant to look at my statements.. however again, weakness is the handmaid of weakedness and there is nothing weak about me, and i reserve the right to overlook or hold, in the case of namtso and SFT, i take my prerrogative to hold, and that is my final answer. scrub your face and don't come twisting, and i will give an honest answer if i have it, if not i will say so, this is not a match of wits for me.

[bito]

Mystical experience is God wooing God.

When he catches himself,

And kisses himself on your lips,

One of him disappears!

[______]

SFT might be Buddhist, you'll have to ask him, but I am not. I am interested in Buddhism. However your last statement is both insulting (no problem, I can take it just as much as I can deal it out) and it is also very very short sighted. You can't possibly make any judgement about Buddhists in general by spending a short amount of time on this discussion board. And certainly not by observing my behavior. And making a sweeping generalization about any group is the easy way out and it's not fair to individuals. And if you don't care about fairness, you might want to know that it's also just not accurate about every member in a particular group. It's a mistake to draw conclusions that way.

Regarding the whole "i don't have a right to an opinion on what you think" mularky, that's just a cop out. You may have actually experienced something or you are just pulling our leg. If you really did experience something and you are refusing to answer questions, why would that be unless you just are afraid to critically analyze the experience? I could really get rolling but I don't want to just keep throwing out hypotheticals. And you are unwilling to actually discuss your story, you are only doing a hit and run. A drive by. If you want to get into it deeper, I'm surely curious. I'll still be a skeptic though, it's my nature.
Breathe, namtso.... breathe.... :)

@traveler:
bye :)



P.S. I only identify myself as Buddhist to those who would find a long explaination of my thoughts too drawn out. I hold closest to the Buddhist principles mainly because I see them in every religion/doctrine that I've ever encountered.

[traveler]

TRAVELER YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT INVITATION.. i call it invitation because i could not have gone there on my own, i did not deserve to be there, no one does.. it is like if you or me are invited to participate in the world cup, we don't have a right to be there, only multiplied by a quantum factor.. i was standing on eternal ground and understood eternity.. 2K years ago some one asked "you are always saying the father this and the father that, show us the father so we can see him".. he was told "if you see me you see the father".. his questioner scratched his head and said, but we see him every day.. the answerer is the veil i mention that was there for my benefit, so that is another thing has come to pass. behind the veil is this immensity of perfection.. i knew for the first time what something perfect looks like.

[namtso]

Breathe, namtso.... breathe.... - SFT
Right, you definitely know me. I get the feeling traveler is just having fun pressing buttons, then again I allow them to get pushed so I'm partly to blame too. Thanks for the push off, I'm out on this one.

[traveler]

who would have suspected.

[MidnightSun]

:lol:

[traveler]

:thumbsup: separation is an illusion, the whole universe is one unit, not a smorgasboard of unrelated things.

[traveler]

0^0=1:...one day creator saw the need for salt to balance the internal systems of plants and animals and who knows what else and joined chloride and sodium, saw the need for water and joined two gases hydrogen and oxigen in order to have them behave like a liquid had to join them real close to each other, that's why water may be impossible to compress...when two or more get together in his nature, something else he has in mind is suppossed to happen, in other words they should walk away a better person...also when two splits like a man and a woman join together, something he has in mind should come out, babies are something different at first.. a baby can lead us at that stage, later those two should get bussy helping each other to come as close as possible to that target...1/2+1/2=1 no matter how many (1/2+1/2)+(1/2+1/2) are there they all add to 1....Hi psyche did i get it? if not; would you please be kind enough to explain 0^0=1.

[traveler]

now i know i didn't get it... thanks for nothing

[MidnightSun]

She means that there cant be nothing so there is no zero and zero times zero equals one.

[traveler]

Ah a different approach to zero, like i said words sometimes are such a primitive contraption. thank you. psyche and MS. by the way the romans didn't have the zero and that limited their agility in math. thanks again.

[Thomas Knierim]

As far as I know n^0 is indeterminate/undefined for n=0. Hence, 0^0=1 does make as much (or as little) sense as 0^0=0. As for the idea of "something from nothing", i.e. the construction of the natural numbers out of "thin air", one can draw on the von Neumann hierarchy, as I have done in this article (http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html).

Cheers, Thomas

[traveler]

:uhoh: i like my original interpretation at the top of this page better, there are obvious beneficial applications. all of this is over my head thru nobodies fault. :knockout:

[schrodinger]

0 x 0 =0
but zero raised to the POWER of 0 or 0^0=1
ONE—Psyche--

Sorry, Psyche, there is a big problem with 0^0 = 1. The problem comes in the form of a hard Rule of Arithmetic, which states without exception: “Any number multiplied by zero equals zero.”
Which is exactly what you say, in the quote above.

You may ask why this applies, since you are talking about taking a power of zero.
However, taking a power is just a form of multiplication.

Maybe it is a good idea to briefly review what it means to take a number to the zero power?
Take ten to the zero power:

First, we start with ten to the power of one, 10^1 which of course equals 10.
To arrive at ten to the zero power, clearly we need to subtract one from one in the exponent:
As in: 10^[1-1] but 10^[1-1], by the rules of exponents, equals 10^1 X 10^-1 which of course is a multiplication.
In decimal form this is 10 X 0.1 = 1
Here is another example using 50: 50^[1-1] = 50^1 X 50^-1 = 50 X 0.02 = 1
So it would seem that this would work with any number (n), that is: n^0 = 1
However, when you try this with zero, you get: 0^1 X 0^-1 which is a multiplication by zero, and now the very solid Rule takes effect, that any number multiplied by zero equals zero.
So, 0^1 X 0^-1 = 0^[1-1] = 0^0 = 0


Some people feel that giving a value to a function with an essential discontinuity at a point, such as x^y at (0,0), is an inelegant patch and should not be done. Others point out correctly that in mathematics, usefulness and consistency are very important, and that under these parameters 0^0 = 1 is the natural choice.—psyche—

The argument that 0^0 should be equal to one simply for the sake of consistency, does not hold because you must break the rule of multiplication by zero. Breaking that rule certainly does nothing for consistency.

So I disagree with 0^0=1. My sources are: me myself and Ibid. :P

[Thomas Knierim]

The discussion of 0^0 is very old. Euler argues for 0^0 = 1 since a^0 = 1 for a not equal to 0 .

Euler is right. Yet, there are arguments for and against it. The result 1 preserves the continuity of the power-to function, while the result 0 preserves the algebraic properties of 0 as a multiplicand.

Cheers, Thomas

[traveler]

now i understand why ancient greeks filled theaters to watch philosophers take one side of the argument and win and then take the other side and win again. its more fun than todays television. this is great. keep it coming. (yes i am laughing but not at you.)

[MidnightSun]

you are very close midnight

it is metaphysics in math

Have to admit that i was too lazy to read all the post.

0^0 = 0 and 0^0=1
Which one is the answer? Hmm? Perhaps both?

[namtso]

i passed calculus and trig
Now I understand that buzzing in my ears and why my brain itches.

[schrodinger]

@Psyche

I AM a mathematician, and I say 0^0 = 0

I can do that

I am a mathematician! :badgrin:

DUH

I did not have to email anybody :lol:

But in 25 years of doing advanced maths, I have never had a reason
to take 0 to the 0 power, so who cares?

I'll settle for indeterminate.

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

Emptiness is God.

[schrodinger]

@Psyche

Einstein had a great imagination, but he was a terrible mathematician. Without Hilbert, we would still not have general relativity.

You should not be concerned when someone does not agree with you on an indeterminate issue

Right now I imagine your hair is red, not blonde.

I can even prove it.

I am a mathematician. :lol:

zero is a real number, any set containing a real number is not empty.

