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?" 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
I agree. This debate could carry on and never get a satisfactory conclusion. This is what philosophers and religious seekers have been doing for thousands of years. It's not that I think it's a pointless topic, certainly it's one that hits home for many people, but in a forum such as this it's like wheels spinning in mud.
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'.
Why did Buddha call a Creator an Imponderable? Maybe he was thinking along these lines:
Argument: The origins of the universe are unknowable, A creator is the originator of the universe. Therefore a creator is ultimately unknowable.
The O is U. C is O Therefore C is U.
Proposition: God created the universe. One can assert or deny this forever and never come to a truth.
I think the discussion here revolves around what "imponderable" means.
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.
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.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited June 2011
@roberto78 The only options aren't a creator god or nihilism. In fact what Buddha taught was the middle way between 2 extremes, or relativism. Its a subtle and not easily understood path, but there it is. In a relative world you can still have good and bad, pain and suffering, wholesome and unwholesome. They're just viewed in relation to other things instead of an absolute in and of themselves.
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.
The problem with your statement -- FOR ME -- is that you begin by saying, "You have to...." No, I don't have to. I also don't have to think that all the world's wisdom is only in Buddhism.
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.
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.
Being disingenuous means being insincere. While you might think I am wrong -- and perhaps I am -- I am not being insincere in stating my opinion.
I am sure and almost positive that what the Buddha meant by "imponderable" is that it leads to affliction. It does not mean that you will not be able to ponder it simply because you can ponder it if you wanted to. I am sure this pondering will cause anyone distress and will lead them further away from the middle path that the Buddha has taught as the way towards freedom.
I am sure and almost positive that what the Buddha meant by "imponderable" is that it leads to affliction. It does not mean that you will not be able to ponder it simply because you can ponder it if you wanted to. I am sure this pondering will cause anyone distress and will lead them further away from the middle path that the Buddha has taught as the way towards freedom.
And, I think that is a reasonable interpretation...although when people here claim that you will go "mad"...well, we know that's not true.
Isn't a Creator an imponderable in other religions, too?
You've not spoken to very many evangelical "Christians" in America, have you? They have God and Jeeeezus all packed up in a neat little box, and they know everything he thinks, says, and wants us all to do all the time. Nothing imponderable about it.
for god to exist you would assume the position that god is outside of us. meaning god is a permanent, independent Other.
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.
In the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta, Buddha encounters Baka Brahma who believes that his world is constant, permanent, eternal and without decay (and that therefore he is immortal), and that there is no higher refuge. Also, one of Baka's attendants claims that Baka Brahma is “the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be”, and that those who praise him will be rewarded – but those who defied the word of Brahma would be like someone who chases fortune away with a stick and accomplishes nothing.
Of course, Buddha counters this by relating the principle of anicca, and by example of perfoming feats that even Baka himself could not.
the buddha used such same logic and came to the same conclusions.
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:
the buddha used such same logic and came to the same conclusions.
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.
Give me a break. Name the people you know who have gone mad from thinking about it.
The problem with your statement -- FOR ME -- is that you begin by saying, "You have to...." No, I don't have to. I also don't have to think that all the world's wisdom is only in Buddhism.
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.
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!
for god to exist you would assume the position that god 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.
Give me a break. Name the people you know who have gone mad from thinking about it.
Well, there is such a vast history of atrocity to choose from when it comes to the disease of radical theism. Witch burnings, radical islam, radical judaism, the list goes on and on. Of course, it's really when anyone holds up their belief as an idol to be worshiped as opposed to all other ideas, this stretches into the political as well. It's really when one clings to an ultimate "self" or "Self" in any form, whether it be a "god" or a "political ideal."
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.
Billy Mays is God. He's not dead, he's just hidden until his eventual reappearance to judge the living and the dead- all 5 billion of them.
LORD BILLY taught us how to be clean, had some righteous BLING and a beard that was OTHERWORLDLY!!
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:
We can spend every waking moment pondering a creator, but ultimately it get's us nowhere. All we have is a bunch of questions with no answer.
So what?
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.
I believe the above points out precisely why the Buddha avoided Creator questions, because we'd all be wasting energy and time arguing/debating/pondering about it when we could utilise that time and energy PRACTISING.
We can spend every waking moment pondering a creator, but ultimately it get's us nowhere. All we have is a bunch of questions with no answer.
So what?
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.
I believe the above points out precisely why the Buddha avoided Creator questions, because we'd all be wasting energy and time arguing/debating/pondering about it when we could utilise that time and energy PRACTISING.
In metta Raven
Actually I take it back - this entire thread points out precisely why the Buddha avoided Creator questions, because we'd all be wasting energy and time arguing/debating/pondering about it when we could utilise that time and energy PRACTISING. :banghead:
@ Prometheus, Balancing on one foot is something we do without reason. Similarly we balance in social mandalas without reason interjecting. In these situations reason is mostly monkey mind punctuated by insight occasionally.
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.
You have reason to do them but the WAY you do them is not through reason. At least not all the time. They are the sorts of problems you can't figure out. Though if you try you may become a compulsive worrier.
Ah. Well then it's a false analogy. Having a reason to stand on one foot is analogous to having a reason to believe in God, but not needing reason to figure out HOW to stand on one foot is only analogous to not needing reason to figure out HOW to believe in God. I only maintain that we need reason to believe, not that we need reason to figure out how to perform the act of belief.
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.
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:
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...