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.
Is there any substantial reason to believe that Theosis with God is any different than the experience of union with Brahman that the Hindus speak of? Or the realization of Emptiness or the "One Mind" that Buddhists speak of?
Perhaps this "theosis" is proof of the existence of "God", but not the old Jewish conception of an independent supreme being... rather simply the same reality that Hinduism and Buddhism speak of, but expressed through a different belief structure, a different context.
I don't see anything supporting the direct knowing of an "independent supreme being", whatever you call it... theosis, union with Brahman, enlightenment, even being "born again" as in the spiritual experience that many Christians speak of. These things would seem to support a unified interdependent reality, but any additional conception added to it, such as it being a "being", is extraneous and we can't know for sure if this is the truth of it or not.
It would seem to be adding a view or belief on top of a shared experience that we can all have, and that we'll all interpret differently.
Going to be going to sleep, but I'd encourage some thought on that.
As rational as aspects of Buddhism may be, there's still a role for faith, in my opinion. In the Pali Canon, the word saddha can be translated as 'confidence,' 'conviction,' or 'faith.' More specifically, it's a type of confidence, conviction, or faith that's rooted in understanding as well as what we'd conventionally refer to as faith in the West (i.e., confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing).
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with faith in and of itself; and I think having a certain amount of conviction in the Buddha's teachings is needed from a purely pragmatic point of view. For one thing, without at least a modicum of confidence in the Buddha as a teacher, there's no motivation to put his teachings into practice (and the same with the teachings and the advice of those who dedicate themselves to practicing them/passing them down). As Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes in his essay "Faith in Awakening":
The Buddha never placed unconditional demands on anyone's faith... We read his famous instructions to the Kalamas, in which he advises testing things for oneself, and we see it as an invitation to believe, or not, whatever we like. Some people go so far as to say that faith has no place in the Buddhist tradition, that the proper Buddhist attitude is one of skepticism. But even though the Buddha recommends tolerance and a healthy skepticism toward matters of faith, he also makes a conditional request about faith: If you sincerely want to put an end to suffering — that's the condition — you should take certain things on faith, as working hypotheses, and then test them through following his path of practice.
Without faith that the Buddha had at least some insight into the nature of suffering, there's little reason to take anything he said as a working hypothesis to test. Therefore, while faith by itself isn't a sufficient condition for arriving at the highest fruits of the Dhamma, there are elements of faith that are important to the practice, which is illustrated in places like MN 70:
Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once. Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice. And how is there the attainment of gnosis after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice? There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it.
In essence, faith in Buddhism is a stepping stone to gnosis, much as it is in Christianity. And while some find theistic spiritual traditions like Christianity a source of comfort, guidance, and happiness, I've found Buddhism to be the same. I don't know if nibbana — the extinction of craving; the extinguishing of greed, hatred and delusion; the complete end of suffering — is attainable, but I certainly like where the path has taken me thus far, and I have confidence that it's worth my continued effort. And I imagine that others feel the same about their respective spiritual journeys, whatever the context, which is something I can appreciate.
@Cloud Good question... more is written about the path to God than the nature of God... well except that Christians and Muslims make him/her out to be not a very caring or just God (in my opinion) due to condemning people to hell for choosing the incorrect path, at the fault of God for making us the way we are.
Not so trivial at all, but as far as I know squirells don't bother themselves with such debates. They either just "know" it and accept it, or they just don't care and go about nut finding. I'm not saying, once again, that there isn't a God or that there is a God, what I am saying is that it is kinda pointless to pontificate on it. That doesn't mean I won't pontificate on it, though.
Oh and by the way, where the heck is the OP anyway? This got thick without so much as a peep from him since he started this labrynth......
1
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
Not so trivial at all, but as far as I know squirells don't bother themselves with such debates. They either just "know" it and accept it, or they just don't care and go about nut finding. I'm not saying, once again, that there isn't a God or that there is a God, what I am saying is that it is kinda pointless to pontificate on it. That doesn't mean I won't pontificate on it, though.
Oh and by the way, where the heck is the OP anyway? This got thick without so much as a peep from him since he started this labrynth......
