The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

[clw_uk]

Hey



Does anyone know what page this line is on

The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God." MN II 68.


In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, ive read and re-read by i cant find it


thanks

[tiltbillings]

Hey



Does anyone know what page this line is on

The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God." MN II 68.


In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, ive read and re-read by i cant find it


thanks

Still arguing with that Hindu?

"The universe is without a Supreme God [Attaan.o loko anabhissaro]." Ven Bodhi: [Life in] any world has no shelter and no protector. The key word here is abhissaro. One of the things the commentaries do not do well is reflect the Brahmanism of the Buddha's time that is reflected in the suttas. Issara (Skt: īśvara) can, with justification in this context, be translated as God. Who would protect the world, but its creator?

PTSD: Issara

Issara [Vedic īśvara, from īś to have power, cp. also P. īsa] lord, ruler, master, chief A iv.90; Sn 552; J i.89 (˚jana), 100, 283 (˚bheri); iv.132 (˚jana); Pv iv.67 (˚mada); Miln 253 (an˚ without a ruler); DhsA 141; DA i.111; PvA 31 (gehassa issarā); Sdhp 348, 431. -- 2. creative deity, Brahmā, D iii.28; M ii.222 = A i.173; Vism 598.

Macdonell, Arthur Anthony. A practical Sanskrit dictionary: isvara [ îs-vará ] a. able to, capable of (inf., lc.; w. inf. in -tas the nm. sg. m. is used for all genders and numbers); m. owner of (g., lc., --°ree;); ruler, lord, prince, king; man of rank, rich man; husband; supreme god; Brahman; Siva:

[Guy]

Still arguing with that Hindu?

[clw_uk]

Thanks Tilt


indeed i am, it stopped for a few days but has started up again now


I quoted that passage above and the response was basically "i dont think Buddha would have said that"



metta

[tiltbillings]

'There are [states the Buddha], Bhaggava, some ascetics and Brahmins who declare as their doctrine that all things began with the creation by God [issara, or ishvara, skt], or Brahma. I have gone to them and said: "Reverend sirs, is it true that you declare that all things began with the creation by a God, or Brahma?" "Yes", they replied.'

And this god is characterized so:

"That Worshipful Brahma, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever." DN 24: iii 28

[Individual]

My suggestion for dealing with this Hindu is the same strategy I had a while ago, with some Wiccans: Offer to carry out any magical ritual of his, in which the effects are clearly laid out beforehand, and then empirically observe the results.

"Om linga linga linga linga linga!" wait, nothing's happening. Maybe I need to say it louder. "OMMMM LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA!!!"

Maybe it's the onions in my diet which make me so deluded.

You could also try appealing to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster looks much weirder and has far more appendages than all of the Hindu gods combined (and is therefore more powerful).

[tiltbillings]

My suggestion for dealing with this Hindu is the same strategy I had a while ago, with some Wiccans: Offer to carry out any magical ritual of his, in which the effects are clearly laid out beforehand, and then empirically observe the results.

"Om linga linga linga linga linga!" wait, nothing's happening. Maybe I need to say it louder. "OMMMM LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA!!!"

Maybe it's the onions in my diet which make me so deluded.

You could also try appealing to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster looks much weirder and has far more appendages than all of the Hindu gods combined (and is therefore more powerful).

You may chant "Om linga"; I'd much rather chant "Om yoni."

[cooran]

{{{{groan}}}}

[christopher:::]

I don't understand how quoting from scripture provides any evidence or validation of anything. A Christian or Muslim can go to the bible and quote loads of things, it doesn't mean they are true. Likewise Buddha said many very wise things, but just cause he said them doesn't mean they are true.

That's the beauty of the 4 NT, 8 Fold path, and other key dharma teachings, you can experiment with them and test out their validity. They work when applied, the proof is there.

But when it comes to God, rebirth, etc- the metaphysics of any religion, how can these ever be proven?

I think such beliefs should simply be left alone, for each person to believe as they wish as long as they dont try to impose their beliefs or attack those of others.

[clw_uk]

Hey

I don't understand how quoting from scripture provides any evidence or validation of anything. A Christian or Muslim can go to the bible and quote loads of things, it doesn't mean they are true. Likewise Buddha said many very wise things, but just cause he said them doesn't mean they are true.

It doesnt however exp. Dhamma and logic/science tells us that such notions of God etc are delusions and, in the case of Theism which xtianity and islam belongs, have been proven to be so unlikely to be true that you can safely say they are false

But when it comes to God, rebirth, etc- the metaphysics of any religion, how can these ever be proven?

In essence they cant, which is why i feel metaphysical guess work was discouraged by the Buddha

I think such beliefs should simply be left alone, for each person to believe as they wish as long as they dont try to impose their beliefs or attack those of others.

I agree but sadly some religions have pretty nasty passages and teachings on morality that can and are taken to their unwholesome outcome, homophobia being one of them

metta

[christopher:::]

well, exactly. there are some pretty nasty passages in the Jewish old testament, especially. thus the dangers of literal interpretations and fundamentalism.

My understanding, from discussions with Jewish friends, is that a tradition of interpretation developed in Judiasm, in part because many rabbis and sages felt the old teachings should not be taken literally...

As for God though, i won't debate the issue too much, but there are varying ways that a supreme creative being can be conceptualized and Hinduism is actually a bit more open there, imo, then some other faiths.

