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.
I believe that...... as a Buddha we would say .... that belief neither hinders or helps the existence of God or the possibility of a consciousness beyond deaths door.
@ourself I agree. It was absurd of me to make such a suggestion in that we know when our universe began. It actually undermines the mystery of creation ex nihilo, so your correction was very illuminating and most helpful. Thank you.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I couldn't stomach this eternal, a priori being who demands devotion from it's creations, or measures them against yardsticks that demand they deny or repress powerful instinctual behavior inherent in the design. Really?
But I do seem to have a default sense of existing in a universe that is as alive as I am, and operates from whatever the step above 'sentience' is (or the set that includes the subset of sentience).
I admit that a purely mechanistic or dumb materialism is so depressing, existentially, that if I could choose, I wouldn't choose to believe it. We have nice historical examples of what happens to human civilization when reductionism and materialism are imposed upon us.
The funny thing is, we *think* we have a choice in the first place. We do; we can choose to believe what isn't true over what is (and here we are, welcome to Buddhism). In the end, choosing what to believe is just playing with yourself (which is fine!! It's normal!! It's natural!!). This is the kind of playing with yourself you can do in public In fact, we can play with each other and no one will call the police!
I think of God as a being who welcomes you. You live your life with love for man and love for God. God is loving. It's a problem to think 'why would the creator have made the world as it is?' The explanation is that people have free will. Their collective karma caused them to be in this world of suffering. That is actually consistent with Mahayana Buddhism where karma determines what sort of world you will be in.
I couldn't stomach this eternal, a priori being who demands devotion from it's creations, or measures them against yardsticks that demand they deny or repress powerful instinctual behavior inherent in the design. Really?
...
There's a difference between what people say God is and what God is.
“I couldn't stomach this eternal, a priori being who demands devotion from it's creations, or measures them against yardsticks that demand they deny or repress powerful instinctual behavior inherent in the design. Really?”
Me too!
To quote Fr Dumitru Staniloae:
“St. Gregory of Nazianzus says that “to tell of God is not possible...but to know of Him is less possible.”
But “not only does God's peace pass through all thought and understanding... but so does exact knowledge of creation as well. You can be sure that we possess but the bare outline of the creation...Yes, far more than these things does there transcendent cause, the incomprehensible and boundless nature pass understanding. I mean understanding what that nature is, not understanding that it exists. Our preaching is not vain, our faith empty [1 Cor 15:14]... “Conviction, you see, of a thing's existence is quite different from knowledge of what it is. “
We do not perfectly understand the rationality behind creation either, in which, the “averted figure of God” is reflected. Creation too is somewhat apophatic. But the being of God, whose “averted figure” is seen in creation, is far less known. From this point of view, Socrates was right to say “I know that I know nothing,” if we translate this as “I know that I know nothing exactly,” and for that reason I cannot claim to know anything as it truly is. But given our meagerness, what we know of the immeasurable greatness of God is nonetheless enormous. It is extremely important that we know that He is, even if we do not know what He is.
Is it not something of infinite importance to know there exists one who is uncaused, higher than all that is caused, and who explains the existence of all knowledge, people, and love? Does it not throw a gigantic light upon everything to know that there exists one who is infinitely higher than everything in the world, and who is from this point of view indescribable and apophatic? Does it not cause me to understand that all the good I experience and all my eternal, meaningful hope is from Him, as is the salvation that comes to me in Christ? This is not enough to save me, but, happily, it gives sense to my life. And is not this knowledge, on the other hand, helpful for cultivating my knowledge of Him? How wonderful it is to know that being who is beyond my understanding, who gives us everything without us giving anything!
Do I know the full mystery of my fellow human being, who loves me and does good to me? And yet, how much happiness does it bring me to know him at all? It is a knowledge that encompasses both the humility through which I know his unfathomable depths and my gratefulness for everything that he gives me. The more I see him as unfathomable, the more good it does me. I see that I am more pretentious when I think of myself as his equal or better. And the less I understand his existence, the less he expects me to serve him, while he serves me all the more.
When I see a dead body, it is without life. Therefore what i see with my eyes would lead me to conclude that with death comes death. The conclusion that something comes after this is mere speculation/ wishful thinking based on nothing. What is it we predicate this belief on? Let's have a discussion about unicorns, the arguments would be just as circular, speculative and baseless as the arguments we have about our concepts of god and the real reason we carry around notions of god: our end.
When I see a dead body, it is without life. Therefore what i see with my eyes would lead me to conclude that with death comes death. The conclusion that something comes after this is mere speculation/ wishful thinking based on nothing. What is it we predicate this belief on? Let's have a discussion about unicorns, the arguments would be just as circular, speculative and baseless as the arguments we have about our concepts of god and the real reason we carry around notions of god: our end.
@vinlyn I only speak for myself, as we all speak for ourselves. As I have stated before you need not find my posts informative, truthful or helpful but they are mine and being on a discussion forum I thought I would post them. Believe as you will I am not asking you to believe otherwise. Maybe you could be constructive and show me my error.
@vinlyn I only speak for myself, as we all speak for ourselves. As I have stated before you need not find my posts informative, truthful or helpful but they are mine and being on a discussion forum I thought I would post them. Believe as you will I am not asking you to believe otherwise. Maybe you could be constructive and show me my error.
