Buddhism and God: What's the problem?

[zenzero]

Friend Brother Micheal Sky,

I thoroughly appreciate your pushing words you do not seem to understand at me, but that does absolutely nothing to provide a personal viewpoint in opposition to mine own. What, do you suppose, you are " merging" with?
My confusion arises from a thread which apparently misses the forest for the trees. It is a matter of my viewpoint on the very same occurrence being so vastly different in perspective from the one being shared by the thread title.

I present my views to be told " I'm not doing something right" LOL...that's very funny - you mean not doing right from which school of thoughts book? irrelevant, am I right? where is the other sides personal experience? I was hoping for someone to point out where my experience is diverging from their own, in their own experience. I was not here to consult with the masters, lol... too funny...

Thank you for your response.
It does reflect an eagerness to understand through reasoning or otherwise about life.
Personally am no master but share whatever is made available by existence.
friend *merging* is used when one looks himself to be a separate entity from its source and so it is labelled as *merging*. The other aspect is *lifting of the clouds*; where mind delusions are those that have clouded the mind and one finds that it has lifted, yes, efforts are required which is mainly meditation.
Rgds the various schools; am no follower of any as no-path is the path that follow if any which ofcourse have been available in existence and reflected by many enlightened masters of the past and present. Also find that though one may be following a school, finally each one is an individual doing it his own way and so his path is unique in time and space.
Yes, there could be differences in understanding of each others languages BUT it should be clear that they are not to create differences but only to bridge the differences and so with continued communication and understanding if we all move forward the gaps will slowly be eliminated and merging will happen on its own accord.

Love & rgds

 

[ellenjanuary]

Day 2 on the road to Judaism, doing the research, loving my Gwynnies... YHWH ain't the problem. YHWH Jewish YHWH; alla that rough stuff, between YHWH and Jews; others start "interpreting things, extrapolating things... " others...

I can see both with no misalignment... but then, I'm just full of love; I don't do problems.

 

[koan]

am I missing something here?

 

[ellenjanuary]

am I missing something here?

Where? Oh... apologies.

 

[Wombat]

I'd like to know people's thoughts on why the Buddha taught that belief in God is a hindrance to enlightenment.

I'm assuming that it is because belief in God normally goes hand-in-hand with belief in an immortal soul, and that is why the Buddha would have suggested it is a detrimental belief.
I can't see any other problems with holding a belief in God myself.

A couple of points (open to Buddhists/others who know better). It is my understanding that for the first 300(?) years of Buddhism the followers of the Buddha followed the instruction not to write anything down. Subsequently both the Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism traditions began writing and recording the sayings and teachings of the Buddha. Thus there is something of a lag time in establishing what was said/taught with any authority. Scholars/Academics tend to rely on those verses commonly held/observed by both traditions.
As I understand it there is no recorded explicit statement from the Buddha either confirming or denying the existence of God...but statements indicating the God question was a distraction from the path to Enlightenment.
One such statement (I have heard from Buddhists, but cannot find written reference) has Buddha responding to the God question- “You are like a man carrying two buckets of water...You cannot carry a third”.
One of the speculations is that just as Christianity arose from a Jewish cultural context so too Buddhism arose from a Hindu cultural context. The Hinduism of the time is said to have been so formulaic that a practitioner reciting the prayers and performing the rituals in exactly the right manner was ‘guaranteed’ of Divine acquiescence. In other words, they had ‘God in a box and at their fingertips’.
The turning from such rigid and formulaic worship of God-external towards the pursuit of God/Enlightenment-internal may be seen as establishing necessary balance.
As said....speculation....even down to what the Buddha said.

 

[Tathagata]

A couple of points (open to Buddhists/others who know better). It is my understanding that for the first 300(?) years of Buddhism the followers of the Buddha followed the instruction not to write anything down. Subsequently both the Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism traditions began writing and recording the sayings and teachings of the Buddha. Thus there is something of a lag time in establishing what was said/taught with any authority. Scholars/Academics tend to rely on those verses commonly held/observed by both traditions.
As I understand it there is no recorded explicit statement from the Buddha either confirming or denying the existence of God...but statements indicating the God question was a distraction from the path to Enlightenment.
One such statement (I have heard from Buddhists, but cannot find written reference) has Buddha responding to the God question- “You are like a man carrying two buckets of water...You cannot carry a third”.
One of the speculations is that just as Christianity arose from a Jewish cultural context so too Buddhism arose from a Hindu cultural context. The Hinduism of the time is said to have been so formulaic that a practitioner reciting the prayers and performing the rituals in exactly the right manner was ‘guaranteed’ of Divine acquiescence. In other words, they had ‘God in a box and at their fingertips’.
The turning from such rigid and formulaic worship of God-external towards the pursuit of God/Enlightenment-internal may be seen as establishing necessary balance.
As said....speculation....even down to what the Buddha said.

