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 do you believe in the existence of gods?
lobster
Crusty Veteran
@Jeffrey gave a good answer to this, he finds it energising. Others also might find support in the sutras or in Yidam type practices and experiences.
Personally when they come to tea or doing 'possession by archetypes', I too find the suspension of disbelief is required. Would you trust the evidence of your own senses? I certainly would not . . . :wave:
Personally when they come to tea or doing 'possession by archetypes', I too find the suspension of disbelief is required. Would you trust the evidence of your own senses? I certainly would not . . . :wave:
0
Comments
I mean I definitely exist in some mode, don't I? If I don't then no-one else does either, so why bother practising compassion for them?
Confused.com
Not a very good methodology.
Please describe the "valid" imputation whereby we can arrive at "self".
Remember, it's not existence. It's the manner of appearing that you should be conserned with.
Also, it's emptiness and not existence. Non-existence is nihilism - an extreme the Buddha refuted.
And if you believe in gods, why not believe in God?
@Tosh, I don't know if they are like unicorns. When somebodies loved one is dying and I have nothing else I can do for them, then I pray for them to God or Buddha or Bodhisattvas. Is that real? It seems like it is a more important action than some 'real' things.
Whether one wants to believe in gods or not -- or remain open-minded about it --, that's up to the individual.
Despite one's opinion, either there are gods or there are not.
By "believe in gods" do you mean the belief that gods actually exist?
People believe in gods because they think they're real, they think they really exist somewhere. They believe that these gods will listen to prayer and act upon the lives of believers in a positive way.
I honestly think that those that claim we do not exist are still inside the box. We don't really exist as nouns because we are in a constant state of change but if we didn't bother to label things it would get pretty messy, pretty quick.
Duality is our number one tool but we misuse it out of ignorance. We label processes as if they were static and forget that even we are just a process.
I'm pretty sure you exist @Tosh. Temporarily to be sure, but to be temporary is to be.
You just aren't "a" being.
I can remember things from dreams that don't take up any actual space but how could I remember something that never was?
"Evidence" is largely relative. Different folks, different strokes. People who believe in God seem to think that they have all the evidence they need. You should ask ..... you live in the perfect town for that sort of research.
Personally, I don't really care what someone believes or why. I don't see it as any of my business. I have my own practice to deal with.
And conventional truths have a valid or invalid basis of imputation. For example my body is a valid basis of imputation for 'me'. Of course, ultimately, using wisdom if I go looking for 'me', I'll find I am empty of inherent existence.
So, to my mind, positing a god, on no basis, sounds like an INVALID basis of imputation.
You may actually get me looking through my text books which would not be a bad thing.
I think it's about trying to find a good fit for our psychological leanings (I think).
She said (with a twinkle in her eye) that she had no problem acknowledging any deity that asked for such recognition, even minor middle eastern ones. That all sentient life was worthy of being seen for what it was.
I personally believe in God, and I have my reasons. I have a lot more difficulty believing in gods (note small g and plural) in the Buddhist sense. I don't see any evidence. I'm not closed minded about it. I can be convinced.
Kind of?
“People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can’t do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man I’m flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed, but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting.”
The Dark Knight
I may have something to offer that, but want to be sure about what you're trying to say.
I am talking about -- and I supposed others were --the various gods and other figures in Buddhist literature. If not, then I'm sure what people are talking about.
Real? Mind states? Dimension Pureland or Impureland dwellers? Do you think them best left dead, dusty and discredited as empty? Useful boon granters? Can they help us overcome suffering if they are still insufferable Sumeru samsara dwellers?
What is a gal to think? It does not bare thinking about . . .
Are you talking about meditational deities such as Avalokiteshvara, Tara and so on, or are you referring to beings born into the so-called "god realms", Or Hindu gods mentioned in literature such as Brahma, Mara, etc? Dharmapalas (protectors) such as Mahakala or Shugden?
I'm trying to get the question defined.
I thought you were trying to find out why people believe in "gods" within a Buddhist context and I want to know just what gods you're talking about.
For instance, you have the meditational deity Avalokiteshvara. Some folks would see that as a "god". Some people may believe that Avalokiteshvara physically exists. Some people "believe" in Aavalokiteshvara as the sambogakaya manifestation of skillfull compassion and "believe" that devotion to Avalokiteshvara practice brings with it certain blessings.
So what I read into your question is that you're being a bit vague and I, for one, would like some clarification. "Believing" is something can mean different things in different situations to different people.
But it may be, and probably is, that the OP that's vague and when one considers the source .....
Believing in them or not hardly matters to me because even if there are gods, they are bound by law of Kamma and not free to meddle into human affairs.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
And who stops them -- those who don't exist -- from meddling in human affiars?
But even within these religious traditions, there are different variations. Taken literally, that there exists a supernatural anthropomoriphic (male) being who is infinitely powerful, benevolent, and all-knowing makes little sense-- and in fact, one runs into many contradictions (such as in theodicy, which is a pointless exercise).
