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.
Guys, many beautiful comments, many interesting notions. Thank you to everyone who is contributing.
To Federica: I think the origin of suffering and its cessation is part of what is meant by Truth. One comes with the other. They are the same, in the end, at least in part. As Truth is more than that. But this is just me. As stated before I am no Buddhist, though I have deep respect and admiration for its ancient wisdom, particularly in the form of Zen Buddhism. I am Catholic. Truth is a central tenet to my tradition, since Jesus is the Word, or Logos. He said "the truth will set you free", where He is the Truth. "I am the way and the truth and the life."
Anyway, back on topic, it is always useful to define the terms of a question beforehand. This is why previously I posted some links. If by God we refer to the ultimate reality, suddenly it all becomes pretty clear.
According to eminent Zen master Soyen Shaku Buddhism is panentheistic. In this text, translated into English by Soyen Shaku's famous disciple D. T. Suzuki (the leading academic on Zen Buddhism in the West), we read:
"At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience. Again, Buddhism is not pantheistic in the sense that it identifies the universe with God. On the other hand, the Buddhist God is absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation, is necessarily fragmental and imperfect. To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, "panentheism," according to which God is πᾶν καὶ ἕν (all and one) and more than the totality of existence."
For a comparison, Catholic priest and theologian Robert Barron defines God as eluding any and all categories, even the same category of being. He is not (just) the highest being, but the metaphysically necessary "Ipsum Esse Subsistens", the pure, infinite, eternal act of to be itself. This is grounded on Aquinas definition, and is reminiscent of the biblical "I am who I am," of Jesus replying "Truly, Truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am." Most Fathers/Doctors of the Church (mystics, ascetics and Fathers of the Desert included) adopt a similar stance. Additionally, the fact God is conceived as totally transcendent to His creation, makes the Catholic view theistic, as opposed to a pantheistic or panentheistic one. Here God is of a different substance than the world. At the same time He is seen as omnipresent, meaning that He sustains the whole of creation. His love of creation is such that He will not withdraw His Presence, which would be the ultimate form of annihilation, not merely imposing death, but ending existence altogether.
To anyone interested in interfaith dialogue and understanding I highly recommend the works of Thomas Merton, Trappist monk, mystic, writer and poet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton
Sorry if sometimes my syntax sounds convoluted, English is not my first language
@ourself said:
I am assuming that by "God" we mean the Biblical character.
Take your pick.
Man has created them all out of a similar mold.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Not all notions of ultimate being include a deity responsible for making all this happen.
Things like natural selection seem like a handy way of rationalizing away "god" but they actually beg the question "what is it exactly that selects?"
We are not exclusive of nature and when non-seperation is examined, it would be a hard sell to say we are.
Buddha is or was awake but what is there to awaken to in light of dependent origination?
There is no awaking to nothingness... Could you imagine? it would be like getting a degree in nonsense. Just doesn't work. So what is awakened to?
The emptiness of all things is precisely their potential to change but what exactly is changing and why does it seem to run on instinct (natural selection)?
And why would the universe evolve to the point of having so many perspectives with the ability for self awareness and a knack for exploration?
Sorry, just rambling.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@ourself said: Things like natural selection seem like a handy way of rationalizing away "god" but they actually beg the question "what is it exactly that selects?"
If someone's still asking "what selects?", that means they don't understand Natural Selection!
When traits occur within organisms that help them survive better, those traits will also survive and be passed on. Those that hinder survival will die off with their hosts. That's all there is to "selection".
The phrase "natural selection" was coined to differentiate what happens naturally from the "artificial selection" that humans are responsible for (i.e. crop and animal breeding). It's simply the conditions of a species' survival that are the selecting factor; there's no agent selecting.
It's a bad phrase, front-loaded with meaning (agency) that it doesn't actually represent, but that's easily fixed by Googling and reading something! And not a Creationist source (Ken Ham will mess you up, man!).
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2014
@Toraldris said:
It's a bad phrase, front-loaded with meaning (agency) that it doesn't actually represent, but that's easily fixed by Googling and reading something! And not a Creationist source (Ken Ham will mess you up, man!).
That was a nice try but it refers to the process by which evolution dictates what you call "better". If there was no criteria to meet, thgere would be no evolution. That's causation for you.
Care to try again?
And what does creationism have to do with anything?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@ourself A better phrase would be Natural Adaptation. Like I said, the phrase Natural Selection was coined to differentiate it from Artificial Selection (breeding), but it just causes confusion these days (as here).
What is it that you don't understand about natural selection and evolution? I'll try my best to explain.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2014
@Toraldris said:
ourself A better phrase would be Natural Adaptation. Like I said, the phrase Natural Selection was coined to differentiate it from Artificial Selection (breeding), but it just causes confusion these days (as here).
You may want to take that up with the scientific community.
That seems to go off topic however. Whether a selection is made or an adaptation is required for evolution to take place is irrelevant.
The fact remains that there is an awareness to tap into.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@ourself Evolution is just a word we slap on the result of a process that's unguided, determined by "selection pressures" of predation and environment. Survival is immediate; survival is key. There's no overarching goal. I'm just going to leave this line of conversation, it's turning into a headache like we're not even talking about the same thing (especially when you bring up "an awareness to tap into" when we're talking about evolution...).
Feel free to PM me tho if you wanna talk about it further, it's tangential to the Belief in God topic.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2014
@Toraldris said:
ourself Evolution is just a word we slap on the result of a process that's unguided, determined by "selection pressures" of predation and environment. Survival is immediate; survival is key. There's no overarching goal. I'm just going to leave this line of conversation, it's turning into a headache like we're not even talking about the same thing (especially when you bring up "an awareness to tap into" when we're talking about evolution...).
Feel free to PM me tho if you wanna talk about it further, it's tangential to the Belief in God topic.
That's ok if you prefer not to respond but I'll still have to stay the course. It's odd to me that you can say survival is key and at the same time say there is no goal.
As for awareness and evolution, they kind of go hand in hand. I doubt it can be any other way. As this is a Buddhist forum I perhaps mistakenly assume everyone here thinks there is an awareness to tap into.
I do suggest that natural selection and evolution (or whatever label you feel most comfortable with) work through a kind of instinct.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2014
I don't even believe in creation let alone a creator.
How do we create what has always been?
Now, if the process of being itself started to become aware one aspect at a time, what would we call that?
It wouldn't be God because God is a nickname for Yahweh... Right?
