god in Buddhism

[thau]

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?

Frankly, I do not follow your question or reasoning?

But I will say this. The question of "origins of life and the universe" are by no means the primary driver which "created this fence in the first place." God has revealed Himself quite convincingly for me and for billions without having to clarify if we evolved or were created. So the question of Does God exist? and Which God? has already been satisfactorily answered as far as I am concerned.

As to why we suffer?... is that a question of yours? Our sufferings are quite temporal compared to everlasting life in heaven. Our sufferings have great meaning. We are on trial, yes. Suffering does make us better people, more grateful people, more humble people, and so on. We can also offer up our sufferings for the reparation of sins and the conversion of sinners. There must be a hundred saints who have been given this insight and it all makes perfect sense to those of us fortunate enough to have been spoken to.

 

[Koldo]

Frankly, I do not follow your question or reasoning?

But I will say this. The question of "origins of life and the universe" are by no means the primary driver which "created this fence in the first place." God has revealed Himself quite convincingly for me and for billions without having to clarify if we evolved or were created. So the question of Does God exist? and Which God? has already been satisfactorily answered as far as I am concerned.

As to why we suffer?... is that a question of yours? Our sufferings are quite temporal compared to everlasting life in heaven. Our sufferings have great meaning. We are on trial, yes. Suffering does make us better people, more grateful people, more humble people, and so on. We can also offer up our sufferings for the reparation of sins and the conversion of sinners. There must be a hundred saints who have been given this insight and it all makes perfect sense to those of us fortunate enough to have been spoken to.

You should read more about buddhism, at the very least the basics, to understand where others are coming from.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

That is actually a good question and one addressed very well with directness pertaining to here and now remaining pristine and unfettered by fabrications and embellishment.

Such notions of god.. Puffs. .....Mara's first army. Ta_hã

 

[metis]

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

Thank you so much, and I hope you & yours have a great weekend.

 

[metis]

I am just wondering why you would describe yourself as Buddhist if you do not accept the foundational propositions of Buddhism.

I have repeatedly said I do not call myself a "Buddhist", but more that I use a mixture of Buddhism & Judaism in a non-theistic way.

 

[thau]

You should read more about buddhism, at the very least the basics, to understand where others are coming from.

Yes, perhaps... in a world where time is not of the essence.

But when the top poster makes this statement about Buddhism --- "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." ----- well, that leaves far too many possibilities to begin with.

So if they cannot summarize better than that, please do not expect me to sort it all out for anyone. You make a succinct claim and I will try to give a succinct response.

 

[metis]

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?

And the above is what I believe to be an excellent point.

What some do is to argue from a more literalistic perspective, which is fine & dandy if that's the paradigm they work from. But, as for me, I tend to be pragmatic to a fault, so this is the approach that I tend to use.

As Steven Batchelor has correctly stated, all religions tend to accumulate attachments over the years and centuries to the point whereas it's often difficult to tell the attachments from the original message, whatever that may have been. But then there's also the issue put forth by HHDL, namely that there are many things found in dharma that may not have been correct to begin with.

Should we view the Buddha as being omniscient? Why should I take the position he was? Why should I take the position that somehow everything we find in dharma came out of his mouth, especially since it appears that much didn't get written down for a couple of hundred years later? Why can't people question most or all of dharma? Why can't people take the teachings, study them, and see what works for them?

So, I really have trouble with the "dharma police" because I tend to think that it is they who may be missing the point of what I think Old Sid may have been about, namely a reformer who preferred a much more pragmatic approach to life versus just blindly accepting mounds of dogma.

So, your post above really resonates with me to a large extent-- whatever was, was.

 

[metis]

That is actually a good question and one addressed very well with directness pertaining to here and now remaining pristine and unfettered by fabrications and embellishment.

Such notions of god.. Puffs. .....Mara's first army. Ta_hã

Amen.

And I should have read your response first before posting my last one. OK, so I'm not the most observant person on the planet.

 

[crossfire]

Frankly, I do not follow your question or reasoning?

But I will say this. The question of "origins of life and the universe" are by no means the primary driver which "created this fence in the first place." God has revealed Himself quite convincingly for me and for billions without having to clarify if we evolved or were created. So the question of Does God exist? and Which God? has already been satisfactorily answered as far as I am concerned.

Then why did you ask the question in the first place?

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.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

There are quite a lot of suttas with "simile" in the title - I can give some examples if you like.
Most suttas seems to be straightforwardly descriptive, so why would you assume they are metaphorical? Why for example would you assume that birth and death are intended in a psychological way, when the suttas clearly and repeatedly describe them as physical events? I honestly don't get it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

As Steven Batchelor has correctly stated, all religions tend to accumulate attachments over the years and centuries to the point whereas it's often difficult to tell the attachments from the original message, whatever that may have been.

