There can be a belief without a believer in the same way that there can be any mental activity without an enduring self. "Thoughts without a thinker", etc. As you say in your second paragraph, "believing" arises upon conditions. I'm not sure if ignorance is a necessary condition for that to happen, but I think the Buddha was clear that selfhood was not.Mkoll wrote:I would argue that belief of any sort automatically implies a sense of self. For there to be a belief, there must be "one who believes" that belief. How can there be a belief if there is no believer?Sam Vara wrote:If you are saying that a belief in God is dependent upon our sense of self, that may well be true; but it is not self-evidently so. It doesn't appear to be inherently contradictory for a person to believe in God, while not being subject to the type of ignorance which gives rise to our own sense of self.
But this is using objective language as though these things abstractions were concrete. The reality of belief is more like a verb: "believing" which depends on causes and conditions, one of which is ignorance.
No believing in God is not such a good idea.
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
Why should you? Damdifino. Whether you do or do not is of no interest to me. I am simply looking at how this question is looked at within the Buddha's teachings.Sam Vara wrote:but this looks like a statement of psychological fact. It may be true, and it may not be, for any sentient being capable of holding the beliefs in question. But why should I believe it to be true?tilt brilliantly wrote:The assumption of a god, self writ large, is a way of protecting oneself against the reality that constantly encroaches the assumed reality of our ignorance driven self.
- Bhikkhus, what exists by clinging to what, by adhering to what does view of self arise? … When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, view of self arises. When there is feeling…perception…voltional formations…consciousness, by clinging to consciousness, view of self arises. … Seeing thus… He understands: …there is no more for this state of being. – SN III 185-6Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. SN III 46
In the Brahmanically derived systems we find in one of the very few Upanishads that pre-date the Buddha, the Chandogya Upanishad, tat tvam asi You are That. While variously interpreted by the various later Hindu schools, it certainly reflects a direct connexion between the atman, the "Inner Controller, and the ultimate divine, Brahman, That, also personified as Brahma.
Also from the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 1.4.10-11:
== 10. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahman. It knew only itself
(atmanam): "I am Brahman!" Therefore it became the All. Whoever of
the gods became awakened to this, he indeed became it; likewise in the
case of seers (rsi), likewise in the case of men. Seeing this, indeed, the
seer Vamadeva began:-
I was Manu and the sun (surya)!
This is so now also. Whoever thus knows "I am Brahman!" becomes this
All; even the gods have not power to prevent his becoming thus, for he
becomes their self (atman).
So whoever worships another divinity [than his Self], thinking "He is
one and I another," he knows not. He is like a sacrificial animal for the
gods. Verily, indeed, as many animals would be of service to a man,
even so each single person is of service to the gods. If even one animal
is taken away, it is not pleasant. What, then, if many? Therefore it is
not pleasing to those [gods] that men should know this.
11. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahman, one only. ==
The Buddha responds with one of most significant text in the whole of the suttas (SN IV 15):
"Monks, I will teach you the all. And what is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds the nose and odors, the tongue and
tastes, the body and touch, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. If anyone, monks, should speak thus: ' Having rejected
this all, I shall make known another all' --that would be a mere empty boast."
In the 83rd discourse of the Middle Length Sayings: "God [Brahma] truthfully answers [the questions of the Buddha] in succession: 'Good sir, those views I previously held are not mine; I see the radiance the world of God as passing; how could I say that I am permanent and eternal?'"
The Buddha states (Anguttara-Nikaya X 29): As far as the suns and moons extend their courses and the regions of the sky shine in splendour, there is a thousandfold world system. In each single one of these there are a thousand suns, moons, Meru Mountains, four times a thousand continents and oceans, a thousand heavens of all stages of the realm of sense pleasure, a thousand Brahma worlds. As far as a thousandfold world system reaches in other words, the universe], the Great God is the highest being. But even the Great God is subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be.'
The interesting point here is that there is no thing to be found that is not subject to coming-to-be and ceasing to-to-be.