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
It hasn't 'always been'. There was a beginning, but 13.8 billion years might as well be eternity of no beginning, considering the length of our lives, the length of time we've been human. If Earth has only had life on it for four million of it's 4 billion years, imagine how many other 'earths' have coalesced, sprouted life and baked to death when its star died. It would account for all of Buddha's lives and then some, methinks. There's been PLENTY of time and materials . And no need for a creator, unless life itself takes that role.
Now, if the process of being itself started to become aware one aspect at a time, what would we call that?
"The Whole Point". That's what I'd call it.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@Hamsaka I don't think we have enough information to consider the Big Bang a true or ultimate "beginning". It could be a continuation of a process of expansion and contraction that goes back much further. It could be the birth of a child universe from a larger multiverse (though there's no evidence of such). All we can really say is "the universe as we know it, with its stars, planets, black holes etc." formed from the aftermath of that expansion event. It marks the earliest we can see, the earliest we can extrapolate the causal chain back before we're stumped.
As Robert Jordan said in his Wheel of Time series, "It wasn't the beginning. But it was a beginning."
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Well . . . yes @Toraldris. Rather than an absolute beginning it could have been a cyclic flux or something like that. If the multiverse theory is 'right' (as it appears to be so far) then Big Bangs are going off and expanding into cold death through beginningless time and space. Our universe is one bubble in a great foam or something like that.
Even then I can sort of see 'intention' behind that, if indeed Life is the reason. Maybe it isn't, it's just a cool phenomenon comparable to other cool phenomena we will never know about cuz they are happening in another universe. Heck even that has me intuit 'intention'. It's hard for me to not 'see' intent, but what else would I see as a human being?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@Hamsaka I love the possibilities, and thinking about stuff, but always have to return to what we know, what we suspect, and what we hypothesize. The multiverse theory for one is a hypothesis, and there are motivations for that hypothesis coming into being (one of the same arguments for the existence of God, regarding "fine tuning", is used as support for the hypothesis), but I haven't seen or heard of any actual evidence for it (yet).
Waiting to see what we find out next is one of the most exciting things to me! Well, not the "waiting" part per se.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
We call ourselves 'intelligent life'. That could be the problem right there.
We differ from chimpanzees by 1% of our genome, and share something like 48% of our genome with bananas. Is the 1% difference with chimps really an excuse to call ourselves intelligent? We don't have anything but ourselves to compare with to see if we are understanding correctly.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@Hamsaka Weeeeeell, I think we can measure intelligence by how closely our thinking corresponds to reality, but then again many people would fail that test. Har har. Or maybe that would be wisdom. I don't know.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Me either. We argue about what is 'real'. Last night I watched a docu about 'the electric universe'. Never heard of it. In a nutshell, it sees the Standard Model as wrong. I mean, the standard model . . . . talk about the foundations of reality, wrong?
We can't agree what reality is from the laws that dictate the behavior of matter to why the Middle East is behaving the way it is. We tend to agree with whatever makes us feel more safe (hats off to @Vinlyn for that). That's reality. The presence of disagreement between the individuals experiencing the exact same reality is telling me we are getting a D on the test as a race.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
Yeah I always question current models, and put my faith in the process... in the work, in the human potential to figure things out (not necessarily everything though) and to correct ourselves when new information comes to light. The Standard Model may well be wrong; it's just a framework of theories that so far stand up to every test we've thrown at them. We've been wrong before, and we're likely wrong now in some ways, but at least we're "as right as we can be given the information we have". No one should expect more than that!
Bet in a thousand years we're working with an entirely different scientific view, and what we know today will be thought of like Isaac Newton's gravity vs. Einstein's general relativity. Both work for practical purposes, but they're not "right" to the same degree.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@lobster said:
The mystic teachings are there in the Abrahamic religions and they are profound. I find Buddhism can throw light on the essentials as I find it provides the best and fastest tools to knowing.
>
However . . . the Abrahamic traditions provide heart, family and community to a greater degree than much Buddhism, which is sometimes a little clinical and head based.
I agree. For me, the contemplative side of Buddhism seems to be better laid out in terms of instruction; whereas Christian contemplativism is more intuitive and vague, although just as profound. But the social side of Christian spirituality is far more advanced, it seems, and I find it quite powerful.
Take communion, for example. The sense of community and unconditional love it's meant to foster and celebrate — transforming offenses made and received into forgiveness, and uniting the many into a collective whole through a sacred bond that transcends all our differences v is a spiritual experience that speaks directly to our nature as social creatures.
I went to see King Diamond in concert last night in Seattle, and the next morning, I went to the 7am mass right next door and the sense of community was overwhelming. I was a stranger and had just come from one of the most 'satanic' performances I've ever seen, but I still felt welcomed. It's such a strange juxtaposition, but the spirituality underlying it all keeps pulling me into it.
I suppose I'm more interested in pan-religious mysticism these days than any one particular tradition.
If there was a beginning to all that is then that would mean there was a point in time with no potential for anything.
Think about it.
Ow.
The big bang may have spawned the known universe but there could be an infinite amount of big bangs going on right now.
If there is more than one big bang then each one would be a function of the universe and not the beginning of the universe.
According to the multiverse theory that's what's happening. The universe with a capital U creates sub-universes in some mysterious way like a bubble machine.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
edited October 2014
The Pope should know :buck: , right?
It makes the Catholic Church more progressive than the evangelicals. Unfortunately in the article 'intelligent design' was called 'scientific' along with evolution and Big Bangism.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Intelligent design seems off somehow considering the suffering and pain that intelligent beings have to go through.
It also begs the question "What designed the designer?" If the designer can be eternal then by that logic so can that which it supposedly designed.
And still information gets easier and easier to share.
@ourself said: "If there was a beginning to all that is then that would mean there was a point in time with no potential for anything."
Are you suggesting that some kind of amorphous matter having pure potentiality of being or becoming something exists eternally and that which is eternal is also temporal?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Silouan said:
Are you suggesting that some kind of amorphous matter having pure potentiality of being or becoming something exists eternally and that which is eternal is also temporal?
I'm not sure I'm following you here but I'll take a stab at it. I think the universe as a process runs on a kind of instinct. That everything is the result of information being shared and is itself sharing information. The collecting and sharing of information is pretty much the definition of intelligence. That is not to say the universe is intelligent except maybe through us.
I think the universe has always been and that the potential for matter/energy is actually another kind of energy. I seriously doubt anything could predate it's own potential to exist. Every cause has an effect and every effect is also a cause.
I certainly wouldn't suggest that the eternal is temporal but I do figure it would be in a constant state of change.
In theory an eternal set could give rise to an infinite amount of infinite sets, each one unique and in a state of change.