I'm here. Sorry I haven't responded. Work and school are my primary focuses at the moment and my visits here have been relatively brief. To be honest, I'm a little overwhelmed at the discussion.
My two cents?
1.) Buddhism does require some faith; even purely philosophical Buddhism. Otherwise, why would one practice it to end one's suffering?
2.) There can be no 100% certainly that anything anyone believes is true or not. Whether it be Buddhism, Paganism, Hinduism, Atheism etc., so no one is technically right or wrong. However, I don't think faith is enough. Some rational introspection of your beliefs, at least to me, is key into seeing whether or not you truly believe or don't believe for that matter.
3.) Branching from 2, I'm starting to believe that there is a creator of the universe. Mainly because I see the complexity of the universe and just can't believe that this was an accident. Is that faith? Technically yes, but through my own thinking and rationality (however much that may be) I came to this conclusion. Am I right with my belief? Yes and no. Am I wrong? Yes and no.
I'm here. Sorry I haven't responded. Work and school are my primary focuses at the moment and my visits here have been relatively brief. To be honest, I'm a little overwhelmed at the discussion.
My two cents?
1.) Buddhism does require some faith; even purely philosophical Buddhism. Otherwise, why would one practice it to end one's suffering?
2.) There can be no 100% certainly that anything anyone believes is true or not. Whether it be Buddhism, Paganism, Hinduism, Atheism etc., so no one is technically right or wrong. However, I don't think faith is enough. Some rational introspection of your beliefs, at least to me, is key into seeing whether or not you truly believe or don't believe for that matter.
3.) Branching from 2, I'm starting to believe that there is a creator of the universe. Mainly because I see the complexity of the universe and just can't believe that this was an accident. Is that faith? Technically yes, but through my own thinking and rationality (however much that may be) I came to this conclusion. Am I right with my belief? Yes and no. Am I wrong? Yes and no.
That's a well thought out little thesis, which in most ways I tend to agree with.
I think for me, particularly since I agree with your #3, I assume that we misunderstand God. The idea that he is involved in everything. I just doubt that.
@DaftChris - I wasn't calling you out or anything, I was just deflecting attention from my question laden diatribe. I just came here looking for nuts, see cause I'm one of the squirells I talked about in a few posts above this one....
Is enlightenment possible if we don' t talk about? To answer your question yes. In Eastern Orthodox Chritisnity union with God is called Inner Stillness or Silence
Yes, the Quakers talk about it similarly - some interesting parallels. I sometimes wonder if "God" is a rather crude way of referring to a more refined level of consciousness.
Broadly, indications are that the brain is akin to a calculating machine operating on fuzzy logic principles, correlating packets of data into boxes – ideally into either a neat 1 or a 0 (this or that) –the interlocking processes of this observed existence appear as series upon series of complex sub-systems – this does not lend itself well to 1-0, this that, stark digital choices – by taking a firm 1-0 position, one must focus on a particular part of a subsystem thereby immediately discounting many more factors than those under the spotlight – in other words, in order to obtain a more precise view, one must consider things more imprecisely!
Faith is the culmination of the brain’s guesstimation – this is more a 1 than a 0 so let it sit with the 1's or perhaps create a sub category of [1 - (0.5)] etc – so the process of faith is underpinned by the same calculations that creates the process of logic – there are degrees of fuzzy separation between the two position but each conclusion is rooted in the same system.
Supposition is all around in varying degrees – when one feels more convinced it is logic, reason (closer to 1-0) - less convinced, faith (further from 1-0) - all stemming apparently from data correlation processes.
So it’s all faith, or all logic – they’re one and the same — the illusion is considering that the result of either is absolute.
0
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
When comparing religions we must recognize that although we may be arriving at a better understanding we are going to have limits due to fact that we are simply outside the faith we are trying to grasp. Though a Buddhist for many years prior to my conversion to Eastern Orthodox Christianity I'm no expert in Buddhism or my own tradition for that matter.
