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.
Do Buddhists Believe in God?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Goethe's Faust said (I think) much the same here: http://german.about.com/library/blgretchenE.htm
Martin
Martin.
...or is it all in my head?
::
Recently, I had an experience that I find very difficult to resolve...other than to simply believe. I can choose to think it is all in my own head...but that would mean that any being I may have envisioned would simply die with my passing. And it would simply be unbearable to accept that. To accept that...would mean to live without hope.
Why? Hope for what?
::
I had such a Religious uprbringing, being raised a Roman Catholic, and staunchly practising for nigh on 40 years....
when much younger, I had an 'experience' of my own... only I had a close friend in the room, who saw and witnessed the same thing...
I was convinced then, and for a long time afterwards, that we had been given a short glimpse of the Divine....
I don't give it a second thought. It is completely unnecessary and redundant to what I now know.
Any wish, desire, thought, hope or impression of the Divine, is simply not relevant.
I am, and shall be till I die. That's all I need. the Present Moment and my being in it.
All else is desire, clinging, attachment and just leads to suffering.
"All else is desire, clinging, attachment and just leads to suffering."
Some Christians scold me for vainly thinking I can find salvation without God. If man is sinful and incapable of salvation by his own means, then God's creation is a failure. Which means God failed.
::
::
Sucks to grow up. LOL
Well said H.
I think about it too.
But love can just be.
::
She needs an answer....!! :tonguec:
Look at it this way, then, perhaps...
Remember this experience...
Be glad you had it....
Remember more significantly, the feeling it has given you....
But don't ever under any circumstances, feel you have to label it, as coming from anywhere or any"one".....
Rather, focus on knowing that, if you let it, this is how you could be experiencing every second of every single day.
Thank you!
A true statement to live by!
Sharpie
I'm not so sure how correct it is to say that all 'belief is attachment'. Belief is simply our mental model of the world and how phenomena function. If we have experiences of phenomena which go beyond a materialistic paradigm, then we will likely alter our beliefs of what is possible. Now, while belief may not be attachment, we can certainly be attached to our beliefs. This creates problems as our belief systems make us divide and categorize all of our experience and make stories out of it based off of our mental model. This is okay I guess, but we need to be aware that this is what we are doing. If we are not aware of how beliefs are formed and function from moment to moment, we will be blindly lead around by them. This can lead us into many pitfalls.
Now, on a more personal note, based on what you've said, I would say to definitely not throw out the experience you had as incorrect or insignificant. Your experience is your experience. And personal experiences such as these can open up our mind to possibilities that point beyond the 5 sense spheres. So, I would actually say to embrace this experience and look at it very deeply. I would also look deeply into the story you create around it. Don't value judge with should & shouldn't or good & bad, just look at it. Don't worry about theological implications or conflicts with buddhist beliefs, just pay attention. Become very aware of it and learn everything you can about the nature of experience from it.
Also, I wouldn't discard hope either, just pay attention to how this hope is affecting your actions. Is it inspiring your practice or is it causing you to neglect the here and now? Are you becoming obsessed by the experience? What do you want from this hope, and this life? How does this experience give you hope? What sort of thoughts and stories is your mind making out of this hope?
Once again, don't judge when answering, just know what is going on within you. These are all things you need to know for yourself. If you can answer them, you are doing very well in your practice. Keep it up!
take care & be well
_/\_
metta
http://www.answers.com/topic/god-in-buddhism
There are several histories of the Cathars which you can access on the world wide web, so I won’t delve into the history or the problems here. However, in my visits to Toulouse, Albi, Carcassonne, and excursions around Cathar outposts I learned a few interesting tidbits I’d be happy to share here. Albi is very important, since the Church perceived the “heresy” as being centered there, and the Cathar “heresy” was dubbed “Albigensian.” The formidable cathedral St-Cecile was built there after the massacre of the few remaining Cathars to show the triumphant power of the Church. One must note that it was the Church that really governed Europe from about 500 CE to the Renaissance.