Utterly FALSE. This is a common misconception and popular piece of disinformation spreading amongst information and education sources regarding Buddhism. (However, the biggest and most authoritative sites like BuddhaNet and AccesstoInsight DO actually agree with and share my unpopular viewpoint because the articles were written by Buddhist scholars who ACTUALLY READ the scriptures.)


The Buddha addressed God MULTIPLE times in both the earliest Tipitaka texts AND the Mahayana texts. And yes, I mean the Western version of God. And even the modern versions of God like the Absolute/Ground of Being. And yes, he rejected them all.

According to BuddhaNet, the Buddha actually predicted that belief in the Western God would arise and become popular so he made sure to address and vanquish these dangerous viewpoints.

.

 

[Wombat]

Utterly FALSE. This is a common misconception and popular piece of disinformation spreading amongst information and education sources regarding Buddhism.
.

Which bit is "Utterly FALSE"?....All of it?...Part thereof?...there is not "a lag time in establishing what was said/taught with any authority. Scholars/Academics tend to rely on those verses commonly held/observed by both traditions."?

We are not confronted, from a purely historical perspective, with great difficulty ascertaining what, exactly, the Buddha said, and/or (as with Jesus) verifying that such an individual has historical veracity?




(However, the biggest and most authoritative sites like BuddhaNet and AccesstoInsight DO actually agree with and share my unpopular viewpoint because the articles were written by Buddhist scholars who ACTUALLY READ the scriptures.)

The Buddha addressed God MULTIPLE times in both the earliest Tipitaka texts AND the Mahayana texts.

Great....then please enlighten me/us and provide a couple or few of these "MULTIPLE" examples of Buddha addressing the God issue.

And yes, I mean the Western version of God. And even the modern versions of God like the Absolute/Ground of Being. And yes, he rejected them all.

Ok....Can you please show me the texts/verses in which Buddha "rejects them all".


I went to 'BuddhaNet'...I ran several searches, I came up with >lots< of 'commentary' (ancient and recent disclaiming/rejecting God)...I still havn't seen an explicit quote attributed to the Buddha that rejects the notion of God.

So, if they are commonplace/multiple, please put some forward.

Thanks in advance.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
Personal understanding:
Like most responding here have read about Gautama's efforts in removing and free the mind delusions after which the state where the mind totally drops is buddhahood which can be said that Gautama attained/reached etc.
The background of his search is obviously following what was prevalent in the place where he lived and so the vedas and other scriptures remained; however having tortured the body to an extent that it became a heap of bones and hardly any spirit and finally crossing the river and laying under the tree and having eaten food offered by a lady Gautama was totally at peace and slowly all the delusions lifted of the mind and he or that form was now centered and Gautama realised that fasting is not necessary to remove delusions from the mind and likewise he was centred from all aspects of life and understood that life is totality of two parts of duality for everything and one neither has to take any side or not take any side just BE!
What Gautama realised is that there is no relevance in proving God is or not as when one realises [enlightened] the individual knows and so Gautama's efforts had been only for individuals to realize and through that remove the mind delusions as the question of God too goes with clearing of mind delusions.

Love & rgds

 

[LuisDantas]

Zenzero, do you think you could provide some alternative wording for this "dropping the mind" thing?

It is utterly meaningless to me, I'm afraid.

 

[Wombat]

Friends,
Personal understanding:

Should be the preface to all posts on these issues...as we don't have a Lab and we don't have a clear and verifiable historical record. We have, in the majority of cases, a story/narrative, and a "Personal understanding" thereof.

The background of his search is obviously following what was prevalent in the place where he lived and so the vedas and other scriptures remained;....