I have asked the same questions you have posed, and I'm still asking questions, but the fact is what ever question we may have, or think that nobody else has posed or have somehow missed, has already been addressed throughout the history of the Church.
If I recall correctly, the Buddha was silent when asked about the existence of God. He wasn't denying or affirming, but left it up to one's own personal discovery. With that being said at best I can only point in the direction, and can't transfer the more subtle points that require praxis and faith.
I do know this. We must be careful not to project upon God concepts and notions that are based on our limited understanding or worldly knowledge of things. If you think God is crude that is a human based construct, and that is how God is going to be experienced by you. If you are suffering and don't take accountability for your actions and blame others than He is seen as angry or wrathful. What ever human emotions we can use to describe God have their limitation.
God's is without origin, uncreated, infinite, etc.. He is a person as reflected in the Trinity,but not how we normally would understand person. They share one essence that is completely unknowable by us. It is only through His Uncreated Energies that he is made known to us.
When Moses requested of God to see His glory God told him that you can not see my face and live, but let him see his back side as he passed by. The face is representative of the essence and His backside His uncreated energies.
Being without origin God is complete, and the being of creation of ex nihilo, or out of nothing, is the volitional thought will of God. Man and creation is sustained by God, and dependent upon Him. Man has his own will and volition, and being created in God's Image and Likeness affects creation through his actions (Sort of like the notion of Karma). Some times in synergy with God and other times falling away. God loves His creation, but not like how we define love. It is infinity more, but doesn't require that love in return.
Everything that is subject to change is created. It has a beginning and an end. God's intention or "plan" is that creation through spiritual maturation, Man being at the pinnacle, becomes glorified through participation in His divine Uncreated Energies.
Vladamir Lossky's book "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church", though a difficult read, would be an excellent primer I think. Way far better than my primitive examples.
Also, as an aside, we now that math works, but we can't explain how. We readily accept scientific theory as fact, and don't pursue further investigation or investigation of opposing theories.
Carl Sagan once asked the Dalai Lama "What would you do Holiness if we proved the notion of rebirth to be false. He answered "Stop believing it", and then he asked "How would you go about proving it false". Carl Sagan was silent.
@Silouan- the problem is, you say that we can not define God by our limited understanding, and then you go on to try to describe God, or at least describe what others have said about God which is another set of limited understadings. I wasn't asking those questiopns because I thought anyone here, or anywhere for that matter, could answer them. The point of what I was saying was that it's pointless to talk about it. And the other point that I was trying to make was that whether you think it is a human construct or not, the relationship between humanity and God is forever interlaced because without humam beings to talk/think/preach/deny/etc about God, then it'really just another function of the universe that may or may not be some awesome force. And although you refer to God as 'him', I don't do that. I refer to God as 'it' because refering to it as 'him' is yet another undue application of our limited understanding.
I was a History major in college. Since then my primary interest in history (an interest that has never died and has only grown) is in ancient history with a focus on philosophy, religion, archaeology and whatever else fits under that spectrum. I am a curious person and do not denounce anything, based on unthinking bias. These are all questions that I have spent much time working with, so none of this is new to me. Oh and also I am a former Christian (Catholic) and I am not necesarilly a Buddhist, but use Buddhism as a tool to help me understand the 'it' that I don't currently understand. Maybe this will help you understand my motivation for what I am trying to do in this post, no matter how nonsensical it may have been.
And this post wasn't really about comparing religions. It was about "how can we know that God exists?", and nobody here has proved it's existence beyond what has already been said now for many thousands of years.
Fair enough. I wasn't attacking you so I apologize if it came off that way. I do agree. Trying to describe or not describe God is a tricky thing. I'm certainly no theologian. :-)
You don't, and I do. He is sought, known, and loved by the heart. @Zero posted some nice commentary on that topic, but I can't remember which discussion. Perhaps it was this one.
If I recall correctly, the Buddha was silent when asked about the existence of God. He wasn't denying or affirming, but left it up to one's own personal discovery.
While it's true that the subject of a creator God isn't addresses all that often, I think the Buddha may have been a lot more critical of the idea of an eternal creator than many people realize. For example, DN 1 is fairly critical of the idea of an eternal creator, suggesting such a being is deluded into thinking they're eternal and the maker of all by means of an interesting myth of the world's creation.