The Cathars believed that the universe was in a duel between the God of the New Testament, who reigned over spiritual things, and the God of the Old Testament, who ruled over matter. This was the Marcion (ca. 85-160 CE) version. Others believed the material world was reigned over by Satan. At any event, they believed in a dual reality characterized by spirit dueling with matter, and vice-versa. All these things can be found out by summary reading.
Back to Marcion, who lived in the first and second centuries common era, it is to be remembered that he rejected all of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament, save ten epistles of St. Paul and the Gospel According to Luke. He taught that there were two gods, proclaiming that the punishing, lawgiving, creator God of the Old Testament, and the good, merciful Father-God of the New Testament were different. He declared that the creator god was inferior to the other. Manichaeism followed from that, and the Cathars were latter-day Manichaeans.
Now, not seeing things through the prism of the one-world theory that the Church adhered to, the Cathars tended to reject not only the authority of the Church but also the outward symbols of the Church, such as the sacraments and the hierarchy. It was pointed out to me by a local artisan in the nave of St-Nazaire in Carcassonne that the Sacrament of Holy Communion was an impossibility, since nothing of a material nature could be holy. Therefore, the “Bread,” or “Body,” signifies the Word of God, not the “flesh,” which is corrupt. And the “Wine,” or “Blood,” can only signify life force or “spirit.” She seemed not to know to which realm water belonged, as much was made of “Living Water” in the gospels.
Well, I could write more on this later, if requested. One final point: Most of the talks I had or received with people concerning the Cathars on this trip to Languedoc had to do with economics. The land was very wealthy and from Roman times had been a major wine-producing area. The Cathars were not all “The Pure” (Cathari), but mostly loyal followers and admirers who supported them and believed they had a higher spiritual authority than the commonly perceived corrupt clergy of the Church. Thus, they did not eschew possession of property or wealth. They were very wealthy and prospered more than those in the northern kingdom that were tempted to come down there by the Pope. People simply weren’t filling the Church coffers, so the Pope persuaded the petty King of the northern part of France to send down troops. Had it not been for the Albigensian heresy, there might very well be today a trans-Pyrenees country between France and Spain occupying today’s Languedoc, Provence, and Catalonia, and perhaps even a much larger area.
attached image is of the formidable cathedral St-Cecile in Albi.
A strong statement of the Church's temporal power.
Inside, over the chancel, the Cathars are depicted as sinners being dragged away to hell
and St. Dominic and all the Inquisitors being crowned with halos and such. The Cathedral
is propaganda-art.
Ummm... I think Nirvana was being courteous by asking for his post to be bumped to another thread possibly?
Are you okay?
-bf
Thanks for sharing. I forgot all about this thread. If you feel like sharing anything else about it, please feel free to. I am always interested in history, especially religious history.
Regards,
Jason
The question should, perhaps, then be:
How is it that some Buddhist can believe in God whilst others do not, all the while both groups calling themselves Buddhist?
thats pretty much what buddhism says about it to me..
I'm sorry if I didn't pick up on any new subject matter, but as this thread was one of my interests, I simply picked it up where I had dropped off.
I didn't foresee any slight in saying a thread had been bumped up, and certainly didn't mean to dismiss any new thoughts or topics. I realize that we all have different emphases and interests. I was of the impression that some channel-turning in threads was only natural. (I cannot talk with my dear sisters for five minutes without some of that going on.) To me, it's become amusing how threads meander on and off topic. Also, to discuss how some Christians did or did not [even] believe in [the ONE] God makes the idea of Buddhist theistic belief even a little bit more interesting to me.
I thank each and all for your patience, forbearance, and enthusiasm.
And LET THE FORCE BE WITH YOU!
Pilgrim:
Somewhere you wrote, in response to something Zenmonk Genryu said, that there's no accounting for the way people think, that people can mix all sorts of things together and live with them —even contradictions.
Please say more on what you have written in red above. Lend us your assessment.
This is probably one of the most contentious aspects 'post-modern' Buddhism: the whole God question.