To Traveler;

Hey Traveler, since you have a direct line to the “Big Guy”, how about asking Him about this? Or Her? :lol:

[schrodinger]

Psyche: i was just playing with the variables philosophically

I knew that. I also figured the reason you moved this to this thread, rather than the Divine Math thread, was the philosophical similarity to the Buddhist viewpoint about the existence of God. Buddhists see the existence of God as being indeterminate. That does not stop a Buddhist from thinking about it, I’m sure most Buddhists do think about it, as it is a very human thing to do. But it would be very unusual to get a Buddhist to engage in a debate over the issue, let alone commit a terrorist act or launch a war over it.
Just as 0^0 can be considered to be equal to one, I wanted to show it can also be validly considered to be equal to zero, or indeed to any number we please. There is nothing to debate. So the mathematician just smiles, :P just as the Buddhist just smiles :) when asked about his belief in God, while the rest of the world engages in unholy war. But of course, you already knew that.

[schrodinger]

Namtso: Now I understand that buzzing in my ears and why my brain itches

Hey Namtso, that’s called Tinnitus. Using the brain should reduce it, not make it worse. At least that’s how it works for me. But the root cause, in my case, was a failure to equalize while scuba diving 15 years ago. Still paying the price today. :cry:

[namtso]

Hey Namtso, that’s called Tinnitus. Using the brain should reduce it, not make it worse. - schrodinger
I was joking but I actually do have mild tinnitus or something similar. Never stops but it's not real bad yet. I've been in aircraft manufacturing, maintenance, repair since 1989 and I've shot quite a few fasteners since then. You learn to wear earplugs pretty quickly.

Is there a salve or something I can use on my brain?



@Psyche

I AM a mathematician, and I say 0^0 = 0

I can do that

I am a mathematician! - schrodinger
Hah! 0^0 = 0! That is so yesterday.

[traveler]

i do not have "a direct line", the moment humans beguin to "talk" about it, they loose it.... we are not up to dialogue in eternities infinites or absolutes, even though they are in front of our noses, "the big guy" talk, does not beguin to get to square one to even formulate an applicable question, ?have you lost your mind or just your sense of proportion?.... however i have an opinion about this other thing.
1x3=3 1x2=2 1X1=1 1X0=0 and if 0^0=1 i don't think we should have the same answer for two different equations.

[traveler]

my goodness, i was going over your examples Psyche, then i noticed the third entry, this is more fun than a barrel of monkies. God loves You in ways you can not even imagine. ?can i do less?

[namtso]

it was an error or a jungian slip
- psyche
Uh, jungian? Is that more metaphysical than freudian? (a little joke .. very little)

[WanderingTaoist]

A rather famous phenomenologist of Religion (and a devout Christian) once remarked that " 'God' is a latecomer to Religion".

I think when most people say "God" it's a pretty vauge and general concept. It doesn't necessarily imply a big man up in the sky (a favorite straw man in most atheist vs theist arguments), or even a "Creator".

[traveler]

fame as a phenomenologist of religion or being a devout christian does not make anyone enlightened in the venue of Jesus or Sidharta Gautama....... the preffix RE means to do something over again; LIGION, from the latin Ligatus means to join or blend two things...
to argue about God or even Creator before the blending; is an excercise in ego strocking and futility.

[WanderingTaoist]

There are numerous origions of the word "Religion". The one you have provided is one, but I have also heard it comes from religio : literally, "to observe" or "to pay attention", the implication being to pay attention to the sacred, however one defines it (or if one leaves it undefined).

Indeed, being a phenomenologist is hardly grounds for enlightenment! :lol: I quite agree with you there. But I think you might have misunderstood me, traveler

In saying "God is a latecomer to religion" Van der Leeuw (the author in question) was not saying that God did not exist before religion; rather, that the concept of "God" as is characterized by most followers of Abrahamic Religions is a relatively new concept in the history of Religion:

"It is a failing of modern thought that when it thinks of religion, it must do so in terms of 'gods'."

The point he's trying to make is that if one is trying to get at the essence of religious experience, it's rather difficult to do by starting with the Judeo-Christian God. It's better to start with a more general concept; for Van der Leeuw, it's the concept of Power.

Purely a sociological (and phenomenological as well) statement, not a metaphysical one. I probably should have clarified that. ^_^

[traveler]

the failings of religion are not so modern, the aztecs sacrificed captives to their gods to the tune of 2000 in some special evenings; it was religion that plotted the execution of Jesus of all humans... religion does not exist any more than public education exist, if they did there would be no unwashed masses and disconnection from universal law. to adhere to any religion is to be parrochial not universal. Jesus intended not to establish such an aberration to human nature but to save us from them all at any price. even a blind can see it is quite ineffective, and obviously dangerous to our physical and spiritual health... universal law proves that the presence of a "god" exist.. while humans insist on proving that there is no intelligent life on this planet.

[schrodinger]

--traveler--the failings of religion are not so modern, the aztecs sacrificed captives to their gods to the tune of 2000 in some special evenings; it was religion that plotted the execution of Jesus of all humans... religion does not exist any more than public education exist, if they did there would be no unwashed masses and disconnection from universal law. to adhere to any religion is to be parrochial not universal. Jesus intended not to establish such an aberration to human nature but to save us from them all at any price. even a blind can see it is quite ineffective, and obviously dangerous to our physical and spiritual health... universal law proves that the presence of a "god" exist.. while humans insist on proving that there is no intelligent life on this planet.

You make some good points, or at least some points that I agree with, which is not necessarily an indication of goodness. But Jesus, at the very least, was a preacher and at the very most. . . well, you know what the Christians believe. So how do you figure that Jesus was trying to save us from the aberration of religion? I can understand such a statement about Buddha or Spinoza, or by a long stretch possibly even Einstein, but I don’t see how it applies to Jesus. To put it another way; how would god free us up from religion? Suppose there is a god up there right now, watching us and he disapproves of religion and religious practices. This isn’t too hard to imagine, actually. How could any decent god approve of what we humans do in his name? Now, how would god get us to cease and desist? If he revealed himself to us in any way, even to command us not to practice religion, would that not make religion even stronger, after seeing god? It seems like the ultimate paradox to me. Perhaps you, traveler, are uniquely qualified to answer this, as you claim to have had some sort of revelation, and yet you seem to be anti-religion. Yes, I understand your earlier statement about not believing in god, since you know he exists. What I am saying is, if god revealed himself to us, so we all knew he existed, the new religion would become not believing in god! As I said, the ultimate paradox. Do you see a way out? Does anybody?

[WanderingTaoist]

So how do you figure that Jesus was trying to save us from the aberration of religion? I can understand such a statement about Buddha or Spinoza, or by a long stretch possibly even Einstein, but I don’t see how it applies to Jesus.

I think at the very least you could say that Jesus was trying to either

a ) reform Judaism, which had become a corrupt, instiutionalized religion, or

b ) show us another way to God, a new "religion" if you want to call it that (but not necessarily "Christianity"!)

or

c) both

At the very least there's evidence for ( a) all over the Bible; the endless questioning of the Pharisees, Jesus' sometimes radical deviations from Mosaic Law ("The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath"), etc. So I think you could say that, in a way, Jesus was "anti-religious". We shouldn't take this too far, though; I don't think he was against religion per se, just against the way religion can be practiced.

Yes, I understand your earlier statement about not believing in god, since you know he exists. What I am saying is, if god revealed himself to us, so we all knew he existed, the new religion would become not believing in god! As I said, the ultimate paradox. Do you see a way out? Does anybody?

Oh, I'm not so sure a Revelation is the way out, schrodinger! Forgive me, traveler, as I do not know what you have experienced, but I would argue that nobody , regardless of whatever experiences they have had, knows that God, or whatever you call the "Divine", exists. There's always some element of faith involved. Easily, one could write off any sort of revelation as a mere hallucination, or as some kind of trick.

