Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 15.8K
- Your Practice 7.3K
- Buddhism for Beginners 5.5K
- Meditation 1.2K
- Diet & Habits 167
- Sanghas 380
- Buddhism 4.5K
- Modern Buddhism 1.7K
- Comparing Religions 601
- Arts & Writings 965
- Advanced Ideas 1.2K
- Our Community 6.2K
- NewBuddhist.com 332
- General Banter 3.7K
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site.
Comments
If someone says it's not wise to spend much time on pondering this, since, at least at this time, it's not solvable, then I can say okay, fair enough.
If someone says you may not ponder it. Sorry, I have a right to think about whatever I wish to think about.
If someone says you will go mad pondering it...well, we know that's not true.
I think the problem may be that we cannot understand the exact meaning of Buddhas words because of language/translations issues.
I thought this was the question. My answer was in line with that and addresses (at least to me anyway)why the question of a creator is imponderable. Ultimately, IMO, its unknowable and goes to the heart of the teaching. The Buddha instructed us to not to believe something just because we are told but to verify his teachings through our own experiences. We can't do that with questions we will never have answers for, nor directly experience.
All the best,
Todd
who created god?
uhhhhhh fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.
yup this is pointless.
It seems like those 4 things would lead to existential despair or Absurdism. Reminds me of the existentialists like Camus. My questions is, if it's in your nature to question and think about these things, how can one simply stop? It seems like one would need an arduous training of the mind. Once the door has been opened and you see how absurd everything really is, how can you go back? I think that's why God is such a powerful thing, because in that you know there is something out there that knows more than you, something that has 'the answer'.
But you have to take in his statement on why it's imponderable in reference to all his other teachings. He didn't believe in an ultimate Self, amongst plenty of other teachings, thus he was a non-theist. Buddhism is a non-theistic tradition, from the Buddha on. To believe in a creator god is not conducive to contemplation and realization of the Buddhas teachings. The Buddha didn't teach a top down cosmology, where all things emanate from one transcendent super self willed thing/being.
Buddhism just doesn't work that way.
And after reading so many of your posts in the varying threads, I know that overall, you are not a "you have to" thinker.
Most of us on this forum began as Christians, and yet we all took the position that "we don't have to" think in a certain way, and migrated -- to one extent or another -- in a different direction.
I'm pretty sure @Vajraheart is saying "Understand that in his statement..." and not trying to make you accept things wholesale. I find it a little bit disingenuous for you to make such an argument.
this cannot be the case because nothing is permanent or independent. everything is in relation to the subject/object. for god to exist there has to be a perceiver of god. and for the perceiver to exist, god must exist.
thus god only exists because the perceiver exists and vice versa. the two are interdependent. form is emptiness and emptiness is form.
creation implies that there is a first cause, but cause/effect is merely thought projections, which link two asserted independent events. this is wrong view and ignorance.
everything exists because there is a subject to perceive it and the subject only exists in relation to the object.
what is prior to subject/object? potential. potential is just another word for buddha nature.
one can only arises if there is zero. zero being potential.
thus god can only arises if god had the potential to arise.
this is why the creator is an imponderable because it doesn't matter if you find a first cause. that is just merely ignorant projection from the mind. the buddha pointed to a non dual reality beyond mind.
i could go on and on and on and on lol.
Of course, Buddha counters this by relating the principle of anicca, and by example of perfoming feats that even Baka himself could not.
it is meaningless to ponder because there is no direct answer. the mind is looking for a conceptual answer, but in essence it is the mind that is causing the question and the mind that is seeking an answer.
the answer is an existential realization into non dual awareness and the interdependence of emptiness.
and even then it is a meaningless question. it will drive one mad.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
God is that which watches or the non dual awareness. out of such awareness arises the manifest or expression aka concepts/language/duality. so duality and non duality are the same coin, just different sides.
The only way to "know" that is to awakened into non dual awareness. You're not going to get there by asking and believing a creator god that is outside of you.
It is existential, thus the buddha gives a path/method towards liberation. He says that such things are meaningless to ponder on the path because it doesn't help you.
Imponderables are ponderable. Pondering for too long and in circles is a waste. Let go when the time comes. Ponder again when the time comes. When washing the dishes, wash the dishes. :cool:
look around you. look at society. look at the state of humanity.
there are those who realize and there are those who confuse themselves in their own thoughts.
:)
Yes, that came out wrong. I meant if you want to know what the Buddha taught and meant. It's disingenuous to say, "this is what the Buddha taught" and just take something out of context that he said within a particular context. You can of course do what you want and integrate yourself with Buddhism in whatever degree you so feel comfortable, as it's not a path that damns you to eternal hell for not believing it. ;) I just meant that you have to see what he said within the spectrum of everything surrounding it, in order to get the gist of his intention, if that's what you want at least. If that's not what you want, do what you will, be happy, don't worry!
:D
You say Buddhism doesn't hold all wisdom, which is true, when you have eyes to see, wisdom is everywhere, but it's definitely not in these traditions that hold up an eternal self or cling to a political ideal as if it were a self existent fact.
Buddhism does teach dependent origination/emptiness, which is very sobering. Belief in a supreme Godhead would be independent origination/consciousness as ultimate, so that would be antithetical to what the Buddhas intentions were with his teachings on flexibility and understanding relativity.
God is imponderable,
Billy Mays is imponderable,
Billy Mays is God!!!
Okay you may question the validity of this argument, but I am sticking with it!
:crazy:
Cleanliness is next to Godliness
Billy Mays is God
:eek2: :wave: :p
In metta
Raven
:banghead:
In metta,
Raven
Reason has a role in philosophy and science. But we all know what happens when reasoning with women. It doesn't always work, and I'm kidding about the with women to a certain extent to make a point, same could be said of men.
I actually don't recall ever balancing on one foot without having a reason to do so...