Yes, the story has "background" and context that sets the scene...it is as difficult to remove the Buddha from the Hindu context as it is to remove Jesus from the Jewish...and yet, in both cases, many try to do so

....however having tortured the body to an extent that it became a heap of bones and hardly any spirit and finally crossing the river and laying under the tree and having eaten food offered by a lady Gautama was totally at peace and slowly all the delusions lifted of the mind....

Here my 'Personal understanding' of the narrative differs slightly...the story I received was that the Buddha overheard a boatman on the river explaining to his son the practice of a stringed instrument- "If the strings are too loose no music can be produced...if the strings are too tight they will snap". Hearing this the Buddha realised he was living his practice/disipline way too tight-"having tortured the body to an extent that it became a heap of bones and hardly any spirit ".

I have no way of telling if this is literally/historically 'true'...but to me it does not matter...it is a story that contains great truth and I draw meaning/sustenance from it.

What Gautama realised is that there is no relevance in proving God is or not as when one realises [enlightened] the individual knows and so Gautama's efforts had been only for individuals to realize and through that remove the mind delusions as the question of God too goes with clearing of mind delusions.
Love & rgds

While I agree there " is no relevance in proving God" there is also no means to do so... the attempt is futile. This does not mean that "the question of God too goes" for I do not percieve myself to be merely an individual who may simply "BE" but also an intrigal part of a collective and communal. This raises questions of how we could/should all 'be'- what we should collectively do and what our responsibilities are. In this, if for no other reason than the prevalence of monotheistic religions, the "question of God" remains and is vital (not to 'prove' God, but to seek to understand how we might be god to each other).

This is the 'Mystic Communal'....and I cannot 'be' without it

All the best.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Luis Dantas,

Please use personal understanding for every pointer as language can never convey reality the way every individual wishes/wants/capable of/etc as the mind open to the pointer is colored and decoloring the mind is what stilling the mind is all about and dropping is something that happens on its own accord when all mind activities ceases.

Kindly share your own understanding on the topic to travel into it together.
Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend Wombat,

Should be the preface to all posts on these issues...as we don't have a Lab and we don't have a clear and verifiable historical record. We have, in the majority of cases, a story/narrative, and a "Personal understanding" thereof.

Should and practice is the gap that is been attempted to close. Gautama used to address a gathering at a certain place and everyday he would walk up circle the spot three times before taking his seat the reason when asked was explained thus: Each act must be done consciously and to ensure that Gautama remains conscious even while sitting and not do anything unconsciously that he followed such a practice.

Here my 'Personal understanding' of the narrative differs slightly...the story I received was that the Buddha overheard a boatman on the river explaining to his son the practice of a stringed instrument- "If the strings are too loose no music can be produced...if the strings are too tight they will snap". Hearing this the Buddha realised he was living his practice/disipline way too tight-"having tortured the body to an extent that it became a heap of bones and hardly any spirit ".

I have no way of telling if this is literally/historically 'true'...but to me it does not matter...it is a story that contains great truth and I draw meaning/sustenance from it.

Appreciated!!! kowtow to that.
Yes everything about the past is only here say however what is understood by the individual as true is good enough as no one can vouch even if present on that occasion as his seeing/observing too will be colored from his view point/angle such individual is commenting from.

While I agree there " is no relevance in proving God" there is also no means to do so... the attempt is futile. This does not mean that "the question of God too goes" for I do not percieve myself to be merely an individual who may simply "BE" but also an intrigal part of a collective and communal. This raises questions of how we could/should all 'be'- what we should collectively do and what our responsibilities are. In this, if for no other reason than the prevalence of monotheistic religions, the "question of God" remains and is vital (not to 'prove' God, but to seek to understand how we might be god to each other).

This is the 'Mystic Communal'....and I cannot 'be' without it

Friend you missed the point altogether!!!!!
When the *SELF* is no more then what IS, is universal; the self is also a part of that *Whole* or *UNIVERSAL* and it functions what the That *Whole* dictates/wishes/wants from that form/body/individual.
The individual is no k0re available to discuss what that part of the universal does as that happening is no more personal.
Today whatever we are sharing though it can be said to be at the personal level but those who follow/understand/realize can feel the universality of it which you may label it *mystical communion* personally would label it merging with the whole as find no mysticism in reflecting whatever comes out of the form which is a part of that whole itself.