Revelation requires faith as well; look at St. Paul. If we believe the Acts of the Apostles, he experienced a direct vision of God. And yet in his Epistles , again and again he stresses the importance of faith. At some time, perhaps, we shall "know as we are known", but not today, not here, not on earth, not in our present existance. The experience of a revelation might strengthen one's faith, but it does not eliminate it. I'm not sure if that answers your question, schrodinger, but it's the best I could manage! ;)

[traveler]

darkness cease and desist where light is, specially the dakness of organized religion, it does not get stronger...There is something called social consciousness, when an individual thoughts are not his own, they are other's.. one can misunderstand the Buddha smile when he declined to broach the question of god's existence, in human parameters. where god and religion are perceived as equal and interchangeable terms... Jesus harshest words were against religious people, more so than those in refference to thieves and prostitutes, run for your spiritual sanity from any "ism"... when God trully reveals Himself "religion" becomes passe.... Jesus knows God exists. i know god exists, faith is for believers not knowers. faith is better than nothing except when organized confusion i mean religion gets ahold of it and becomes a stumbling block and victimises others.. faith as defined in the book itself, is an enhanced connection with reality, high performance athletes are prone to experience a facet of it some times; they call they call it being in "the zone"..dear taoism i will overlook that winking smilie only this once.

[WanderingTaoist]

.dear taoism i will overlook that winking smilie only this once.

Judging from this comment, traveler, it appears I miscommunicated; I apologize. The winking smiley was not intended for you (it was at schrodinger and was in regards to my meagre attempt at answering one of his questions) or for any of your assertions.

i know god exists, faith is for believers not knowers.

Indeed it is, and I must say I do not understand how you know God exists. Can you perhaps explain:

1.) What you mean, exactly, by "know"

2.) How you know

3.) Who or What God is

[muichimotsu]

Knowledge and belief can be said to be interrelated and very well the same in relation to faith and the knowledge of that belief and faith. They claim they know by their belief and faith, not by observing anything, and in itself, that can be argued for the other spectrum of knowledge.

Seems to me that traveler is a monist of sorts, or pantheist, suggesting that God itself is not necessarily separate from humanity or a personal being that revealed itself, but that it manifests itself to show that we are interrelated in some manner. There is always the possibility of panentheist, that God is specifically manifest in the universe that it consists of and is not compeltely separate from the beings that exist within the universe.

[schrodinger]

muichimotsu--Seems to me that traveler is a monist of sorts, or pantheist, suggesting that God itself is not necessarily separate from humanity or a personal being that revealed itself, but that it manifests itself to show that we are interrelated in some manner. There is always the possibility of panentheist, that God is specifically manifest in the universe that it consists of and is not compeltely separate from the beings that exist within the universe.

Partly because of the influence of living in Thailand for many years, but mostly because I can connect with the teachings of Buddha, I now consider myself to be a Buddhist. However, I also connect with the notion of the Universe and everything in it as being a great living thing as well as the giver of all life. Should the need ever arise to officially classify my religion it would be interesting to see the reaction I get to Panentheism-Buddhism! :lol:

[WanderingTaoist]

Should the need ever arise to officially classify my religion it would be interesting to see the reaction I get to Panentheism-Buddhism!

That is quite interesting! I consider myself something of a Panentheist Taoist, myself! Perhaps we ought to start a Panentheist club :D A lot of people (probably most of the people who are not posting on this forum) aren't aware that panentheism is an option in the theism/pantheism/monism/etc. debate :thumbsup:

[traveler]

:ph34r: i am simply a Child surrounded by adults. :ph34r:

[WanderingTaoist]

i am simply a Child surrounded by adults

Not at all, traveler! Not at all. Don't slink off, come back!

Or, if you truly feel that is the case, count yourself blessed beyond any of us, then. Children are always able to perceive the wonderousness of the world. With adults, that's hardly a garuntee.

If I may be forgiven for quoting Smurf's signature:

"The wisest keeps something of the vision of a child. Though he may understand a thousand things that a child could not understand, he is always a beginner, close to the original meaning of life."
- John Macy

[Student of the Middle Path]

So, what I'm comprehending here is that the Advanced Buddhist realizes that one of the six realms of existence is to be born into a god-like state. But the simple-minded Buddhist is allowed to believe in deity, if he thinks it neccessary to understand the world, as long as it doesn't interfer with his spiritual growth.

[Student of the Middle Path]

In reference to:
----darkness cease and desist where light is, specially the dakness of organized religion, it does not get stronger...There is something called social consciousness, when an individual thoughts are not his own, they are other's.. one can misunderstand the Buddha smile when he declined to broach the question of god's existence, in human parameters. where god and religion are perceived as equal and interchangeable terms... Jesus harshest words were against religious people, more so than those in refference to thieves and prostitutes, run for your spiritual sanity from any "ism"... when God trully reveals Himself "religion" becomes passe.... Jesus knows God exists. i know god exists, faith is for believers not knowers. faith is better than nothing except when organized confusion i mean religion gets ahold of it and becomes a stumbling block and victimises others.. faith as defined in the book itself, is an enhanced connection with reality, high performance athletes are prone to experience a facet of it some times; they call they call it being in "the zone"..dear taoism i will overlook that winking smilie only this once. --------

1. Jesus' harshest worlds were agains religious 'zealots', not religious people.. Religion has it's place in the heart of simple mindedness. It could also be viewed that Jesus' harshest words were against these zealots because they were his strongest oppositon.
2. Furthermore, to "know" that god exist because Jesus revealed it to be so, requires the faith that Jesus was not a 'false' prophet. And even more faith that the translations on the text that pass 'Jesus' words' down through 2000 years is still correct.

[Starry_Canopy]

The fundamental faith is that there is something called 'I' or 'self' that exists, even though we don't know what 'existed' before our birth and what 'will exist' after our death. Without this faith, which can only be irrational or intuitive as, rationally, there can be no proof for it, I don't think spiritual development is possible; as the question arises, "What is spirit, when I cannot sense or measure it?"

[schrodinger]

"What is spirit, when I cannot sense or measure it?" --Starry---

Spirit is what we cannot sense or measure.

[Starry_Canopy]

Nothingness is also what we cannot sense or measure, Shrodinger

[Noway2Zero]

what is Mind that you cannot sense or measure it?

is the Mind inside the brain? or the brain inside the mind?

is the physical world the product of thought?
or is thought the product of the physical world?

can you find the Cause by looking at effect?

[sahyo]

night the song sky

the day awakes

morning

[Noway2Zero]

night the song sky
i smile
the day awakes
i smile
morning
i smile

[sahyo]

:D

[Joncee]

can you find the Cause by looking at effect?

Can you find Beethoven by taking apart a radio ?

<_<

[Taeguk]

Hi!

The other day I was visiting with an old Dharma teacher of mine

And he gave me a copy of some unpublished writings of Buddhadasa Bhikku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhadasa).

Interestingly enough, these writings were directly concerned with "God" from a Buddhist perspective! :)

I thought I would share them:

As long as people insist God is a person in the conventional sense of "people language", we can say that they will not know the real God, which, in turn, leads to proselytizing, disagreements, clashes, and conflicts. The intellectuals will increasingly deny this "ordinary" kind of God, and it will not be long before people educated in the modern way will have eliminated God from their hearts altogether. And that is a tragedy.

Something of equal importance to observe and understand is that every religion has something that can be called "God", but some religions only talk about God in terms of Dhamma language. Thus, it appears that those religions have no God, and so they are classified as "non-theistic religions". Buddhism and Jainism are religions of this type.

