Can a Buddhist believe in God?

[ratikala]

namaste crosfire :namaste

And yet you are still shaken by it. This is my point.

I am not shaken , I am sadened , one can still retain ones equanimity whillst still feeling sadness......

 

[apophenia]

namaste crosfire :namaste



I am not shaken , I am sadened , one can still retain ones equanimity whillst still feeling sadness......

Which means that you could be experiencing any of the emotions born of attachment and still retain equanimity ?

Or just sadness ?

 

[crossfire]

namaste crosfire :namaste



I am not shaken , I am sadened , one can still retain ones equanimity whillst still feeling sadness......

The point behind Buddha's teaching: whatever phenomena you experience, if you call it God, you will suffer. Dark night of the soul experiences are one example. (Your being sad over being told this attests to this fact.) If you call any phenomenon you experience "self," you will also suffer. If any phenomenon you experience you label as "eternal," you will also suffer. These are Buddha's teachings. Stating these things does not constitute an attack against you.

 

[ratikala]

Which means that you could be experiencing any of the emotions born of attachment and still retain equanimity ?

Or just sadness ?

just sadness or joy ,.....

it is perfectly possible to experience both sadness and joy without becoming disturbed .

 

[ratikala]

dear crossfire ,

please read my answer carefully something somwhere is being missunderstood ....

I am not writing this to prove any point , I am writing simply to say that all others must be free to have their own understandings ,
you will I hope agree that even our own understangings change over the years , and that even quotes from the buddha can be missinturpreted or misrepresented so we should examine everything very carefully before we make any assumptions .

The point behind Buddha's teaching: whatever phenomena you experience, if you call it God, you will suffer. Dark night of the soul experiences are one example. (Your being sad over being told this attests to this fact.) If you call any phenomenon you experience "self," you will also suffer. If any phenomenon you experience you label as "eternal," you will also suffer. These are Buddha's teachings. Stating these things does not constitute an attack against you.

I think you have missunderstood my sadness , .... my sadness attests to no more than I find it sad that a buddhist canot be happy with his own realisation without telling other people what they can or canot do or what they should or should not think ....

the word god it self has so many deths for meaning to so many people of varied faiths that I think it would be wise for us to try to understand what a person means when they say god rather than trying to find scriptural passages to negate the existance of something we simply dont want to look at ......

quote , luis .....
But attachment to a conception of divinity is simply not something worth keeping, even internally in any tradition. As I see it, it is not integral or even desirable. Be it on Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana or even on Abrahamic Faiths.

luis may not want to concern himself with the notion of god or divinity in any form , this is fine but it does not give him the right to say that others faith in any divine nature is an attatchment and therefore ill advised ? this implies that any other faith which holds a concept of divinity is foolish to do so ?

quote , luis .....
Sure, the Abrahamists have sort of led themselves into a corner by relying so much into the concept of God and even some very specific varieties of same. But even for them, that is a defect, not a main or desired characteristic.

to say that abrahamists have led themselves into a corner is an insane thing to say , ...let a man find his own way , if a beleif in god makes him a better man then I am happy ....''and even some specific varieties of the same ''......what do you mean luis ?
different concepts of god ? ......

but it is this that sadens me most ..... But even for them, that is a defect, .... who are we to say that anothers beleif is a defect ???

when a christian says god is love and focuses upon the personification of of that love aspiring to become closer to that god in his thinking , ... then I see no defect .



yes I am sadend by this but I am long past being disturbed by it , ....if I were to allow my self to become disturbed I would be useless to my self and to the all around me , but by remaining calm I can at least try to discuss it and prehaps in some small way bring some thing positive to the fore ...buddhism is more than just the quoting of texts and opinions it is a loving faith which brings joy .

 

[Aupmanyav]

but it is this that saddens me most .. But even for them, that is a defect, .. who are we to say that another's belief is a defect?

I think, Luis is talking about his belief. Theists also say that atheism is not correct. Who, after all, intelligently created the world, one piece fitting another. Just about perfect.

it is perfectly possible to experience both sadness and joy without becoming disturbed .

I think that is correct.

 

[crossfire]

dear crossfire ,

please read my answer carefully something somwhere is being missunderstood ....