"What is it we predicate this belief on? Let's have a discussion about unicorns, the arguments would be just as circular, speculative and baseless as the arguments we have about our concepts of god and the real reason we carry around notions of god: our end. "
@jeffrey your right, I cannot state with any certainty that there is nothing after this life, all I can speak of with any kind of certitude stems from what I experience and know. I know nothing of the afterlife and frankly neither does anyone else. I would ask how does annata and annica square with permanently abiding selves be they you or god? Is not holding such beliefs, permanence and an abiding self the cause of dukkha? Metta Todd
@vinlyn what is a discussion about god predicated on if not conceptual thinking? Goes round and round and ends up no where because no one knows, much the same as a discussion about unicorns may progress. No offense, believe as you like- it's just my opinion and probably worth far less than the dirt on your shoe. Metta
But I was wondering if Buddha or -ism ever says that you shouldn't believe in God?
I think broadly speaking that Buddhism is best described as non-theist or agnostic. And I'd say that generally Buddhism encourages us to hold beliefs lightly, and not to take our opinions too seriously. So having assumptions is probably more helpful. Actually I think it's fine to remain agnostic on a lot of these questions - there is really no need to adopt a position of belief or disbelief.
Hi, yes there is something against believing in God. It´s knowning god. Believing is ok but only a lower level. Gotamo Buddho said: " The priests are talking about him but i do know him." Palikanon, Dighanikayo. anando
@jeffrey your right, I cannot state with any certainty that there is nothing after this life, all I can speak of with any kind of certitude stems from what I experience and know. I know nothing of the afterlife and frankly neither does anyone else. I would ask how does annata and annica square with permanently abiding selves be they you or god? Is not holding such beliefs, permanence and an abiding self the cause of dukkha? Metta Todd
Only conditional things have the three marks. The awakened heart is self, bliss, and permanent.
@Theswingisyellow, I'm not angry or upset with you. The "we" bothers me. That's all.
How can he talk about having circular, speculative and baseless arguments without including others?
There is a huge difference between saying things like, "We believe" and "Buddhists believe" and " Our view"
than
"I believe" and "It seems to me that".
Your right. Typing quick on my iPhone certainly does not lend itself to clear use of terms, it was not my intention to include everyone in my points of view just my mental laziness.
@jeffrey your right, I cannot state with any certainty that there is nothing after this life, all I can speak of with any kind of certitude stems from what I experience and know. I know nothing of the afterlife and frankly neither does anyone else. I would ask how does annata and annica square with permanently abiding selves be they you or god? Is not holding such beliefs, permanence and an abiding self the cause of dukkha? Metta Todd
Only conditional things have the three marks. The awakened heart is self, bliss, and permanent.
Your right. Typing quick on my iPhone certainly does not lend itself to clear use of terms, it was not my intention to include everyone in my points of view just my mental laziness.
No problem. The next time I slip and do it, you can kick me in my cyber ass!
@jeffrey your right, I cannot state with any certainty that there is nothing after this life, all I can speak of with any kind of certitude stems from what I experience and know. I know nothing of the afterlife and frankly neither does anyone else. I would ask how does annata and annica square with permanently abiding selves be they you or god? Is not holding such beliefs, permanence and an abiding self the cause of dukkha? Metta Todd
Only conditional things have the three marks. The awakened heart is self, bliss, and permanent.
Are you not a conditioned thing?
Without birth and death and the 12 links there isn't a question of conditionality. I would say that what I think of as an 'I' is conditioned. Like I think my body is me. I even think the voices I hear are me. But really they are just phenomena arising.
Comments
I believe that...... as a Buddha we would say ....
that belief neither hinders or helps the existence of God
or the possibility of a consciousness beyond deaths door.
But I do seem to have a default sense of existing in a universe that is as alive as I am, and operates from whatever the step above 'sentience' is (or the set that includes the subset of sentience).
I admit that a purely mechanistic or dumb materialism is so depressing, existentially, that if I could choose, I wouldn't choose to believe it. We have nice historical examples of what happens to human civilization when reductionism and materialism are imposed upon us.
The funny thing is, we *think* we have a choice in the first place. We do; we can choose to believe what isn't true over what is (and here we are, welcome to Buddhism). In the end, choosing what to believe is just playing with yourself (which is fine!! It's normal!! It's natural!!). This is the kind of playing with yourself you can do in public
The conclusion that something comes after this is mere speculation/ wishful thinking based on nothing. What is it we predicate this belief on?
Let's have a discussion about unicorns, the arguments would be just as circular, speculative and baseless as the arguments we have about our concepts of god and the real reason we carry around notions of god: our end.
I would ask how does annata and annica square with permanently abiding selves be they you or god?
Is not holding such beliefs, permanence and an abiding self the cause of dukkha?
Metta
Todd
Metta
Actually I think it's fine to remain agnostic on a lot of these questions - there is really no need to adopt a position of belief or disbelief.
yes there is something against believing in God. It´s knowning god.
Believing is ok but only a lower level.
Gotamo Buddho said: " The priests are talking about him but i do know him."
Palikanon, Dighanikayo.
anando
than
"I believe" and "It seems to me that".
A Loaf holds many grains of corn
And many myriad drops the Sea:
So is God's Oneness Multitude
And that great Multitude are we.
The All proceedeth from the One,
And into One must All regress:
If otherwise, the All remains
Asunder-riven manyness.
God is an utter Nothingness,
Beyond the touch of Time and Place:
The more thou graspest after Him,
The more he fleeth thy embrace.
Angelus Silesius