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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

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

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:
I like the approach Thomas Jefferson took, with the New Testament. He copied out passages that he felt represented the true voice of Jesus and ignored the rest.
Eisegesis, based upon what? Your own emotional predilections? Is that a reliable basis?
Hi Tilt,

I said:
christopher::: wrote:
Since I'm not nearly enlightened enough to make such distinctions about the voice of Buddha, I tend to be skeptical (that he actually said these things) yet uncritical.
I'm skeptical when i read certain things, that the Buddha actually said them. Such skepticism arises, and its not usually based on emotion. But i also recognize that i'm not nearly enlightened enough to make such distinctions, so i try (not always successfully) to be as open-minded and uncritical as possible.

This is one reason, probably, that I have been most attracted to Zen Buddhism. If you read the writings of Seng Tsan, Shunryu Suzuki and others its emphasized frequently to keep an open mind and not become attached to views, even when those views are presented in Buddhist texts as "truths"...

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

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

Post by Sanghamitta »

.Christopher::: I notice that you are in the habit of quoting out of context in order to support your own views. Please dont do that to my posts. You quote Sanghamitta saying that if you spend time with live Buddhists you will be aware that they are uninterested in opinions. It was quite clear from the context that I was not referring to Buddhist Doctrine, but to speculative views about gods etc. A correct understanding of Buddhist Doctrine does not fall into the catagory of speculative views and opinions. God talk does.
Clearly in discussion with you I need to express things in a way that minimises the possibility of your fashoning a soundbite which distorts what I am saying.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

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

Post by Sanghamitta »

chicka-Dee wrote:And I should mention that it was a reeeaally good friend of mine who first taught me this.. he said something like, 'you can't find it by just reading books! you gotta learn through your own experience'. Pretty smart friend, I'd say! We're so lucky when we find friends like this. :smile:
Depends where we start from I should think. For some people a really good friend might say, you are not aquainted rightly with the Buddhas teaching, you need to do some Sutta study. I heard Ajahn Chah speak a number of times. One of the things everyone noticed about him is that he could quote whole passages from the Suttas and commentaries by heart effortlessly. If you meet any of his monks now they are in fact very learned. They sit lightly to the fact, but they know their doctrinal stuff .
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

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

Post by Sanghamitta »

chicka-Dee wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:That much is clear enough. The much more difficult problem is what conditions and teachings are required to be able to see the Dhamma for oneself...

Metta
Mike
I mean this most sincerely, and it's not meant to be a smart-ass comment:

Image

And it takes much courage, dedication, and perserverence. At least this is what I've heard. But really, it's up to each of us to find for ourselves. Within ourselves. That's all I really know.
That is a doomed quest, for a number of reasons. In decades to come you will still be looking for yourself within yourself.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:
I'm skeptical when i read certain things, that the Buddha actually said them. Such skepticism arises, and its not usually based on emotion.
So, it based upon what? Careful study? Years of practice? What?
But i also recognize that i'm not nearly enlightened enough to make such distinctions, so i try (not always successfully) to be as open-minded and uncritical as possible.
You have gotten very cranky when I have shown that the Buddha’s teachings do not quite say what it looks you want them to say, but then you can dismiss that stuff I point to as stuff of which your are skeptical. So, again, what is the basis of your skepticism?

Given that from the time of the Buddha onwards in India, Buddhists have rejected the idea of a god of the Hindus that surrounded them, and the Hindus have characterized Buddhism as atheist. Is this something you are open minded to?

In the Gita, chapter XVI, 8:

'The universe," they say, "is without truth [asat that which open to destruction and change, without an atman/brahman, the Absolute within each of us],"
Without basis/unstable [having no solid ground apratis.t.ham], without a God;
Brought about by a mutual union,
How else? It is caused by lust alone.'


This is a good caricature of the Buddhist position, and certainly the Buddhist position is that the world is unstable, constantly in change, without a basis or essence - an atman/brahman, and is without a god, "Brought about by a mutual union," and "caused by desire," all of which could be used to describe the Buddhist position, but no one else of the time.

And the Gita goes on, XVI, 9:

Holding this view,
These men of lost souls, of small intelligence,
And of cruel actions, come forth as enemies
Of the world for it destruction.