My reading suggests that it only really arises at the Buddhist/monotheism interface. Shamanism and polytheism appear to have no difficulty fitting themselves to the Buddhist path, neither do mystical Islam (Sufism) or mystical Judaism/Christianity. Only when the atavistic belief in an 'Old Man In The Sky' is predominant and normative is there a problem. The results of this peculiar concept are a hardening of the system and a refusal to investigate beyond doctrine - on both sides, I would add.
As Buddhism spreads into the West, we can observe two broad 'schools' of thought among its new adherents: those who reject entirely that which has been the earlier faith-system and those who want to integrate it. Interestingly, it appears to be Christianity which causes the most trouble (what a surprise!). Jewish Buddhists, of whom I have known a few, seem to have little problem. Perhaps it is because no believing Jew needs to be taught the First Noble Truth!!!!
What has struck me most forcibly is the vigour of the aversion that so many express towards the Christian message, particularly in those areas of the world where the Protestant ethos has been dominant. This may be because Protestantism has, at least until the mid-20th century, been very anti-mysticism. One result of this aversion tends to be hard-line doctrinal rejection of any belief in God/gods and, with it, a refusal to admit the power and value of the message contained in such beliefs.
Each of us is formed (or deformed) by our culture and background. My own having been humanist and pluralistic, the idea that there are vital truths to be found in every system and that each system is, in some ways, defective is at the very foundation of my internal and external travels. Growing up speaking three languages certainly helped, as did the rigour of French education in the '50s and '60s, combined with the breadth of the English system which ran alongside it. Thus, the Battle of Waterloo (for example) was both a victory and a defeat.
Among my clearest memories are some of my parents' US friends who came to London to escape the clutches of the Tydings Committee and the McCarthy witch-hunt. At the age of 10 or 11 and an ardent fan of the USA, I met people who were, at one and the same time, proud to be US citizens and being told that they were "anti-American": being at school with Sam Wanamaker's daughters made this personal for me.
When I came to the Christian churches in my search, I found a Macathy-like attitude, on both sides of the Reformation fence, that disgusted me. The 'Prots' accused the 'RCs' of idolatry (which I knew to be untrue) and the 'RCs' saw 'Prots' as damned, which I also knew to be nonsense.
My solution was to say that each system must contain elements of the truth and could, if only they would listen to each other, learn more about the mystery of the world. This view was strengthened when Angelo Roncalli, as Pope John XXIII, called the Second Vatican Council and ecumenism became the order of the day.
Similarly, when I came across Buddhism as a living system, I was shocked to hear the vitriol poured on it by Christians but, also, at the venom from the Buddhist side. As I read more, I realised that the Buddha himself had veered away from making definitive statements about a Supreme Deity. I could entirely empathise with the statement that "in all my travels, I have never met such a one." As a result, I realised that I did not have to sacrifice the Christian baby along with the Church bathwater.
All faith systems contain irrational beliefs, even (dare I say it) Buddhism, unproven and currently unprovable. The fact that people have 'experienced' the 'truth' of them does not, alas, convince. I recall the Dalai Lama being asked by Jeremy Paxman what he would do if science demonstrated that rebirth was untrue. He replied: "I would stop believing in it at once." Then he smiled and asked: "What experiments could you set up to prove or disprove it?" I have to say the same about the God/gods memes(*).
As a result, I have no difficulty in accepting the labels people give themselves, like 'Christian' or 'Buddhist', despite their holding heterodox views and beliefs. At the same time, I recognise that the organisations which owe their very existence to maintaining a particular set of criteria may reject this self-labelling. From a longer historical perspective, rigid organisations which refuse to accomodate such apparent heterodoxy have a tendency to break up as a result of precisely this rigidity. Both Christianity and Buddhism found ways to incorporate new insights and 'memeplexes' (*). It is only when the leaders and teachers become doctrinaire and exclusive that they reject the marginal thinkers.
One such marginal thinker among the Christians was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. His scientific contributions to palaeantology are largely overlooked today, along with his original spiritual work. His concept of an unfolding and evolving universe, with the development of lithosphere, atmosphere and noosphere, informs much of my own thought. The Four Noble Truths and the Dharma Seals fit this cosmology very comfortably for me.