I am such a jolly gal, sitting on my cushion everyday, doing the best I can to live a life that responds to my Buddhist beliefs, not overthinking things, giving a hoof whether a God exists or not and all the pointless neuron-overheating that pondering entails...!
So happy to have put all that chicken-egg dead-end behind me, in the same place where my college philosophy books are gathering dust.
So happy, just basking in the present moment, and soooo no caring whether a God exists or not.
So happy not to need a God to give a sense to my existence, nor to give the power of being the creator of my own universe away.
So happy not to need a God to make me strong in the dismal hours, nor happy when I need some cheering.
Sooo happy...!
The process of understanding God, albeit limited and imperfect, far from being just this painful struggle, spontaneously arises and deepens within prayer. Approaching these matters solely through pure reason is indeed harder, though also possible. I think Buddha warned against this type of intellectualism precisely because he knew Truth would become apparent more in an intuitive frame rather than a discursive one. It's actually quite close to Pascal famous distinction between esprit de finesse and esprit de géométrie. On the other hand, Fathers/Doctors of the Church often elucidate how rational conclusions are revealed to them primarily in the form of Divine Inspiration, or anyway while absorbed in a state of profound prayer. My point of view on Buddhism is an external one, but it seems to me meditating is also realizing the substance of beings.
It is not required for the world (by world I mean our physical reality) to extend indefinitely in the past. On the contrary, it must be finite in the past, for time and change to exist at all. Instead, we need to postulate an Ultimate Reality (God) that is eternal and infinite. On this point both Catholicism and Zen Buddhism (Soyen Shaku, http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm) seem to concur. Catholic theologians go further to define God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens, and as the Love that creates our world (universe) out of nothingness, while upholding it uninterruptedly in order to avoid annihilation (Father Barron, http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/4835). In Zen Buddhism the world is a manifestation of God, the world is generated/created from God and in God (panentheism).
In any case, God is metaphysically necessary. This video beautifully and effectively demonstrates the fundamental reality of God applying an inductive mode of reasoning to prove the case. It is not incompatible with the little I know of Zen Buddhism teachings either.
As for Big Bang Theory, the Church never had the slightest issue in endorsing it. Big Bang Theory formulator and first and foremost proponent was in fact Roman Catholic priest/professor of physics Georges Lemaitre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître). Also, since decades evolution is understood as basically unproblematic, and as the most plausible scientific explanation to the developement of species and diversity of life on this planet (keeping in mind that evolution does not account for the emergence of life from matter, and for the emergence of consciousness in later times). Catholics interpret the tale in Genesis as mostly allegorical of more important spiritual truths, and of the fundamental truth of a Creator God. The tale is regarded as real at a deeper level. Fundamentalism and literalism are XIX Century heresies born in America, out of some sectarian circles inherent to the galaxy of protestant denominations, and totally unrelated to Catholic Tradition (and Biblical exegesis).
The titanic, perennial conflict between faith and science, publicized on some superficial and misinformed media, when objectively analyzed turns out to be nothing more than a myth.
Just a reminder: materialism (the only thing that exists is matter), scientism (natural sciences as the only source of real knowledge), reductionism (a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and all sciences and phenomena, including consciousness, are reducible to physics) are not a viable path to true knowledge, because they aprioristically and irrationally leave out alternative ways of knowledge. Scientism is not only logically incoherent and circular, but it is antithetic to science.
In this sense the words of Max Planck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck), one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the XX Century, quantum mechanics originator and Nobel Prize winner, bear a profound significance, to this very day.
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
"Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
1 - The big bang is still banging away.
What does the big bang look like? Is it a line? is it a line in two directions? Yes.
Do the two lines return to point of origin? yes
How fast is the big bang? very very fast many many times the speed of light.
Does it require time although very very fast? yes
Is it the first instance of time? yes
is this in two dimensions? yes
Does this make the three dimensions? yes as it revolves around the point.
2 - What does the dimensions create? They create the perfect Atoms of which there is only one as type. This Atom has all the energy of the universe. When it gives off the energy it changes the atom into the material universe. There are only 108 Atoms. We do not create atoms and we can't. But we can beat up the poor atom and say we can.
3 - what is the big bang made of? it is made of Karma.
@Artorius said:
It is not required for the world (by world I mean our physical reality) to extend indefinitely in the past. On the contrary, it must be finite in the past, for time and change to exist at all. Instead, we need to postulate an Ultimate Reality (God) that is eternal and infinite. On this point both Catholicism and Zen Buddhism (Soyen Shaku, http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm) seem to concur. Catholic theologians go further to define God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens, and as the Love that creates our world (universe) out of nothingness, while upholding it uninterruptedly in order to avoid annihilation (Father Barron, http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/4835). In Zen Buddhism the world is a manifestation of God, the world is generated/created from God and in God (panentheism).
I have a 1928 copy of Soyen Shaku's "Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot," which in later editions was reprinted under the title "Zen for Americans."
The book contains a series of speeches Shaku delivered in Chicago, during the 1893 Parliament of World Religions.
Many zen revisionists have later found Shaku's propositions on God contradictory and confusing, to say the least.
He was probably trying to ingratiate himself with a Christian audience and finding a way to make Zen more palatable to the Western mind.
And I don't agree with you here: I don't think God is neither metaphorically necessary nor literally.
Interreligion exchange is very interesting, but I find that's too much God proselitising for a Buddhist site.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@DhammaDragon said: And I don't agree with you here: I don't think God is neither metaphorically necessary nor literally. Interreligion exchange is very interesting, but I find that's too much God proselitising for a Buddhist site.
It was the fruit of some action. probably in the direction he was aiming at when he sat under the tree looking for the ultimate.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited November 2014
@Greg911 Yeah so whatever that is, is so vague as to be useless! The things that I consider important are our definition (of God) and whether that definition points to something actually in existence and matching those attributes.
Some people want to postulate logical necessity... but when the arguments are examined, the logic is either faulty or the premises are unproven/unsubstantiated (and the premises must be true for properly constructed logical arguments to result in true statements).
I have a mixture of pity and sympathy for people who are struggling against everything we know to convince themselves, and others, that a dusty old book is more accurate than our best efforts to unravel the mysteries of life, the universe, and everything.
@Greg911 said:
It is not a question of what our definition of God. What is important is what Buddha's definition was.
Sorry @Greg911 but for all that quizzical speech you use, your ideas about God, and especially your understanding of what place the notion of God has in Buddhism is extremely woolly and poor.
If God is so important to you, accept the fact that you are a mix-match, but don't call yourself a Buddhist, nor try to put into the Buddha's words things about God he never said.
The Buddha did not care about God. Get your homework right.
