tiltbillings wrote:Basically, god is an unnecessary concept.
Son of man wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Basically, god is an unnecessary concept.
Maybe not. Remember that the majority of people in the world believe in God. If a future Buddha arises and wants to save all beings, numberless as they are, from suffering and death, then the Buddha would have to speak to them in terms of what they accept "God."
In THE GOOD HEART: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus (pub by Wisdom), the Dalai Lama comments on a number of
Gospel passages and has dialogues with a number Christians about this.
It is a wonderful book, showing that dialogue is possible and showing
the kind of work that such dialogue entails, in this book the Dalai Lama
states:
"The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a philosophical standpoint
in which the central thought is the principle of interdependence, how all
things and events come into being purely as a result of interactions
between causes and conditions. Within that philosophical world view, it
is almost impossible to have any room for an atemporal, eternal,
absolute truth. Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept of divine
Creation [page 82]"
Now consider the following way in which the concept of God and the faith in God can be useful even to a Buddhist, especially if a Buddha tried to convert the whole world of theists who believe in God to Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings:
All theistic religions believe that love is the key to understanding God, and that love is of God.
...it is important to realize that Buddhists are atheists only insofar as they reject the hypothesis that the world had a single benevolent intelligent creator, and the hypothesis that any transcendent source communicates directly to human beings individually or collectively.
In rejecting these hypotheses, however, the Buddhist does not reject the virtues that are usually attributed to God. The Buddhist believes, for example, in the power of love and in trust and forgiveness and patience and compassion. But rather than saying that God is love, we prefer to say that love is love; in this way, even if it should be proven that God does not exist, the ideal of love would remain unimpaired. Similarly...we Buddhists prefer to say that good is simply good and beauty is simply beauty and justice is simply justice, and there is no need to confuse these principles with the bewildering and controversial concept of divinity.
--Land of No Buddha: Reflections of a Sceptical Buddhist by Richard P. Hayes, pub: Windhorse Publications, 1998, chapter 6.
That is "Perfect Love" described perfectly, and hence it is Siddhartha Gotama who ulitmately described God -- the being who had the knowledge of the salvation of all beings, numberless as they are, from suffering and death."
Faith is believing in something that is unknowable. Siddhartha Gotama's vow was therefore the expression of having absolute faith in "Perfect Love" which all religions call God.
Siddhartha Gotama therefore had absolute faith in the Unknowable-Perfect:
"Although beings are numberless, I vow to save them all from suffering."
The Buddha, himself dealt with the idea of a singular creator god:
"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."
God, in time, became a good Buddhist, recognizing that he too was bound by kamma and mortal.
That is "Perfect Love" described perfectly, and hence it is Siddhartha Gotama who ulitmately described God -- the being who had the knowledge of the salvation of all beings, numberless as they are, from suffering and death."
And the Buddha made it neatly clear that one does not need a god notion to attaint to perfect love and compassion.
Siddhartha Gotama therefore had absolute faith in the Unknowable-Perfect:/
Not at all. What the Buddha had faith - confidence - in is the possibility of knowing all that is needed to be known. Nothing unknowable. To the contrary, what the Buddha knew, he taught we, too, could know. No need for some unknowable being, ultimately imperfect being, that people call god.
I disagree that the Buddha had faith. I didn't say the Buddha had faith, I said Siddhartha Gotama had faith. And he did, because he was not yet enlightened as to whether or not it was possible, and he so he was believing in something that was to him -- before his enlightenment -- utterly unknowable.That is a later construct and a pious hyperbole. While it is inspiring and noble, the reality is that the Buddha did not save all sentient beings.
Remember that the majority of people in the world believe in God. If a future Buddha arises and wants to save all beings, numberless as they are, from suffering and death, then the Buddha would have to speak to them in terms of what they accept "God."
Remember the argument here isn't that Buddhists need a "God" concept but theists certainly do.
Siddhartha Gotama therefore had absolute faith in the Unknowable-Perfect:
"Although beings are numberless, I vow to save them all from suffering."
Siddhartha Gotama therefore had absolute faith in the Unknowable-Perfect:
"Although beings are numberless, I vow to save them all from suffering."
I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a Theravadin who believes Gotama ever said this.
Son of man wrote:
But I never spoke about a "creator god" in my argument. I only spoke of the concept of "God" being in common that all theistic religions believe "love is of God"
Furthermore the God that I am describing, never existed in the past and remains the God-to-be fullfillment of all beings
Remember the argument here isn't that Buddhists need a "God" concept but theists certainly do.
Yes people need a God notion if they will not give up the belief in God. Look around you. Again, it's too late to say people don't need God. It's already well established and so well established among the much greater majority of the population in the world.
I disagree that the Buddha had faith. I didn't say the Buddha had faith, I said Siddhartha Gotama had faith. And he did, because he was not yet enlightened as to whether or not it was possible, and he so he was believing in something that was to him -- before his enlightenment -- utterly unknowable.
What if the Buddha had knowlegde of the salvation of all beings, but at the same time he also knew that it depended upon his teachings and also the teachings of future Buddhas?
Looking at the smaller picture in the concept of time you could say that the Buddha did not save all beings from suffering in his own time, nor in the present time. That does not mean that all beings will not be saved, nor does it mean that the Buddha did not possess the knowledge of the salvation of all beings [no matter how long it would have taken].
Winny wrote:Hi guys, I've just graduated from a Christian high school. In my school, there are 15% of Buddhist students. All of the students must learn the religion lesson for 3 years, which in the end, we had to do the final test. In that test, the teacher asked me: Do you fear of God?
That was a tricky question for me, because I don't believe in God. It's sad to say, but the teacher also mocked Buddhism, when I said Buddhism doesn't teach to fear of God. Am I wrong? So based on my answer, I might got a bad score.Sometimes I could hardly explain what is 'God' in Buddhism to my friends. And actually, I don't even know whether we have a God. What is the concept of God in Theravadin? So, please explain to me.
Son of man wrote:Siddhartha Gotama therefore had absolute faith in the Unknowable-Perfect:
"Although beings are numberless, I vow to save them all from suffering."
I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a Theravadin who believes Gotama ever said this.
I really don't know if that's true or not. Where did the bodhisattva's vow originate from? I thought that it was well accepted that was the Buddha-to-be's vow.
God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak - and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful - which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?
Remember the argument here isn't that Buddhists need a "God" concept but theists certainly do.
And your way is the way to do it? Based upon what?