Religion at its worst comes in literalist forms-- it becomes reduced to mere superstition. But this is not always the case in religion-- other models (theoria, or "visions") are available which point to an experience of God rather than a ridig ideology about God. Examples abound in Christianity in John of the Cross, Eckhart, the Cloud of Unknowing, Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssa, Paul Tillich, Thomas Merton, etc. etc.
One of the methods for realizing this experience of God (which is the intersection of the divine and the human) involves the negation of concepts placed on God, the via negativa, or apophatic approach. But this has to do less with belief and more to do with experiencing a living faith. Like Buddhism, what appears to be a set of belief doctrines are actually meant to be methods applied to one's life.
Believing or disbelieving in gods is really beside the point. I can believe in nirvana all I want, but it is just as meaningless. The point is to practice, to experience reality in light of God or nirvana, or whatever you want to call it. Insofar as a religious tradition points in the direction of this kind of existential realization of the holy, great! Insofar as it depends on ideological belief, very little good will come of it.
For me belief in any god is pointless. But, in order to realize the holy in one's own life, someone turns to a vision of God beyond merely clinging to an ideology, this is worthy. If God is indeed love, then love is equally God. God becomes less a noun than a verb. God is a miracle that occurs between two beings.
It is sad to me that God should be reduced to an external empirical object "out there somewhere" to be argued about. Whether pro or con, they both groups of people actually miss the point.
This is not the kind of terminology that I use in my own Buddhist practice, but I can understand it and have some affinity with it. But I think the reduction of God to an empirical object to be proven or disproven, to believe in or not to believe in, has done a great deal of harm to theism.
To me, the theist vs. atheist argument (and the agnostic sitting in between) makes little sense to me because there is much more nuance to it. These labels are so misleading (and I admit to being caught in this nonsense before also). There is no one monolithic God to "believe in" or "disbelieve in"-- there is much more to it than a simple "yes," "no" or "maybe" answer.
While in the process of continuos suffering from my own life experiences I found a path that taught me to look within myself, that all the answer to all the questions were already known. One must truly believe in oneself before they can believe in a god. One must truly understand their own existence before they can understand the existence of a god.
Look within yourself for the answers you seek. Reading books and scripture will give you knowledge, only Wisdom can come from within...
Open you heart and free your mind and the Truth will be presented to you...
Namaste
But for each person it is an individual path, and I know people who are secure in their beliefs -- and operate on them -- in both directions (in terms of starting with a belief in God or gods, or in terms of learning about oneself first). I'm not sure they are necessarily two distinct processes.
I'm not sure that wisdom comes from within. We, here, actually turn to the Dhamma and the Sangha, and the Buddha for wisdom (as well as other places). What comes from within is the ability to process external information.
And, let's face it, we've all met a ton of people who have no ability whatsoever to process wisdom or even the most basic every day decisions about life.
Within this wheel of life, there is something called the God realm. These gods that reside in this realm could be superior, some can even help humans which you will see many Taoists pray to these gods for protection, wealth etc. However, due to the nature of the gods is still in samsara, what you ask for you will need to pay a price or take a certain vow in return for the favor. These gods cannot bring you to enlightenment because they themselves are in samsara.
So the idea of God in Buddhism is totally different... for example in Christianity, God is ultimate and doing God's work will liberate you and bring you to the gates of heaven. In Buddhism, no such thing. Enlightenment must be acquired by you and you alone... of course with the help of your Guru.
Some people would also confuse Buddhism as poly-theistic religion. See, the concept of God is present in Buddhism but God is not who we pray to. In fact, contrary to what many Buddhists themselves belief, we do not pray to the Buddhas. So the presence of Buddhas (multiple like Tara, Tsongkhapa, Shakyamuni, etc) is to show us the path of enlightenment, we pray not to the statue, but to the quality of the Buddhas that we aspire to attain.
For instance, though some may think differently about why the Buddha made the statement that one should not considered other ideas as being conducive to a religious life or a solution to suffering, the early Pali texts provide information about the religious milieu of his time which were basically forms of sassatavada (being or eternalism) or ucchedavada (non-being or annihilationism), so from this understanding it is clear that the statement is actually based on an exclusive idea that the truth of any other theory is not allowable as they are one and all heretical and incompatible with his doctrine.
I have read an excerpt from the Samyutta-Nikaya where ucchedavada for example is considered a wicked heresy, and this linked online copy refers to it as an evil supposition.
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html
However, if following a gradual path to enlightenment this is understandable as to why one must first begin with exclusiveness.
I may not be the best example of a westerner because when I use the term "God" it means the universe itself in a process of self discovery.
This is the prayer of each:
You are the source of my life.
You separate essence from mud.
You honor my soul.
You bring rivers from the
mountain springs.
You brighten my eyes.
The wine you offer
takes me out of myself
into the self we share.
Doing that is religion.
Rumi