What did the Buddha have to say about God?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby cooran » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:42 am

Tilt said: This link rather nicely exemplifies when Abhidhamma goes wrong.


Where and how?

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:59 am

cooran wrote:
Tilt said: This link rather nicely exemplifies when Abhidhamma goes wrong.


Where and how?
In the fundamental way the idea that dhammas are things in some sort of ultimate sense. I have repeatedly said that the Theravada does not need Nagarjuna, but when I read stuff like that, I have to wonder if I am dead wrong.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19371
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby 5heaps » Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:51 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:"anicca" and "khana" are two different words, though the latter is inexplicably tied up with the former.
Yes, but they are not interchangeable words.
ok

if you dont accept that things are momentary, you have to explain what THING is impermanent. because we already did. the thing which is impermanent is the thing which is momentary (maintains its characteristic nature as it is undergoing subtlest change). for us its simple -- impermanent thing, momentary thing, conditioned thing and functioning thing are all equivalent.

until it was introduced by Buddhaghosa nearly a thousand years after the Buddha's death.
at best you could say that it was the first time it was explicitly written down, etcetc. everyone in history except you accepts momentariness, either in a truly existent aspect or a nontruly existent aspect.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
5heaps
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:12 pm

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:"anicca" and "khana" are two different words, though the latter is inexplicably tied up with the former.
Yes, but they are not interchangeable words.
ok

if you dont accept that things are momentary, you have to explain what THING is impermanent. because we already did. the thing which is impermanent is the thing which is momentary (maintains its characteristic nature as it is undergoing subtlest change). for us its simple -- impermanent thing, momentary thing, conditioned thing and functioning thing are all equivalent.

until it was introduced by Buddhaghosa nearly a thousand years after the Buddha's death.
at best you could say that it was the first time it was explicitly written down, etcetc. everyone in history except you accepts momentariness, either in a truly existent aspect or a nontruly existent aspect.
The early Theravadins did not, nor is it in the Pali suttas, which means that the Buddha did not, nor is it a matter only being written down with Buddhaghosa. If it had been part of the Theravadin doctrine, it would have shown up long ago before Buddhaghosa. You have offered nothing but your unsupported word for your position. Now, if you want to discuss this further, this is not the thread. Back to the topic/OP.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19371
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby notself » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:06 pm

tiltbillings wrote:The early Theravadins did not, nor is it in the Pali suttas, which means that the Buddha did not, nor is it a matter only being written down with Buddhaghosa. If it had been part of the Theravadin doctrine, it would have shown up long ago before Buddhaghosa. You have offered nothing but your unsupported word for your position. Now, if you want to discuss this further, this is not the thread. Back to the topic/OP.


Here are the synonyms for momentary:

Related to MOMENTARY
Synonyms: brief, deciduous, ephemeral, evanescent, flash, fleeting, fugacious, fugitive, impermanent, passing, short-lived, temporary, transient, transitory

I don't see what the problem is. Please explain.
Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he is indeed the noblest victor who conquers himself. ---Dhp 103
notself
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:12 am

notself wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:The early Theravadins did not, nor is it in the Pali suttas, which means that the Buddha did not, nor is it a matter only being written down with Buddhaghosa. If it had been part of the Theravadin doctrine, it would have shown up long ago before Buddhaghosa. You have offered nothing but your unsupported word for your position. Now, if you want to discuss this further, this is not the thread. Back to the topic/OP.