Son of man wrote:Remember the argument here isn't that Buddhists need a "God" concept but theists certainly do.
And your way is the way to do it? Based upon what?
![]()
http://home.comcast.net/~sonofman2/JEHOVAH.txt
This was my best effort.
The Father is the Buddha unbound
/Jesus entered into the Father's eternal glory becoming Christ
Christ is the door to the Father's eternal kingdom
Christ gives the Spirit of the Father to those who believe in him
When the Spirit of the Father is received in us it is called the Holy Ghost
God is the unity of the Father, the Christ glorified in the Father, and the Holy Ghost in us
The Father is greater than all
clw_uk wrote:Hey Son of man
hope you dont mind if i ask you some questionsThe Father is the Buddha unbound
What does this mean?
What is the "father"?/Jesus entered into the Father's eternal glory becoming Christ
What does this mean?Christ is the door to the Father's eternal kingdom
How is he?Christ gives the Spirit of the Father to those who believe in him
So the rest can burn?When the Spirit of the Father is received in us it is called the Holy Ghost
How do you know the Holy Ghost exists?God is the unity of the Father, the Christ glorified in the Father, and the Holy Ghost in us
What created God?The Father is greater than all
What does this mean?
metta

It really does not show much insight into the actual teachings of the Buddha, as we seen. Your link gives us a lot of bible quotes, but nothing to show how they supposedly relate to the Buddha's actual teachings.

The Father: the total unbinding of Shakyamuni Buddha
Jesus was Sariputta the spiritual son of the Blessed One Shakyamuni Buddha.
Jesus entered into the Father's eternal glory becoming Christ:
Metaphorically the only way I can answer is that it is the same metaphor that Sariputta gave of the gatekeeper [the dhamma] being the only way to the Castle [the deathless] only now the gateway and the castle is Sariputta [Jesus] in unity with the total unbinding of Shakyamuni Buddha [The Father].
How do you know the Holy Ghost exists:
It wouldn't matter if I told you..you would still need to experience it for yourself to know.
What created God: The Absolute-Unfailing-Faith of the Son in the Father and his compassion for all to be eternally saved by the Father
The Father is greater than all: The total unbinding of Shakyamuni Buddha is Incorruptible, Immortal
It seems you are just using Abrahamic terminology to express Dhamma (mostly), why not trust in the wisdom of the Buddha and use the terms he did. Terms that arent loaded with images and themes of immortal beings and souls (which go against Dhamma)?
Either that or your a christian trying to change Dhamma into Gods message?

Son of man wrote:
Why not a buddhist trying to change Gods message into Dhamma?
tiltbillings wrote:Son of man wrote:
Why not a buddhist trying to change Gods message into Dhamma?
There is no need.
Registered users: Alex123, Ben, Bing [Bot], BuddhaSoup, Exabot [Bot], fig tree, Google [Bot], kiwi, Majestic-12 [Bot], Majjhima Patipada, Modus.Ponens, onaquest, PRR, rahul3bds, retrofuturist, Sekha