I would say that the authors of the Gita would not agree with you.
This is one reason, probably, that I have been most attracted to Zen Buddhism. If you read the writings of Seng Tsan, Shunryu Suzuki and others its emphasized frequently to keep an open mind and not become attached to views, even when those views are presented in Buddhist texts as "truths"...
And you are not attached to any view in this matter? And you are suggesting I do not have an open mind?

Last I looked Buddhism is not a make-it-up-as-you-go thing.
>> 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
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

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

Post by christopher::: »

Tilt, you wonder why I sometimes don't respond to you. It's because you seem to enjoy debating topics in this advesarial fashion. What is the purpose? It's quite tiring and I don't see how its helpful to your or my practice. I have posted my views, I will leave it to others to debate you. It's just not worth the time, I think, yours or mine. We see things quite differently, that is all.

But don't we have better things to do?
Sanghamitta wrote:.Christopher::: I notice that you are in the habit of quoting out of context in order to support your own views. Please dont do that to my posts. You quote Sanghamitta saying that if you spend time with live Buddhists you will be aware that they are uninterested in opinions. It was quite clear from the context that I was not referring to Buddhist Doctrine, but to speculative views about gods etc. A correct understanding of Buddhist Doctrine does not fall into the catagory of speculative views and opinions. God talk does.
I apologize for that, Sanghamitta.

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
chicka-Dee
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:31 pm
Location: Western Canada

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

Post by chicka-Dee »

Sanghamitta wrote:That is a doomed quest, for a number of reasons. In decades to come you will still be looking for yourself within yourself.
Are you really sure about that?
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" ~Richard Bach from "Illusions"
User avatar
Hoja
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

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

Post by Hoja »

christopher::: wrote:
I'm skeptical when i read certain things, that the Buddha actually said them. Such skepticism arises, and its not usually based on emotion. But i also recognize that i'm not nearly enlightened enough to make such distinctions, so i try (not always successfully) to be as open-minded and uncritical as possible.

This is one reason, probably, that I have been most attracted to Zen Buddhism. If you read the writings of Seng Tsan, Shunryu Suzuki and others its emphasized frequently to keep an open mind and not become attached to views, even when those views are presented in Buddhist texts as "truths"...

:namaste:
Perhaps I've don't understand that sutta, but I think that the Kalama Sutta talks about questioning our views and traditions through the lens of our practice.
And Buddhadasa Bikkhu has stated that Views and Teachers can be a prision if we cling to them. That sounds for me perfectly logical.

For myself I try to keep an open mind with respect to God or whatever could be called. I can't see any substancial difference between Interdependence, Interbeing, Voidness, an inmanent God or the Tao. I strongly believe that at the very end the goal is the same, and that there are cultural differences (and then different ways to express it) that make it appear as diferent goals.

Perhaps I don't have enough fait in the original teachings of the Buddha, but the only I certainly know at this stage is that I'm not knowledgeabkle enough to deny or affirm anything and that I need to practice and study more.

Metta.
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

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

Post by Sanghamitta »

On the information within your posts its a reasonable deduction chicka- Dee. What we call our selves is a series of constantly changing processes. There is no self to find ourselves. You could say in the sense that you come to this realisation it will be finding yourself, but that would be a linguistic convention only.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:Tilt, you wonder why I sometimes don't respond to you. It's because you seem to enjoy debating topics in this advesarial fashion.
I do not mind debating, but I prefer dialogue, but when an individual makes truth claims, and is unwilling to back them up with some sort of reasoned evidence and discussion, I can get a bit pushy to try to get at what is being said.

In trying to look at your views, you get angry when they are challenged, accusing me of being intolerant and disrespectful of other religions, but based upon what? Your eisegetical point of view which you are unwilling or unable to explain?
What is the purpose?
Better understanding of what is said, clearer understanding of the Dhamma, mutual understanding of differing points of view, but there needs to be at least dialogue, a willingness to explain one’s position, a willingness to be challenged.
It's quite tiring and I don't see how its helpful to your or my practice.
A clearer understanding of the Dhamma is always a good thing for one’s practice.
I have posted my views,
But you are unwilling to explain them, unwilling to explore how others see them, unwilling to allow them to be challenged.
I will leave it to others to debate you. It's just not worth the time, I think, yours or mine.
A better understanding of one’s own and the other’s position by explaining it, by being open to criticisms of it, by being willing to defend it, by being open to the possibility of it being wrong is always worthwhile and is well worth the time and energy put into it.
We see things quite differently, that is all.
It seems it might be a bit more than that.
But don't we have better things to do?
Than a better understanding of one’s own and another’s point of view? Probably not.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Post by tiltbillings »