The classification of religions into two groups, theistic and non-theistic, is a superficial classification that does not touch the real essence or meaning of religion. We continue to do so, however, because people are only able to understand things superficially and thus are unable to penetrate to the heart of religion.

What we call "Dhamma" is the God of Buddhism and we can distinguish four primary aspects of it:

1.) Nature itself (sabhava-dhamma)
2.) The Law of Nature (sacca-dhamma)
3.) The Duty of Humans According to the Law of Nature (paeipatti-dhamma)
4.) The Fruits Human Beings receive according the Law of Nature (vipeka-dhamma)

The single word "Dhamma" covers all four of these aspects. Here, it is easy to see that the second aspect of Dhamma---the "law" of nature---directly corresponds with God. Yet even the other apsects require respect and obedience in every way. We should consider this more closely.

Nature is something God created, in other words, it is the will of God. We must respect, honor, and take interest in it in order to realize the Truth of nature, which is to realize God in one of its myriad aspects. In other words, realizing the truth of nature enables us to accept without sorrow or resentment that which Christians call "the will of God" even though it should appear in the form of floods, earthquakes, plauges, or finally, death. Natural conditions (sabhava-dhamma) manifest the will of God better than anything else. In fact, all natural phenomena reveal God within themselves.

These four things found within the single word "Dhamma" in one way or another are aspects of what we mean by "God" in Dhamma language. Some people may wonder how it can be that something without any individual awareness can be called "God". When one considers carefully, however, one realizes this kind of thing is more properly called "God" than anything with individual awareness. For God to have the awareness and feelings of a person would mean that he would have the feelings of love, hate, anger, envy, etc. A God of this kind falls under the power of the people who have such feeling, and he has form that traps Him under the power of time and space. Consequently, such a God is unstable. So God ends up meaning something like the "self" ordinary people experience, and this in turn creates a notion of God in everyday language, that is lower, more common, and ultimately, incorrect.

That Man was created "after God's own likeness" should be taken to mean that man is capable of being in the same state as God or being in unity with Him; that is to say, if man takes the fruit of the tree of Life, he will become identical with God. God postponed that chance for the time being, as was made known in the Christian Book of Genesis. To Argue about God in respect ot his "bodily form" or his physical aspect is humurous.

Any thoughts on this? :)

I think it might be especially pertinent given the discussions about God that are taking place in the Religion Forums and Philosophy Forums!

[sahyo]

Can you find Beethoven by taking apart a radio ?



:thumbsup:

[bito]

For God to have the awareness and feelings of a person would mean that he would have the feelings of love, hate, anger, envy, etc. A God of this kind falls under the power of the people who have such feeling, and he has form that traps Him under the power of time and space.

That Man was created "after God's own likeness" should be taken to mean that man is capable of being in the same state as God or being in unity with Him; that is to say, if man takes the fruit of the tree of Life, he will become identical with God. God postponed that chance for the time being, as was made known in the Christian Book of Genesis. To Argue about God in respect ot his "bodily form" or his physical aspect is humurous.

If God postpones man becoming identical with God, does that does not place God in time and space?

[Taeguk]

Hi, bito :)

You asked:

If God postpones man becoming identical with God, does that does not place God in time and space?

What an insightful question!

Hmmm...does it? I don't know! :lol:

I suspect it doesn't, though. :)

For someone or something outside of time, I'd imagine that "everything happens at once". There is no time. God is present to all "actions" simaltaneously, and is ultimately inseperable from those actions.

For something in time, like a human being, "events" occur "serially"; it thus appears to human beings that God has "postponed" union, or that this occurs through a process which happens over time.

[bito]

Hi Taeguk :)


For something in time, like a human being, "events" occur "serially"; it thus appears to human beings that God has "postponed" union, or that this occurs through a process which happens over time.

God and man cannot be separate, except by the thought that this is so. Man here, God there. One little eensy weensy thought of separation, and voila! Religion! Sprituality! Philosophy!

Suspend that thought of separation, and ...

[Taeguk]

Hi, bito! :)

You wrote:

God and man cannot be separate, except by the thought that this is so. Man here, God there. One little eensy weensy thought of separation, and voila! Religion! Sprituality! Philosophy!

Suspend that thought of separation, and ...

Exactly!

Ultimately I think religion, spirituality, philosophy, etc, if it is authentic and sincere, admonishes us to suspend that thought.

Once the thought is suspended, there is no more need for them (religion, etc)...which, interestingly enough, is what Buddhadasa taught. :)

But when speaking to many people, we can't start from the standpoint of unity. They simply won't understand!

The experience of seperation, although illusory, is far more universal! :)

Hence the First Noble Truth: "There is Suffering..."

I suspect this is also why there appears to be a contradiction in the words of Buddhadasa; each paragraph is taken from a different lecture or writing. In some, he is speaking from a different angle than in others! (hmmm...I probably should have clarified that...:duh: )

[Taeguk]

those who have penetrated to the highest understanding will feel that the thing called "religion" doesn't exist after all. There is no Buddhism; there is no Christianity; there is no Islam. How can they be the same or in conflict when they don't even exist?

Buddhadasa Bhikku

:thumbsup:

[bito]

But when speaking to many people, we can't start from the standpoint of unity. They simply won't understand!

Does unity not include the thought of separation? Likewise, understanding?

When the fish is caught, why speak of the net? :)

The experience of seperation, although illusory, is far more universal!

Experience is not illusion. Thinking of (objectifying) is illusion.

Hence the First Noble Truth: "There is Suffering..."

Even when sense of separation is no more, suffering remains as compassion, so yes "There is Suffering ..."

:)

[sahyo]

Even when sense of separation is no more, suffering remains as compassion, so yes "There is Suffering ..."


then imagining separate someone suffering hasn't ceased

[bito]

then imagining separate someone suffering hasn't ceased

compassion is not imagined separate someone suffering

[sahyo]

bito: Even when sense of separation is no more, suffering remains as compassion, so yes "There is Suffering ..."

sahyo: then imagining separate someone suffering hasn't ceased

wasn't saying:

bito: compassion is not imagined separate someone suffering

[bito]

bito: Even when sense of separation is no more, suffering remains as compassion, so yes "There is Suffering ..."

sahyo: then imagining separate someone suffering hasn't ceased

wasn't saying:

bito: compassion is not imagined separate someone suffering


whatever words were used by bito that led sahyo to say bito imagining separate somone, is sayho's interpretation, not what bito was saying

compassion is feeling suffering, speaking words to awaken, even though speaking words is hard

this is why i believe sayho is here at tbv, and why many are here at tbv

this is why i am here at tbv

sayho tells bito to relax, yet sahyo could benefit from her own wisdom

relax, sayho

no worry so much about words that are used by compassioning people

:)

[sahyo]

compassion is feeling suffering


the compassion you describing, "feeling suffering", isn't without imagining separate



no worry so much about words that are used by compassioning people


wasn't referring to words you used



:)

[bito]

the compassion you describing, "feeling suffering", isn't without imagining separate

compassioning cannot be described

feeling and being are not separate

no imagining separate

[Joncee]

“ Empathy” is feeling the suffering of others.

“Compassion” is relieving the suffering of others.

Compassion without action is no more than another of an infinite number of empty thoughts.


:ph34r:

[bito]

“ Empathy” is feeling the suffering of others.

“Compassion” is relieving the suffering of others.

Compassion without action is no more than another of an infinite number of empty thoughts.

By this definition, is compassion void of feeling? See how the word-meaning game never ends?

When all is said and done ;) why does anyone who knows that images and words are but shadows on the wall of mind, bother using images (smilies, for example) or thought (one word is thought)? Why not remain silent?

I say we cannot.

The proof is in the proliferation of thought devoted solely to the negation of thought.

Buddha could have said "I Am awake" and closed his mouth.

