Assuming there is such a thing, and there is no reason to assume that a thing exists outside one's imaginative hopes and fears.Only God, The Unknowable-Perfect-All-Beings-Are-Saved-To-Be, knows.
Who is GOD in Buddhism?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:10 am
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
The reason to believe that such a thing exists is not to assume that it exists, but rather because it is of noble belief, of right belief, and not out of fear either but out of compassion for all beings. Such a belief is called being mastered by the heart, and is the only reason when the Buddha let go of his mind of striving for enlightenment that his heart or his will for all beings, the will of God, got him enlightened IMO.tiltbillings wrote:Assuming there is such a thing, and there is no reason to assume that a thing exists outside one's imaginative hopes and fears.Only God, The Unknowable-Perfect-All-Beings-Are-Saved-To-Be, knows.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
Not according to the Buddha.Son of man wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Assuming there is such a thing, and there is no reason to assume that a thing exists outside one's imaginative hopes and fears.Only God, The Unknowable-Perfect-All-Beings-Are-Saved-To-Be, knows.Son of man wrote:The reason to believe that such a thing exists is not to assume that it exists, but rather because it is of noble belief, of right belief, and not out of fear either but out of compassion for all beings.
Not according to the Buddha.Such a belief is called being mastered by the heart, and is the only reason when the Buddha let go of his mind of striving for enlightenment that his heart or his will for all beings, the will of God, got him enlightened IMO.
I [the Buddha] am an all-transcender, an All-knower, unsullied in all
ideas, renouncing all, by craving ceasing freed, and this I owe to my
own insight. To whom should I point? - Dh 353
Certainly not to a god. "The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God [anabhissaro]." MN II 68
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
Hey, man,
I think I understand what you're trying to do, but you have the wrong audience here. If you're trying to stretch a certain form of Christian theism to fit a Dhamma framework, almost nobody here is going to buy it, because the theism isn't relevant here, and meanwhile you're bending the framework.
I think I understand what you're trying to do, but you have the wrong audience here. If you're trying to stretch a certain form of Christian theism to fit a Dhamma framework, almost nobody here is going to buy it, because the theism isn't relevant here, and meanwhile you're bending the framework.
Seems like you're talking more about the notion of "pure potentiality" as described by Deepak Chopra in his popular books. So you might be going about this all the wrong way. Societies build the God notion based on the image of oneself. So the ideal God is the ideal self. Look for the underlying not-self teachings that are present in some (not all) theistic traditions. That's where it gets interesting. fwiw.Son of man wrote:All theistic religions believe that love is the key to understanding God, and that love is of God.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
"The assumption that a God is the cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in the eternal self (atma,); but that belief has to be abandoned, if one has clearly understood that everything is impermanent and subject to suffering." - Abhidharmakosha 5, 8 vol IV, p 19Jechbi wrote:Hey, man,
I think I understand what you're trying to do, but you have the wrong audience here. If you're trying to stretch a certain form of Christian theism to fit a Dhamma framework, almost nobody here is going to buy it, because the theism isn't relevant here, and meanwhile you're bending the framework.Seems like you're talking more about the notion of "pure potentiality" as described by Deepak Chopra in his popular books. So you might be going about this all the wrong way. Societies build the God notion based on the image of oneself. So the ideal God is the ideal self. Look for the underlying not-self teachings that are present in some (not all) theistic traditions. That's where it gets interesting. fwiw.Son of man wrote:All theistic religions believe that love is the key to understanding God, and that love is of God.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
Right, Tilt. Which brings us back to this:
"Delve with the knife, thou wise one."
The notion of "God as cause" is not the only formulation out there. But you are correct that the God notion generally involves self-identification and self-propogation. As does all manner of upadana. The question is, how best to confront it head on and understand it within oneself. Different people will digest their kamma of God-belief in different ways. Some will understand the term "God" differently than you understand the term. That's why this type of discussion sometimes unravels at the level of semantics.tiltbillings wrote:It goes to the idea of a god, in whatever way, that is the cause of the world, a god with whom, in some way, for whatever reason we concoct, we must identify.Jechbi wrote:This [commentary reference] goes to the relatively narrow issue of paticca-samuppada and the not-self conditions that give rise to each phenomenon. It does not go to the broader issue of whether the notion of "god" in all its myriad permutations must in all circumstances and without exception be immediately abandoned.Yes and no, but your point here makes the Kosha’s point above.Jechbi wrote:... [the God concept] is unnecessary except for the person who has a deep-rooted kamma of understanding the term "god" in a certain way, usually in a different way than the caricature "god" that's so easy to dismiss. For such a person, the "god" concept is the kammic framework within which he or she must work. It's what she's stuck with. Eventually, one hopes, we all will arrive at the experience of truth beyond concepts. But meanwhile, we each are the owners of our kamma. We work with what we got. I think a lot of this is an issue of semantics.
