Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why did Buddha call a Creator an imponderable?
Does he mention anything else about a Creator?
0
Comments
the imponderables are things that really don't help us on this path.
also pretty much most of what the buddha taught in this moment can be looked into.
i can right now experience everything the buddha talked about.
so in that sense a lot of what the buddha said is just the reflection of his experience. thus we can examine everything he said right now as well.
the imponderables are just things that even the buddha wasn't sure of. i suppose that is my assumption, but again either way it doesn't contribute to the path of awakening. just more baggage and hinderances that we have to drop off to find truth.
IMO the cosmos just is, and always has been. Infinite in every conceivable (and inconceivable) way.
There is an unending number of things each of us does that have nothing to do with enlightenment. We watch television, we go to a movie, we play poker, we go on vacation, we go out to dinner with friends, etc., etc., etc. None of those things get us any closer to enlightenment, but we still do them.
As it's an imponderable, the Buddha strongly advised against indulging in pondering, because it gets you nowhere, wastes your time, is a distraction from the 'serious business' and will drive you potty.
His advice has been proven to be correct time and again, so really as said - ponder away all you want. Knock yourself out.
but it's a waste of the brief amount of precious time you have, which could be used more constructively.
No problem... ponder away. Your time, feel free to waste it all you want, any way you want!
it is my personal opinion that believing in a creator does not have a positive effect on a person. i have found that to believe that my life is at the whim of some other entity can leave me feeling helpless at times or unrealistically powerful at other times. instead of praying, i would rather be out there doing something about whatever it is that is bothering me instead of relying on something as unreliable as god. i mean, i'm still open to the idea that there could be a creator, but i don't believe that it is helpful to rely on that idea. i'm basically just pretty unconcerned.
- I agree with that last bit as well. Maybe there is a creator. Maybe not. I don't know and can't know ether way, so I just don't worry myself with it anymore.
One thing I have noticed, is no matter what you believe, whether it is God or Buddha, prayers do not get answered. But I don't think of a God as answering prayers or being involved with mankind, and so I can't imagine a God like that of the bible.
Reason #1: According to the texts, a beginning point to samsara (literally 'wandering on') isn't evident (SN 15.3). This can be interpreted two ways — that a beginning point to the continual cycle of death and rebirth of beings isn't evident, or that a beginning point to the continual cycle of death and rebirth of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta), isn't evident — and they're not mutually exclusive. Either way, the point is the same: all that really matters in the here and now is whether suffering is present, and if so, how it can be overcome.
Reason #2: I think it's safe to say that Buddhism is essentially non-theistic in view. However, I also happen to be of the opinion that, if we dig a bit deeper, the idea of a creator God is incompatible with certain aspects and teachings that, if taken to their logical conclusion, seem to reject the idea of, or a need for, a creator God. For one thing, the logic of dependent co-arising negates the idea of a creator God in that it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause. Then there's this famous problem of evil passage from the Bhuridatta Jataka (although, to be fair, this is most likely a later addition that some date to the 13th century): At best, God would have be more like the impassive and impersonal God of Aristotle, existing outside of time and space, to find a place within Buddhist cosmology; and anything existing outside of time and space would logically be completely static, meaning that God would be an undynamic being if God exists at all. Since everything within the range of our experience (i.e., within space and time) is subject to change, however, it's more logical to conclude that everything within our realm of experience is impermanent, meaning that for God to able to interact with our universe, God would also be temporal and subject to illness, aging and death just like every other being.
Nevertheless, even in the earliest parts of the Pali Canon, there are references to devas or what we might call 'heavenly beings.' However, devas (literally 'radiant ones'), which are often seen as gods when taken literally, are simply non-human beings who are more powerful and long-lived than ordinary humans, and are by no means eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. (e.g., see DN 1). But more importantly, they can also be viewed metaphorically as the indulgent and hedonistic aspects of our psychology (i.e., the parts that are addicted to sensual pleasures).
In addition, according to AN 3.61, the belief in a supreme being can be unskillful and interfere with Dhamma practice if it leads to the belief that everything a person experiences is due to such a supreme being, a denial of the efficacy of kamma (literally 'action') and a life of inaction: Reason #3: In relation to the four noble truths and the practice of the noble eightfold path, the matter of the existence of God is, soteriologically speaking, unnecessary. The impetus of the practice is a strong conviction in the efficacy of actions and the intentions underlying them, not the existence of a supreme being (e.g., see MN 61).
Of course, this doesn't mean that people can't believe in God and still practice the Dhamma, especially some of its more contemplative aspects; but it does mean that, at the very least, such views can negatively impact the practice when held inappropriately. In addition, I understand that a belief in God can provide comfort in difficult times, as well as serve as the basis for a beneficial ethical-spiritual practice. I also accept that certain people may have had some kind of profound spiritual experience that has led them to adopt such beliefs, and I don't have any issues with that myself. (I mean, who am I to argue with someone's personal experiences?)
Moreover, I think one can certainly present Judeo-Christian ideas in a more or less Buddhistic way, and vice versa. As I've often mentioned before, my dear friend Simon shared with me some of his ideas regarding the "excellence of the synthesis of the messages and practices" of Buddhism and Christianity; and people like David Cooper (God is a Verb) and Thomas Merton (Mystics and Zen Masters) seem to continually find harmony between these spiritual disciplines.
In other words, a God can only create the platform but not our true nature.
There are numerous other computers out there too but all the cartoons in them has the same true nature. Even architects have the same true nature.
IMO our world is a playground for some deities and god like beings and they may have some role in building this machine but at the end who cares...
These Four Imponderables are not to be pondered (speculated about). Anyone who persisted in pondering them would come unhinged and experience vexation. What are the four?