I know that this has been a long and rambling post. I write it between two periods of other study and apologise if it is less than entirely consistent.
(*) For more on memes and memeplexes, I refer those who don't know about theme to the excellent Wikipedia article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
@Palzang who is kind enough to remind me over and over not to use obscure or technical words and phrases: sometimes we have to use the precise and accurate word to describe something. As an example, the word "hypotenuse" describes a particular line in a right-angled triangle, no other single word does so: it is the right word to use. I attempt to do the same.
Palzang
Cal Naughton, Jr.: I like to think of Jesus as a mischievous badger.
Cal Naughton, Jr.: I like to think of Jesus as an Ice Dancer, dressed in an all-white jumpsuit, and doing an interpretive dance of my life.
Cal Naughton, Jr.: I like to picture Jesus in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I'm here to party.
-bf
Sometimes I get too caught up in thinking that something "needs" be answered - when it would be better for everyone involved if it had just gone unanswered or unspeculated.
I need to remember this more.
-bf
Thanks for your very clear and helpful post. I find the autobiographical passages not rambling at all, just authentic descriptions of the experiences of a Pilgrim.
You wrote that
THANKS SO MUCH, PILGRIM, FOR YOUR KINDLY INSIGHTS AND DIRECTION. Your whole post is a gem, so please excuse me for picking out bits of it here
Not quite, Celebrin. His first, and his last, teachings were the Four Noble Truths. The first is directly experienced, the second can be discovered, the third is a message of hope and the fourth requires one to do something.
The Buddha certainly urged that people test the teachings for themselves and that requires that we actually get on and act in accordance with them. Only when we have experienced the truth or otherwise of the instruction can we make a decision as to what is 'useful'.
It is similar to how we learn, say, maths: we are told the rule and then need to do pages of exercises until it becomes part of us. Just hearing the rule is not enough; the exercises are the crucial part. The result can be that we have to let go of pre-suppositions, even some that could be dear to us or which have seemed skillful in the past.
One of the things that I have learned on this life's journey is that we need to hold our beliefs and opinions lightly: that way, when we find that they are wrong or taking us in the wrong direction, we can let them go without too much pain. I refer again to HHDL's remark that he would abandon even a deeply-held belief if science disproved it.
The whole point is to test, test and test again, with all possible attention and honesty. This can only be done by actually getting on with the task. Being a bystander is not an option.
Priceless Thought! We should all pray for such grace.
____________________
"BE KIND" - the religion of ShangriLa---from the movie, "Lost Horizon"
May other religions have so much history and teaching based upon someone else's opinions or thoughts - but they've become doctrine and dogma to those religions. They can't give it up without losing face.
Maybe losing face in Buddhism is okay - because "saving face" is just another thing to let go of.
-bf
Palzang
Saint Paul calls on his readers to become "fools in Christ" and the great Saint Basil of Russia is also called the Holy Fool (as is Brither Francis of Assisi).
For the fiurst years that I was contributing and working on the Net, I used Trump Zero of the Major Arcana, the Fool, as my avatar
Palzang
QUESTION:
Is it foolish to believe in God or a god if it by some means that belief liberates a part of you and helps you deal more confidently and producively with problems that come your way in life?
2 MORE QUESTIONS:
Is it true OF YOU that you find some traits or tendencies of theists of this or that (or all) persuasions SO UNATTRACTIVE that you want to attack all belief? AND Might not this "GOD" issue really belong more to the field of aesthetics than to that of pure reason?
“BE KIND" — the religion of Shangri-La: from the movie, “Lost Horizon"
Meditate by emptying yourself and letting the universe fill you.
Go Green!!!
Me too.
-bf
What is God?
The old man in the sky?
Your guilty conscience?
A being?
A process that pervades the world?
The angry judge?
The energy of love and compassion?
ECM
Could it not be considered somewhat unskillful to worry about something like a God? There is no proof. Even Christ or the Apostles let us know that it is through "faith alone" that one would be saved, that is, don't look for signs and wonders because they probably ain't gonna happen. If you need miracles for your faith - you're screwed.