Since I am surrounded with Jehovah witnesses, I tend to get rather suspicious of people from other religions visiting the site -or should I say "infiltrating"/"trolling"?- and constantly trying to percolate their ideas about God down to us.
Interreligious dialogue can take place, but I can't understand why people who feel so strongly about other religions and about God bother to troll Buddhist sites.
I am a Buddhist, want to keep growing in my Buddhist beliefs, and visit only Buddhist sites.
Christian people have to wake up to the fact that many of us simply don't need a God in our lives and fare only too well so far without him.
Like @Toraldris, I also have a mixture of pity and sympathy for people who strive so hard and burn their neurons overpondering a question that leaves many of us cold, and have an old book, allegedly being the word of God, to show for only proof.
But the pity and sympathy end when the stench of bullyism begins to pervade the ambiance.
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
Are you saying the Buddha didn't use the word God?
I am sorry that what I have said has "let many of us cold" but I will only point to the truth. You must verify it for yourself. Which you are not doing. The reason I only point is because the truth is hard to take sometimes. Those who think a God is only good can not take the truth. can not see the middle way.
How can the Buddha teach the gods? or do you think that is just a fairy tell?
Is your mixture of pity and sympathy your definition of compassion.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited November 2014
As for my part, if the Buddha used the word "god" or "God" at all, he surely wasn't talking about the Christian concept. He'd be talking about the Hindu gods, or Brahma/Brahman, or his own concept for teaching purposes. I still want to know what you think the Buddha said; give a reference, let's see it! That's even caring too much what the Buddha said; I prefer to care about how things really are, and the Buddha saying something doesn't make it true.
I'll let DD answer the questions directed to her though.
@Greg911 said:
Is your mixture of pity and sympathy your definition of compassion?
No, in this case in particular, it is my definition of tolerance.
As to the rest of the comment, you seem to have your particular view of truth.
Don't think your truth is Truth.
Edit: And this is as much time as I'm ready to devote to a subject that leaves me completely indifferent. I have a life to live.
Keep squandering yours in pondering if you so prefer.
Edit 2: I seem to understand you come from a Vedanta background? Don't mistake Vedanta with Buddhism. Not quite the same.
@DhammaDragon said:
Edit 2: I seem to understand you come from a Vedanta background? Don't mistake Vedanta with Buddhism. Not quite the same.
In what way? please be specific and give me some quotes.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited November 2014
Haha you're asking her to be specific and give you quotes when she said she's not going to bother putting more effort into this. If you don't get that Vedanta is not Buddhism, you're the one who needs to put a helluva lot of effort into figuring it out. Your own effort, not the efforts of others to convince you otherwise!
I'm agreeing with DD that this is a waste of time, so I won't put any more effort into it either. Go @Greg911, learn things.
@Greg911 if it means anything at all, Buddha did use the word God, but he was not talking about the Abrahamic God. When asked about the existence of God, the Buddha actually remained silent.
In fact, there is only one place in the Tipiṭaka where the Buddha declined to answer questions put to him. On another occasion Vacchagotta asked the Buddha: "Is there a self?" The Buddha was silent. Vacchagotta continued: "Then is there no self?" and again the Buddha did not respond. Perhaps annoyed or disappointment Vacchagotta got up and left. Then Ānanda asked the Buddha why he met these questions with silence. He replied: "If when asked if there is a self I had answered 'yes' I would have been siding with those teachers who are eternalists. And if I had answered 'no' I would have been siding with those teachers who are annihilationists. If I had answered 'yes' would this have been consistent with the knowledge that everything is without self?" "No Lord" replied Ananda. "And if I had answered 'no, there is no self' an already bewildered Vacchagotta would have been even more so and would have thought, 'Before I had a self and now I don't have one' " (S.IV,400). In this dialogue the Buddha clearly and simply explained why, on this single occasion, he remained silent when asked a question; because he didn't want to be identified with particular philosophical standpoints and because he did not want to further bewilder an inquirer. - See more at: http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=509#sthash.xSHpTIRk.dpuf
Very interesting article extracted from "The Guardian," by Ed Halliwell, entitled "The magic of ordinary experience: Buddha avoided the tragi-comic debate about God's existence to focus on far more important issues"
"When I first started reading about the Buddha's life, I was disappointed to learn that the existence of God was one of the subjects on which he declined to make a definitive comment. At the time, this seemed to me either rather unfair or something of a cop-out – surely this was exactly the kind of topic that an awakened being should pronounce upon, for the benefit of all. However, after the last couple of years of amusing but unproductive pantomime debate ("oh yes he does, oh no he doesn't"), I am beginning to get a sense of how not answering may well have been an enlightened response.
Pressed further, the Buddha is said to have explained that dwelling on such a question is not conducive to the elimination of suffering, which was the sole purpose of his teaching. He asked whether, if we had been shot with a poisoned arrow, we would want to know who had fired it, why, and what type of bow was used, before deciding to have it removed? "If the person who was shot were to seek the answers to all these questions," he told the monk Malunkyaputta, "he would be dead before he found them." Touché.
The tussle over God is marginally more entertaining than getting shot, but the protracted diversion created by its war of words could nevertheless be more of a hindrance than a help. Not only has the stream of agitated comment brought us no closer to finding an answer, it hasn't even enabled us to formulate agreed terms for the question. Part of what makes the argument so comical is how the concept of "God" onto which atheists project is rarely the same as the one defended by believers. Part of what makes it tragic is how, at the extremes, each party insists that their denial of what they think the opposition believes is enough to make them correct, to the point of misrepresenting the traditions they seek to uphold.
As we appear to be getting nowhere on this, I'd like to offer a fresh perspective for the new year – that of a non-theistic approach. Following the Buddha's example, the non-theistic position refutes the extremes of both a nihilistic view (atheism) and an eternalist one (theism). In doing so, it cuts through intellectual speculation concerning the origin of the universe, in order to free up the space in which we can systematically investigate, engage with and appreciate the world as it is in this moment, right now.
Non-theism may sound somewhat like agnosticism, and indeed contemporary Buddhist teachers such as Stephen Batchelor have adopted the agnostic label as a way of distancing themselves from those metaphysical elements of Buddhist tradition, such as rebirth and karma, that are not empirically demonstrable. However, whereas agnosticism tends to emphasise not-knowing, which results from and remains confined by the limitations of intellectual and philosophical inquiry, a non-theistic approach implies letting go of all concepts in order to go deeper into experience, creating the possibility that this might produce a more profound kind of understanding.