"Delve with the knife, thou wise one."
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
Something covered in Chapter 3 of that work:
source72c-d. The gods do not see their superiors without magic or the assistance of another.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
Cant really see why a Buddhist would want toWhy not a buddhist trying to change Gods message into Dhamma?
The reason to believe that such a thing exists is not to assume that it exists, but rather because it is of noble belief, of right belief, and not out of fear either but out of compassion for all beings. Such a belief is called being mastered by the heart, and is the only reason when the Buddha let go of his mind of striving for enlightenment that his heart or his will for all beings, the will of God, got him enlightened IMO.
Whats so noble about it? Buddha said reincarnation belief is a noble one, not God
Belief in God is the same as belief in vampires, mermaids, titans, Zeus, unicorns or Batman
Highly speculative, no reason to assume they exist and even if they are invoked they dont actually explain anything
Every concept about God has fallen down, Zeus making lightening was proved otherwise, God making man out of dust was proved otherwise, God making the world was proved otherwise, God makes the weather (think this is in bible) proved otherwise and thats just a select few examples
Everything that was said to be explainable via God has been shown to be explained quite well without him via natural and rational causes, not magic (which belief in god is)
You believe in God (this is obvious) then please solve this
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
metta
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
WHO??? is God (in Buddhism)?
what a wrong question! as if there would be someone WHO could be something...
to deny the existence of God (I'm talking about God's like the christian God) presupposes it's existence which then could be denied as well as to belief in the existence needs obviously presupposing. there aren't reasons for the existence neither against it. so there shouldn't be even a question.
best wishes
what a wrong question! as if there would be someone WHO could be something...
to deny the existence of God (I'm talking about God's like the christian God) presupposes it's existence which then could be denied as well as to belief in the existence needs obviously presupposing. there aren't reasons for the existence neither against it. so there shouldn't be even a question.
best wishes
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
- dragonwarrior
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:03 pm
- Location: somewhere
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
ya I agree with utiltbillings wrote:Basically, god is an unnecessary concept.
- dragonwarrior
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:03 pm
- Location: somewhere
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
Well I'm so sorry, don't really know how to ask what's in my mind in english. cheersacinteyyo wrote:WHO??? is God (in Buddhism)?
what a wrong question!
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
you don't have to be. asking questions is good. but to answer to a question properly the answer itself has to be asked correctly. it doesn't matter asking who or what or what ever is god. with "what a wrong question!" I meant that the question itself about god is wrong. as long as it's about any god like the chritian concept of god or something like that, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be even a question. as I said, such a question depends on presupposing, thus any answer which accepts the question (as right) must be wrong, because the question itself is wrong. you can't say this or that is god neither this or that isn't god.Winny wrote:Well I'm so sorry, don't really know how to ask what's in my mind in english. cheersacinteyyo wrote:WHO??? is God (in Buddhism)?
what a wrong question!
best wishes
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
- Karma Dondrup Tashi
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
True but in Mahayana with its karmic maximalism, since the universe is a torture chamber, I am a malign thug, since the universe is entirely the consequence of my choices. Not Abhidharma karma, but there it is.tiltbillings wrote: If the god is not a creator god, what good is it? As for a god of love, we really do not see much evidence of that. As Mark Twain supposedly said: If there is a God, he is a malign thug. Love is a human emotion.
It has been the misfortune (not, as these gentlemen think it, the glory) of this age that everything is to be discussed. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
Thank goodness, I needed someone to blame.Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:True but in Mahayana with its karmic maximalism, since the universe is a torture chamber, I am a malign thug, since the universe is entirely the consequence of my choices. Not Abhidharma karma, but there it is.
ps. missed you Tashi, glad to see you
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Who is GOD in Buddhism?
Greetings,
In fact... if it's entirely the consequences of your choices, then there's no kammic efficacy for the rest of us!
Metta,
Retro.
How do you know it's because of your choices and not because of Ngawang Drolma's choices?Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote: I am a malign thug, since the universe is entirely the consequence of my choices. Not Abhidharma karma, but there it is.
In fact... if it's entirely the consequences of your choices, then there's no kammic efficacy for the rest of us!
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."