Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I was of the understanding that when questioned about the existence of a God/dess/Divine Creator, the Buddha did not answer one way or the other except to say it was not wise to waste energy trying to prove or disprove it.
dhammachik, I was hoping for sutra references about God. A lot of great material has been posted. I don't feel (for me) that this thread was a waste of (my) time.
dhammachik, I was hoping for sutra references about God. A lot of great material has been posted. I don't feel (for me) that this thread was a waste of (my) time.
Then it is not. Simples.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
You're asking the wrong guy. I don't believe in the Buddha, lol.
Neither do I. What he had to recommend for ending human suffering had a certain ring to it. I've been trying it out and just like he suggested, along with the thoughts and advice of others who liked his suggestions. I'm now convinced he was onto something, but not until I practiced for a while and had some of the stuff he talked about actually happen to little ole me :buck:
I spin lots of yarn, partly the way I was taught to, and the rest how I learned myself, to do and not to do. I don't believe in the folks who spin yarn professionally and are all famous and shit, though. I don't believe in Florence Nightingale, either, or any of those nineteenth century ladies who wrested nursing away from the Catholic nuns.
There are lots of things I DO believe in, even though I have not had direct experiential experience of them. Like atoms, viruses, the Taj Mahal, Mongolia, etc. Alas, I'll put the Buddha to the test but I'll just go right ahead and believe in the Canterbury Cathedral no problem.
dhammachik, I was hoping for sutra references about God. A lot of great material has been posted. I don't feel (for me) that this thread was a waste of (my) time.
The Great Brahma is the equivalent of the supreme God at the time of the Buddha. See how Brahma was posed a question in this sutta.
Conversations with the Gods
"So the monk approached the Great Brahma and, on arrival, said, 'Friend, where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder?'
"When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am 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.'
............
"A third time, the monk said to the Great Brahma, 'Friend, I didn't ask you if you were 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 asked you where these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder.'
"Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off to one side, said to him, 'These gods of the retinue of Brahma believe, "There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great Brahma has not realized." That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.'
The Great Brahma is the equivalent of the supreme God at the time of the Buddha.
Not so in many ways.
There is no creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) found in the religions of the Buddha's time and culture where there is a distinction in eternal and temporal planes of existence. In those religions, including Buddhism, existence is without beginning or end where all things emanate from an absolute and move only through laws to which it is subordinated.
Brahma, the creator of the universe, is born from Brahman the absolute or supreme essence, and along with Vishnu the sustainer, and Shiva the destroyer he makes up a trinity.
However, If Brahman is the absolute essence and eternal, meaning without beginning or end, how can temporal existence appear in an eternal existence or essence which has no beginning or end? The fact that Brahma was born means there was a time he was not, and therefore time had passed before his birth. This is a contradiction. How can that which is eternal also be temporal?
Not only that. How is that this absolute essence, whether it be Brahman, Mind, or otherwise which is supposedly unchanging, perfect, undefiled, pure, and without beginning or end emanate laws it is not subject to and give rise to beings that are subject to change and of their own liberty and choice are mired in suffering that are not separate by nature?
Exactly... Brahma, the creator god is not immortal or permanent. He is born, lives, creates, dies, and is reborn after a time, ad infinitum.
Even the Rig Veda questions how, if and when creation happened:
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? 2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. 3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. 4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent. 5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder 6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? 7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
Rig Veda 10.129.1-7
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
It's good to note the distinction between Brahma and Brahman for this conversation. Brahma is the creative aspect of Brahman and it is Brahman that is seen as eternal, not Brahma.
Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu are the Trimurti that is Brahman.
It is still up for grabs whether Brahman or the Biblical God was conceived of first but they both represent the ultimate being.
It is still up for grabs whether Brahman or the Biblical God was conceived of first but they both represent the ultimate being.
Fwiw, I think Brahman is closer to the Tao, perhaps even closer to Adi-Buddha, than to the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God is extensively described and anthropomorphized. Not so the Tao* or Brahman.
