Theistic Belief/Believing in God/Buddhas and Bodhisattvas

[cappuccino]

You misunderstand the meaning of "an eternity" to mean "for eternity"
although this is the same mistake Christians make.

An eternity is a very long time.

[Santi253]

You misunderstand the meaning of "an eternity" to mean "for eternity"
although this is the same mistake Christians make.

An eternity is a very long time.

Personally, I am unsure as to whether or not devas literally exist. I believe the six realms of existence might be metaphorical of different psychological states:

Gethin argues, rebirth in the different realms is determined by one's karma, which is directly determined by one's psychological states. The Buddhist cosmology may thus be seen as a map of different realms of existence and a description of all possible psychological experiences.[89] The psychological states of a person in current life lead to the nature of next rebirth in Buddhist cosmology.[90]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9% ... rpretation

[aflatun]

Actually if we set aside the straw men and women, the more subtle Christian (and Muslim and Jewish) thinkers are quite clear on the distinction between Eternal (atemporal, timeless, structurally preceding the temporal, i.e. God) and "forever" (something that lasts forever within time).

Buddhism would seem to reject the possibility of the latter, while reserving the former for Nibbana.

[aflatun]

Something that really bothers me about prayer is the notion that some divine being would choose me, out of all the people in the world, to answer my prayer. That seems a little presumptuous, if not narcistic.

The way I was taught to pray was: Pray as if everything depends on God, act as if everything depends on you.

In Thich Nhat Hanh's book The Energy of Prayer, he says the reason why prayers are sometimes answered is due to the power of our own good intentions, sending out the energy which causes the prayer to be answered, like if a person is healed from an illness due to our prayer.

Simliar models are to be found in the theistic traditions. Ibn Sina within Islam for example sees prayer as the intentions of the individual finding a resonance with the various intellects that occupy the chain of being extending upwards towards the First Intellect and finally what is beyond Intellect, the Necessary Being (which of course cannot be 'influenced' in this manner), all of which have a microcosmic counterpart within the individual. You can find similar ideas in all the Abrahamic traditions, even in the Neoplatonists.

This is different from an external being like a god answering our prayer.

Whoever taught you that "external vs internal" was the right way to think about God didn't know a damn thing about their Christianity.

[Santi253]

Simliar models are to be found in the theistic traditions. Ibn Sina within Islam for example sees prayer as the intentions of the individual finding a resonance with the various intellects that occupy the chain of being extending upwards towards the First Intellect and finally what is beyond Intellect, the Necessary Being (which of course cannot be 'influenced' in this manner), all of which have a microcosmic counterpart within the individual. You can find similar ideas in all the Abrahamic traditions, even in the Neoplatonists.

Those things are very interesting, but it might not reflect the attitude which Christians popularly have toward prayer, which is the tradition I am most familiar with.

Please keep in mind that I am not trashing anyone for their sincerely held religious beliefs. I am only speaking for why I no longer "pray" in the way that the word is commonly interpreted.

[aflatun]

Simliar models are to be found in the theistic traditions. Ibn Sina within Islam for example sees prayer as the intentions of the individual finding a resonance with the various intellects that occupy the chain of being extending upwards towards the First Intellect and finally what is beyond Intellect, the Necessary Being (which of course cannot be 'influenced' in this manner), all of which have a microcosmic counterpart within the individual. You can find similar ideas in all the Abrahamic traditions, even in the Neoplatonists.

Those things are very interesting, but it might not reflect the attitude which Christians popularly have toward prayer, which is the tradition I am most familiar with.

Please keep in mind that I am not trashing anyone for their sincerely held religious beliefs. I am only speaking for why I no longer "pray" in the way that the word is commonly interpreted.

That's all fine, and I'm not encouraging or discouraging prayer, let alone espousing Abrahamic Theism. I just think of you're going to compare, contrast or criticize, make sure you get it right first. If you're just criticizing what the lowest common denominator does...well, what's the point?

If you want to tell us about what you used to do and no longer do, that's fine, why not stick to that.

[Santi253]

Another thing is, from a Buddhist perspective, if we are petitioning a buddha or god to solve our problems, how does this square with the law of karma? It's worth considering.