Here are the synonyms for momentary:

Related to MOMENTARY
Synonyms: brief, deciduous, ephemeral, evanescent, flash, fleeting, fugacious, fugitive, impermanent, passing, short-lived, temporary, transient, transitory

I don't see what the problem is. Please explain.
Within Buddhism, in general, "momentariness" - khan.a - is a doctrine of instaneous change. This was not taught in the suttas or even the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts. It is something that got introduced into the Theravada with Buddhaghosa about 1,000 years after the Buddha's death. As has been pointed out anicca and khan.a are not doctrinal synonyms. This comes out of the later idea of dhammas being little atomy thingies which led to the idea of dhammas instaneously popping into and out of existence, which is momentariness, khan.a. Anicca is not described that way in the suttas.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19371
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby Nyana » Sun Nov 07, 2010 5:10 am

Reply moved here to avoid taking this thread off topic.
Last edited by Nyana on Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby Laurens » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:39 am

I have a distinct sense that he would roll his eyes at sights such as this:
Image

For a lot of people, Buddha is God, perhaps not fulfilling the role of creator, but fulfilling the role of saviour. I think this is something the Buddha would be displeased with.
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Carl Sagan
User avatar
Laurens
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Norfolk, England

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby Kim OHara » Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:20 am

Laurens wrote:I have a distinct sense that he would roll his eyes at sights such as this:
[statue pic]
For a lot of people, Buddha is God, perhaps not fulfilling the role of creator, but fulfilling the role of saviour. I think this is something the Buddha would be displeased with.

Roll his eyes? I think he would be quite displeased and disappointed, since the whole emphasis of his teaching for forty years was DIY and here we see people relapsing into reliance on higher authority and salvation from above.
On the other hand, I doubt that he would be surprised. He must have had hundreds of people coming to listen to him in the hope of a magical revelation that would make everything all right without any effort on their own part.
Sigh.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3046
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby notself » Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:41 am

tiltbillings wrote:Within Buddhism, in general, "momentariness" - khan.a - is a doctrine of instaneous change. This was not taught in the suttas or even the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts. It is something that got introduced into the Theravada with Buddhaghosa about 1,000 years after the Buddha's death. As has been pointed out anicca and khan.a are not doctrinal synonyms. This comes out of the later idea of dhammas being little atomy thingies which led to the idea of dhammas instaneously popping into and out of existence, which is momentariness, khan.a. Anicca is not described that way in the suttas.


Sounds a bit like quantum physics.
Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he is indeed the noblest victor who conquers himself. ---Dhp 103
notself
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby Laurens » Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:21 pm

notself wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Within Buddhism, in general, "momentariness" - khan.a - is a doctrine of instaneous change. This was not taught in the suttas or even the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts. It is something that got introduced into the Theravada with Buddhaghosa about 1,000 years after the Buddha's death. As has been pointed out anicca and khan.a are not doctrinal synonyms. This comes out of the later idea of dhammas being little atomy thingies which led to the idea of dhammas instaneously popping into and out of existence, which is momentariness, khan.a. Anicca is not described that way in the suttas.


Sounds a bit like quantum physics.


I am a bit weary of people trying to use quantum mechanics as proof of their religion, for the following reason:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"

;)
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Carl Sagan
User avatar
Laurens
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Norfolk, England

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby notself » Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:33 am

Laurens wrote:
notself wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Within Buddhism, in general, "momentariness" - khan.a - is a doctrine of instaneous change. This was not taught in the suttas or even the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts. It is something that got introduced into the Theravada with Buddhaghosa about 1,000 years after the Buddha's death. As has been pointed out anicca and khan.a are not doctrinal synonyms. This comes out of the later idea of dhammas being little atomy thingies which led to the idea of dhammas instaneously popping into and out of existence, which is momentariness, khan.a. Anicca is not described that way in the suttas.


Sounds a bit like quantum physics.


I am a bit weary of people trying to use quantum mechanics as proof of their religion, for the following reason:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"

;)


I was just comparing the definition of momentariness with one aspect of quantum physics. I even put the definition of momentariness in bold so it should have been clear that my comment was not an attempt to prove anything about Buddhism. I am sorry you took it to mean anything else.
Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he is indeed the noblest victor who conquers himself. ---Dhp 103
notself
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby Paññāsikhara » Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:11 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Laurens wrote:I have a distinct sense that he would roll his eyes at sights such as this:
[statue pic]
For a lot of people, Buddha is God, perhaps not fulfilling the role of creator, but fulfilling the role of saviour. I think this is something the Buddha would be displeased with.