The Rig Veda is dated to about 1700–1100 BCE (sometimes 1500-1000 BCE), which I believe is about the time of the first accounts of the bible, roughly 1500 BCE. They are probably coeval. But I think that's coincidental because the concepts are completely different.
*The Tao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the Eternal Name The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth The named is the mother of myriad things
This is just how I see it.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The Great Brahma is the equivalent of the supreme God at the time of the Buddha.
Not so in many ways.
There is no creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) found in the religions of the Buddha's time and culture where there is a distinction in eternal and temporal planes of existence. In those religions, including Buddhism, existence is without beginning or end where all things emanate from an absolute and move only through laws to which it is subordinated.
Brahma, the creator of the universe, is born from Brahman the absolute or supreme essence, and along with Vishnu the sustainer, and Shiva the destroyer he makes up a trinity.
However, If Brahman is the absolute essence and eternal, meaning without beginning or end, how can temporal existence appear in an eternal existence or essence which has no beginning or end? The fact that Brahma was born means there was a time he was not, and therefore time had passed before his birth. This is a contradiction. How can that which is eternal also be temporal?
The potential for Brahma would have always been so when the conditions allow, a creator may arise and pass away just like anything else.
Not only that. How is that this absolute essence, whether it be Brahman, Mind, or otherwise which is supposedly unchanging, perfect, undefiled, pure, and without beginning or end emanate laws it is not subject to and give rise to beings that are subject to change and of their own liberty and choice are mired in suffering that are not separate by nature?
Because it is change. The only thing that stays the same is that everything changes.
That is my point. The Biblical Holy Trinity is three hypostasis or persons, one in essence and undivided in a communion of love, and since they are eternal without beginning or end there was never a time they were not. God is love, love is the reason and purpose of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), the reason and purpose of our life is to live in communion with God, and love is the essence of faith.
However, there is a tendency when speaking of the persons of the Holy Trinity to project anthropomorphic sentiments and emotions upon them from our own fallen perspectives, and the holy fathers warn against it. What we typically think of as a person is actually a self that is steeped in egoism, attached to passions and to a soul and body which are actually dynamic and changing energies that only reveal the human person. We have yet to accomplish our personhood in a self-emptying loving relationship with God and our neighbor.
The Trimurti represents symbolic cosmic forces or aspects of Brahman as part of an eternal creative process in an endless cycle that has no beginning or end, and no volition or purpose for that matter. The potentiality of change suggests that there might be a time when something was not, meaning some time can pass before an emergence such as that of consciousness, but to say that which has no beginning or end isn't independent and complete in and of itself and is also temporal with the potentiality for change is a contradiction unless eternity is also temporal.
Creation ex nihilo is not eternal because it is temporal, dependent, and changeable. These facts mean there must be a beginning regardless if is beyond our limitation of calculation. We know that our universe came into existence and has a beginning, but it is now postulated by Nobel Prize winning scientists that rather than the universe contracting to produce another bang as part of a endless cyclic process it is actually speeding up in infinite expansion.
My guru taught three aspects to the universe: change/flux, a heart, finely structured and not a blow, and finally phenomenon can be both manifest or unmanitest.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
That is my point. The Biblical Holy Trinity is three hypostasis or persons, one in essence and undivided in a communion of love, and since they are eternal without beginning or end there was never a time they were not. God is love, love is the reason and purpose of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), the reason and purpose of our life is to live in communion with God, and love is the essence of faith.
However, there is a tendency when speaking of the persons of the Holy Trinity to project anthropomorphic sentiments and emotions upon them from our own fallen perspectives, and the holy fathers warn against it. What we typically think of as a person is actually a self that is steeped in egoism, attached to passions and to a soul and body which are actually dynamic and changing energies that only reveal the human person. We have yet to accomplish our personhood in a self-emptying loving relationship with God and our neighbor.
The Trimurti represents symbolic cosmic forces or aspects of Brahman as part of an eternal creative process in an endless cycle that has no beginning or end, and no volition or purpose for that matter. The potentiality of change suggests that there might be a time when something was not, meaning some time can pass before an emergence such as that of consciousness, but to say that which has no beginning or end isn't independent and complete in and of itself and is also temporal with the potentiality for change is a contradiction unless eternity is also temporal.