Love & rgds

 

[LuisDantas]

Friend Luis Dantas,

Please use personal understanding for every pointer as language can never convey reality the way every individual wishes/wants/capable of/etc as the mind open to the pointer is colored and decoloring the mind is what stilling the mind is all about and dropping is something that happens on its own accord when all mind activities ceases.

Kindly share your own understanding on the topic to travel into it together.
Love & rgds

Ceasing all mental activity is basically being dead. Even comatose people have significant activity of the mind.

Maybe you mean to encourage us to let go of previous expectations. I really don't know. I don't think I can possibly know.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Luis Dante,

Ceasing all mental activity is basically being dead. Even comatose people have significant activity of the mind.

That is what is said in medical terminology and that is part of science and so part of the active mind .
You have to still the mind consciously to understand yourself of a state where the mind is there but not active.
Could you try that??

Love & rgds

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, no, I don't even see how I could begin to try to do that.

That is why deep down I hope you find some clearer way of wording what you propose.

 

[Sikh]

The one handed clap of enlightenment.

All I see is that westerners have decided that western rationality equals Buddhism, whereas speaking as an Indian, it is what constitutes rationality that has always interested the Rishis/Tirthankars/Buddhas/Gurus. Western Rationality is one form of rationality, a type of rationality that Buddhism rejects. Approaching Buddhist texts with this type of rationality is going to go nowhere.

One has to use the rationality that is not Maya, from this rationality, the duality/maya of oneself and God do not exist and so the concept is irrelevant when one is teaching it to a student.

That is all fine, but as a Sikh it is very hard for me to understand why the Buddha taught at all? To whom is he showing concern for if not Maya?

 

[zenzero]

Friend sikh,

Kindly understand that a *sikh* is one who *learns* or a learner.
A learner is one who learns which means that there is a guru and a sisya [learner].
Buddha is a state where the learner and the learnt are not two so buddhas do not teach as they have crossed the threshold of that dimension and is universal consciousness and no more an individual consciousness.
Rgds Gautama as a teacher ??
Personal understanding is that it is not teaching but by being conscious oneself the consciousness helps lighting the consciousness around and those unconscious within its influence finds their unconsciousness removed and consciousness getting revealed.
All of Gautama's talks where about how to be conscious and come out of unconsciousness [maya] as maya is nothing but illusion which is incorrect and that gets automatically corrected through understanding of itself.

Love & rgds

 

[Sikh]

Zenzero... I know what a Sikh is.

You write that Buddhas don't teach because there is no one to teach, correct? So why does the Buddha teach? Why is the action of teaching occurring? Do you deny that compassion/concern is a form of duality and further reinforces the ego?

If there is one consciousness, and the mistaken forms of duality arise from actions maintaining forms abstract and real, then why would the dual action of teaching take place? Why would the sole consciousness need to be enlightened? It implies one of two things, either the sole consciousness interplays enlightenment and maya, thereby making enlightenment a gift not something self realized , or the Buddha was not fully enlightened, only partially.

As to your comments regarding one being aware of the sole consciousness, this is duality brother, one cannot be, one is fictional, one ceases to be because one never was. Any action taken from one is Maya. I am asking why the Buddha maintains his ego through teaching, because if the sole consciousness is acting through what we term Buddha, then he is not self realized since he never was.

This is why I have trouble understanding Buddhism scriptures, the goal which is to be attained is contradicted by their existence.

 

[Wombat]

The one handed clap of enlightenment.

All I see is that westerners have decided that western rationality equals Buddhism, whereas speaking as an Indian, it is what constitutes rationality that has always interested the Rishis/Tirthankars/Buddhas/Gurus. Western Rationality is one form of rationality, a type of rationality that Buddhism rejects. Approaching Buddhist texts with this type of rationality is going to go nowhere.

Ahhhhh Grasshopper...Is this not why we have the beauty and insight of the Zen parables? To break down the Western linear rational mindset?

Roshi Bonzamate asks-
“If a man speaks in the forest...
And there is no woman there to hear him...
Is he still completely wrong in what he says”?

 

[koan]

As follower of Zen, I must agree with Louis on Stilling the mind. Stilling the mind really means overcoming the monkey mind, not stopping the mind. This is impossible whilst still alive or at least not comatose. One can enter Samahdi, where mind does not realise mind, or no mind, however, entering samahdi is still mind action.