Emptiness disproves God?

[Tashi]

Tashi Delek Friends,

I am reading a book called "Emptiness: Foundation of Buddhist Thought Vol 5" by Geshe Tashi Tsering. While reading this book I began to think about God.
Now, the regular concept of God to humans is an independant, all-knowing, all-blah blah blah.

So if we really look at the first trait that I listed, independant, then emptiness could not exist with a God that is independant, which we expect because how can God be all-powerful if he/she is dependant on something for its existence?
For those who dont know what emptiness is, it is a lack of inherent existence. Your existence relies on other factors or aggrigates. Its not that you dont exist, but you have no essence, no inherent self. This thought-process isnt well put together yet.

What do you think?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Tashi,

the regular concept of God to humans is an independant, all-knowing, all-blah blah blah.

Frubals for the topic of discussion.

Gautama for the first time in the history of existence realised and understood this very point you are raising after 2500 years.
The word *god* is only a label but the human mind always attaches something [perception] of his own and this perception is the delusional factor.
God is THAT very emptiness out of which all forms and no-forms arises.
Simply put those who have understood this are free others have to remove all delusions of the mind for TRUTH to reveal itself.

Love & rgds

 

[Engyo]

Anatman is in conflict with the Abrahamic faiths' definition of the human soul; and emptiness along with dependent co-arising also conflict with the Abrahamic faiths' teachings about eternity.

 

[devilchasnme]

Gautama for the first time in the history of existence realised and understood this very point you are raising after 2500 years.
The word *god* is only a label but the human mind always attaches something [perception] of his own and this perception is the delusional factor.
God is THAT very emptiness out of which all forms and no-forms arises.
Simply put those who have understood this are free others have to remove all delusions of the mind for TRUTH to reveal itself.

yeah, right on, bro.

assigning the word god to that which has no name, can only diminish that which is.

 

[SageTree]

Friend Tashi,



Frubals for the topic of discussion.

Gautama for the first time in the history of existence realised and understood this very point you are raising after 2500 years.
The word *god* is only a label but the human mind always attaches something [perception] of his own and this perception is the delusional factor.
God is THAT very emptiness out of which all forms and no-forms arises.
Simply put those who have understood this are free others have to remove all delusions of the mind for TRUTH to reveal itself.

Love & rgds

My Friend Double Zed,

I really enjoy your words here. I feel that in my bones, so to speak.

A few wees ago there as an article posted on here that I found interesting. Not new or surprising, just really nice to see it in print. Perhaps you would enjoy a look?

Zen Buddhism and Sufi Philosophy See Eye to Eye

I would be interested to hear any thoughts or comments about the accuracy of the 'Buddhistly' put statements as well as Sufi, if you are familiar or interested.

The only thing I find a little 'looking sideways out of the corner of my eye' is the last few lines of the editor's notes where I feel perhaps that they are trying to touch on Karma/ Cause-Effect. The word fear jumps off the page at me, imo, that is no way to get people to Believe anything... in a healthy way. Because Lord knows there are people who believe a lot of things through fear... but again I say, healthy?

Thanks as always for your kind words I enjoy seeing a post from you pop up.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Ben Dhyan]

SageTree, is that link meant to be a joke?

 

[SageTree]

heh...well that was unexpected.

Try it now, I promise.

Thanks for point it out Ben_d

:namaste
SageTree

 

[WayFarer]

The word *god* is only a label but the human mind always attaches something [perception] of his own and this perception is the delusional factor.

At the center of every belief is a lie and when you remove the lie you can just be. F-rything else is extra.

 

[zenzero]

Fried SageTree,

The separation from God/Buddha-nature/Tao should be comprehended in this way to develop the fear for the Absolute. The Absolute rewards as well as retributes. It depends on how one behaves

Yes as you have pointed everything stated are more or less the same thing as we are discussing here including the karma part.
FEAR - actually the writer like everyone who tries to communicate the no-mind through the mind finds language a barrier and use of the word *FEAR* is a result of that.
Personal understanding is that *FEAR* comes from *ego* and losing that self/ego itself removes such qualities from the form and the individual is lighter and nearer to that *nothingness which is where the form originated.

Yes, personally though have not travelled all the paths in this life but find all roads leading to rome and those who differentiate between roads simply are possesed by delusional mind is all that can be stated.

Love & rgds

n.b. Friend, Sometimes when the system is down or am travelling am not posting anything besides posts are few as find only few posts/threads where can contribute as mosts are anyway responded by many others.