Jesus Christ could have said "I Am the light of the world" and closed his mouth.

Lao Tzu could have said "Those who speak of the Tao do not know, and those who know do not speak of the Tao" and closed his mouth.

Like the energizer bunny, Mind just keeps on going and going and going ...

Why don't we just admit that we are blaze-addicted and be done with it?

:D

[sahyo]

Why don't we just admit that we are blaze-addicted and be done with it?


you can only speak bito

[bito]

you can only speak bito

sahyo speaking to you? bito?

[sahyo]

(thomas

don't know if maybe this too long
...copied it since the page long with other talks on it)



bito

searching, this displayed:


Beloved Osho, You speak about love and compassion. I know of and feel different forms of love and compassion. Can You explain the different forms of love, and what You mean by compassion?

Dorothy Kaplan, love is a ladder, a ladder of three rungs. The lowest rung is sex, the middle is love, and the highest is prayer. Because of these three rungs there are a thousand and one combinations possible.

Real compassion appears only at the third rung when sex energy becomes prayer -- the compassion of a buddha, the compassion Atisha is talking about. When passion has been transformed so totally, so utterly that it is no more passion at all, then compassion appears. Real compassion appears only when your sex energy has become prayer.

But compassion can appear on the second rung too, and compassion can appear on the first rung also. Hence there are so many different compassions. For example, if compassion appears on the first rung, when you are living at the lowest level of love-energy, sex, then compassion will be just an ego trip. Then compassion will be very egotistic: you will enjoy the idea of being compassionate. You will really enjoy the other's suffering, because it is the other's suffering that is giving you the opportunity to be compassionate.

Somebody has fallen in the river and is drowning. The sexual person can jump in and save him, but his joy is that he was so good, that he did something beautiful, something great. He will talk about it with pride, he will brag about it. Compassion on the lowest rung, that of sex, will appear only as an ego trip.

That's what millions of missionaries all over the world are doing -- serving the poor, serving the ill, serving the uneducated aboriginals, primitives. But the whole joy is that, "I am doing something great." The 'I' is strengthened. That is an ugly form of compassion. It is called duty. Duty is a four-letter dirty word.

The second kind of compassion appears when love has arrived. Then compassion is sympathy: you feel, you really feel for the other. You fall into a harmony with the other, the other's suffering stirs you. It is not something to brag about. On the second rung, you will never talk about your compassion, never; it is not something to be talked about. In fact you will never feel that you have done anything special, you will simply feel you have done whatsoever was to be done. You will see that it was human to do it. There is nothing special in it, nothing extraordinary; you have not attained some spiritual merit in doing it. There is nothing like merit in it: it was natural, spontaneous. Then compassion is becoming more soft, more beautiful.

At the third rung, where sex energy becomes prayer, compassion appears as empathy -- not even sympathy, but empathy. Sympathy means feeling the other's suffering, but you are still at a distance; empathy means becoming one with the other's suffering -- not only feeling it but suffering it, actually going into it. If somebody is crying, sympathy means you feel for the one who is crying, empathy means you start crying. You are not only in a feeling space, you become attuned, you become really one: at-one-ment happens.

[sahyo]

Why don't we just admit that we are blaze-addicted and be done with it?



bito...you cannot "we"...you can only speak bito

[bito]

At the third rung, where sex energy becomes prayer, compassion appears as empathy -- not even sympathy, but empathy. Sympathy means feeling the other's suffering, but you are still at a distance; empathy means becoming one with the other's suffering -- not only feeling it but suffering it, actually going into it. If somebody is crying, sympathy means you feel for the one who is crying, empathy means you start crying. You are not only in a feeling space, you become attuned, you become really one: at-one-ment happens.

:thumbsup: thanking sahyo, yes, feeling, crying, joying, laughing - at-one-ment.

And yes again, prayer is the highest.


sahyo speaking to you? bito?

bito...you cannot "we"...you can only speak bito

I did understand sahyo, was being playful. See the clouding of word-meaning? And yet, if not for the clouding, sahyo would not have found and displayed Osho's beautiful words, nor would sahyo and bito be word-loving now.

:hug:

[bito]

blaze of light in every word :)

Oh, that blaze, that awe*full blaze!

:)

[sahyo]

thanking sahyo
thanking bito


:hug:

[Starry_Canopy]

bito,

Buddha could have said "I Am awake" and closed his mouth.

Jesus Christ could have said "I Am the light of the world" and closed his mouth.

Lao Tzu could have said "Those who speak of the Tao do not know, and those who know do not speak of the Tao" and closed his mouth.


Hadn't they all spoken one phrase too many by the time they closed their mouths....?

[schrodinger]

Hadn't they all spoken one phrase too many by the time they closed their mouths....? --Starry--


So I take it if you believed you had seen the Truth, you would not not feel compelled to tell anyone? And why are you here, on this forum if it is not to share your ideas about the Truth?

[bito]

Hadn't they all spoken one phrase too many by the time they closed their mouths....?

Yes.

[bito]

Illumed Mind, such as Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzo did not stop thinking once attachment to thought ended.

When attachment ends, thinking is light, as light is thinking.

Attached thought births experience of pride and shame, good and evil selves, as if two warring with each other.

No pride, no shame, no good, no evil, in light is thinking.

Love - only love.

[Michael]

[QUOTE]When attachment ends, thinking is light, as light is thinking.


Light is creation, creation is thought, thought is light :lol:

[bito]

Light is creation, creation is thought, thought is light :lol:

Fullness of Being overflowing
Swollen rainbow, imploding "I Am"
Silent thunder, booming "I Love You!"
Shouting, whispering, singing My Name!

:star:

[Starry_Canopy]

Schrodinger,

So I take it if you believed you had seen the Truth, you would not not feel compelled to tell anyone? And why are you here, on this forum if it is not to share your ideas about the Truth?


I am not in the state that Jesus, Buddha and Lao Tsu were. So, yes, it may not be fair to coment on their having spoken about it. I was just expressing a seeming dichotomy between my understanding of their state and their action.

I am here to learn along with others like me by pooling in what we know. However, that may not be the best method; still, it gives a great pleasure to be among those who have a similar quest.

[Noway2Zero]

I am not in the state that Jesus, Buddha and Lao Tsu were.

yes you are :) but what state are you looking for?

[schrodinger]

I am not in the state that Jesus, Buddha and Lao Tsu were. So, yes, it may not be fair to coment on their having spoken about it. I was just expressing a seeming dichotomy between my understanding of their state and their action.--Starry--


Starry, thank you for your clarification. As I understand it, The Buddha did have doubts about whether he should teach what he knew:

“It is hard for such a generation to see this conditionality, this dependent arising. Hard too is it to see this calming of all conditioned things, the giving up of all substance of becoming, the extinction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others were not to understand me, that would be a weariness, a vexation . . .”

I think we would all agree that it would have been a great loss to mankind if he had decided to keep his “secret” to himself. That is why I was surprised at your statement and had to question you, although I understand the dichotomy as well.

I am here to learn along with others like me by pooling in what we know. However, that may not be the best method; still, it gives a great pleasure to be among those who have a similar quest. --Starry--

That’s what I thought and I am glad you are here.

[Starry_Canopy]

Thank you, Noway and Schrodinger.

You're great guys :)

[Bebop]

As a Buddhist I do not concern myself with whether there is a god or isn't. If there is a god I do not ask it for assistance, I rely on myself and a little fortune to achieve my daily tasks and any other goals I've set out for myself. The point is not to ponder how our existance came to being but what to do with what we have been given.

In a way I view each soul as an internal god. A sentient being unable to create a universe but able to deviate their own.