DN 11 also treats the idea of such a being in a similarly humourous manner when "Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be" is stumped by a question from a monk with supranormal powers, and quietly takes the questioner aside so his retinue can't hear to suggest that he ask the Buddha instead.
But perhaps Buddha's perspective on gods was a reaction to the way they are portrayed in Hindu culture.
That's quite possible; I'd say very likely, in fact. However, since the Judeo-Christian God is often portrayed similarly to "Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be," I think some of the Buddha's criticism are still applicable in so far as those portrayals go. Beyond that, it's difficult to say; but my main point was simply that the Buddha wasn't as silent on the topic as people sometimes assume. He had a sharp wit that was critical of a lot of contemporary ideas, including ideas about eternal creator deities.
I'm not sure DN1 quite says that - it is silent on the monotheistic model of God - it rather seems to apply to living people who claim eternal status - I read it as applying well to issues of ego say - same for DN11 - there is a mix of gods... again appears to be addressing bare statements rather than an eternal God... the buddha also does not answer the question - he rather states 'this is the question you should ask' and answers that...
What is meant when the Buddha refers to himself as Tathagata? One who has come / gone? One who is beyond all transitory phenomena?
I'm not sure DN1 quite says that - it is silent on the monotheistic model of God - it rather seems to apply to living people who claim eternal status - I read it as applying well to issues of ego say - same for DN11 - there is a mix of gods... again appears to be addressing bare statements rather than an eternal God... the buddha also does not answer the question - he rather states 'this is the question you should ask' and answers that...
What is meant when the Buddha refers to himself as Tathagata? One who has come / gone? One who is beyond all transitory phenomena?
Yes, but Brahma is the god of creation and is portrayed as the eternal creator who, in all actuality, the Buddha suggests isn't eternal or a creator in his criticism of 'eternalists' who base their views of eternalism on such a being. To me, it seems he's being critical of both ideas, which I suspect is for two main reasons. The first is that the logic of dependent co-arising, while primarily concerned with the psychological process by which suffering arises in the mind, negates the idea of a creator God in that it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause when applied to cosmology. The second is that the Buddha is being critical of eternalist views because of the dangers he sees inherent in clinging to such views, i.e., clinging to views obstructs emancipation through non-clinging. Which is why I think you could easily replace 'Brahma' with 'YHWH' to get the same criticism of 'eternalists' today who base their views of eternalism on the Judeo-Christian God. That's the way I see it, at least. Your mileage may vary.
I'm not sure DN1 quite says that - it is silent on the monotheistic model of God - it rather seems to apply to living people who claim eternal status - I read it as applying well to issues of ego say - same for DN11 - there is a mix of gods... again appears to be addressing bare statements rather than an eternal God... the buddha also does not answer the question - he rather states 'this is the question you should ask' and answers that...
What is meant when the Buddha refers to himself as Tathagata? One who has come / gone? One who is beyond all transitory phenomena?
Yes, but Brahma is the god of creation and is portrayed as the eternal creator who, in all actuality, the Buddha suggests isn't eternal or a creator in his criticism of 'eternalists' who base their ideas of eternalism on such a being. He's being critical of both, which I suspect is for two main reasons. The first is that the logic of dependent co-arising, while primarily concerned with the psychological process by which suffering arises in the mind, negates the idea of a creator God in that it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause when applied to cosmology. The second is that the Buddha is being critical of eternalist views because of the dangers he sees inherent in clinging to such views, i.e., clinging to views obstructs emancipation through non-clinging. Which is why I think you could easily replace 'Brahma' with 'YHWH' to get the same criticism of 'eternalists' today who base their ideas of eternalism on the Judeo-Christian God. That's the way I see it, at least. Your mileage may vary.
I would not be surprised if the great Brahma is known by some as YHWH.