1.
The sphere of a Buddha's influence (Buddha-range of the Buddhas, i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a perfectly enlightened teacher)...
2.
The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana (the range of powers that one may develop from meditative absorption]...
3.
The results of karma...
4.
The [first moment, purpose, etc., of the] universe...
These Four Imponderables, if pondered (and persisted in, speculated about), lead to madness and vexation.
My own take on the "imponderables" is any topic that allows for no useful, practical conclusion as regards spiritual endeavor. If you could levitate, so what? If you knew how many angels would fit on the head of a pin, so what? If you were Cleopatra in a former life, does that help pay the rent? And what sort of a god could possibly be god if he/she/it sat still for your soaring definitions? As to such imponderables as "enlightenment" or "compassion" or "emptiness," perhaps they may be tentatively forgiven if they lead to some right intention and right action. Nattering endlessly about them leads to an insufferable virtue and a prolongation of suffering -- the polar opposite of what Gautama hoped to do. The short version of the imponderables is, "Don't waste your breath."
But that's just my take.
excellent reply...
I don't buy the definition most Buddhists make of the term "imponderable". Most people I know have pondered about God. I don't know a single one who has gone mad because of it.
To be honest, I think it's a "cop out" that is no more sophisticated than the Christian "cop out" of "God works in mysterious ways".
I ponder about karma, I ponder about God, I ponder about creation, etc. Have I solved them? No. So what? Is it better to ponder about things that are unsolvable or things that have already been solved? Well, the latter doesn't seem very logical, either.
Much of what we know in 2011 was thought to be imponderable in 1492. But people had the power to ponder.
I would recommend looking up the sutra where buddha states that and try to understand for yourself. You could post specific lines of the sutra which you were having trouble with or you could post a link and have a discussion.
I think we should let buddha speak for himself.
Almost all believers are not deceptive. They have sincere belief I feel.
I don't wish to upset you. Perhaps it would be better if you skipped over my posts in the future.
first show me reason can establish existence without axioms. then we can discuss whether blessings or reason is better.
So it goes to show you... that Buddhism *might* be just another step, just another religion, on the way to perfect understanding of what exactly we're dealing with here. (Might I said... I'm still deciding which is best for me.)
Therefore according to a buddhist dwelling on thoughts of God would not be emancipation.
If you are applying a buddhist method to meditation you can see for yourself what kinds of results you get.
@jeffrey I didn't think theists were being deliberately deceptive. Why would you think I said that? And what do you mean by "first show me reason can establish existence without axioms. then we can discuss whether blessings or reason is better"? What is this a response to?
@roberto78 Wouldn't a God that was 'always here' also 'make no mathematical sense'?
@person The Big Bang was never meant to explain the first cause of the universe, it was meant to explain the subsequent development of the universe.
But besides that, there are linguistic problems with your concept of God that make that concept literally incoherent, impossible, meaningless... 'imponderable'. The word 'universe' is defined in the first place by 'that which exists', and so if God exists then he is by definition part of the universe and so restricted by its laws (if they are indeed 'universal' laws). If you instead say that God exists 'outside of time and space' then you are saying God exists no-when and nowhere, which is to say that God doesn't exist. It's like saying that God exists north of the north-pole. Sure, you can SAY this in a grammatically correct English sentence, but it is incoherent and meaningless, and so it is literally impossible to even form a concept of it in your mind. You think you know what you're talking about, you think you have a distinct concept of it in your mind, but your concept is not compatible with the linguistic definition you are using to save the concept from refutation, for the linguistic definition is impossible.
I'm sure you'll say that God is beyond all petty human concepts such as logic, internal consistency, coherency, meaningfulness, etc. But again, that's just not a move I'll accept. Illogical is illogical.
The second you were saying that they shouldn't believe something that one couldn't reason through. I was pointing out that reason cannot prove existence. Thus there is a greater part of our experience which is not under the umbrella of reason. Compassion or prayer doesn't have to be reasonable. It is our inner yearnings which often we are at the mercy of.
As i stated initially, but you seem to have not read/ignored, the idea of *any* first cause makes no sense, because the simple question can then be asked, what caused this first cause? Eventually, logically, you must come to an 'uncaused cause', in other words, the idea that existence stretches backwards into infinity.
Resolving whether this uncaused cause is marely material or involves a supernatural being such as God is a separate issue - one that resolves, for me at least, by the very simple thought that there is nothing in this universe that requires a God to explain it, and indeed there is always a simpler explanation that does not require God. So at best a creator God is a redundant belief, one that is unecessary for our enlightenment. At worst it is ... well, just Google the atrocities commited in the name of God.
I, however, find it impossible to believe that your brain, the retina of your eye, your heart and liver, etc., evolved by pure coincidence from stromatolites.
So, we are on opposite sides of the issue. And neither of us can prove our belief...or disprove the other's.
A timeless, space less, immaterial, eternal god cannot have a first cause. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, something cannot come into being out of nothing. If something is eternal and timeless then it doesn't fall under those rules.
Yes, this god can interact with all these things because it created them! If there is a higher reality other than the material universe we live in, who are we to say what can interact with what? There are occurrences that happen in our universe that go beyond the causal happenings in our universe, such as synchronicity.
Okay, but philosophically and scientifically that is extremely improbable. I think without god the universe becomes nihilistic. I'm not saying you can't live without the idea of god, just that god is a metaphysical necessity for there to be any real absolute meaning, morals, truths. If there is no god there is no absolute right or wrong. You could say it's "socially unacceptable" to rape someone, but without a moral 'law' who's to say what's really wrong other than our own subjective impressions.