[schrodinger]

You have your own path and
there is no one ahead of you
who can show you the way.
Your life is a daily adventure, a
moment by moment discovery.
Each of you connects with
your own inner spiritual
awareness. Each of you has to
see that the creative power of
the Universe is within you.
Each of you creates reality
and has to take responsibility
for doing so.
And so the man goes on,
tending his herd, ploughing the
soil, alone with his thoughts,
alone with his prayers.

Or, if you prefer a more Western version, there is always that great example of Western philosophical thought, courtesy of Nike Shoe Company: “Life is not a spectator sport”. :lol:

[common man]

Hi everyone-

Just curious, is not all this ( discussing existence of god ) a matter of man's speculation?
I'm no religionist but the Christian would counter that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the full expression of God taking bodily form
in the likeness of a human being in real space and time and therefore his very historical existence is EVIDENCE of the reality of
a supernatural, intelligent supreme being identified as GOD. One Christian apologist once said that if Jesus is God then his life
would be reflection of God. The beginning paragraphs of John's gospel states that Jesus was the physical expression of the
mind/reason (logos) of God.

What do any of you think, any merit to such assertions, or just myth?

[Eidelweis]

As a Buddhist I do not concern myself with whether there is a god or isn't.
This is the most apropriate post for this topic!

[MidnightSun]

I believe in God. Then a person asks me what do you believe in, I always say im a buddhist. :D

[Taeguk]

Hi! :)

This is certainly an interesting discussion!

I wonder though: Is believing in “God” really antithetical to Buddhism?

There’s certainly no mention of anyone like the Abrahamic “God” in Buddhism. However, many traditions in Buddhism do acknowledge a “ground of being”, or a “ground of conciousness”; a “center of existence”. Dzogchen, Rigpa, Dharmakaya, or “Buddha Nature” are all examples of this Ultimate Reality in Buddhism. The Chinese notion of Tao, when interpreted mystically, also fits in here, and so do many different Hindu notions of the "Absolute".

The Ultimate reality is emptiness, void, nothingness. To many people unfamiliar with Buddhism, this sounds like nihilism. But the Buddhists aren’t referring to a vacuum, a nihility. It is “nothing” in the sense that is “no thing”; that is to say, it is not limited. It cannot be grasped through concepts. They are talking about an emptiness that has a “luminosity” or “radiance”. It is pure, unlimited existence, pure, infinite consciousness. It is the underlying “suchness” of all that is. All that is is gathered into this “source”, this “ultimate reality”:


"The true nature or condition of all things is the great shunyata [emptiness] which is not just a vacuum, a void, an empty; but it is luminous emptiness. It has a quality of "isness," of suchness, the tathagatagarbha. It is the emptiness endowed with the heart of compassion or wisdom. It is called the natural Great Perfection, the innate Great Perfection, Dzogpa Chenpo; this great emptiness endowed with the core of luminosity, the inseparability of cognizance and emptiness, of awareness and compassion. Where truth and unconditional love are not different."
(Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche)

"Zen students train themselves earnestly in the first place only for the purpose of experiencing existence…in its nakedness. It is a state in which absolute silence and stillness reign, bathed in a pure, serene light.”
(Katsuki Sekida)

“The Dharmakâya assumes three essential aspects: intelligence (prajna), love (karunâ), and will (pranidhânabala).”
(D.T. Suzuki)

This language sounds strange, and very far removed from the idea of a big man up in the sky. On the surface, the Abrahamic faiths seem to interpret God as a "Spirit", a larger than life personality that is seperate from his "creation". And it's true this is not at all what Ultimate Reality refers to. A being, however powerful, is still a being, and according to Buddhism all beings are conditional and dependant upon causes and conditions. Thus an "eternal being" is a non-sequitor. The only thing that is unlimited and infinite in the sense "God" is is not an existent but existence itself, existence emptied of any limit or form. Furthermore this reality can be experienced directly.

But what's interesting is that when you look at the mystical traditions of the Abrahamic religions, which seek realization of union with the Divine, their writings speak of "God" in terms of Ultimate Reality. They, too, speak of "unlimited existence" and of going beyond the "subject object split." The Sufis, Qaballah, and Gnosticism (as well as more "mainstream" Christian mysticism as well) all have a wealth of writing that regards "God" in ways that are more analgous to "Ultimate Reality".

So what about somebody who does not believe in the popular conception of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "creator" but who acknowledges an "Ultimate Reality"? Does this make them a "theist" or an "atheist"? Or do such terms lose all meaning in the realm of mysticism? :unsure:

[common man]

Hi everyone-
Please correct me if I'm wrong but in Buddhism isn't the Ultimate Reality godless? Is not enlightenment being "no thing" and
forsaking the illusion if a personal self? Christianity/Judaism has given God a name: Eloihm (sp.?) or Yaweh, or even Jesus.
Christianity says, yes, you can know "him" but only in a limited, finite sense but God is, nonetheless, a person, a being with an
identity. This concept makes the Christian's faith more personal, endearing and provides a sense of relationship and acceptance.
A union of the believer's soul with God's spirit.

To me "knowing" have different connotations when comparing Buddhism and Christianity.

[Taeguk]

Hi, common man! :)

You wrote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong but in Buddhism isn't the Ultimate Reality godless? Is not enlightenment being "no thing" and forsaking the illusion if a personal self? Christianity/Judaism has given God a name: Eloihm (sp.?) or Yaweh, or even Jesus.

That is absolutely right!

Nevertheless, in the writings of certain Christian mystics (i.e. Meister Eckhart), you will find a vision of Yaweh that is much more along the lines of the "impersonal" Reality of Buddhism.

Consider these quotes, pulled from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam:

The hidden God, the innermost Being of Divinity so to speak has neither qualities nor attributes.(Gershom Scholem)

He is not accompanied by "thing-ness", nor do we ascribe it to Him. The negation of "thinghood" from Him is His essential attribute. (Ibn ‘Arabi)

If we will see things truly, they are strangers to goodness, truth and everything that tolerates any distinction. They are intimates of the One that is bare of any kind of multiplicity and distinction. (Meister Eckhart)

As long as you are ‘you’, you will be miserable and impoverished. (Javad Nurbakhsh)

Not I, but Christ in me. (St. Paul)

How can any finite vessel hope to contain the endless God? Therefore, see yourself as nothing; only one who is nothing can contain the fullness of the Presence. (Menahem Nahum)

It is within our minds, souls and bodies, in heaven, on earth, and whilst remaining the same in Itself, It is at once in, around and above the world, super-celestial, super-essential, a sun, a star, fire, water, spirit, dew, cloud, stone, rock, all that is; yet It is nothing. (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite)

Some simple people think that they will see God as if he were standing there and they here. It is not so. God and I, we are one.(Meister Eckhart)

I am the Truth (Mansur al-Hallaj)

So as you can see, there is a certain continuity even between the Abrahamic and the Dharmic faiths!

You are right that "knowing" does tend to have different connotations in Buddhism and Christianity, and yet, one can still find that Christian mystics have much in common with the Buddhists!

Buddhadasa Bhikku, whom I've quoted in a thread under the Religion Forum compares the truth of religions to water. I'd like to quote him again:

I'd like to give a simple example of people language of materialism.
"Water" will suffice. People who don't know much about even the
simplest things think that there are many different kind of water.
They view these various kinds of water as if they have nothing in
common. They distinguish rain-water, well-water, underground-water,
canal-water, swamp-water, ditch-water, gutter-water, sewer-water,
toilet-water, urine, diarrhea, and many other kinds of water from each
other. Average people will insist that these waters are completely
different, because such people take external appearances as their
criteria.