So - is there a god or gods? Who knows?
I guess if you're trying to bank on guaranteeing your afterlife - you need to get this issue resolved. If you're content with letting things play out the way they will - that might be the best approach.
If at some point it is proven that there is a god or gods - I'll accept it. It if is truth - I have no problem accepting truth. If it's proven there are no gods or god - I'll accept it.
As someone once said, Come Kalamas...
-bf
How is it that some believers, in knowing with such confidence THE UNKNOWABLE, manage to make so many people so vehemently opposed to their way of thinking?
Is something else also going on here?
For me, it's not so much a question of certitude as it is a matter of real integrity of belief and practice. That would include consistency and at least some measure of self restraint and real humility, if humility is one of the things the theistic religion teaches (true of Christinity). Real humility would not constrain others by force of arms or threats...
IF [the one] God exists, what is THAT to you?
Is God a Buddha? Is God a realized being or just a figment of someone's imagination?
If a tree fell in a forest and no one was there to hear it, would it make a noise?
If we were perfectly acclimated to our environment and had never invented clothes or cover, would anyone ever be naked?
If we were all so intuned to the universe and acutely aware of the interconnectedness of all that we never felt lost or out-of-power, would these questions even faze us?
_____________________
all which isn't singing is mere talking
and all talking's talking to oneself
(whether that oneself be sought or seeking
master or disciple sheep or wolf)
gush to it as deity or devil
-toss in sobs and reasons threats and smiles
name it cruel fair or blessed evil-
it is you (ne i)nobody else
drive dumb mankind dizzy with haranguing
-you are deafened every mother's son-
all is merely talk which isn't singing
and all talking's to oneself alone
but the very song of(as mountains
feel and lovers)singing is silence
ee cummings
To some brilliant thinkers, like Richard Dawkins, they are worse than a waste of time. What surprises me is that so many people who dislike the God 'meme', still attack it from within the same system. As Bateson points out, in order to do so, we must accept the laws of that system. Or, as Matthew Fox puts it, slaves remain in slavery as long as they continue to use the language of the slave-owners.
For me, it is not enough to assert one side or another of the God debate. Even personal experience is not enough, either of 'presence' or of 'absence', particularly second- or third-hand experience.
From my pov, the ball is squarely in the court of the theists - and I count myself among those who are more on that side of the court than the other. If the language in which we are presenting the meme is not persuasive, we must either change the language or question the meme itself.
We need to ask ourselves - and not the opposition - to define what, precisely, we do mean. When HHDL refers, as he regularly does when addressing the West, to 'God', does he mean anything at all similar to the 'God' of the Catholics or the Muslims?
We need to be clear when we are using metaphorical or allusive language. Indeed, I think that we need to clarify it for ourselves. There is a tendency to confuse the symbol with the symbolised.
As I say, I find it hard to credit that something which has occupied so much human energy for so much of human history and used so many resources is simply to be dismissed out of hand because we do not yet understand it.
Love.
What is love?
What is love.
Love is a fading memory.
Love is piercingly present.
Love is full of charm.
Love is hideously in the way.
Explosion of love makes you feel ecstatic.
Explosion of love makes you feel suicidal.
Love brings goodliness and godliness.
Love brings celestial vision.
Love creates the unity of heaven and earth.
Love tears apart heaven and earth.
Is love sympathy.
Is love gentleness.
Is love possessiveness.
Is love sexuality.
Is love friendship.
Who knows?
Maybe the rock knows,
Sitting diligently on earth,
Not flinching from cold snowstorms or baking heat.
O rock,
How much I love you:
You are the only loveable one.
Would you let me grow a little flower of love on you?
If you don't mind,
Maybe I could grow a pine tree on you.
If you are so generous,
Maybe I could build a house on you.
If you are fantastically generous,
Maybe I could eat you up,
Or move you to my landscape garden.
It is nice to be friends with a rock!
From TIMELY RAIN: Selected Poetry of Chogyam Trungpa. Written July 1975. First published in FIRST THOUGHT BEST THOUGHT.