Stephen is probably right about that, but it is very difficult to tell, and it comes down to which "expert" we choose to believe - it all gets very speculative. In the meantime I respect Bikkhu Bodhi's translations and commentaries, also Ven Thanissaro and Maurice Walshe.

 

[thau]

Then why did you ask the question in the first place?

I don't know, I guess I wanted some clarification?

Why did you even bother responding with such a short non-informative statement above, is my next question?

 

[crossfire]

I don't know, I guess I wanted some clarification?

Why did you even bother responding with such a short non-informative statement above, is my next question?

When you said that none of the reasoning of others made sense to you, I tried to follow your line of reasoning, in order to try to clear some ground for clarification.

 

[metis]

Stephen is probably right about that, but it is very difficult to tell, and it comes down to which "expert" we choose to believe - it all gets very speculative. In the meantime I respect Bikkhu Bodhi's translations and commentaries, also Ven Thanissaro and Maurice Walshe.

And if that works for you, then I think that's great-- and I mean it. My approach is to take all scriptural narratives, treat them as allegory, and then see what's usable.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, perhaps... in a world where time is not of the essence.

But when the top poster makes this statement about Buddhism --- "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." ----- well, that leaves far too many possibilities to begin with.

So if they cannot summarize better than that, please do not expect me to sort it all out for anyone. You make a succinct claim and I will try to give a succinct response.

Just read the wiki page on Buddhism.

Buddhism is about what we can do on this life to cessate dukkha and achieve nirvana. So, when you say we are just supposed to endure suffering as this is all a test, you are like... completely missing the point of Buddhism.

 

[thau]

Just read the wiki page on Buddhism.

Buddhism is about what we can do on this life to cessate dukkha and achieve nirvana. So, when you say we are just supposed to endure suffering as this is all a test, you are like... completely missing the point of Buddhism.

No doubt I am missing the point. When Buddhism does not care if there is a god or not, then it's value becomes far less consequential to me, and quite frankly, dangerous to those who follow such a path, IMO.

The top poster who is a Buddhist made the following statement: “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.”

This, to me, allows for the freedom to live a life filled with speculation and concentration on self but no real accountability. It ignores God, and it does not appear to put an emphasis on the care and/or edification of others. Historically speaking, Buddhism is a regional phenomenon. If it were truly of divine origin I would expect it to have its influence over outer regions of the planet and in defense of the defenseless. Is there any empirical evidence or of supernatural nature that Buddhism is valid? There is for my faith.

 

[LuisDantas]

There are quite a lot of suttas with "simile" in the title - I can give some examples if you like.

Oh, that? Thanks.

Most suttas seems to be straightforwardly descriptive, so why would you assume they are metaphorical?

I guess it just sounds all but unavoidable whenever people talk about "other lives".

I don't have it in me to even pretend that other reading would be more natural, or even marginally acceptable.

Why for example would you assume that birth and death are intended in a psychological way, when the suttas clearly and repeatedly describe them as physical events? I honestly don't get it.

I straight fail to believe a serious religious text can talk about literal repeated lifes. Maybe the original teaching context made it so clear that they found it counter-productive to spell it out? I would bet on that if I even found a bet to be worth the trouble.

 

[LuisDantas]

No doubt I am missing the point. When Buddhism does not care if there is a god or not, then it's value becomes far less consequential to me, and quite frankly, dangerous to those who follow such a path, IMO.

Are you truly saying that it is dangerous not to care whether there is a God?

 

[Koldo]

No doubt I am missing the point. When Buddhism does not care if there is a god or not, then it's value becomes far less consequential to me, and quite frankly, dangerous to those who follow such a path, IMO.

Why should it matter to a buddhist whether a god exists or not if he can achieve nirvana without any god?

The top poster who is a Buddhist made the following statement: “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.”

No real accountability? How can karma not bring about any real accountability?

This, to me, allows for the freedom to live a life filled with speculation and concentration on self but no real accountability. It ignores God, and it does not appear to put an emphasis on the care and/or edification of others. Historically speaking, Buddhism is a regional phenomenon. If it were truly of divine origin I would expect it to have its influence over outer regions of the planet and in defense of the defenseless. Is there any empirical evidence or of supernatural nature that Buddhism is valid? There is for my faith.

Where is the evidence for other religions?
Tell me one evidence regarding supernatural events that has not been rejected by a considerable ammount of people before.
Plus, a considerable part of buddhism doesn't require any divine origin.

 

[thau]

Are you truly saying that it is dangerous not to care whether there is a God?

Are you truly saying it is not? :0