A person with some knowledge, however, knows that pure water can be
found in every kind of water. If we take rain-water and distill it, we
will get pure water. If we take river-water and distill it, we will
get pure water. If we take canal-water, sewer-water, or toilet-water,
and distill it, we will still get pure water. A person with this
understanding knows that all those different kinds of water are the
same as far as the water component is concerned. As for those elements
which make it impure and look different, they aren't the water itself.
They may combine with water, and alter water but they are never water
itself. If we look through the polluting elements, we can see the
water that is always the same, for in every case the essential nature
of water is the same. However many kinds of water there may seem to
be, they are all the same as far as the essential nature of water is
concerned. When we look at things from this viewpoint, we can see that
all religions are the same. If they appear different it's because we
are making judgments on the basis of external forms.

On an even more intelligent level, we can take that pure water and
examine it further. Then, we must conclude that there is no water,
only two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. That substance which we
have been calling "water" has disappeared, it's void. The same is true
everywhere, no matter where we find two parts of hydrogen and one part
of oxygen. In the sky, in the ground, or wherever these parts happen
to be found, the state of water has disappeared and the term "water"
is no longer used. For one who has penetrated to this level of truth,
there is no such thing as "water".

In the same way, one who has attained to the ultimate truth sees that
there's no such thing as "religion". There is only a certain nature
which can be called whatever we like. We can call it "Dhamma", we can
call it "Truth", we can call "God", "Tao", or whatever, but we
shouldn't particularize that Dhamma or that Truth as Buddhism,
Christianity, Taoism, Judaism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, or Islam, for
we can neither capture nor confine it with labels and concepts. Still,
such divisions occur because people haven't yet realized this nameless
truth for themselves. They have only reached the external levels, just
as with canal-water, muddy-water, and the rest.

[Thomas Knierim]

B.B.: For one who has penetrated to this level of truth, there is no such thing as "water".

As much as I like Buddhadasa Bikkhu, I have to say he is probably wrong here. He is basically endorsing reductionism and using it as a metaphor for a non-tangible phenomenon. But whether we are talking about physical or non-tangible phenomena does not matter. Complex phenomena can rarely be reduced to the sum of their parts. Water is not just two helium atoms and one oxygen atom, for the simple reason, that these atoms behave completely different from the molecule known as H2O.

So, unfortunately the metaphor fails.

:duh:

But thank you for the collection of quotes. There are some jewels...

Cheers, Thomas

[Michael]

Once again, Taeguk, thank you, this time for your collection of quotations.

If we will see things truly, they are strangers to goodness, truth and everything that tolerates any distinction. They are intimates of the One that is bare of any kind of multiplicity and distinction. (Meister Eckhart)

This one from Meister Eckhart appeals particularly as it challenges so many of our comfortable pre-conceptions.

You will find truth in the writings of all mystics. At the point of the mystical religion becomes moot. No mystic is in essence a religionist, which is why the relationship of all religions with their own mystics is usually fraught and uncomfortable.

Mystics are the photons of the mindful world, they really don't conform to any of our pre-concieved realities. That is why they are so absolutely essential and why some belief systems consider their mystics pillars of the material universe.

I can't see Thomas's problem with the Buddhadas Bikkhu quotation. In my opinion it is a highly effective and salutary metaphor, though it is perhaps more an analogy than a metaphor.

[bito]

metaphoring and analogizing is gradual releasing of fearing naked

[Thomas Knierim]

AA: I can't see Thomas's problem with the Buddhadas Bikkhu quotation.

I agree with his premise as well as with his conclusion ("There is only a certain nature which can be called whatever we like.") What I don't agree with is the middle part. From a logician's point of view, the argument is faulty. It works perfectly well for the different types of water. But it does not work for the water molecule. That's where reductionism fails.

Let me describe it: You can explain the properties of, say sewer water, quite well by looking only at its components. There is water and there are certain pollutants. Together this makes polluted water. No problem. However, you cannot explain the properties of H2O in terms of the properties of H and O. Reduction just fails here, because H2O has emergent (new) properties.

This is a fairly subtle and fairly common mistake that I have found in quite a few Buddhist arguments, especially in arguments that attempt to explain sunyata (emptiness) by means of reducing phenomena.

Reductionism is the epistemological theory that complex phenomena can always be reduced to a set of simpler phenomena. The word "reduced" means faithfully represented, explained, and illustrated. However, this theory runs into tremendous problems when attempting, for example, to reduce biological phenomena to chemical phenomena, or chemical phenomena to physical phenomena.

Cheers, Thomas

[Taeguk]

Hi! :)

Thomas, you wrote:

Reductionism is the epistemological theory that complex phenomena can always be reduced to a set of simpler phenomena. The word "reduced" means faithfully represented, explained, and illustrated. However, this theory runs into tremendous problems when attempting, for example, to reduce biological phenomena to chemical phenomena, or chemical phenomena to physical phenomena.

I completely agree with you on this, Thomas! I would say it gets even more complicated when you try to reduce emotional or mental phenomena to merely biological or chemical phenomena. I can remember having a heated discussion with somebody who was trying to convince me that love was "merely a chemical reaction." It may be true that what we experience as love has a certain chemical/physiological basis, but it's not true to say that is all that love is.

With regards to the Buddhadas Bikkhu quote, I think his point wasn't so much about reductionism , but that our idea of "water" has been completely transformed. What we once thought "water" is does not actually exist. Likewise, our preconceptions about the Divine and about religion often have little basis in reality. As Alpha has pointed out, mystics from all backgrounds encourage us to let go of these pre-conceptions.

To return to a different analogy, one you used in the Religion forum, Thomas, where you compared religions to vehicles, the different styles of car are simply vehicles to the same destination. The "ideal" or "perennial" religion does not exist, except in the potential each vehicle has to reach the "destination". They do not differ in this potential, nor in their ultimate destination.

[Michael]

Thank you Taeguk.

I would also point out that no mystic, when speaking mystically, is a logician, the two spheres are only compatible in the extreme :lol:

[Korablestroitelej]

Forgive me for interrupting. :o

I just love studying religion and so please tell me, does it matter then if you are atheist, theist or agnostic, if you want to become a Buddhist?

[Korablestroitelej]

Forgive me for interrupting. :o

I just love studying religion and so please tell me, does it matter then if you are atheist, theist or agnostic, if you want to become a Buddhist?

[Thomas Knierim]

Short answer: no. Most Buddhist don't have a concept of a creator god. Buddhism is basically non-theistic. Both atheism and theism are compatible with Buddhism.

Does that answer your question?

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

Short answer: no. Most Buddhist don't have a concept of a creator god. Buddhism is basically non-theistic. Both atheism and theism are compatible with Buddhism.

Does that answer your question?

Cheers, Thomas

[Korablestroitelej]

So although it is fundamentally non-theistic, Buddhists would welcome any theist to become Buddhist, regardless of whether that person wished to maintain his or her belief or concept of a creator god?

[Korablestroitelej]

So although it is fundamentally non-theistic, Buddhists would welcome any theist to become Buddhist, regardless of whether that person wished to maintain his or her belief or concept of a creator god?

[Thomas Knierim]

Yes, it is possible to become Buddhist while believing in a creator god. You officially become a Buddhist by "taking refuge" which means accepting the Buddha (teacher), the dharma (teaching), and the sangha (Buddhist community) as your spiritual abode. This doesn't require you to lay down former beliefs or other spiritual associations, as long as the latter do not conflict with the precepts. Though I don't think most people would find it terribly "useful" to be Christian/Buddhist or Islamic/Buddhist there is not much that formally speaks against it, at least not from the Buddhist side. Of course, you will find doctrines that contradict each other in these religions, but you would probably also find doctrines which are quite similar.

Cheers, Thomas

P.S.: Sorry for the delay in answering this question. I just came back from the consulate.