Creation ex nihilo is not eternal because it is temporal, dependent, and changeable. These facts mean there must be a beginning regardless if is beyond our limitation of calculation. We know that our universe came into existence and has a beginning, but it is now postulated by Nobel Prize winning scientists that rather than the universe contracting to produce another bang as part of a endless cyclic process it is actually speeding up in infinite expansion.
You had me up until you said we know the universe had a beginning. We don't. Something must have happened to cause the big bang.
We don't even know if the anomaly is one of a kind, whether it is a big crunch as you suggest or if there is a multitude of big bangs or even a multitude of big crunches going off all the time within the universe.
The big bang is more likely a function of the universe rather than a beginning.
A start to the universe implies there was a time with no potential for change but that is impossible.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
My guru taught three aspects to the universe: change/flux, a heart, finely structured and not a blow, and finally phenomenon can be both manifest or unmanitest.
Well, we do know the last part is true. Energy and potential energy (which is just more energy). I think we discovered this while trying to create a vacuum. It is impossible because even empty space is form so we start pulling at space itself as soon as it's empty of all else. This creates potential or virtual particles to appear and fall back into the space we try to empty.
Nature abhors a vacuum because there is no such thing as nothing and there never was.
Even outer space has some amount of particles. But in general outer space is relatively (to the earth) empty.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Hmm. I think this idea that Christians believe in God bears a little reflection. In the Orthodox seminaries they teach trainee priests that anything you say about God - that's not it.
To have some conceptual idea of what God is - and to believe that that God exists - is probably closing a door you are trying to open. It maybe OK for an approach based solely on devotion, and there are some Buddhist devotional approaches I know. But I suspect a purely devotional practice won't suit most Western Buddhists - so that approach will create some mental conflicts if you try that approach to Christianity while still following Buddhist practices.
The other approach would be to say God exists, but we have no idea what that means. Then, the Christian practice becomes a path to discover what God is - and the question of existence takes a different flavour.
Goodness knows I'm no expert but it seems to me that the religious approach, be it Christian or Buddhist, entails some directed imagination and the deliberate blurring of inner and outer realities. I can imagine following some 'Christ as a Bodhisattva' practices - I'd struggle with a 'Let's worship a creator God' practice though.
I am agnostic, but I hope that there is a loving God. Wouldn't that be nice? Lama Surya Das says it is ok to pray to western Gods of your heritage rather than to Buddhist Bodhisattvas and Buddhas. He says that praying isn't a scientific thing and it is just the intuitive emotional side that it appeals to. So it is like telling something doesn't taste bad by sight. You can't prove God true with science, because God appeals to the intuition and to emotions.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Why would it be nice?
It would also be nice if we could all wake up and be the love we seek from the universe.
As I have been asked to comment, it is with some hesitation that I do so. My problem is that I am truly unsure what is meant by "believing in God". At root the problem is, as we see from so many differing comments above, there is a multitude of differing views on what is meant by "God". This isn't some sort of avoidance of the question, it is fundamental. Much of the argument both for and against the 'existence' of God can be used in a discussion of, say, sunyatta or, even, Buddha-nature. Both require that we leave behind our deep, post-Enlightenment belief in the sole provability by scientific method and resort to imagination and poetry.
Many of those who reject the notion of God are, in fact, rejecting the attitudes and assertions of believers. The initial question as to whether there is anything against belief in god (with, I notice, a lower case 'g') is clearly answered: it all depends on the effect that such a belief has on the life of the believers, those around them and their action in the world around them. If such a belief leads to some of the horrors of warfare, inquisition, slavery and so on which have piled up in human history, there is an enormous amount against such a belief. If, however, belief in God or gods leads to positive and skilful action such as the founding of schools and hospitals, the abolition of slavery, humane treatment of the poor, the establishment of just laws, and insistence on the equal value of all beings, then, I suggest, it is a force for good.
You had me up until you said we know the universe had a beginning. We don't. Something must have happened to cause the big bang.