[Caodemarte]

...

.....In his penultimate lifetime, the Buddha-to-be was a god, abiding, where all future buddhas abide, in the Tushita heaven.... It was from there that he surveyed the world, and chose the place of his final birth, his caste, his clan, and his parents. After his enlightenment, the Buddha spent 49 days in contemplation in the vicinity of the Bodhi Tree, concluding, the story goes, that what he had understood was too profound for others to understand, and thus futile to try to teach to anyone.

The most powerful of the gods, Brahma, descended from his heaven to implore the Buddha to teach, arguing that although many might not be able to understand, there were some with “little dust in their eyes” who would. This is an important moment because it makes clear that the Buddha knew something that the gods did not, and that the gods had been waiting for a new buddha to appear in the world to teach them the path to freedom from rebirth, even from rebirth in heaven. For this reason, one of the epithets of the Buddha is devatideva—“god above the gods.”

Although a human, the Buddha has a body unlike any other. It is adorned with the 32 marks of a superman (mahapurusalaksana), such as images of wheels on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet, a bump on the top of his head, forty teeth, and a circle of hair between his eyes that emits beams of light. Some of the marks are characteristics found in animals rather than humans: webbed fingers and toes like a duck’s, arms that extend below the knees like an ape’s, and a penis that retracts into body like a horse’s. His mind knows all of his past lives and the past lives of all beings in the universe. In fact, he is omniscient (although the various Buddhist schools have different ideas about exactly what this means).

Even in the early tradition, it is said that he can live for an eon or until the end of the eon, if he is asked to do so.
https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/god-or-human/

While the Buddha might not have asked us to pray to him, he did claim to have the cosmic authority for us to follow his example. He is, according to the scriptures, teacher of gods and men.

It depends on which Buddha is being talked about in Buddhist philosophy. The historical Buddha the man (Nirmankaya) or Buddha the symbol and focus? The Buddha of folk religion? This is one reason the Trikaya theory came about.

[robertk]

Even in the early tradition, it is said that he can live for an eon or until the end of the eon, if he is asked to do so

And what is this "early tradition" of which thou speak?
Certainly in the Theravada it is explained as the ayu-kappa i.e. the maximum lifespan of a human at the time.

[Santi253]

It depends on which Buddha is being talked about in Buddhist philosophy.

If you look at the Pali scriptures, for example, the Buddha is more than a mere mortal, both due to his meritorious past lives, and due to his attainment of Buddhahood in his final lifetime. When asked if he was a man or god, his answer was that he was awake. A Buddha isn't less than a god, but instead has a status above the gods.

[Santi253]

Even in the early tradition, it is said that he can live for an eon or until the end of the eon, if he is asked to do so

And what is this "early tradition" of which thou speak?

Maybe someone else can answer this question?

[cappuccino]

Anyone, Ānanda, in whom the four bases of power are developed … could — if he wanted — remain for an eon or the remainder of an eon. In the Tathāgata, Ānanda, the four bases of power are developed … He could — if he wanted — remain for an eon or the remainder of an eon."

But Ven. Ānanda — even when the Blessed One had given such a blatant sign, such a blatant hint — wasn't able to understand his meaning. He didn't request of him, "Lord, may the Blessed One remain for an eon .… It was as if his mind was possessed by Māra.

Āyusama-osajjana Sutta

[Santi253]

Anyone, Ānanda, in whom the four bases of power are developed … could — if he wanted — remain for an eon or the remainder of an eon. In the Tathāgata, Ānanda, the four bases of power are developed … He could — if he wanted — remain for an eon or the remainder of an eon."

Thank you.

[Caodemarte]

It depends on which Buddha is being talked about in Buddhist philosophy.

If you look at the Pali scriptures, for example, the Buddha is more than a mere mortal, both due to his meritorious past lives, and due to his attainment of Buddhahood in his final lifetime. When asked if he was a man or god, his answer was that he was awake. A Buddha isn't less than a god, but instead has a status above the gods.

I don't believe the Buddha is saying that he is above or below the gods in some godly hierarchy or ranking his status. His answer does not imply that in any way.

[cappuccino]

The Thirty-one Planes of Existence
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... /loka.html