[Thomas Knierim]

Yes, it is possible to become Buddhist while believing in a creator god. You officially become a Buddhist by "taking refuge" which means accepting the Buddha (teacher), the dharma (teaching), and the sangha (Buddhist community) as your spiritual abode. This doesn't require you to lay down former beliefs or other spiritual associations, as long as the latter do not conflict with the precepts. Though I don't think most people would find it terribly "useful" to be Christian/Buddhist or Islamic/Buddhist there is not much that formally speaks against it, at least not from the Buddhist side. Of course, you will find doctrines that contradict each other in these religions, but you would probably also find doctrines which are quite similar.

Cheers, Thomas

P.S.: Sorry for the delay in answering this question. I just came back from the consulate.

[Taeguk]

Hi, Korablestroitelej! :) Welcome to thebigview!

Regarding your question:

Buddhists would welcome any theist to become Buddhist, regardless of whether that person wished to maintain his or her belief or concept of a creator god?

I think to a large degree it depends on how you view the notion of "creator god"!

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, mystics, regardless of their tradition, tend to have very similar understandings of the Divine, regardless of whether they are theistic or non-theistic.

This means that people coming from the Abrahamic traditions tend to interpret "God" in a way that is rather unconventional, at least for more mainstream, exoterically oriented Abrahamists!

For example, existentialist theologian Paul Tillich, coming from the Christian tradition, argues very strongly against any conception of God as a being or an entity, even a sort of "super-being". For Tillich, God is not a being but the Ground of Being. His view of God is far more similiar to the Mahayana Buddhist notion of Dharmakaya then it is to that of a personal creator God.

Likewise, the Sufi mystic Ibn'Arabi, coming from the Islamic tradition, also considered Allah to be the "Ultimate Reality". He spoke of Allah in terms of wujud (the pure activity of to be). Allah is the only "thing" that exists, although Allah is not a "thing" in any sense of the word. From the point of view of "things", Allah is, properly speaking, no-thing. Here it seems to me that Ibn'Arabi is not so far from sunyata. For him as well as for Tillich, the notion of a personal god is transcended; it becomes more appropriate to see "God" in terms of "the Absolute" or the "Ultimate Reality" as opposed to a disembodied being in the sky.

If you employ this understanding of the Divine, I think you will run into far less problems reconciling Buddhist doctrine with Abrahamic religion. Of course, at this point it is arguable that Tillich and Ibn'Arabi are not "theists" in the strict sense of the word. Both have been accused of atheism and pantheism, respectively.

It all goes back to how you define "God". Personally, I don't consider myself to be a theist, an atheist, or even a pantheist. Nor do I consider myself to be an agnostic! :lol: I think in regard to Buddhism, these terms have little meaning. :) They certainly won't effect your practice.

[Taeguk]

Hi, Korablestroitelej! :) Welcome to thebigview!

Regarding your question:

Buddhists would welcome any theist to become Buddhist, regardless of whether that person wished to maintain his or her belief or concept of a creator god?

I think to a large degree it depends on how you view the notion of "creator god"!

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, mystics, regardless of their tradition, tend to have very similar understandings of the Divine, regardless of whether they are theistic or non-theistic.

This means that people coming from the Abrahamic traditions tend to interpret "God" in a way that is rather unconventional, at least for more mainstream, exoterically oriented Abrahamists!

For example, existentialist theologian Paul Tillich, coming from the Christian tradition, argues very strongly against any conception of God as a being or an entity, even a sort of "super-being". For Tillich, God is not a being but the Ground of Being. His view of God is far more similiar to the Mahayana Buddhist notion of Dharmakaya then it is to that of a personal creator God.

Likewise, the Sufi mystic Ibn'Arabi, coming from the Islamic tradition, also considered Allah to be the "Ultimate Reality". He spoke of Allah in terms of wujud (the pure activity of to be). Allah is the only "thing" that exists, although Allah is not a "thing" in any sense of the word. From the point of view of "things", Allah is, properly speaking, no-thing. Here it seems to me that Ibn'Arabi is not so far from sunyata. For him as well as for Tillich, the notion of a personal god is transcended; it becomes more appropriate to see "God" in terms of "the Absolute" or the "Ultimate Reality" as opposed to a disembodied being in the sky.

If you employ this understanding of the Divine, I think you will run into far less problems reconciling Buddhist doctrine with Abrahamic religion. Of course, at this point it is arguable that Tillich and Ibn'Arabi are not "theists" in the strict sense of the word. Both have been accused of atheism and pantheism, respectively.

It all goes back to how you define "God". Personally, I don't consider myself to be a theist, an atheist, or even a pantheist. Nor do I consider myself to be an agnostic! :lol: I think in regard to Buddhism, these terms have little meaning. :) They certainly won't effect your practice.

[Korablestroitelej]

I see thank you to you both.

Taeguk, you wrote:

I think to a large degree it depends on how you view the notion of "creator god"!

Well, my concept of god is not one you would have heard of elsewhere (don't ask me to describe it please) and I know it won't conflict with Buddhism - I was just wondering because Buddha does not have a concept of God so I thought it might be something I would have to sacrifice in the end.

[Korablestroitelej]

I see thank you to you both.

Taeguk, you wrote:

I think to a large degree it depends on how you view the notion of "creator god"!

Well, my concept of god is not one you would have heard of elsewhere (don't ask me to describe it please) and I know it won't conflict with Buddhism - I was just wondering because Buddha does not have a concept of God so I thought it might be something I would have to sacrifice in the end.

[Taeguk]

Hello, Korablestroitelej :)

You wrote:

Well, my concept of god is not one you would have heard of elsewhere (don't ask me to describe it please)

:lol: No worries! Although feel free to talk about if you'd like to, I'm sure your views on God would be interesting. :)

You go on to say:

I was just wondering because Buddha does not have a concept of God so I thought it might be something I would have to sacrifice in the end.

Depending on how serious you are about the Dharma, you may have to do exactly that.

Ultimately, Buddhism is about letting go of attachments---attachments to thoughts, emotions, and even our notions of reality (our notions of God or no God included!). At some point, you may have to let go of this opinion (although there is the possibility you can "re-gain" it as truth through direct, non-conceptual experience).

[Taeguk]

Hello, Korablestroitelej :)

You wrote:

Well, my concept of god is not one you would have heard of elsewhere (don't ask me to describe it please)

:lol: No worries! Although feel free to talk about if you'd like to, I'm sure your views on God would be interesting. :)

You go on to say:

I was just wondering because Buddha does not have a concept of God so I thought it might be something I would have to sacrifice in the end.

Depending on how serious you are about the Dharma, you may have to do exactly that.

Ultimately, Buddhism is about letting go of attachments---attachments to thoughts, emotions, and even our notions of reality (our notions of God or no God included!). At some point, you may have to let go of this opinion (although there is the possibility you can "re-gain" it as truth through direct, non-conceptual experience).

[Korablestroitelej]

Ok, thanks guys for typing all that out.

[Korablestroitelej]

Ok, thanks guys for typing all that out.

[wuwei]

Originally posted by ,--
Is it true that Buddhists don't believe in God(s)? I do believe that I heard somewhere that the Buddha often was asked about a supreme being but would not even talk about it. Nor would he talk about an afterlife... Which I find quite odd.

In my opinion the existence of a God makes perfect sense. The universe is too complicated and mysterious to just of popped out of nothing. Thats my opinion, at least. But if the Buddha was enlightened and all knowing then wouldn't he of been able to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer concerning the existence of a God or even Gods?

I know next to nothing concerning Buddhism but I have done some reading. So, please... Enlighten me. smile.gif

I'm late to the game here and have some catching up to do on the posts.

However, to answer your question, it depends on the form of Buddhism and your definition of God. Some forms of Buddhism are pantheistic, and therefore do hold a belief in God. The idea of Creation is thus meaningless.

Sorry if this has already been addressed in later posts.