By consciously dropping the intellect for a period of time, such as in meditation, there arises the opportunity for a gap in the mind, opening it to the unspeakable magic of ordinary experience. Through repeated practice, we might come closer to developing a non-conceptual awareness of the way things are, or in Buddhist language, the "suchness" or "isness" of things.
As the word "suchness" implies, this is an experience that goes beyond words, and while language and the intellect can be helpful in pointing towards it, it cannot fully do it justice. At the same time, it isn't especially mystical or esoteric - it was this awareness that Abraham Maslow was talking about when he described the "peak experience" – a spontaneous sense of marvelling at and feeling interconnected with the natural world that is often described and praised by atheists and believers alike.
A few years ago, I attended a talk by the teacher and scientist Jeremy Hayward, at which an over-zealous organiser claimed that Hayward had abandoned his academic career to search for the meaning of life, which he had found in Buddhism. Hayward quickly and gently corrected her, saying: "Buddhism hasn't taught me the meaning of life. But it has taught me how to look."
In the heat of the atheist/theist debate, we seem to have forgotten how to look – to be amazed that things are, rather than arguing about what caused them to be. Adopting a non-theistic stance could therefore be a starting point for investigating and appreciating the world, which might be a much more rewarding activity than attempting to explain it.
So for 2009, perhaps we could resolve to conserve the energy previously spent on chasing round in conceptual circles trying to prove or disprove the existence of a divinity, and use it instead to go for slow walks in the park, in which we really take the time to look at and breathe in the majesty of the trees, the birds, the sky and the grass. Isn't that God enough for now?"
Just to cover some basics, @Greg911, here's some links for your homework:
Comments
Guys, many beautiful comments, many interesting notions. Thank you to everyone who is contributing.
To Federica: I think the origin of suffering and its cessation is part of what is meant by Truth. One comes with the other. They are the same, in the end, at least in part. As Truth is more than that. But this is just me. As stated before I am no Buddhist, though I have deep respect and admiration for its ancient wisdom, particularly in the form of Zen Buddhism. I am Catholic. Truth is a central tenet to my tradition, since Jesus is the Word, or Logos. He said "the truth will set you free", where He is the Truth. "I am the way and the truth and the life."
Anyway, back on topic, it is always useful to define the terms of a question beforehand. This is why previously I posted some links. If by God we refer to the ultimate reality, suddenly it all becomes pretty clear.
According to eminent Zen master Soyen Shaku Buddhism is panentheistic. In this text, translated into English by Soyen Shaku's famous disciple D. T. Suzuki (the leading academic on Zen Buddhism in the West), we read:
"At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience. Again, Buddhism is not pantheistic in the sense that it identifies the universe with God. On the other hand, the Buddhist God is absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation, is necessarily fragmental and imperfect. To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, "panentheism," according to which God is πᾶν καὶ ἕν (all and one) and more than the totality of existence."
Here you have the full chapter regarding God and Buddhism http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm
For a comparison, Catholic priest and theologian Robert Barron defines God as eluding any and all categories, even the same category of being. He is not (just) the highest being, but the metaphysically necessary "Ipsum Esse Subsistens", the pure, infinite, eternal act of to be itself. This is grounded on Aquinas definition, and is reminiscent of the biblical "I am who I am," of Jesus replying "Truly, Truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am." Most Fathers/Doctors of the Church (mystics, ascetics and Fathers of the Desert included) adopt a similar stance. Additionally, the fact God is conceived as totally transcendent to His creation, makes the Catholic view theistic, as opposed to a pantheistic or panentheistic one. Here God is of a different substance than the world. At the same time He is seen as omnipresent, meaning that He sustains the whole of creation. His love of creation is such that He will not withdraw His Presence, which would be the ultimate form of annihilation, not merely imposing death, but ending existence altogether.
See here fore more of Father Barron article http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/4835
To anyone interested in interfaith dialogue and understanding I highly recommend the works of Thomas Merton, Trappist monk, mystic, writer and poet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton
Sorry if sometimes my syntax sounds convoluted, English is not my first language
Take your pick.
Man has created them all out of a similar mold.
That kind of seems like the easy way out though.
Not all notions of ultimate being include a deity responsible for making all this happen.
Things like natural selection seem like a handy way of rationalizing away "god" but they actually beg the question "what is it exactly that selects?"
We are not exclusive of nature and when non-seperation is examined, it would be a hard sell to say we are.
Buddha is or was awake but what is there to awaken to in light of dependent origination?
There is no awaking to nothingness... Could you imagine? it would be like getting a degree in nonsense. Just doesn't work. So what is awakened to?
The emptiness of all things is precisely their potential to change but what exactly is changing and why does it seem to run on instinct (natural selection)?
And why would the universe evolve to the point of having so many perspectives with the ability for self awareness and a knack for exploration?
Sorry, just rambling.
If someone's still asking "what selects?", that means they don't understand Natural Selection!
When traits occur within organisms that help them survive better, those traits will also survive and be passed on. Those that hinder survival will die off with their hosts. That's all there is to "selection".
The phrase "natural selection" was coined to differentiate what happens naturally from the "artificial selection" that humans are responsible for (i.e. crop and animal breeding). It's simply the conditions of a species' survival that are the selecting factor; there's no agent selecting.
It's a bad phrase, front-loaded with meaning (agency) that it doesn't actually represent, but that's easily fixed by Googling and reading something! And not a Creationist source (Ken Ham will mess you up, man!).
That was a nice try but it refers to the process by which evolution dictates what you call "better". If there was no criteria to meet, thgere would be no evolution. That's causation for you.
Care to try again?
And what does creationism have to do with anything?
@ourself A better phrase would be Natural Adaptation. Like I said, the phrase Natural Selection was coined to differentiate it from Artificial Selection (breeding), but it just causes confusion these days (as here).
What is it that you don't understand about natural selection and evolution? I'll try my best to explain.
You may want to take that up with the scientific community.
That seems to go off topic however. Whether a selection is made or an adaptation is required for evolution to take place is irrelevant.
The fact remains that there is an awareness to tap into.
@ourself Evolution is just a word we slap on the result of a process that's unguided, determined by "selection pressures" of predation and environment. Survival is immediate; survival is key. There's no overarching goal. I'm just going to leave this line of conversation, it's turning into a headache like we're not even talking about the same thing (especially when you bring up "an awareness to tap into" when we're talking about evolution...).
Feel free to PM me tho if you wanna talk about it further, it's tangential to the Belief in God topic.
That's ok if you prefer not to respond but I'll still have to stay the course. It's odd to me that you can say survival is key and at the same time say there is no goal.
As for awareness and evolution, they kind of go hand in hand. I doubt it can be any other way. As this is a Buddhist forum I perhaps mistakenly assume everyone here thinks there is an awareness to tap into.