Yes, but Brahma is the god of creation and is portrayed as the eternal creator who, in all actuality, the Buddha suggests isn't eternal or a creator in his criticism of 'eternalists' who base their views of eternalism on such a being. To me, it seems he's being critical of both ideas, which I suspect is for two main reasons. The first is that the logic of dependent co-arising, while primarily concerned with the psychological process by which suffering arises in the mind, negates the idea of a creator God in that it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause when applied to cosmology. The second is that the Buddha is being critical of eternalist views because of the dangers he sees inherent in clinging to such views, i.e., clinging to views obstructs emancipation through non-clinging. Which is why I think you could easily replace 'Brahma' with 'YHWH' to get the same criticism of 'eternalists' today who base their views of eternalism on the Judeo-Christian God. That's the way I see it, at least. Your mileage may vary.
Thinking about this some more, I suppose one could argue that this still leaves open the possibility of emancipation through non-clinging to be synonymous with theosis, and that the relinquishment of views leads one open to the deathless (amata), which can also be interpreted as God. But I think there are some difficulties with this interpretation if we equate 'God' with 'eternal creator,' such as the fact that the idea of a first cosmological cause is never presented in a positive light, and the Buddha seems to favour a natural, cyclical cosmological myth rather than a creationist one (e.g., DN 1, DN 27, etc.). Just something to add to the discussion, anyway.
Thinking about this some more, I suppose one could argue that this still leaves open the possibility of emancipation through non-clinging to be synonymous with theosis, and that the relinquishment of views leads one open to the deathless (amata), which can also be interpreted as God.
But I think there are some difficulties with this interpretation if we equate 'God' with 'eternal creator,' such as the fact that the idea of a first cosmological cause is never presented in a positive light, and the Buddha seems to favour a natural, cyclical cosmological myth rather than a creationist one (e.g., DN 1, DN 27, etc.). Just something to add to the discussion, anyway.
Yep - that was the angle that sprang to me too (though not as eloquently and no links!!) - it sort of fits with Tathagata as well.
The difficulties crop up when God stands apart from creation.
Overall it keeps coming back to the definition of God.
Surely if God exists, he doesn't help his creatures. Speaking with candor, with such power why does God seldom uses it for good? Justice is lacking in this world. And why are all God's creatures condemned to suffering and death? Why doesn't he give them happiness instead? Is God too weak to give his creatures happiness or does he enjoy watching his creatures suffer? In either case, who needs him?
4
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
In addition to what @Jason has said about dependent origination working against a first cause or a causeless cause. An eternal creator existing outside of time doesn't seem to hold up to investigation either. Time is change, a creator's will deciding to create means that at some point there was no desire to create then there was, that is a change and thus time, therefore an eternal creator existing outside of time is denied.
Surely if God exists, he doesn't help his creatures. Speaking with candor, with such power why does God seldom uses it for good? Justice is lacking in this world. And why are all God's creatures condemned to suffering and death? Why doesn't he give them happiness instead? Is God too weak to give his creatures happiness or does he enjoy watching his creatures suffer? In either case, who needs him?
Brings to mind the famous problem of evil passage from the Bhuridatta Jataka:
We see those rules enforced before our eyes, None but the Brahmans offer sacrifice, None but the Khattiya exercises sway, The Vessas plough, the Suddas must obey. These greedy liars propagate deceit, And fools believe the fictions they repeat; He who has eyes can see the sickening sight; Why does not Brahma set his creatures right? If his wide power no limits can restrain, Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless? Why are his creatures all condemned to pain? Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail? Why triumphs falsehood, truth and justice fail? I count your Brahma one of the unjust among, Who made a world in which to shelter wrong. Those men are counted pure who only kill Frogs, worms, bees, snakes or insects as they will, These are your savage customs which I hate, Such as Kamboja hordes might emulate. If he who kills is counted innocent And if the victim safe to heaven is sent, Let Brahmans Brahmans kill so all were well And those who listen to the words they tell.
In addition to what @Jason has said about dependent origination working against a first cause or a causeless cause. An eternal creator existing outside of time doesn't seem to hold up to investigation either. Time is change, a creator's will deciding to create means that at some point there was no desire to create then there was, that is a change and thus time, therefore an eternal creator existing outside of time is denied.
