Who is GOD in Buddhism?

[tiltbillings]

Only God, The Unknowable-Perfect-All-Beings-Are-Saved-To-Be, knows.

Assuming there is such a thing, and there is no reason to assume that a thing exists outside one's imaginative hopes and fears.

[Son of man]

Only God, The Unknowable-Perfect-All-Beings-Are-Saved-To-Be, knows.

Assuming there is such a thing, and there is no reason to assume that a thing exists outside one's imaginative hopes and fears.

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]

Only God, The Unknowable-Perfect-All-Beings-Are-Saved-To-Be, knows.

Assuming there is such a thing, and there is no reason to assume that a thing exists outside one's imaginative hopes and fears.

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.

Not according to the Buddha.

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

[Jechbi]

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.

All theistic religions believe that love is the key to understanding God, and that love is of God.

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.

[tiltbillings]

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.

All theistic religions believe that love is the key to understanding God, and that love is of God.

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.

"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 19

[Jechbi]

Right, Tilt. Which brings us back to this:

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.

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.

... [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.

Yes and no, but your point here makes the Kosha’s point above.

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.

"Delve with the knife, thou wise one."

[Jechbi]

Something covered in Chapter 3 of that work:

72c-d. The gods do not see their superiors without magic or the assistance of another.

source

[clw_uk]

Why not a buddhist trying to change Gods message into Dhamma?

Cant really see why a Buddhist would want to

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

[acinteyyo]

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

[dragonwarrior]

Basically, god is an unnecessary concept.

ya I agree with u

[dragonwarrior]

WHO??? is God (in Buddhism)?

what a wrong question!

Well I'm so sorry, don't really know how to ask what's in my mind in english. cheers

[acinteyyo]

WHO??? is God (in Buddhism)?

what a wrong question!

Well I'm so sorry, don't really know how to ask what's in my mind in english. cheers

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.

best wishes

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

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.

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.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

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.

Thank goodness, I needed someone to blame.



ps. missed you Tashi, glad to see you

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I am a malign thug, since the universe is entirely the consequence of my choices. Not Abhidharma karma, but there it is.

How do you know it's because of your choices and not because of Ngawang Drolma's choices?

In fact... if it's entirely the consequences of your choices, then there's no kammic efficacy for the rest of us!





Metta,
Retro.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Why not a buddhist trying to change Gods message into Dhamma?

Cant really see why a Buddhist would want to

I share Craig's position here. I just don't see a point to it.

If God's your thing, that's cool with me. But the Buddha expounded the dharma just fine and there's no need to twist it into a pretzel so God can somehow fit in there. Anicca, Anatta, and Dukkha leave no room to sneak in an eternal God

Kindly,
Drolma

[Ngawang Drolma.]

How do you know it's because of your choices and not because of Ngawang Drolma's choices?

<insert maniacal laughter>

[PeterB]

Why not a buddhist trying to change Gods message into Dhamma?

Cant really see why a Buddhist would want to

I share Craig's position here. I just don't see a point to it.

If God's your thing, that's cool with me. But the Buddha expounded the dharma just fine and there's no need to twist it into a pretzel so God can somehow fit in there. Anicca, Anatta, and Dukkha leave no room to sneak in an eternal God

Kindly,
Drolma

For some people it seems the need to see all paths as leading to the same goal sometimes overrides the actual facts, and perhaps in some cases overrides the desire to practice any one of them to its end.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

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.

Thank goodness, I needed someone to blame.



ps. missed you Tashi, glad to see you

Very nice to see you also Drolma, I apparently just needed a vacation from Buddha, now I'm back.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

How do you know it's because of your choices and not because of Ngawang Drolma's choices?

I knew it. All my paranoia finally pays off - someone else really is out to get me.

In fact... if it's entirely the consequences of your choices, then there's no kammic efficacy for the rest of us!

My choices = my consequences, Drolma's choices = her consequences.