I am not writing this to prove any point , I am writing simply to say that all others must be free to have their own understandings ,
you will I hope agree that even our own understangings change over the years , and that even quotes from the buddha can be missinturpreted or misrepresented so we should examine everything very carefully before we make any assumptions .




I think you have missunderstood my sadness , .... my sadness attests to no more than I find it sad that a buddhist canot be happy with his own realisation without telling other people what they can or canot do or what they should or should not think ....

Actually, Buddha told us to contemplate and to think--to discover the truth of what he said. If you label any phenomena as God, or self, or as eternal, you will suffer. If you recognize the suffering you experience by clinging to god, self, or eternalism, you will see the truth of what Buddha said.

the word god it self has so many deths for meaning to so many people of varied faiths that I think it would be wise for us to try to understand what a person means when they say god rather than trying to find scriptural passages to negate the existance of something we simply dont want to look at ......

This thread is about Buddhism, specifically.

luis may not want to concern himself with the notion of god or divinity in any form , this is fine but it does not give him the right to say that others faith in any divine nature is an attatchment and therefore ill advised ?

Ill advised if you wish to end suffering attached to this belief.

this implies that any other faith which holds a concept of divinity is foolish to do so ?

Again, this thread is specifically about Buddhism.

to say that abrahamists have led themselves into a corner is an insane thing to say ,

Any more insane than claiming the same thing about Buddhism?

...let a man find his own way , if a beleif in god makes him a better man then I am happy ....''and even some specific varieties of the same ''

Again, this thread is specifically about Buddhism and Buddhists.

......what do you mean luis ?
different concepts of god ? ......

but it is this that sadens me most ..... But even for them, that is a defect, .... who are we to say that anothers beleif is a defect ???

According to Buddha, it would be a cause of suffering.

when a christian says god is love and focuses upon the personification of of that love aspiring to become closer to that god in his thinking , ... then I see no defect .

Those are Christians, not Buddhists.

yes I am sadend by this but I am long past being disturbed by it , ....if I were to allow my self to become disturbed I would be useless to my self and to the all around me , but by remaining calm I can at least try to discuss it and prehaps in some small way bring some thing positive to the fore ...buddhism is more than just the quoting of texts and opinions it is a loving faith which brings joy .

Agreed, but is that reached by gutting the teachings of Buddhism out of Buddhism and still calling it Buddhism? (If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him?)

 

[apophenia]

just sadness or joy ,.....

it is perfectly possible to experience both sadness and joy without becoming disturbed .

It is possible to experience anything without becoming 'disturbed'.

Not just sadness and joy.

Anger.

Euphoria.

Erotica.

Whatever.

Have you ever encountered the Jewel Ship text of Longchenpa ?

Without any doubt whatsover the most profound buddhist text IMO.

It clarifies this point wonderfully.

MA GAK LHUN DRUBH, EM A HO !
( the spontaneous appearances - how wonderful ! )

( that's not Lonchenpa, but it just sprang to mind )

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram apophenia ji :namaste

It is possible to experience anything without becoming 'disturbed'.

Not just sadness and joy.

Anger.

Euphoria.

Erotica.

Whatever.

Have you ever encountered the Jewel Ship text of Longchenpa ?

Without any doubt whatsover the most profound buddhist text IMO.

It clarifies this point wonderfully.

One who abandons fame, who is free from pride,
And who acts for the sake of the inner meaning without concern for body or life,
Is marked as one who does not transgress the word of the mentor.
Such students are given the teaching of the unborn, the innermost truth.
When you have obtained the essential teachings,
How can worldly distractions affect you?

jai jai ...how wonderfull :namaste

MA GAK LHUN DRUBH, EM A HO !
( the spontaneous appearances - how wonderful ! )

( that's not Lonchenpa, but it just sprang to mind )

Naturally serene, seamless like space,
Embodying wholeness, the unity of ever-fresh awareness and its field,
Unchanging, impartial, not biased toward being or nonbeing,
I salute the supreme universal creativity.:namaste

 

[ratikala]

Ema! Fortunate yogins, listen now:
We have gained a perfect human form with its freedoms and advantages, we have met the precious teachings of the Mahayana, and we have the freedom to practice the sacred Dharma authentically. So, at this time, let us not waste our lives in meaningless pursuits, but work towards the genuine, lasting goal.