God or Brahman is thought of as the ultimate source or creative wisdom which has brought all that exists and is aware into being. God in this view is not watching over or judging us, God is the presence/awareness that resides everywhere, within each of us.

You may not believe this, but how can it be proven wrong?

We have karma, rebirth, dharmakaya, etc in Buddhism. These too provide explanations for how our world works, the forces behind all we see. But how can we know for sure that these exist?

It's a matter of faith...

[tiltbillings]

God . . .

You may not believe this, but how can it be proven wrong?

Don't have to prove the supposed god's non-existence, just show that the idea of a god is not terribly meaningful. As Mark Twain supposedly said: "If there is a God, he is a malign thug."

[christopher:::]

Why would we want to do that, show that the idea of God is not meaningful?

How would you feel if someone tried to convince you that the ideas of karma, rebirth and dharma were not meaningful?

Seems to me these are all ideas addressing the same deep questions: How does reality work, why does the Universe exist, why is life the way it is, why do we suffer?

Where did laws of karma, rebirth, dharma come from? For a Buddhist its not an important question, for a person who believes in God the answer is quite obvious....

And very meaningful.

[tiltbillings]

Why would we want to do that, show that the idea of God is not meaningful?

Because it is not meaningful.

[christopher:::]

Why would we want to do that, show that the idea of God is not meaningful?

Because it is not meaningful.

For you.

[Nibbida]

Allow me to suggest a more profitable approach to this by quoting Budddhadasa Bhikkhu:

Those who have penetrated to the essential nature of religion will regard all religions as being the same. Although they may say there is Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism, Islam, or whatever, they will also say that all religious are inwardly the same. However, those who have penetrated to the highest understanding of Dhamma will feel that the thing called "religion" simply doesn't exist at all. There is no Buddhism; there is no Christianity and there is no Islam. How can they be the same or in conflict when they don't even exist? It just isn't possible. Thus, the phrase "no religion!" is actually Dhamma language of the highest level. Whether it will be understood or not is something else, depending upon the listener, and has nothing to do with the truth or with religion.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ligion.htm

[tiltbillings]

Why would we want to do that, show that the idea of God is not meaningful?

Because it is not meaningful.

For you.

Nor for the Buddha, which puts me in good company.

J VI.208"

== "He who eyes can see the sickening sight, why does not God 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 God unjust in making a world in which to shelter wrong." ==

J V.238:

== "If God designs the life of the entire world -- the glory and the misery, the good and the evil acts, man is but an instrument of his will and God alone is responsible." ==

[christopher:::]

The God of Kabbalah, Advaita, much like "The Way" of Taoism, is not an Omnipotent being watching over everything from a distance, like the old man in the bible, Tilt. God (in these traditions) is more like Awareness, Love, Wisdom, Creativity... Things go wrong, beings suffer, when not in touch with that wisdom and love, just as we Buddhists know we will suffer when not in touch with (living in tune with) the Dhamma...

For many (not all) Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, God is "The Way" - the Source of all life, inspiration and guide for how to live with generosity, optimism, kindness and compassion. In that sense belief in God serves a meaningful purpose. Millions of people all over the world have been inspired by their faith, they take refuge in their belief in a wise and loving God, just as we take refuge in the dharma.

[tiltbillings]

The God of Kabbalah, Advaita, much like "The Way" of Taoism, is not an Omnipotent being watching over everything from a distance, like the old man in the bible, Tilt. God (in these traditions) is more like Awareness, Love, Wisdom, Creativity... Things go wrong, beings suffer, when not in touch with that wisdom and love, just as we Buddhists know we will suffer when not in touch with (living in tune with) the Dhamma...

For many (not all) Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, God is "The Way" - the Source of all life, inspiration and guide for how to live with generosity, optimism, kindness and compassion. In that sense belief in God serves a meaningful purpose. Millions of people all over the world have been inspired by their faith, they take refuge in their belief in a wise and loving God, just as we take refuge in the dharma.

Did the god of whatever create the universe?

[mikenz66]

For many (not all) Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, God is "The Way" - the Source of all life, inspiration and guide for how to live with generosity, optimism, kindness and compassion. In that sense belief in God serves a meaningful purpose. Millions of people all over the world have been inspired by their faith, they take refuge in their belief in a wise and loving God, just as we take refuge in the dharma.

Yes, and I would agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_24.html

To the extent that a religion proposes sound ethical principles and can promote to some degree the development of wholesome qualities such as love, generosity, detachment and compassion, it will merit in this respect the approbation of Buddhists. These principles advocated by outside religious systems will also conduce to rebirth in the realms of bliss — the heavens and the divine abodes. Buddhism by no means claims to have unique access to these realms, but holds that the paths that lead to them have been articulated, with varying degrees of clarity, in many of the great spiritual traditions of humanity. While the Buddhist will disagree with the belief structures of other religions to the extent that they deviate from the Buddha's Dhamma, he will respect them to the extent that they enjoin virtues and standards of conduct that promote spiritual development and the harmonious integration of human beings with each other and with the world.

I do respect Christians, and so on. But in my opinion respect is very different from pretending that "it's all the same thing." Because that sort of "it's all the same" statement can actually come across as incredibly judgemental. In effect it says: "I think that all religions are the same, but you are too dumb to see it."

I honestly don't know whether all, or some, religions lead to the same goal. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. But the details of the paths are often very different, and, in my view, incompatible in terms of practise.

Obviously I also don't know if the Buddha's path leads to the correct goal. It will be interesting to find out...

Metta
Mike