god in Buddhism

[thau]

Part of bettering yourself also envolves how you react towards and treat your fellow man.

We cannot strive to be better and at the same time mistreat others, so you are absolutly wrong in thinking its all about me me me in Buddhism.

I know you are right. Actually, oversimplifications more times than not are the same as lies.

Be that as it may, I am trying to draw some comparisons (without putting in the time) between Buddhism and Christianity.
I do not believe God cannot be known.
I do not believe God would not communicate to His creation what our primary purpose for existence is.
I believe Jesus is the Son of God who summed up all the laws in two commands: Love God with all your heart, with all your souls, with all your strength. And, Love your neighbor as yourself. The emphasis is on God and others, not self.
I do not see any religion that charitable or altruistic to the most needy or most impoverished across the planet, across history, anywhere near to what Christianity has been. Christianity has sacrificed all for the care of others. This is the evidence people demand to show our God is real.
Buddhism is a peaceful religion. In that way it is most honorable. But if their way is the true way, then I would think God would have them evangelizing and taking great risks with their human side to help others achieve the eternal.
Buddhism seems to be all about avoiding suffering, whereas Christianity is all about embracing suffering for a higher cause.

I believe all men can get to heaven, even all those who are of other religions and reject Christian teaching. But I also believe there are great graces they are not allowed being outside of the one true Church.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe not a religious concern for an atheist/agnostic/Buddhist as you, but for any Christian it is the ultimate goal, it is everything. As the gospel clearly says "What profit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his very soul?"

So it is an eccentricity - and arguably a flaw - of Christianity to care much about an hypothetical afterlife?

I sincerely think it is a far more natural and sensible reading of the facts than the one you propose.

Emphasis on an afterlife is neither all that common nor particularly healthy, after all.

Or to put it my own way: "What kind of man would dare risk going to hell once they know God exists and heaven exists? What kind of man would not also do all he can to help those dear to him achieve eternal happiness as well?"

By comparison, nothing else matters in the least.

That just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, nor does it offer much in the way of clear directives either. It would take knowing that god exists and how to ensure heaven for it to even have a shot at making some sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, it depends on how one defines "religious". In my view Buddhism can be viewed as both philosophy and religion.

And is there a meaning to such a distinction? If so, which would that be?

 

[LuisDantas]

But that's exactly what the suttas describe. There are repeated references to beings being reborn in different realms according to their actions, ie kamma. In accounts of the Buddha's enlightenment he is described as remembering his previous lives, and seeing other beings being repeatedly reborn. And so on.

I do think it's important to read the suttas with an open mind, rather than through a modern secular lens. If we do that we have a better chance of understanding the intended meaning.

How do you interpret Anatta and Anicca? Do you think they are even compatible with the idea of literal rebirths?

 

[crossfire]

I know you are right. Actually, oversimplifications more times than not are the same as lies.

Be that as it may, I am trying to draw some comparisons (without putting in the time) between Buddhism and Christianity.
I do not believe God cannot be known.
I do not believe God would not communicate to His creation what our primary purpose for existence is.
I believe Jesus is the Son of God who summed up all the laws in two commands: Love God with all your heart, with all your souls, with all your strength. And, Love your neighbor as yourself. The emphasis is on God and others, not self.

To study the Buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.
~Dogen, Genjo Koan
​

I do not see any religion that charitable or altruistic to the most needy or most impoverished across the planet, across history, anywhere near to what Christianity has been. Christianity has sacrificed all for the care of others. This is the evidence people demand to show our God is real.

Buddhism is a peaceful religion. In that way it is most honorable. But if their way is the true way, then I would think God would have them evangelizing and taking great risks with their human side to help others achieve the eternal.
Buddhism seems to be all about avoiding suffering, whereas Christianity is all about embracing suffering for a higher cause.

I believe all men can get to heaven, even all those who are of other religions and reject Christian teaching. But I also believe there are great graces they are not allowed being outside of the one true Church.

In this last bit, are you actually telling god what to do, or are you just trying to corner the market on god? I apologize if that sounds crass, but that is how it appears to me.

 

[thau]

In this last bit, are you actually telling god what to do, or are you just trying to corner the market on god? I apologize if that sounds crass, but that is how it appears to me.

I really don't know and therefore cannot say?

Christianity does not corner the market on God in the sense that it teaches you have to be a Christian to get to heaven. No, not in the least, at least not in the Catholic teaching. So no one is excluding anybody. That can be easily evidenced with scores of council documents, etc.

Am I telling God what to do? How so? God is telling us what to do, and so is Ecclesiates 3, e.g. "a time to embrace... a time to shun embraces."

It seems to me everyone wants us Christians to be quiet in the public square, tolerant of others, and just nice people helping out in the community. Yes, excellent. But what is at stake here but the fate of souls. In that matter, God wants us to be of courage and conviction. Sometimes we error in being offensive, perhaps. But no one is going to take on such a noble and intrepid task without making some errors along the way.

PS -- you cannot offend me. thanks.

 

[thau]

That just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, nor does it offer much in the way of clear directives either. It would take knowing that god exists and how to ensure heaven for it to even have a shot at making some sense.

Yes, I imagine it would. I guess the Spirit blows where it may and why some are not convicted remains a total mystery to others like me.

The directives are clear (love God and love your neighbor)
The evidence is beyond doubt (miracles and otherwise validate His Word)
The quest is set in stone ("go to all corners of the world preaching the good news")

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, I imagine it would. I guess the Spirit blows where it may and why some are not convicted remains a total mystery to others like me.

The directives are clear (love God and love your neighbor)
The evidence is beyond doubt (miracles and otherwise validate His Word)
The quest is set in stone ("go to all corners of the world preaching the good news")

There are simpler, more convincing explanations.