Hoja wrote:

For myself I try to keep an open mind with respect to God or whatever could be called. I can't see any substancial difference between Interdependence, Interbeing, Voidness, an inmanent God or the Tao. I strongly believe that at the very end the goal is the same, and that there are cultural differences (and then different ways to express it) that make it appear as diferent goals.
It is possible that they are the same, but it is also possible that they are not. It can become an exploration, not always comfortable, in looking at these things, or it becomes a matter of emotional comfort in believing what one believes.
>> 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
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

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

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:

I do not mind debating, but I prefer dialogue, but when an individual makes truth claims, and is unwilling to back them up with some sort of reasoned evidence and discussion, I can get a bit pushy to try to get at what is being said.
I do not recall making truth claims. I have been talking about views and beliefs, and how there is great variety in the world.
What is the purpose?
Better understanding of what is said, clearer understanding of the Dhamma, mutual understanding of differing points of view, but there needs to be at least dialogue, a willingness to explain one’s position, a willingness to be challenged.
It's quite tiring and I don't see how its helpful to your or my practice.

A clearer understanding of the Dhamma is always a good thing for one’s practice.
Wonderful. Something we agree upon.

Right now i'm on vacation in NY with my son. I have little free time. When I have more time i look forward to investigating the Buddha's dhamma in greater depth here at Dhamma Wheel. There are many great topics being explored here, much that i can learn.

I just don't see the utility of our endlessly challenging one another and debating this particular topic.

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

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

Post by DNS »

There are 146 replies in this topic so I must admit, I have not read nearly all of them, but I came across this link recently which I found quite interesting:

http://archive.8m.net/vidal.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ordinarily, as a descendant of that eighteenth-century enlightenment which shaped our republic, I would say live and let live, and I would try not to "scoff"--to use Lincoln's verb--at the monotheists. But I am not allowed to ignore them. They won't let me. They are too busy. They have a divine mission to take away our rights as private citizens. We are forbidden abortion here, gambling there, same-sex almost everywhere, drugs everywhere, alcohol in a dry county. Our prisons are the most terrible in the First World and the most crowded. Our Death Row executions are a source of deep disgust in civilized countries where more and more we are regarded as a primitive, uneducated, and dangerous people. Although we are not allowed, under law, to kill ourselves or to take drugs that the good folk think might be bad for us, we are allowed to buy a handgun and shoot as many people as we can get away with.


I like this paragraph above because it highlights the importance of speaking out. Often one group of progressives will stop another group of progressives from speaking out, saying that they are being 'intolerant.' But then they become tolerant of intolerance and all the damage that can do. Perhaps it is better to speak out, as necessary, but in a peaceful and compassionate way.
User avatar
chicka-Dee
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:31 pm
Location: Western Canada

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

Post by chicka-Dee »

Sanghamitta wrote:On the information within your posts its a reasonable deduction chicka- Dee. What we call our selves is a series of constantly changing processes. There is no self to find ourselves. You could say in the sense that you come to this realisation it will be finding yourself, but that would be a linguistic convention only.
Hi Sanghamitta,

The way I would word it, based on my understanding, is that in order to fully realize 'no self', we must first investigate what this 'self' really is. We must go beyond an intellectual understanding. The only way (that I know of) of doing this is to investigate what I would refer to as our own 'inner workings'. We must transcend the intellectual concepts that we form. The 'way' to do this is described in many teachings. I'm not sure I could point to any one or set of teachings. The teachings themselves are pointing the way. They are not the way. Perhaps there are many teachings because we each learn in different ways, perceive the world in different ways. And of course, meditation is a crucial part of this.

I hope this explains it a little better. It sounds like we may be talking about the same process? Words seem so inadequate to describe so much, anyways. I thank you for your comments, and wish you all the best.

Dee :namaste:
Last edited by chicka-Dee on Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" ~Richard Bach from "Illusions"
User avatar
chicka-Dee
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:31 pm
Location: Western Canada

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

Post by chicka-Dee »

TheDhamma wrote:Perhaps it is better to speak out, as necessary, but in a peaceful and compassionate way.
:namaste:
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" ~Richard Bach from "Illusions"
Post Reply