We don't even know if the anomaly is one of a kind, whether it is a big crunch as you suggest or if there is a multitude of big bangs or even a multitude of big crunches going off all the time within the universe.
The big bang is more likely a function of the universe rather than a beginning.
A start to the universe implies there was a time with no potential for change but that is impossible.
I like this view and subscribe to it myself (as if anyone cares ).
If dependent origin is a basic tenet of Buddhism, then the "beginning" of this universe, i.e. Big Bang, was dependent on something(s) else. I believe this is the case. I believe this has gone on, and will go on ad infinitum.
In the town of Berditchev, the home of the great Hassidic master, Reb Levi Yitzhak, there was a self-proclaimed, self-assured atheist, who would take great pleasure in publicly denying the existence of God. One day Reb Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev approached this man and said, “you know what, I don't believe in the same God that you don't believe in.”
Hi, buddhis teaching and the teaching of Jesus are not so far apart as som christians might think. In Pali-Canon, Dighanikayo, Brahma is mentioned quite often, if talking with Botamo Buddho.One of my favourite quotes:"There is a here and a beyond and a reward for good and for bad deeds."
In the town of Berditchev, the home of the great Hassidic master, Reb Levi Yitzhak, there was a self-proclaimed, self-assured atheist, who would take great pleasure in publicly denying the existence of God. One day Reb Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev approached this man and said, “you know what, I don't believe in the same God that you don't believe in.”
I grew up an agnostic and that was that. Going to Buddhism my mind has become more open. I desire to share more with Christians since I am in a Christian nation. I will cherry pick and be unorthodox if I do experiment with Christianity.
But I was wondering if Buddha or -ism ever says that you shouldn't believe in God? Since being Buddhist I am much more open to Jesus having an enlightened consciousness because Buddhism in my mind has some mystical things.
The Buddha said that he would remain silent on God. Is this right? And then there is the conundrum of heaven versus rebirth. But for a lot of conundrums like that I can just remain agnostic.
Thoughts: Sometimes we believe in our loved ones, like our father or mother. There is nothing with that. Same thing with God especially when you think of the Lord as our father. Just like your father can't determine your fate, the Lord, I suppose, can't too.
The real question to me is: Why do you wish to believe in a god? Most people I know believe in god because the unknown scares the shit out of them. So they create an elaborate story so that they can have a nice handle on this existence. So what is your motivation? If it is fear of the unknown...try to toss that shit.
The real question to me is: Why do you wish to believe in a god? Most people I know believe in god because the unknown scares the shit out of them. So they create an elaborate story so that they can have a nice handle on this existence. So what is your motivation? If it is fear of the unknown...try to toss that shit.
For me it's because I don't believe something comes from nothing.
The real question to me is: Why do you wish to believe in a god? Most people I know believe in god because the unknown scares the shit out of them. So they create an elaborate story so that they can have a nice handle on this existence. So what is your motivation? If it is fear of the unknown...try to toss that shit.
For me it's because I don't believe something comes from nothing.
I'm assuming there is something, because it appears that there is, and that's good enough for me. What reason is there to believe that there was ever nothing?
The real question to me is: Why do you wish to believe in a god? Most people I know believe in god because the unknown scares the shit out of them. So they create an elaborate story so that they can have a nice handle on this existence. So what is your motivation? If it is fear of the unknown...try to toss that shit.
For me it's because I don't believe something comes from nothing.
It is still up for grabs whether Brahman or the Biblical God was conceived of first but they both represent the ultimate being.
Fwiw, I think Brahman is closer to the Tao, perhaps even closer to Adi-Buddha, than to the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God is extensively described and anthropomorphized. Not so the Tao* or Brahman.
The Rig Veda is dated to about 1700–1100 BCE (sometimes 1500-1000 BCE), which I believe is about the time of the first accounts of the bible, roughly 1500 BCE. They are probably coeval. But I think that's coincidental because the concepts are completely different.