I do suggest that natural selection and evolution (or whatever label you feel most comfortable with) work through a kind of instinct.
I don't even believe in creation let alone a creator.
How do we create what has always been?
Now, if the process of being itself started to become aware one aspect at a time, what would we call that?
It wouldn't be God because God is a nickname for Yahweh... Right?
It hasn't 'always been'. There was a beginning, but 13.8 billion years might as well be eternity of no beginning, considering the length of our lives, the length of time we've been human. If Earth has only had life on it for four million of it's 4 billion years, imagine how many other 'earths' have coalesced, sprouted life and baked to death when its star died. It would account for all of Buddha's lives and then some, methinks. There's been PLENTY of time and materials
. And no need for a creator, unless life itself takes that role.
"The Whole Point". That's what I'd call it.
@Hamsaka I don't think we have enough information to consider the Big Bang a true or ultimate "beginning". It could be a continuation of a process of expansion and contraction that goes back much further. It could be the birth of a child universe from a larger multiverse (though there's no evidence of such). All we can really say is "the universe as we know it, with its stars, planets, black holes etc." formed from the aftermath of that expansion event. It marks the earliest we can see, the earliest we can extrapolate the causal chain back before we're stumped.
As Robert Jordan said in his Wheel of Time series, "It wasn't the beginning. But it was a beginning."
Well . . . yes @Toraldris. Rather than an absolute beginning it could have been a cyclic flux or something like that. If the multiverse theory is 'right' (as it appears to be so far) then Big Bangs are going off and expanding into cold death through beginningless time and space. Our universe is one bubble in a great foam or something like that.
Even then I can sort of see 'intention' behind that, if indeed Life is the reason. Maybe it isn't, it's just a cool phenomenon comparable to other cool phenomena we will never know about cuz they are happening in another universe. Heck even that has me intuit 'intention'. It's hard for me to not 'see' intent, but what else would I see as a human being?
@Hamsaka I love the possibilities, and thinking about stuff, but always have to return to what we know, what we suspect, and what we hypothesize. The multiverse theory for one is a hypothesis, and there are motivations for that hypothesis coming into being (one of the same arguments for the existence of God, regarding "fine tuning", is used as support for the hypothesis), but I haven't seen or heard of any actual evidence for it (yet).
Waiting to see what we find out next is one of the most exciting things to me! Well, not the "waiting" part per se.
We call ourselves 'intelligent life'. That could be the problem right there.
We differ from chimpanzees by 1% of our genome, and share something like 48% of our genome with bananas. Is the 1% difference with chimps really an excuse to call ourselves intelligent? We don't have anything but ourselves to compare with to see if we are understanding correctly.
@Hamsaka Weeeeeell, I think we can measure intelligence by how closely our thinking corresponds to reality, but then again many people would fail that test. Har har.
Or maybe that would be wisdom. I don't know.
Me either. We argue about what is 'real'. Last night I watched a docu about 'the electric universe'. Never heard of it. In a nutshell, it sees the Standard Model as wrong. I mean, the standard model . . . . talk about the foundations of reality, wrong?
We can't agree what reality is from the laws that dictate the behavior of matter to why the Middle East is behaving the way it is. We tend to agree with whatever makes us feel more safe (hats off to @Vinlyn for that). That's reality. The presence of disagreement between the individuals experiencing the exact same reality is telling me we are getting a D on the test as a race.
Yeah I always question current models, and put my faith in the process... in the work, in the human potential to figure things out (not necessarily everything though) and to correct ourselves when new information comes to light. The Standard Model may well be wrong; it's just a framework of theories that so far stand up to every test we've thrown at them. We've been wrong before, and we're likely wrong now in some ways, but at least we're "as right as we can be given the information we have". No one should expect more than that!
Bet in a thousand years we're working with an entirely different scientific view, and what we know today will be thought of like Isaac Newton's gravity vs. Einstein's general relativity. Both work for practical purposes, but they're not "right" to the same degree.
@Hamsaka
If there was a beginning to all that is then that would mean there was a point in time with no potential for anything.
Think about it.
The big bang may have spawned the known universe but there could be an infinite amount of big bangs going on right now.
If there is more than one big bang then each one would be a function of the universe and not the beginning of the universe.
>
I agree. For me, the contemplative side of Buddhism seems to be better laid out in terms of instruction; whereas Christian contemplativism is more intuitive and vague, although just as profound. But the social side of Christian spirituality is far more advanced, it seems, and I find it quite powerful.
Take communion, for example. The sense of community and unconditional love it's meant to foster and celebrate — transforming offenses made and received into forgiveness, and uniting the many into a collective whole through a sacred bond that transcends all our differences v is a spiritual experience that speaks directly to our nature as social creatures.
I went to see King Diamond in concert last night in Seattle, and the next morning, I went to the 7am mass right next door and the sense of community was overwhelming. I was a stranger and had just come from one of the most 'satanic' performances I've ever seen, but I still felt welcomed. It's such a strange juxtaposition, but the spirituality underlying it all keeps pulling me into it.
I suppose I'm more interested in pan-religious mysticism these days than any one particular tradition.
Ow.
According to the multiverse theory that's what's happening. The universe with a capital U creates sub-universes in some mysterious way like a bubble machine.
This is also tangential but fits in for those who believe in God: Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'
The Pope should know :buck: , right?
It makes the Catholic Church more progressive than the evangelicals. Unfortunately in the article 'intelligent design' was called 'scientific' along with evolution and Big Bangism.
Intelligent design seems off somehow considering the suffering and pain that intelligent beings have to go through.
It also begs the question "What designed the designer?" If the designer can be eternal then by that logic so can that which it supposedly designed.
And still information gets easier and easier to share.
Are you suggesting that some kind of amorphous matter having pure potentiality of being or becoming something exists eternally and that which is eternal is also temporal?
I'm not sure I'm following you here but I'll take a stab at it. I think the universe as a process runs on a kind of instinct. That everything is the result of information being shared and is itself sharing information. The collecting and sharing of information is pretty much the definition of intelligence. That is not to say the universe is intelligent except maybe through us.
I think the universe has always been and that the potential for matter/energy is actually another kind of energy. I seriously doubt anything could predate it's own potential to exist. Every cause has an effect and every effect is also a cause.
I certainly wouldn't suggest that the eternal is temporal but I do figure it would be in a constant state of change.
In theory an eternal set could give rise to an infinite amount of infinite sets, each one unique and in a state of change.
I am such a jolly gal, sitting on my cushion everyday, doing the best I can to live a life that responds to my Buddhist beliefs, not overthinking things, giving a hoof whether a God exists or not and all the pointless neuron-overheating that pondering entails...!
