Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Hey



Does anyone know what page this line is on

The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God." MN II 68.


In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, ive read and re-read by i cant find it


thanks

clw_uk wrote:Hey



Does anyone know what page this line is on

The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God." MN II 68.


In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, ive read and re-read by i cant find it


thanks

Still arguing with that Hindu?

"The universe is without a Supreme God [Attaan.o loko anabhissaro]." Ven Bodhi: [Life in] any world has no shelter and no protector. The key word here is abhissaro. One of the things the commentaries do not do well is reflect the Brahmanism of the Buddha's time that is reflected in the suttas. Issara (Skt: īśvara) can, with justification in this context, be translated as God. Who would protect the world, but its creator?

PTSD: Issara

Issara [Vedic īśvara, from īś to have power, cp. also P. īsa] lord, ruler, master, chief A iv.90; Sn 552; J i.89 (˚jana), 100, 283 (˚bheri); iv.132 (˚jana); Pv iv.67 (˚mada); Miln 253 (an˚ without a ruler); DhsA 141; DA i.111; PvA 31 (gehassa issarā); Sdhp 348, 431. -- 2. creative deity, Brahmā, D iii.28; M ii.222 = A i.173; Vism 598.

Macdonell, Arthur Anthony. A practical Sanskrit dictionary: isvara [ îs-vará ] a. able to, capable of (inf., lc.; w. inf. in -tas the nm. sg. m. is used for all genders and numbers); m. owner of (g., lc., --°ree;); ruler, lord, prince, king; man of rank, rich man; husband; supreme god; Brahman; Siva:

tiltbillings wrote:
Still arguing with that Hindu?

Thanks Tilt


indeed i am, it stopped for a few days but has started up again now


I quoted that passage above and the response was basically "i dont think Buddha would have said that"



metta

'There are [states the Buddha], Bhaggava, some ascetics and Brahmins who declare as their doctrine that all things began with the creation by God [issara, or ishvara, skt], or Brahma. I have gone to them and said: "Reverend sirs, is it true that you declare that all things began with the creation by a God, or Brahma?" "Yes", they replied.'

And this god is characterized so:

"That Worshipful Brahma, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever." DN 24: iii 28

My suggestion for dealing with this Hindu is the same strategy I had a while ago, with some Wiccans: Offer to carry out any magical ritual of his, in which the effects are clearly laid out beforehand, and then empirically observe the results.

"Om linga linga linga linga linga!" wait, nothing's happening. Maybe I need to say it louder. "OMMMM LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA!!!"

Maybe it's the onions in my diet which make me so deluded.

You could also try appealing to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster looks much weirder and has far more appendages than all of the Hindu gods combined (and is therefore more powerful).

Individual wrote:My suggestion for dealing with this Hindu is the same strategy I had a while ago, with some Wiccans: Offer to carry out any magical ritual of his, in which the effects are clearly laid out beforehand, and then empirically observe the results.

"Om linga linga linga linga linga!" wait, nothing's happening. Maybe I need to say it louder. "OMMMM LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA LINGA!!!"

Maybe it's the onions in my diet which make me so deluded.

You could also try appealing to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster looks much weirder and has far more appendages than all of the Hindu gods combined (and is therefore more powerful).

You may chant "Om linga"; I'd much rather chant "Om yoni."

{{{{groan}}}}

I don't understand how quoting from scripture provides any evidence or validation of anything. A Christian or Muslim can go to the bible and quote loads of things, it doesn't mean they are true. Likewise Buddha said many very wise things, but just cause he said them doesn't mean they are true.

That's the beauty of the 4 NT, 8 Fold path, and other key dharma teachings, you can experiment with them and test out their validity. They work when applied, the proof is there.

But when it comes to God, rebirth, etc- the metaphysics of any religion, how can these ever be proven?

I think such beliefs should simply be left alone, for each person to believe as they wish as long as they dont try to impose their beliefs or attack those of others.

Hey

I don't understand how quoting from scripture provides any evidence or validation of anything. A Christian or Muslim can go to the bible and quote loads of things, it doesn't mean they are true. Likewise Buddha said many very wise things, but just cause he said them doesn't mean they are true.

It doesnt however exp. Dhamma and logic/science tells us that such notions of God etc are delusions and, in the case of Theism which xtianity and islam belongs, have been proven to be so unlikely to be true that you can safely say they are false

But when it comes to God, rebirth, etc- the metaphysics of any religion, how can these ever be proven?

In essence they cant, which is why i feel metaphysical guess work was discouraged by the Buddha

I think such beliefs should simply be left alone, for each person to believe as they wish as long as they dont try to impose their beliefs or attack those of others.

I agree but sadly some religions have pretty nasty passages and teachings on morality that can and are taken to their unwholesome outcome, homophobia being one of them

metta

well, exactly. there are some pretty nasty passages in the Jewish old testament, especially. thus the dangers of literal interpretations and fundamentalism.

My understanding, from discussions with Jewish friends, is that a tradition of interpretation developed in Judiasm, in part because many rabbis and sages felt the old teachings should not be taken literally...

As for God though, i won't debate the issue too much, but there are varying ways that a supreme creative being can be conceptualized and Hinduism is actually a bit more open there, imo, then some other faiths.

God or Brahman is thought of as the ultimate source or creative wisdom which has brought all that exists and is aware into being. God in this view is not watching over or judging us, God is the presence/awareness that resides everywhere, within each of us.

You may not believe this, but how can it be proven wrong?

We have karma, rebirth, dharmakaya, etc in Buddhism. These too provide explanations for how our world works, the forces behind all we see. But how can we know for sure that these exist?

It's a matter of faith...

christopher::: wrote:God . . .

You may not believe this, but how can it be proven wrong?

Don't have to prove the supposed god's non-existence, just show that the idea of a god is not terribly meaningful. As Mark Twain supposedly said: "If there is a God, he is a malign thug."

Why would we want to do that, show that the idea of God is not meaningful?

How would you feel if someone tried to convince you that the ideas of karma, rebirth and dharma were not meaningful?

Seems to me these are all ideas addressing the same deep questions: How does reality work, why does the Universe exist, why is life the way it is, why do we suffer?

Where did laws of karma, rebirth, dharma come from? For a Buddhist its not an important question, for a person who believes in God the answer is quite obvious....

And very meaningful.

christopher::: wrote:Why would we want to do that, show that the idea of God is not meaningful?

Because it is not meaningful.

tiltbillings wrote:

christopher::: wrote:Why would we want to do that, show that the idea of God is not meaningful?

Because it is not meaningful.

For you.