*The Tao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the Eternal Name The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth The named is the mother of myriad things
This is just how I see it.
from my understanding. brahman or great brahma or whatever was main and godlike being ( similiar to the creater god) in shakyamuni's time. when that time vishnu or other local deities was not considered as main ultimate as the brahma, but in buddhism brahma was/is not considered a ultimate eternal god. he is just a deva but in very higher realm that can contact to humans, and you know everybody can be reborn as a deva in higher realms even as a great brahma or even better realms as a formless realm. so in buddhism brahma or great brahma or other devas are no match for adi buddha or buddhas.
The real question to me is: Why do you wish to believe in a god? Most people I know believe in god because the unknown scares the shit out of them. So they create an elaborate story so that they can have a nice handle on this existence. So what is your motivation? If it is fear of the unknown...try to toss that shit.
For me it's because I don't believe something comes from nothing.
Is there something?
It is a question believers often ask of themselves: is there something, or am I imagining it? That would change the questions they ask about god later on.
It depends on your definition of God. I think that if you take the popular ideas of God they would be quite difficult to square with Buddhism. That said, there are many people who have found that it is possible to believe in God and be a Buddhist. Of course that depends on the definition of Buddhist too!
This topic has been discussed here many times. I am currently struggling with these questions myself. For me one of the issues is that faith in God seems to give me some positive foundation from which to lead my life so to speak. While Buddhism has a somewhat depressing quality to me, unless I specifically focus on the positive aspects of the practice.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
For me it's because I don't believe something comes from nothing.
Apparently that's what happened with the big bang.
Only if we redefine what the term "nothing" means. I did a thread about this very topic called "Hawkings coin or the magic "nothing"" but it seems to have been wiped out. Kinda sucks because I did put a lot of thought into it.
The theory isn't that the big bang happened with no cause but that it caused itself to begin by ending so saying that nothing caused it is misleading.
It would make more sense to claim a being that needed no development whatsoever started everything by wiggling its nose than to claim it all came from "nothing".
Some will tell us that the total energy in the universe could equal zero but they are missing the obvious. Digging a hole is the metaphor. As we dig a hole, we also create a pile. The pile is equal to the hole so positive and negative cancel each other out so no work is done. This really falls short because without the dirt, there is no hole or pile.
In this analogy, the dirt is equaled to "nothing" but of course it is energy.
God makes more sense than nothing but then again, anything makes more sense than nothing.
The real question to me is: Why do you wish to believe in a god? Most people I know believe in god because the unknown scares the shit out of them. So they create an elaborate story so that they can have a nice handle on this existence. So what is your motivation? If it is fear of the unknown...try to toss that shit.
I don't know if there is god. But wouldn't it be cool if you saw all your loved ones in heaven?
I believe there are no Gods. I also believe that death is not the end. Our consciousness will continue. I believe that each of us has the capability of becoming Buddha.
in the counter intuitive realm of quanta (very small stuff) things, quanta, come into a being from nowhere. Yep, a bit of a wobble in emptiness, without a wobbler and . . .
What it comes down to is that there is no external savior to depend on. The general hopelessness of our situation should orientate our lives to radically examine our whole situation.
Comments
I am agnostic if God exists, but I follow God whether he/she exists or not. I can still follow a non-existent person etc.
I was of the understanding that when questioned about the existence of a God/dess/Divine Creator, the Buddha did not answer one way or the other except to say it was not wise to waste energy trying to prove or disprove it.
Much like this thread, yes?
In metta,
Raven
I spin lots of yarn, partly the way I was taught to, and the rest how I learned myself, to do and not to do. I don't believe in the folks who spin yarn professionally and are all famous and shit, though. I don't believe in Florence Nightingale, either, or any of those nineteenth century ladies who wrested nursing away from the Catholic nuns.
There are lots of things I DO believe in, even though I have not had direct experiential experience of them. Like atoms, viruses, the Taj Mahal, Mongolia, etc. Alas, I'll put the Buddha to the test but I'll just go right ahead and believe in the Canterbury Cathedral no problem.
Gassho
Not so in many ways.
There is no creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) found in the religions of the Buddha's time and culture where there is a distinction in eternal and temporal planes of existence. In those religions, including Buddhism, existence is without beginning or end where all things emanate from an absolute and move only through laws to which it is subordinated.