Ones that among other advantages don't have trouble explaining how come atheism is even possible if belief in God is so fundamental and well-meaning.

But if you disagree, I guess I will have to accept that.

 

[crossfire]

But no one is going to take on such a noble and intrepid task without making some errors along the way.

Oh, you mean sinning?

PS -- you cannot offend me. thanks.

Good to know--thank you.

 

[apophenia]

As the gospel clearly says "What profit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his very soul?"

Or to put it my own way: "What kind of man would dare risk going to hell once they know God exists and heaven exists? What kind of man would not also do all he can to help those dear to him achieve eternal happiness as well?"

By comparison, nothing else matters in the least.

But they don't "know God exists and heaven exists".

It is all a pretense and a volitional act of imagination and roleplay. ( 'Believing') This 'believing' is called an upaya (trick, or skilful means) in dharma teaching.

By the way, here is what I wrote in response to SpinyNorman earlier about interpretations of scriptures ... it applies equally to Christianity, and in this case the subject matter is identical -

Apart from that Are you seriously suggesting that Gautama [or JESUS], and the writers , and intended readers, of the scriptures, never use metaphor,analogy and the poetic use of language ?

Why would you even assume that ? Why would it be a certainty that the subtle aspects of spoken language in service of the transmission of profound ideas would not have been eloquent ? For that matter, you are assuming that the expression of the ideas communicated by Gautama[or JESUS] is so compatible with ordinary speech that there is no need for the student to make any real attempt to plumb the meaning, because it is all so mundane.

That is a very shallow and way of looking at it, honestly.You assume that Gautama[or JESUS] was a mundane literal speaker.

Do you have any reason to assert that Gautama[or Jesus] was addressing people in a manner which treated them like fools who knew nothing of poesy and metaphor ? Or is that just an unexamined belief on your part ?

You assume that the use words of the Buddha [or Jesus] reflect the style of a typical contemporary debater on a public forum such as this. That they include none of the subtlety that we may find from inspired genius expressed in language.

I'll post my interpretation of those suttas [or bible verses] shortly, and you may bear in mind what I just wrote.

Perhaps, in the meanwhile, you may even do the thought experiment of seeing what you think those suttas[or bible verses] might mean if they are read as poetic language about our living experience

I won't ask you to wait for my interpretation here.

The 'kingdom of heaven' is the peace of the stainless primordial mind - nirvana.

Losing your soul means being lost in the endless arisings of false ego, and the negative consequences attendant on that.

 

[thau]

It is all a pretense and a volitional act of imagination and roleplay. This 'believing' is called an upaya (trick, or skilful means) in dharma teaching.

The 'kingdom of heaven' is the peace of the stainless primordial mind - nirvana.

Losing your soul means being lost in the endless arisings of false ego, and the negative consequences attendant on that.

No, it’s much more simple and basic than that. Even the uneducated can grasp what’s at stake here. No demands by God to meditate or levitate, just care for one another, be humble and virtuous.

Jesus said "What the Father has hidden from the learned and the clever he has revealed to the merest children.”

 

[psychoslice]

Once we believe in a god we then try to conceptualize that, everyone who believes in a god has their own concept, and for this reason the Buddhist don't use the name god. The Buddhist talk more about emptiness, if something is empty you cannot make a concept of it, unless you try to make a philosophy out of the emptiness, which then wouldn't be emptiness.

 

[apophenia]

No, it’s much more simple and basic than that. Even the uneducated can grasp what’s at stake here. No demands by God to meditate or levitate, just care for one another, be humble and virtuous.

Jesus said "What the Father has hidden from the learned and the clever he has revealed to the merest children.”

Indeed.

And no need to believe in Saviours or Eternal Salvation.

just care for one another, be humble and virtuous.

This is The Eightfold Noble Path, parts 1 - 6 .

To help develop the capacity required to adhere to parts 1-6, there are parts 7 and 8. Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How do you interpret Anatta and Anicca? Do you think they are even compatible with the idea of literal rebirths?

As illustrated by the teachings on dependent origination, Buddhism describes the dependent arising of consciousness rather than the transmigration of a permanent soul. This is entirely consistent with anatta and anicca. I'd recommend looking at DN15 if you want to understand this better.

Have you actually read the suttas? I'm beginning to wonder.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are you seriously suggesting that Gautama, and the writers , and intended readers, of the scriptures, never use metaphor,analogy and the poetic use of language ?

Of course not, but as observed previously similes are clearly labelled as such in the suttas, and generally the Buddha is said to have spoken in a straightforward way which was accessible to all.
There is no evidence that the teachings on rebirth and kamma were intended metaphorically. Similarly there is no evidence that references to God in the Bible were intended metaphorically.
It comes back to what I was saying about approaching the suttas with an open mind. Clearly secularists have a strong need to impose metaphor regardless of whether it was originally intended.
It's very difficult for secularists and skeptics to read the suttas or the Bible with an open mind, there is simply too much aversion to the implications of what these texts are actually describing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The 'kingdom of heaven' is the peace of the stainless primordial mind - nirvana.

An interesting idea, but is there any evidence for it?

 

[ConfusedGuz]

God eh...in BUddhism. We are a bit ambiguous on God. Purposely we reject that God is a perfect being(Loving and knows everything) but we realize that God may exist out there in a dimension that is not within our universe

 

[LuisDantas]

As illustrated by the teachings on dependent origination, Buddhism describes the dependent arising of consciousness rather than the transmigration of a permanent soul. This is entirely consistent with anatta and anicca. I'd recommend looking at DN15 if you want to understand this better.

Have you actually read the suttas? I'm beginning to wonder.

It is true that I am not one to care a lot about scriptures. They are a poor substitute to reflection, IMO.