 

[SageTree]

Thanks My Friend Doube Zed,

What would besides 'fear' could be rationally be placed there? There are so many other positive words that could be placed there I feel but for the sake of world play and you continuing your thoughts

Also when you said all roads lead to rome, did you means THE Rome as a metaphor for faith, or the historical trade route reference? Just curious?

I appreciate the time you took to speak with us. Your insights are worth waiting for

:namaste
SageTree

 

[zenzero]

Friend ST,

Also when you said all roads lead to rome, did you means THE Rome as a metaphor for faith, or the historical trade route reference? Just curious?

As all roads never led to Rome in reality [for those whom it did were in that time/space zone which though has expanded greatly is .... well limitless]
So to understand limitless within limits is as difficult through languages has already been proved even on these pages and the only way - is through SILENCE which is both a medium and and end in itself.

Love & rgds

 

[SageTree]

Greetings and Love Double Zed,

I was just checking.

I'm catching on to your expressions

And I agree whole heartedly.

Namaste
SageTree

 

[zenzero]

Friend ST,

I was just checking.

Surely a sign of a *conscious* individual!!
besides always enjoy this tet-a-tet.

Love & rgds

 

[SageTree]

:namaste, Double Zed

tet-a-tet I like that

and thanks for the insinuation of consciousness,it means much from One with such depth and clarity in thought.

:namaste
Sage

 

[zenzero]

Friend ST,

and thanks for the insinuation of consciousness,it means much from One with such depth and clarity in thought.

Am grateful and thankful to you as now have someone in person to keep reflecting back as mostly was dependent of Existence itself in various ways.

Am indebted and Bow/kowtow to the consciousness that you are!

Love & rgds

 

[SageTree]

Friend ST,



Am grateful and thankful to you as now have someone in person to keep reflecting back as mostly was dependent of Existence itself in various ways.

Am indebted and Bow/kowtow to the consciousness that you are!

Love & rgds

Namaste ZenZero....

Is the wording of the first sentence how you meant to say that or is there a few words missing. I'm catching the drift, but it's still a little broken when I read it.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Lawrence Mills]

Tashi Delek Friends,

I am reading a book called "Emptiness: Foundation of Buddhist Thought Vol 5" by Geshe Tashi Tsering. While reading this book I began to think about God.
Now, the regular concept of God to humans is an independant, all-knowing, all-blah blah blah.

So if we really look at the first trait that I listed, independant, then emptiness could not exist with a God that is independant, which we expect because how can God be all-powerful if he/she is dependant on something for its existence?
For those who dont know what emptiness is, it is a lack of inherent existence. Your existence relies on other factors or aggrigates. Its not that you dont exist, but you have no essence, no inherent self. This thought-process isnt well put together yet.
What do you think?

God does not need anything from U, He want your trust and faith and faithless people are ussually empty of a few things.Have u ever realy read the bible if so you realize that though there have been faith healers there hasn't been anyone I heard of that has brought bake to life a person long dead and has come back themself. Have U

 

[zenzero]

Friend ST,

For the moment find no other better words; however you may state whatever comes to your mind, shall make an effort to clarify the same.

Love & rgds

 

[koan]

Lawrence Mills,
Who wants to believe in a Vengeful, wrathful god, that punishes innocents and has wars fought in his name. NOT ME. I'll take emptiness over that any day. Also, God only exists in the mind of those who believe. Tell me also, which God is the real one, the God of Jews? The God of the Christians? or the God of the Muslims? Also, if there really is a God, who is it that understands his will and completely follows his way? The Clergy that abuses children? The clergy, that advocates blowing oneself and others up in his name? Or the one that errects fences and has a navy that keeps people in and won't share? Hmmmmm

 

[Wessexman]

Emptiness proves that the creative, personal God is not the divine essence. In fairness to us Abrahamic types many of us have realised the relativity of that aspect of God and the fact that the Godhead or divine essence is what is truly absolute. St.Augustine, not one of the most mystical of church fathers, could even say that anything we can imagine as God is not God. That is not to say the Godhead, or the Void or Nirguna Brahman, is impersonal in the sense the laws of physics are usually considered. It is supra-personal from the human perspective.

There is nothing necessarily wrong, particularly for those of us who are not mystics, in attachment to the personal, creative God just as the opposite non-theistic perspective of Buddhist and Taoists is also perfectly valid for them. In fact each can be beneficial, but in the end, to truly reach the end of our journey we must even be quit of this God as Meister Eckhart reminds us.