Brahma, the creator of the universe, is born from Brahman the absolute or supreme essence, and along with Vishnu the sustainer, and Shiva the destroyer he makes up a trinity.
However, If Brahman is the absolute essence and eternal, meaning without beginning or end, how can temporal existence appear in an eternal existence or essence which has no beginning or end? The fact that Brahma was born means there was a time he was not, and therefore time had passed before his birth. This is a contradiction. How can that which is eternal also be temporal?
Not only that. How is that this absolute essence, whether it be Brahman, Mind, or otherwise which is supposedly unchanging, perfect, undefiled, pure, and without beginning or end emanate laws it is not subject to and give rise to beings that are subject to change and of their own liberty and choice are mired in suffering that are not separate by nature?
Even the Rig Veda questions how, if and when creation happened:
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
Rig Veda 10.129.1-7
It's good to note the distinction between Brahma and Brahman for this conversation. Brahma is the creative aspect of Brahman and it is Brahman that is seen as eternal, not Brahma.
Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu are the Trimurti that is Brahman.
It is still up for grabs whether Brahman or the Biblical God was conceived of first but they both represent the ultimate being.
The Rig Veda is dated to about 1700–1100 BCE (sometimes 1500-1000 BCE), which I believe is about the time of the first accounts of the bible, roughly 1500 BCE. They are probably coeval. But I think that's coincidental because the concepts are completely different.
*The Tao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the Eternal Name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
This is just how I see it.
That's how I see it as well, pretty much.
Not so in many ways.
There is no creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) found in the religions of the Buddha's time and culture where there is a distinction in eternal and temporal planes of existence. In those religions, including Buddhism, existence is without beginning or end where all things emanate from an absolute and move only through laws to which it is subordinated.
Brahma, the creator of the universe, is born from Brahman the absolute or supreme essence, and along with Vishnu the sustainer, and Shiva the destroyer he makes up a trinity.
However, If Brahman is the absolute essence and eternal, meaning without beginning or end, how can temporal existence appear in an eternal existence or essence which has no beginning or end? The fact that Brahma was born means there was a time he was not, and therefore time had passed before his birth. This is a contradiction. How can that which is eternal also be temporal?
The potential for Brahma would have always been so when the conditions allow, a creator may arise and pass away just like anything else. Because it is change. The only thing that stays the same is that everything changes.
The Biblical Holy Trinity is three hypostasis or persons, one in essence and undivided in a communion of love, and since they are eternal without beginning or end there was never a time they were not. God is love, love is the reason and purpose of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), the reason and purpose of our life is to live in communion with God, and love is the essence of faith.
However, there is a tendency when speaking of the persons of the Holy Trinity to project anthropomorphic sentiments and emotions upon them from our own fallen perspectives, and the holy fathers warn against it. What we typically think of as a person is actually a self that is steeped in egoism, attached to passions and to a soul and body which are actually dynamic and changing energies that only reveal the human person. We have yet to accomplish our personhood in a self-emptying loving relationship with God and our neighbor.
The Trimurti represents symbolic cosmic forces or aspects of Brahman as part of an eternal creative process in an endless cycle that has no beginning or end, and no volition or purpose for that matter. The potentiality of change suggests that there might be a time when something was not, meaning some time can pass before an emergence such as that of consciousness, but to say that which has no beginning or end isn't independent and complete in and of itself and is also temporal with the potentiality for change is a contradiction unless eternity is also temporal.
Creation ex nihilo is not eternal because it is temporal, dependent, and changeable. These facts mean there must be a beginning regardless if is beyond our limitation of calculation. We know that our universe came into existence and has a beginning, but it is now postulated by Nobel Prize winning scientists that rather than the universe contracting to produce another bang as part of a endless cyclic process it is actually speeding up in infinite expansion.
We don't even know if the anomaly is one of a kind, whether it is a big crunch as you suggest or if there is a multitude of big bangs or even a multitude of big crunches going off all the time within the universe.