I'm not much of a philosopher, but I've come to a somewhat similar conundrum myself, which is that God would have be more like the impassive and impersonal God of Aristotle, existing outside of time and space, to find a place within Buddhist cosmology (i.e., not subject to aging, illness, and death); and anything existing outside of time and space would logically be completely static, meaning that God would be an undynamic being if God exists at all. Since everything within the range of our experience (i.e., within space and time) is subject to change, however, it's more logical to conclude that everything within our realm of experience is impermanent, meaning that for God to able to interact with our universe, God would also be temporal and subject to illness, aging and death just like every other being (much like Brahma in DN 1, DN 27, etc.), hence not God.
Surely if God exists, he doesn't help his creatures. Speaking with candor, with such power why does God seldom uses it for good? Justice is lacking in this world. And why are all God's creatures condemned to suffering and death? Why doesn't he give them happiness instead? Is God too weak to give his creatures happiness or does he enjoy watching his creatures suffer? In either case, who needs him?
Surely if God exists, he doesn't help his creatures. Speaking with candor, with such power why does God seldom uses it for good? Justice is lacking in this world. And why are all God's creatures condemned to suffering and death? Why doesn't he give them happiness instead? Is God too weak to give his creatures happiness or does he enjoy watching his creatures suffer? In either case, who needs him?
Surely if God exists, he doesn't help his creatures. Speaking with candor, with such power why does God seldom uses it for good? Justice is lacking in this world. And why are all God's creatures condemned to suffering and death? Why doesn't he give them happiness instead? Is God too weak to give his creatures happiness or does he enjoy watching his creatures suffer? In either case, who needs him?
For some of us, you're being very insulting.
I understand that it may be upsetting for people who believe in God to read things like this; but to be fair, the problem of evil is a legitimate question about, and popular argument against, the existence and/or benevolence of God. It possibly goes as far back as Epicurus, and is often called the Epicurean paradox, which is probably most famously presented by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:
And is it possible, CLEANTHES, said PHILO, that after all these reflections, and infinitely more, which might be suggested, you can still persevere in your Anthropomorphism, and assert the moral attributes of the Deity, his justice, benevolence, mercy, and rectitude, to be of the same nature with these virtues in human creatures? His power we allow is infinite: whatever he wills is executed: but neither man nor any other animal is happy: therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of Nature tends not to human or animal felicity: therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?
EPICURUS's old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?
And even Buddhism has its own version (which I've already posted above).
^^ I once had a conversation with a monk in Thailand and asked him how he felt about Christianity. He told me he respected the spiritual views of others and that no Buddhist should show less respect for other religions than they expect others to show Buddhism. In other words -- the Golden Rule.
^^ I once had a conversation with a monk in Thailand and asked him how he felt about Christianity. He told me he respected the spiritual views of others and that no Buddhist should show less respect for other religions than they expect others to show Buddhism. In other words -- the Golden Rule.
Sounds like a wise person. But I don't think anyone's showing any disrespect to Christianity simply by bringing up the problem of evil/Epicurean paradox when discussing the topic of the existence of God. What Songhill wrote is no different than what's written in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion or the Bhuridatta Jataka, and it's a perfectly legitimate question.
I have no problem with the discussion. Overall it's a fair discussion. But calling God "it"...we wouldn't call Buddha "it". That's a sample of what I am offended by.
Not saying that the conversation should end. Just pointing out that the concept of "right speech" might be thought of.
All legimate quetions, but as I have said before. They are not new, and they have been answered. Again, a great summary to them is Professor Vladamir Lossky's "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church". He was very knowledgeable of the teachings of the holy fathers and mothers of the church.
I have no problem with the discussion. Overall it's a fair discussion. But calling God "it"...we wouldn't call Buddha "it". That's a sample of what I am offended by.
Not saying that the conversation should end. Just pointing out that the concept of "right speech" might be thought of.