There are infinite categories of teaching and countless are the ways to enter the vehicles. Explanations can involve a great many words and expressions. Unless we can take to heart the essence of the genuine meaning, then even committing many hundreds of thousands of volumes to memory will not decidedly bring benefit at the moment of death.....


A Mirror Revealing the Crucial Points: Advice on the Ultimate Meaning

By Longchen Rabjam

 

[ratikala]

dear crosfire

Actually, Buddha told us to contemplate and to think--to discover the truth of what he said. If you label any phenomena as God, or self, or as eternal, you will suffer. If you recognize the suffering you experience by clinging to god, self, or eternalism, you will see the truth of what Buddha said.


This thread is about Buddhism, specifically.





Ill advised if you wish to end suffering attached to this belief.

Again, this thread is specifically about Buddhism.





Any more insane than claiming the same thing about Buddhism?

Again, this thread is specifically about Buddhism and Buddhists.

According to Buddha, it would be a cause of suffering.


Those are Christians, not Buddhists.


Agreed, but is that reached by gutting the teachings of Buddhism out of Buddhism and still calling it Buddhism? (If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him?)

have you ever read this ...?


''Out of compassion, the truly and completely Awakened One, with his skillful knowledge, enunciated a myriad of lifestyles and approaches to the teachings. In these cases he taught according to the inclinations and abilities of those to be trained. What he taught to the majority of people had only indirect, provisional significance.
He did not speak even once about the direct, real meaning.''

 

[Ekanta]

... gutting the teachings of Buddhism out of Buddhism and still calling it Buddhism?

This is interesting...

"gutting the teachings of Buddhism out of Buddhism" could imply a deeper understanding of buddhism as well as minsinterpretations.
"still calling it Buddhism" for some it wont be a problem, but rather make them understand buddhism better. For others it will be a problem, since it will cause confusion, and hence not help any faith or practice.

When I began my religious search 30 years ago, what got me interested was the stories of indian saints/upanishads on one side and the story of Buddha/his teachings on the other. Anyway I ended up practicing soto-zen meditation in the Deshimaru lineage and even though he taught strict zen-buddhism and didnt mix it up with other religions he would say things like:

"Zen studies the true mind, the essence of the mind ..., the essence of the mind of Christ, Buddha or God. In the depths of consciousness, in true silence exists Atman (in the Upanishads), or in Buddhism, ku (existence without noumena; nirvana, satori). And this deep consciousness in the end becomes cosmic consciousness."
"There's no objective Buddha or outside God on the other side. There is a subjective Buddha or God inside of ourselves."
"From the bottom of our minds, great confidence arises, the conviction and the faith that we are part of God or Buddha."
Teachings of Master Deshimaru

After some time I ended up the way I am...

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram aupmanyav ji :namaste

Theists also say that atheism is not correct.

this is where the problem lay ....as a theist I wont tell an atheist what he should or should not think , if that persons veiw is correct for them that is fine , each of us develops our own understanding , it is a part of that persons path and I would not want to disturb them .
it is only when the atheist is insistant to say that the theism of others is defective , that I am drawn to comment as that is not correct .

Who, after all, intelligently created the world, one piece fitting another. Just about perfect.

jai jai :namaste

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram ekanta ji :namaste

This is interesting...

"gutting the teachings of Buddhism out of Buddhism" could imply a deeper understanding of buddhism as well as minsinterpretations.
"still calling it Buddhism" for some it wont be a problem, but rather make them understand buddhism better. For others it will be a problem, since it will cause confusion, and hence not help any faith or practice.

When I began my religious search 30 years ago, what got me interested was the stories of indian saints/upanishads on one side and the story of Buddha/his teachings on the other. Anyway I ended up practicing soto-zen meditation in the Deshimaru lineage and even though he taught strict zen-buddhism and didnt mix it up with other religions he would say things like:

"Zen studies the true mind, the essence of the mind ..., the essence of the mind of Christ, Buddha or God. In the depths of consciousness, in true silence exists Atman (in the Upanishads), or in Buddhism, ku (existence without noumena; nirvana, satori). And this deep consciousness in the end becomes cosmic consciousness."
"There's no objective Buddha or outside God on the other side. There is a subjective Buddha or God inside of ourselves."
"From the bottom of our minds, great confidence arises, the conviction and the faith that we are part of God or Buddha."
Teachings of Master Deshimaru

thank you that was interesting reading .