The big bang is more likely a function of the universe rather than a beginning.
A start to the universe implies there was a time with no potential for change but that is impossible.
Nature abhors a vacuum because there is no such thing as nothing and there never was.
To have some conceptual idea of what God is - and to believe that that God exists - is probably closing a door you are trying to open. It maybe OK for an approach based solely on devotion, and there are some Buddhist devotional approaches I know. But I suspect a purely devotional practice won't suit most Western Buddhists - so that approach will create some mental conflicts if you try that approach to Christianity while still following Buddhist practices.
The other approach would be to say God exists, but we have no idea what that means. Then, the Christian practice becomes a path to discover what God is - and the question of existence takes a different flavour.
Goodness knows I'm no expert but it seems to me that the religious approach, be it Christian or Buddhist, entails some directed imagination and the deliberate blurring of inner and outer realities. I can imagine following some 'Christ as a Bodhisattva' practices - I'd struggle with a 'Let's worship a creator God' practice though.
But whatever works - of course. Good luck.
It would also be nice if we could all wake up and be the love we seek from the universe.
Many of those who reject the notion of God are, in fact, rejecting the attitudes and assertions of believers. The initial question as to whether there is anything against belief in god (with, I notice, a lower case 'g') is clearly answered: it all depends on the effect that such a belief has on the life of the believers, those around them and their action in the world around them. If such a belief leads to some of the horrors of warfare, inquisition, slavery and so on which have piled up in human history, there is an enormous amount against such a belief. If, however, belief in God or gods leads to positive and skilful action such as the founding of schools and hospitals, the abolition of slavery, humane treatment of the poor, the establishment of just laws, and insistence on the equal value of all beings, then, I suggest, it is a force for good.
If dependent origin is a basic tenet of Buddhism, then the "beginning" of this universe, i.e. Big Bang, was dependent on something(s) else. I believe this is the case. I believe this has gone on, and will go on ad infinitum.
In the town of Berditchev, the home of the great Hassidic master, Reb Levi Yitzhak, there was a self-proclaimed, self-assured atheist, who would take great pleasure in publicly denying the existence of God. One day Reb Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev approached this man and said, “you know what, I don't believe in the same God that you don't believe in.”
buddhis teaching and the teaching of Jesus are not so far apart as som christians might think. In Pali-Canon, Dighanikayo, Brahma is mentioned quite often, if talking with Botamo Buddho.One of my favourite quotes:"There is a here and a beyond and a reward for good and for bad deeds."
sakko
there is nothing against not believing in him. Gotamo Buddho said: "The priests are talking about him, but i know him." Dighanikayo
anando
IMO
Just the limits of our own imagination.
This topic has been discussed here many times. I am currently struggling with these questions myself. For me one of the issues is that faith in God seems to give me some positive foundation from which to lead my life so to speak. While Buddhism has a somewhat depressing quality to me, unless I specifically focus on the positive aspects of the practice.
The theory isn't that the big bang happened with no cause but that it caused itself to begin by ending so saying that nothing caused it is misleading.
It would make more sense to claim a being that needed no development whatsoever started everything by wiggling its nose than to claim it all came from "nothing".
Some will tell us that the total energy in the universe could equal zero but they are missing the obvious. Digging a hole is the metaphor. As we dig a hole, we also create a pile. The pile is equal to the hole so positive and negative cancel each other out so no work is done. This really falls short because without the dirt, there is no hole or pile.
In this analogy, the dirt is equaled to "nothing" but of course it is energy.
God makes more sense than nothing but then again, anything makes more sense than nothing.
I also believe that death is not the end. Our consciousness will continue.
I believe that each of us has the capability of becoming Buddha.
in the counter intuitive realm of quanta (very small stuff) things, quanta, come into a being from nowhere. Yep, a bit of a wobble in emptiness, without a wobbler and . . .
'Emptiness is form and . . . ' well I think you heard that story . . .
http://tmxxine.tumblr.com/post/27759414205/ftl-has-to-start-with-a-theory-so-here-is-one
:wave:
In a way Buddhadharma free's God from us.