Not really sure what you're going on about, @vinlyn. I don't see anyone calling God 'it.' The one you mentioned was insulting, for example, clearly uses the pronoun 'he':
Surely if God exists, he doesn't help his creatures. Speaking with candor, with such power why does God seldom uses it for good? Justice is lacking in this world. And why are all God's creatures condemned to suffering and death? Why doesn't he give them happiness instead? Is God too weak to give his creatures happiness or does he enjoy watching his creatures suffer? In either case, who needs him?
All legimate quetions, but as I have said before. They are not new, and they have been answered. Again, a great summary to them is Professor Vladamir Lossky's "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church". He was very knowledgeable of the teachings of the holy fathers and mothers of the church.
Comments
Is there any substantial reason to believe that Theosis with God is any different than the experience of union with Brahman that the Hindus speak of? Or the realization of Emptiness or the "One Mind" that Buddhists speak of?
Perhaps this "theosis" is proof of the existence of "God", but not the old Jewish conception of an independent supreme being... rather simply the same reality that Hinduism and Buddhism speak of, but expressed through a different belief structure, a different context.
I don't see anything supporting the direct knowing of an "independent supreme being", whatever you call it... theosis, union with Brahman, enlightenment, even being "born again" as in the spiritual experience that many Christians speak of. These things would seem to support a unified interdependent reality, but any additional conception added to it, such as it being a "being", is extraneous and we can't know for sure if this is the truth of it or not.
It would seem to be adding a view or belief on top of a shared experience that we can all have, and that we'll all interpret differently.
Going to be going to sleep, but I'd encourage some thought on that.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with faith in and of itself; and I think having a certain amount of conviction in the Buddha's teachings is needed from a purely pragmatic point of view. For one thing, without at least a modicum of confidence in the Buddha as a teacher, there's no motivation to put his teachings into practice (and the same with the teachings and the advice of those who dedicate themselves to practicing them/passing them down). As Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes in his essay "Faith in Awakening": Without faith that the Buddha had at least some insight into the nature of suffering, there's little reason to take anything he said as a working hypothesis to test. Therefore, while faith by itself isn't a sufficient condition for arriving at the highest fruits of the Dhamma, there are elements of faith that are important to the practice, which is illustrated in places like MN 70: In essence, faith in Buddhism is a stepping stone to gnosis, much as it is in Christianity. And while some find theistic spiritual traditions like Christianity a source of comfort, guidance, and happiness, I've found Buddhism to be the same. I don't know if nibbana — the extinction of craving; the extinguishing of greed, hatred and delusion; the complete end of suffering — is attainable, but I certainly like where the path has taken me thus far, and I have confidence that it's worth my continued effort. And I imagine that others feel the same about their respective spiritual journeys, whatever the context, which is something I can appreciate.
Oh and by the way, where the heck is the OP anyway? This got thick without so much as a peep from him since he started this labrynth......
My two cents?
1.) Buddhism does require some faith; even purely philosophical Buddhism. Otherwise, why would one practice it to end one's suffering?
2.) There can be no 100% certainly that anything anyone believes is true or not. Whether it be Buddhism, Paganism, Hinduism, Atheism etc., so no one is technically right or wrong. However, I don't think faith is enough. Some rational introspection of your beliefs, at least to me, is key into seeing whether or not you truly believe or don't believe for that matter.
3.) Branching from 2, I'm starting to believe that there is a creator of the universe. Mainly because I see the complexity of the universe and just can't believe that this was an accident. Is that faith? Technically yes, but through my own thinking and rationality (however much that may be) I came to this conclusion. Am I right with my belief? Yes and no. Am I wrong? Yes and no.
I think for me, particularly since I agree with your #3, I assume that we misunderstand God. The idea that he is involved in everything. I just doubt that.
Yes, at very least faith in the method.
@PendanticPorpoise
That is a very profound distinction, IMO.
Faith is the culmination of the brain’s guesstimation – this is more a 1 than a 0 so let it sit with the 1's or perhaps create a sub category of [1 - (0.5)] etc – so the process of faith is underpinned by the same calculations that creates the process of logic – there are degrees of fuzzy separation between the two position but each conclusion is rooted in the same system.