Roll his eyes? I think he would be quite displeased and disappointed, since the whole emphasis of his teaching for forty years was DIY and here we see people relapsing into reliance on higher authority and salvation from above.
On the other hand, I doubt that he would be surprised. He must have had hundreds of people coming to listen to him in the hope of a magical revelation that would make everything all right without any effort on their own part.
Sigh.

:namaste:
Kim


I disagree that the Buddha would be "displeased" or "disappointed" at all. Seems rather that he would take it all with equanimity, neither rolling his eyes, nor otherwise. He sees the capabilities of people, and expects nothing in the end.
And I also think that he would not have much of a problem with people making images or the like. After all, at the time of his parinibbana, he was content to have the lay people make stupas to enshrine his relics, while the renunciants continued their inner practice. Those lay people would thus sow positive seeds, and have further opportunity to learn and practice the Dhamma in the future. Nothing to roll one's eyes over.

But, and this is the ironic thing I feel, the idea of the Buddha being "displeased" sounds more like something from the Old Testament, a wrathful and jealous God! Is there much difference between looking at the Buddha as a savior God than looking at him as a displeased God? Or is this all just about Protestant Buddhism after all?
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:58 am

Paññāsikhara wrote:I disagree that the Buddha would be "displeased" or "disappointed" at all. Seems rather that he would take it all with equanimity, neither rolling his eyes, nor otherwise. He sees the capabilities of people, and expects nothing in the end.
...
But, and this is the ironic thing I feel, the idea of the Buddha being "displeased" sounds more like something from the Old Testament, a wrathful and jealous God! Is there much difference between looking at the Buddha as a savior God than looking at him as a displeased God? Or is this all just about Protestant Buddhism after all?

Greetings, Pannasikhara,
My thoughts, projected onto the Buddha, were nothing to do with a God - wrathful, jealous, old-testamentary, protestant or other - just the disappointment of a teacher whose students have *still* not understood him properly after all those years of teaching.
Paññāsikhara wrote:And I also think that he would not have much of a problem with people making images or the like. After all, at the time of his parinibbana, he was content to have the lay people make stupas to enshrine his relics, while the renunciants continued their inner practice. Those lay people would thus sow positive seeds, and have further opportunity to learn and practice the Dhamma in the future. Nothing to roll one's eyes over.

The bit I have made bold was new to me and does go some way to making me more comfortable with the idea of the statue and the practice of veneration/adoration. However, I know (or think I know - I could be wrong in this as well :tongue: ) that statues of the Buddha were not made until many years after his passing, and believed that that was because he asked them not to make images of him.
My (sporadic, disorganised) readings of the suttas haven't included much at all about devotional practices for the laity - dana towards the sangha, yes, but not veneration of the Buddha. Have you got time to clarify the early development of lay practice for us?
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3046
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: What did the Buddha have to say about God?

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:30 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:My (sporadic, disorganised) readings of the suttas haven't included much at all about devotional practices for the laity - dana towards the sangha, yes, but not veneration of the Buddha. Have you got time to clarify the early development of lay practice for us?

Many Suttas contain this sort of thing:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... all-Buddha
"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the Tathagata, thus: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' As he is recollecting the Tathagata, his mind is calmed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned, ...

In another thread someone pointed out that this makes rather muddy the distinction between "devotional practise" and "meditation". It is common to do devotional practices chanting the words from such Suttas:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ml#evening
Itipi so bhagavā arahaṃ sammā-sambuddho,
He is a Blessed One, a Worthy One, a Rightly Self-awakened One,

Vijjā-caraṇa-sampanno sugato lokavidū,
consummate in knowledge & conduct, one who has gone the good way, knower of the cosmos,

Anuttaro purisa-damma-sārathi satthā deva-manussānaṃ buddho bhagavāti.
unexcelled trainer of those who can be taught, teacher of human & divine beings; awakened; blessed.


Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10264
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Previous

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests