god in Buddhism

[apophenia]

The point is that you and I have the full right to read for ourselves, draw our own conclusions, and use what our experience and observations tell us is important. This is not "New Age", as I have no orientation whatsoever for that movement (I've not read a single "New Age" book or visited a N.A. website), but a matter of pulling out of dharma what it means to me, and I don't go around telling anyone else what it must mean to them. HHDL said much the same to the French about 20 years ago, stating that conversion isn't really necessary but that anyone can take from dharma what's useful and go from there.

I agree with you on that.

I am in no way prescribing anything. My comments were about what constitutes buddhism. As you say we are all free to synthesise our view. Nevertheless, if your view does not include the Four Noble Truths, including nirvana, then it simply isn't buddhism.

Similarly, one may say " I am a muslim, but I also believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that there will be more prophets". You may certainly believe that, and that belief may work for you, but it would not be Islam.

This is what I have done, and it has helped me quite a bit. My approach may not help you at all, but that's OK. I have never called myself a Buddhist, making it quite clear that I pretty much just select out what I find useful as I just have mentioned.

Once again, fine. I do not feel compelled to be 'dharmically correct' either. I am simply clarifying that once karma and nirvana are removed, the view is not buddhism.

Salaam

 

[metis]

I agree with you on that.

I am in no way prescribing anything. My comments were about what constitutes buddhism. As you say we are all free to synthesise our view. Nevertheless, if your view does not include the Four Noble Truths, including nirvana, then it simply isn't buddhism.

Similarly, one may say " I am a muslim, but I also believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that there will be more prophets". You may certainly believe that, and that belief may work for you, but it would not be Islam.

Once again, fine. I do not feel compelled to be 'dharmically correct' either. I am simply clarifying that once karma and nirvana are removed, the view is not buddhism.

Salaam

Obviously, we do not agree on part of the above. If a Christian doesn't believe in heaven, is s(he) not a Christian just on that basis alone? If I don't know if Torah is divinely inspired, does that make me non-Judaistic? And using your Muslem example above, I would not refer to you as not being a Muslem just on that basis.

I have long had trouble with people accuse others of being "not a true ___". Whom am I to judge? Who made me the judge of Buddhism, Judaism, or Islam? If you say you're a Muslem, I'll accept that on your word.

But since I'm not claiming to be a Buddhist, it's a moot point with me on this matter.

Shalom

 

[apophenia]

Obviously, we do not agree on part of the above. If a Christian doesn't believe in heaven, is s(he) not a Christian just on that basis alone? If I don't know if Torah is divinely inspired, does that make me non-Judaistic? And using your Muslem example above, I would not refer to you as not being a Muslem just on that basis.

I have long had trouble with people accuse others of being "not a true ___". Whom am I to judge? Who made me the judge of Buddhism, Judaism, or Islam? If you say you're a Muslem, I'll accept that on your word.

But since I'm not claiming to be a Buddhist, it's a moot point with me on this matter.

Shalom

Whilst a liberal view is generally a virtue, there is a point at which it can dissolve all consensual meaning.

There is a notion accepted by most buddhists called the Four Seals. These are the characteristics without which a philosophy is no longer considered buddhism. The four seals are - Dukha, anicca, anatta, nibbana.

In the example given, someone claiming to be a muslim and also asserting belief in Jesus as Messiah and expectation of more prophets could not be called muslim, except by themself.

You say you are into science. If I said that I believe in the scientific method, but in my interpretation that means throwing dice to arrive at a theory, is it really science ?

Are you able to say that my method is not really scientific ? Or is saying that just some kind of fundamentalism ?

 

[apophenia]

And yet, he said the span of life is one breath. How many times have you physically died today?

17 trillion times in the blink of an eye. I'm a quantum buddhist

 

[metis]

You say you are into science. If I said that I believe in the scientific method, but in my interpretation that means throwing dice to arrive at a theory, is it really science ?

Are you able to say that my method is not really scientific ? Or is saying that just some kind of fundamentalism ?

Since science is entirely based on the scientific method, no, I certainly couldn't go that far. But not being willing to agree to all the dogma a religion may teach isn't even slightly close to being the same thing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thank you, and I'm trying hard to do as such because I have a nasty cold that is just dragging me down, and one of my granddaughters is having her bat mitzvah this Saturday.

Hey, can colds be passed on-line?

I hear at times it's productive to occasionally avoid the enter key. ;0)

Happy bat mitzvah and womanhood for your grand-daughter. :dan::dan:

 

[apophenia]

Since science is entirely based on the scientific method, no, I certainly couldn't go that far. But not being willing to agree to all the dogma a religion may teach isn't even slightly close to being the same thing.

It is exactly the same thing.

Science is based on the scientific method - without which it is not science.

Islam is based on the absolute authority of Mohammed as the final prophet of God - without which it is not Islam.

Buddhism is based on the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path - without which it is not Buddhism.

I am curious though, what prompts you to call your view 'buddhist' ?

Meditation ? Well that is a very general term, certainly not specifically Buddhist.
Moral values ? They are common to lots of views.
Self-analysis ? That is not aligned with any particular view.
Compassion ? No religion or specific philosophy required.

Seriously, if you don't accept karma and nirvana, what is it about your view that you identify as buddhist ?

And I will reiterate - I am not presenting myself here as the Dharma Police. I am glad that you have a view which helps you and encourages compassion. I am just wondering why you would describe yourself as Buddhist if you do not accept the foundational propositions of Buddhism.

 

[apophenia]

metis -

Just to make my question clearer, what would you say is the main difference between the views you call Buddhist, and secular humanism ?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And yet, he said the span of life is one breath.

Where did he say that? Which sutta?

 

[crossfire]

And yet, he said the span of life is one breath. How many times have you physically died today?

Where did he say that? Which sutta?

Sutra in Forty-two Sections, specifically in Section 38

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Sutra in Forty-two Sections, specifically in Section 38

This seems like a very obscure reference to me, and I can't think of anything in the Pali Canon which supports your idea.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Just to make my question clearer, what would you say is the main difference between the views you call Buddhist, and secular humanism ?

Good question. And what's the real difference between humanism and secular Buddhism?

 

[crossfire]

This seems like a very obscure reference to me, and I can't think of anything in the Pali Canon which supports your idea.

That's because it isn't a Pali sutta. It's a Mahayana Sutra.

Sutra of Forty-two Chapters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It must be in the eyes of the beholder. I can't even begin to figure why you believe those descriptions to be of physical lives, or what a non-physical description would be to satisfy your expectations.

I'm describing what the suttas actually say. Some will argue it's all metaphor, but similes are clearly labelled as such in the suttas, so there's no evidence to support this idea. And are we interested in understanding the meaning which was actually intended in the suttas, or are we preoccupied with trying to impose a modern secularist spin on these texts?

It's similar to a non-theist Christian arguing that all references to God in the Bible are metaphorical. Sure, it's possible, but it strains credulity.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That's because it isn't a Pali sutta. It's a Mahayana Sutra.

Sutra of Forty-two Chapters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mahayana schools accepts the teachings on rebirth as literal. The only Buddhist school I know of which rejects the teachings on literal rebirth is secular Buddhism.

 

[crossfire]

The Mahayana schools accepts the teachings on rebirth as literal. The only Buddhist school I know of which rejects the teachings on literal rebirth is secular Buddhism.

Gjallarhorn used Mahayana reference, while apophenia used Theravadan reference in the below quotes:

And yet, he said the span of life is one breath. How many times have you physically died today?

17 trillion times in the blink of an eye. I'm a quantum buddhist

I've linked you to the Sutra in Forty-two sections already. Here's a source for the Theravadan:

Kalapas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thau]

If 2 people exist,one is doing good, the other not so well.
What power decides that good man will be rewarded accordingly as karma dictates, the other will need certain karmic lessons to pull him into line.

two paths, something of intelligence must be the judge and deciding on the karma and the lessons and how they will play out.

Some Buddhist believe in god,others do not,some are on the fence like me as we are often taught to follow only what your senses reveal.

Being on the fence (when it comes to eternal affairs) is not very useful. Not even knowing if there is a god or not?... who has time for that? Does that mean you hold out that life could have all evolved without will or intelligence, just sheer dumb luck?

None of that makes any sense to me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do Buddhist robes have pockets?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm describing what the suttas actually say. Some will argue it's all metaphor, but similes are clearly labelled as such in the suttas, so there's no evidence to support this idea.

My question then becomes what would such a clear labelling be like. Is it even possible to write a Pali text that way?

I truly don't know.

Also I don't think it is at all reasonable not to assume it is metaphorical (since the truth of literal life and death is pretty well-established, after all) until and unless quite solid evidence to the contrary is presented. The Tipitaka is generally quite opposed to such abstractions of unclear verisimilitude or practical use, after all.

And are we interested in understanding the meaning which was actually intended in the suttas, or are we preoccupied with trying to impose a modern secularist spin on these texts?

What do you mean by "trying"? Or for that matter, "imposing"? Or even "spin"?

You talk about secularism as if it were not a good thing. I'm bound - honor-bound, even - to disappoint you constantly if you truly think so.

More significantly, I fully believe that so would the Buddha and the Sutta authors.

It's similar to a non-theist Christian arguing that all references to God in the Bible are metaphorical. Sure, it's possible, but it strains credulity.

Yes, it sure strains credulity. But which Christian are you talking about? The one who assumed that early Christians considered the idea of a literal God, perhaps? Because it makes at least as much sense as the alternative, after all.

In any case, the similarity is not all that workable, seeing how the Tipitaka is a lot less centered in the idea of supernatural entities than the Bible.

 

[crossfire]

Being on the fence (when it comes to eternal affairs) is not very useful. Not even knowing if there is a god or not?... who has time for that? Does that mean you hold out that life could have all evolved without will or intelligence, just sheer dumb luck?

None of that makes any sense to me.

Is speculation regarding the origins of life and the universe (which created this fence in the first place) very useful when it comes to removing the obscurations that cause dukkha in the here & now?