So happy to have put all that chicken-egg dead-end behind me, in the same place where my college philosophy books are gathering dust.
So happy, just basking in the present moment, and soooo no caring whether a God exists or not.
So happy not to need a God to give a sense to my existence, nor to give the power of being the creator of my own universe away.
So happy not to need a God to make me strong in the dismal hours, nor happy when I need some cheering.
Sooo happy...!
The process of understanding God, albeit limited and imperfect, far from being just this painful struggle, spontaneously arises and deepens within prayer. Approaching these matters solely through pure reason is indeed harder, though also possible. I think Buddha warned against this type of intellectualism precisely because he knew Truth would become apparent more in an intuitive frame rather than a discursive one. It's actually quite close to Pascal famous distinction between esprit de finesse and esprit de géométrie. On the other hand, Fathers/Doctors of the Church often elucidate how rational conclusions are revealed to them primarily in the form of Divine Inspiration, or anyway while absorbed in a state of profound prayer. My point of view on Buddhism is an external one, but it seems to me meditating is also realizing the substance of beings.
It is not required for the world (by world I mean our physical reality) to extend indefinitely in the past. On the contrary, it must be finite in the past, for time and change to exist at all. Instead, we need to postulate an Ultimate Reality (God) that is eternal and infinite. On this point both Catholicism and Zen Buddhism (Soyen Shaku, http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm) seem to concur. Catholic theologians go further to define God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens, and as the Love that creates our world (universe) out of nothingness, while upholding it uninterruptedly in order to avoid annihilation (Father Barron, http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/4835). In Zen Buddhism the world is a manifestation of God, the world is generated/created from God and in God (panentheism).
In any case, God is metaphysically necessary. This video beautifully and effectively demonstrates the fundamental reality of God applying an inductive mode of reasoning to prove the case. It is not incompatible with the little I know of Zen Buddhism teachings either.
As for Big Bang Theory, the Church never had the slightest issue in endorsing it. Big Bang Theory formulator and first and foremost proponent was in fact Roman Catholic priest/professor of physics Georges Lemaitre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître). Also, since decades evolution is understood as basically unproblematic, and as the most plausible scientific explanation to the developement of species and diversity of life on this planet (keeping in mind that evolution does not account for the emergence of life from matter, and for the emergence of consciousness in later times). Catholics interpret the tale in Genesis as mostly allegorical of more important spiritual truths, and of the fundamental truth of a Creator God. The tale is regarded as real at a deeper level. Fundamentalism and literalism are XIX Century heresies born in America, out of some sectarian circles inherent to the galaxy of protestant denominations, and totally unrelated to Catholic Tradition (and Biblical exegesis).
The titanic, perennial conflict between faith and science, publicized on some superficial and misinformed media, when objectively analyzed turns out to be nothing more than a myth.
Just a reminder: materialism (the only thing that exists is matter), scientism (natural sciences as the only source of real knowledge), reductionism (a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and all sciences and phenomena, including consciousness, are reducible to physics) are not a viable path to true knowledge, because they aprioristically and irrationally leave out alternative ways of knowledge. Scientism is not only logically incoherent and circular, but it is antithetic to science.
In this sense the words of Max Planck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck), one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the XX Century, quantum mechanics originator and Nobel Prize winner, bear a profound significance, to this very day.
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
"Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
What do you think of this
1 - The big bang is still banging away.
What does the big bang look like? Is it a line? is it a line in two directions? Yes.
Do the two lines return to point of origin? yes
How fast is the big bang? very very fast many many times the speed of light.
Does it require time although very very fast? yes
Is it the first instance of time? yes
is this in two dimensions? yes
Does this make the three dimensions? yes as it revolves around the point.
2 - What does the dimensions create? They create the perfect Atoms of which there is only one as type. This Atom has all the energy of the universe. When it gives off the energy it changes the atom into the material universe. There are only 108 Atoms. We do not create atoms and we can't. But we can beat up the poor atom and say we can.
3 - what is the big bang made of? it is made of Karma.
I have a 1928 copy of Soyen Shaku's "Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot," which in later editions was reprinted under the title "Zen for Americans."
The book contains a series of speeches Shaku delivered in Chicago, during the 1893 Parliament of World Religions.
Many zen revisionists have later found Shaku's propositions on God contradictory and confusing, to say the least.
He was probably trying to ingratiate himself with a Christian audience and finding a way to make Zen more palatable to the Western mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/suzuki.html
http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/God_and_Zen_Buddhism
And I don't agree with you here: I don't think God is neither metaphorically necessary nor literally.
Interreligion exchange is very interesting, but I find that's too much God proselitising for a Buddhist site.
Seconded. 2nded? Whichever way sounds right.
Looks like we're the usual partners in crime, @Toraldris...
..
Off to sleep for me here in Europe!
GOD has no seat on a buddhist site, unless his eye is my insight!
It is not a question of what our definition of God. What is important is what Buddha's definition was.
@Greg911 And do you know what that was?
It was the fruit of some action. probably in the direction he was aiming at when he sat under the tree looking for the ultimate.
@Greg911 Yeah so whatever that is, is so vague as to be useless!
The things that I consider important are our definition (of God) and whether that definition points to something actually in existence and matching those attributes.
Some people want to postulate logical necessity... but when the arguments are examined, the logic is either faulty or the premises are unproven/unsubstantiated (and the premises must be true for properly constructed logical arguments to result in true statements).
I have a mixture of pity and sympathy for people who are struggling against everything we know to convince themselves, and others, that a dusty old book is more accurate than our best efforts to unravel the mysteries of life, the universe, and everything.
Sorry @Greg911 but for all that quizzical speech you use, your ideas about God, and especially your understanding of what place the notion of God has in Buddhism is extremely woolly and poor.
If God is so important to you, accept the fact that you are a mix-match, but don't call yourself a Buddhist, nor try to put into the Buddha's words things about God he never said.
The Buddha did not care about God. Get your homework right.
Since I am surrounded with Jehovah witnesses, I tend to get rather suspicious of people from other religions visiting the site -or should I say "infiltrating"/"trolling"?- and constantly trying to percolate their ideas about God down to us.
Interreligious dialogue can take place, but I can't understand why people who feel so strongly about other religions and about God bother to troll Buddhist sites.
I am a Buddhist, want to keep growing in my Buddhist beliefs, and visit only Buddhist sites.
Christian people have to wake up to the fact that many of us simply don't need a God in our lives and fare only too well so far without him.