After some time I ended up the way I am...

me too ,

 

[LuisDantas]

luis may not want to concern himself with the notion of god or divinity in any form , this is fine but it does not give him the right to say that others faith in any divine nature is an attatchment and therefore ill advised ? this implies that any other faith which holds a concept of divinity is foolish to do so ?

Some clarifications.

1. I do indeed have the right to judge and when necessary express other people's beliefs foolish and even destructive. We all have. Sometimes it grows into a full duty. Sure, it is not a particularly safe duty to fulfill, but it does exist in this world of interdependet origination.

Attempting to deny that may be appealing and even lead to a good reputation, but it does not follow that it is not undue attachment.


2. As I am pointing out again for at least the third time, theism itself is fine. Attachment to the idea that others must acknowledge, "respect" or admit it as a possibility, however, is indeed a defect. As are attempts at presenting it as a necessary part of any religion or Vehicle, for that very reason: it is not reasonable or respectful to demand, pressure, or even expect anyone to believe into God. Even the Quran say so, albeit in somewhat confusing language.

It saddens me that there are those who apparently see Mahayana as demanding belief in a divinity of some kind. That is just wrong, and must always be kept as optional according to the personal inclinations of the practicioner. It can't ever be presented as a necessary part of practice, for that way lies confusion and sorrow.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, Mahayana does not demand a belief in Gods. Agree with Luis.

 

[crossfire]

Some Mahayana also have people taking vows to delay their own enlightenment. Buddha limited his teachings to the ending of suffering and opening up the way to enlightenment. (See the Handful of Simsapa Leaves Sutta.)

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa[1] forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"

"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"​

 

[ratikala]

dear luis

Some clarifications.

1. I do indeed have the right to judge and when necessary express other people's beliefs foolish and even destructive. We all have. Sometimes it grows into a full duty. Sure, it is not a particularly safe duty to fulfill, but it does exist in this world of interdependet origination.

Attempting to deny that may be appealing and even lead to a good reputation, but it does not follow that it is not undue attachment.


2. As I am pointing out again for at least the third time, theism itself is fine. Attachment to the idea that others must acknowledge, "respect" or admit it as a possibility, however, is indeed a defect. As are attempts at presenting it as a necessary part of any religion or Vehicle, for that very reason: it is not reasonable or respectful to demand, pressure, or even expect anyone to believe into God. Even the Quran say so, albeit in somewhat confusing language.

It saddens me that there are those who apparently see Mahayana as demanding belief in a divinity of some kind. That is just wrong, and must always be kept as optional according to the personal inclinations of the practicioner. It can't ever be presented as a necessary part of practice, for that way lies confusion and sorrow.

no one has said that mahayana ''demands beleif'' it sadens me that you continue to twist peoples words .

this thread began by someone asking if one can practice buddhism whilst beleiving in god , ....to which the fair answer is yes if they find that they can reconcile the two .

you dont have to , others can if they like .....it is as simple as that .

when others talk of god it dosent nececarily mean an abrahamic creator like deity , it would be wiser to enter into a discussion as to what a person means by god or divinity before one judges them to be foolish .....and rather than panicing about it one could easily utilise the contemplative side of buddhist practice to gain a better undrstanding of what might be meant when another uses the term god , or as I did , ..''divinity'' .....

 

[ratikala]

Some Mahayana also have people taking vows to delay their own enlightenment. Buddha limited his teachings to the ending of suffering and opening up the way to enlightenment. (See the Handful of Simsapa Leaves Sutta.)

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa[1] forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"

"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"​

dear crosfire

did you read this ?

''There are infinite categories of teaching and countless are the ways to enter the vehicles. Explanations can involve a great many words and expressions. Unless we can take to heart the essence of the genuine meaning, then even committing many hundreds of thousands of volumes to memory will not decidedly bring benefit at the moment of death.....''


A Mirror Revealing the Crucial Points: Advice on the Ultimate Meaning

By Longchen Rabjam

 

[LuisDantas]

dear luis


no one has said that mahayana ''demands beleif'' it sadens me that you continue to twist peoples words .

Surely you jest?