Supposition is all around in varying degrees – when one feels more convinced it is logic, reason (closer to 1-0) - less convinced, faith (further from 1-0) - all stemming apparently from data correlation processes.
So it’s all faith, or all logic – they’re one and the same — the illusion is considering that the result of either is absolute.
Lol, that's perfectly fine.
When comparing religions we must recognize that although we may be arriving at a better understanding we are going to have limits due to fact that we are simply outside the faith we are trying to grasp. Though a Buddhist for many years prior to my conversion to Eastern Orthodox Christianity I'm no expert in Buddhism or my own tradition for that matter.
I have asked the same questions you have posed, and I'm still asking questions, but the fact is what ever question we may have, or think that nobody else has posed or have somehow missed, has already been addressed throughout the history of the Church.
If I recall correctly, the Buddha was silent when asked about the existence of God. He wasn't denying or affirming, but left it up to one's own personal discovery.
With that being said at best I can only point in the direction, and can't transfer the more subtle points that require praxis and faith.
I do know this. We must be careful not to project upon God concepts and notions that are based on our limited understanding or worldly knowledge of things. If you think God is crude that is a human based construct, and that is how God is going to be experienced by you. If you are suffering and don't take accountability for your actions and blame others than He is seen as angry or wrathful. What ever human emotions we can use to describe God have their limitation.
God's is without origin, uncreated, infinite, etc.. He is a person as reflected in the Trinity,but not how we normally would understand person. They share one essence that is completely unknowable by us. It is only through His Uncreated Energies that he is made known to us.
When Moses requested of God to see His glory God told him that you can not see my face and live, but let him see his back side as he passed by. The face is representative of the essence and His backside His uncreated energies.
Being without origin God is complete, and the being of creation of ex nihilo, or out of nothing, is the volitional thought will of God. Man and creation is sustained by God, and dependent upon Him. Man has his own will and volition, and being created in God's Image and Likeness affects creation through his actions (Sort of like the notion of Karma). Some times in synergy with God and other times falling away. God loves His creation, but not like how we define love. It is infinity more, but doesn't require that love in return.
Everything that is subject to change is created. It has a beginning and an end. God's intention or "plan" is that creation through spiritual maturation, Man being at the pinnacle, becomes glorified through participation in His divine Uncreated Energies.
Vladamir Lossky's book "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church", though a difficult read, would be an excellent primer I think. Way far better than my primitive examples.
Also, as an aside, we now that math works, but we can't explain how. We readily accept scientific theory as fact, and don't pursue further investigation or investigation of opposing theories.
Carl Sagan once asked the Dalai Lama "What would you do Holiness if we proved the notion of rebirth to be false. He answered "Stop believing it", and then he asked "How would you go about proving it false". Carl Sagan was silent.
I was a History major in college. Since then my primary interest in history (an interest that has never died and has only grown) is in ancient history with a focus on philosophy, religion, archaeology and whatever else fits under that spectrum. I am a curious person and do not denounce anything, based on unthinking bias. These are all questions that I have spent much time working with, so none of this is new to me. Oh and also I am a former Christian (Catholic) and I am not necesarilly a Buddhist, but use Buddhism as a tool to help me understand the 'it' that I don't currently understand. Maybe this will help you understand my motivation for what I am trying to do in this post, no matter how nonsensical it may have been.
And this post wasn't really about comparing religions. It was about "how can we know that God exists?", and nobody here has proved it's existence beyond what has already been said now for many thousands of years.
We Can't. We Don't.
DN 11 also treats the idea of such a being in a similarly humourous manner when "Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be" is stumped by a question from a monk with supranormal powers, and quietly takes the questioner aside so his retinue can't hear to suggest that he ask the Buddha instead.
But perhaps Buddha's perspective on gods was a reaction to the way they are portrayed in Hindu culture.
What is meant when the Buddha refers to himself as Tathagata? One who has come / gone? One who is beyond all transitory phenomena?
The difficulties crop up when God stands apart from creation.
Overall it keeps coming back to the definition of God.
Not saying that the conversation should end. Just pointing out that the concept of "right speech" might be thought of.