Like @Toraldris, I also have a mixture of pity and sympathy for people who strive so hard and burn their neurons overpondering a question that leaves many of us cold, and have an old book, allegedly being the word of God, to show for only proof.
But the pity and sympathy end when the stench of bullyism begins to pervade the ambiance.
@DhammaDragon Partners in crime indeed!
Are you saying the Buddha didn't use the word God?
I am sorry that what I have said has "let many of us cold" but I will only point to the truth. You must verify it for yourself. Which you are not doing. The reason I only point is because the truth is hard to take sometimes. Those who think a God is only good can not take the truth. can not see the middle way.
How can the Buddha teach the gods? or do you think that is just a fairy tell?
Is your mixture of pity and sympathy your definition of compassion.
As for my part, if the Buddha used the word "god" or "God" at all, he surely wasn't talking about the Christian concept. He'd be talking about the Hindu gods, or Brahma/Brahman, or his own concept for teaching purposes. I still want to know what you think the Buddha said; give a reference, let's see it! That's even caring too much what the Buddha said; I prefer to care about how things really are, and the Buddha saying something doesn't make it true.
I'll let DD answer the questions directed to her though.
No, in this case in particular, it is my definition of tolerance.
As to the rest of the comment, you seem to have your particular view of truth.
Don't think your truth is Truth.
Edit: And this is as much time as I'm ready to devote to a subject that leaves me completely indifferent. I have a life to live.
Keep squandering yours in pondering if you so prefer.
Edit 2: I seem to understand you come from a Vedanta background? Don't mistake Vedanta with Buddhism. Not quite the same.
In what way? please be specific and give me some quotes.
Haha you're asking her to be specific and give you quotes when she said she's not going to bother putting more effort into this. If you don't get that Vedanta is not Buddhism, you're the one who needs to put a helluva lot of effort into figuring it out.
Your own effort, not the efforts of others to convince you otherwise!
I'm agreeing with DD that this is a waste of time, so I won't put any more effort into it either. Go @Greg911, learn things.
sorry I thought you were partners in crime.
@Greg911 Partners in crime that both noticed the bank is out of money and only pretending to have stocked vaults.
That's why we're exiting the stage at the same time.
metta
@Greg911 if it means anything at all, Buddha did use the word God, but he was not talking about the Abrahamic God. When asked about the existence of God, the Buddha actually remained silent.
Taken from buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=509
Hope this offers some perspective. To me it says focus your energy on the here and now and live a good life in THIS life.
Metta,
Raven _ /\ _
Very interesting article extracted from "The Guardian," by Ed Halliwell, entitled "The magic of ordinary experience: Buddha avoided the tragi-comic debate about God's existence to focus on far more important issues"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jan/03/buddhism-atheism
"When I first started reading about the Buddha's life, I was disappointed to learn that the existence of God was one of the subjects on which he declined to make a definitive comment. At the time, this seemed to me either rather unfair or something of a cop-out – surely this was exactly the kind of topic that an awakened being should pronounce upon, for the benefit of all. However, after the last couple of years of amusing but unproductive pantomime debate ("oh yes he does, oh no he doesn't"), I am beginning to get a sense of how not answering may well have been an enlightened response.
Pressed further, the Buddha is said to have explained that dwelling on such a question is not conducive to the elimination of suffering, which was the sole purpose of his teaching. He asked whether, if we had been shot with a poisoned arrow, we would want to know who had fired it, why, and what type of bow was used, before deciding to have it removed? "If the person who was shot were to seek the answers to all these questions," he told the monk Malunkyaputta, "he would be dead before he found them." Touché.
The tussle over God is marginally more entertaining than getting shot, but the protracted diversion created by its war of words could nevertheless be more of a hindrance than a help. Not only has the stream of agitated comment brought us no closer to finding an answer, it hasn't even enabled us to formulate agreed terms for the question. Part of what makes the argument so comical is how the concept of "God" onto which atheists project is rarely the same as the one defended by believers. Part of what makes it tragic is how, at the extremes, each party insists that their denial of what they think the opposition believes is enough to make them correct, to the point of misrepresenting the traditions they seek to uphold.
As we appear to be getting nowhere on this, I'd like to offer a fresh perspective for the new year – that of a non-theistic approach. Following the Buddha's example, the non-theistic position refutes the extremes of both a nihilistic view (atheism) and an eternalist one (theism). In doing so, it cuts through intellectual speculation concerning the origin of the universe, in order to free up the space in which we can systematically investigate, engage with and appreciate the world as it is in this moment, right now.
Non-theism may sound somewhat like agnosticism, and indeed contemporary Buddhist teachers such as Stephen Batchelor have adopted the agnostic label as a way of distancing themselves from those metaphysical elements of Buddhist tradition, such as rebirth and karma, that are not empirically demonstrable. However, whereas agnosticism tends to emphasise not-knowing, which results from and remains confined by the limitations of intellectual and philosophical inquiry, a non-theistic approach implies letting go of all concepts in order to go deeper into experience, creating the possibility that this might produce a more profound kind of understanding.
By consciously dropping the intellect for a period of time, such as in meditation, there arises the opportunity for a gap in the mind, opening it to the unspeakable magic of ordinary experience. Through repeated practice, we might come closer to developing a non-conceptual awareness of the way things are, or in Buddhist language, the "suchness" or "isness" of things.
As the word "suchness" implies, this is an experience that goes beyond words, and while language and the intellect can be helpful in pointing towards it, it cannot fully do it justice. At the same time, it isn't especially mystical or esoteric - it was this awareness that Abraham Maslow was talking about when he described the "peak experience" – a spontaneous sense of marvelling at and feeling interconnected with the natural world that is often described and praised by atheists and believers alike.
A few years ago, I attended a talk by the teacher and scientist Jeremy Hayward, at which an over-zealous organiser claimed that Hayward had abandoned his academic career to search for the meaning of life, which he had found in Buddhism. Hayward quickly and gently corrected her, saying: "Buddhism hasn't taught me the meaning of life. But it has taught me how to look."
In the heat of the atheist/theist debate, we seem to have forgotten how to look – to be amazed that things are, rather than arguing about what caused them to be. Adopting a non-theistic stance could therefore be a starting point for investigating and appreciating the world, which might be a much more rewarding activity than attempting to explain it.
So for 2009, perhaps we could resolve to conserve the energy previously spent on chasing round in conceptual circles trying to prove or disprove the existence of a divinity, and use it instead to go for slow walks in the park, in which we really take the time to look at and breathe in the majesty of the trees, the birds, the sky and the grass. Isn't that God enough for now?"
Just to cover some basics, @Greg911, here's some links for your homework:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html
Metta