Ratthaphala, in MN 82 ii 68, reports the Buddha as saying "The universe is without refuge, a Supreme God [Attaan.o loko anabhissaro]." Where does the belief in a god come from, what drives it? Simply, I would say, working from the Buddha's teaching that what drives it is the precarious sense of self that we have. A divine protector, creator certainly is not needed according to the Buddha, and he certainly did not speak of such a belief in a favorable light.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
I'm not saying that there is an enduring self behind the belief. Rather, there is "I-making" and "mine-making" which is a conditioned process. That conditioned process of I-making and mine-making is the "sense of self", "the one who believes", and the "believer" I was referring to. That's also why I said: "But this is using objective language as though these abstractions were concrete." As usual, the limits of language are stretched when it comes to talking about self and not-self.Sam Vara wrote:Mkoll wrote:There can be a belief without a believer in the same way that there can be any mental activity without an enduring self. "Thoughts without a thinker", etc. As you say in your second paragraph, "believing" arises upon conditions. I'm not sure if ignorance is a necessary condition for that to happen, but I think the Buddha was clear that selfhood was not.Sam Vara wrote:If you are saying that a belief in God is dependent upon our sense of self, that may well be true; but it is not self-evidently so. It doesn't appear to be inherently contradictory for a person to believe in God, while not being subject to the type of ignorance which gives rise to our own sense of self.
I would argue that belief of any sort automatically implies a sense of self. For there to be a belief, there must be "one who believes" that belief. How can there be a belief if there is no believer?
But this is using objective language as though these things abstractions were concrete. The reality of belief is more like a verb: "believing" which depends on causes and conditions, one of which is ignorance.
Ignorance is a necessary condition as shown in dependent origination.
-SN 12.15From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
tiltbillings
Most of what you post is about the Buddha explaining why God does not exist. That's all fine - unobjectionable and standard stuff. Anyone attempting to reconcile Buddhism with theism would need to take an extreme non-realist view of God, which simply makes him part of a khanda or "The All" - not the Brahma of the upanisads, nor the deity posited by most Christians. But you do ask the question:
This is not so, however, when there is no literal identity: as, for example, in most forms of the Abrahamic religions. There, we have the problem of showing how the belief in a God who is somehow different from self, is dependent upon a belief in that self. I thought that your conviction that this is so would be somehow communicable, but I fully understand that it might not be.
Most of what you post is about the Buddha explaining why God does not exist. That's all fine - unobjectionable and standard stuff. Anyone attempting to reconcile Buddhism with theism would need to take an extreme non-realist view of God, which simply makes him part of a khanda or "The All" - not the Brahma of the upanisads, nor the deity posited by most Christians. But you do ask the question:
andWhere does the belief in a god come from, what drives it?
One would think, from the way you ask the question, that you have a convincing answer to offer. But you don't, and the "Damdifino" stuff looks like you want to reconsider such an offer unless it is accepted. Your point that a belief in self supports a belief in God is well made in the upanisadic case of "Thou art That". Brahmanism posits a literal identity between Atman and Brahman, so the case makes itself.So, the question is what gives rise to a belief in a god, an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos?
This is not so, however, when there is no literal identity: as, for example, in most forms of the Abrahamic religions. There, we have the problem of showing how the belief in a God who is somehow different from self, is dependent upon a belief in that self. I thought that your conviction that this is so would be somehow communicable, but I fully understand that it might not be.
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
Mkoll:
Sorry, you've lost me here. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. My original point is merely that a person does not need a belief in a self in order to believe in God. At least, they don't need to believe in a permanent personal existent in order to think that there is such a thing outside of them (i.e. a God). They do need ignorance, though...
Sorry, you've lost me here. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. My original point is merely that a person does not need a belief in a self in order to believe in God. At least, they don't need to believe in a permanent personal existent in order to think that there is such a thing outside of them (i.e. a God). They do need ignorance, though...
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
Now you have spent a few words not answering the question I now asked you twice. Try answering the question and you may very answer the question.Sam Vara wrote:andWhere does the belief in a god come from, what drives it?
One would think, from the way you ask the question, that you have a convincing answer to offer. But you don't, and the "Damdifino" stuff looks like you want to reconsider such an offer unless it is accepted. Your point that a belief in self supports a belief in God is well made in the upanisadic case of "Thou art That". Brahmanism posits a literal identity between Atman and Brahman, so the case makes itself.So, the question is what gives rise to a belief in a god, an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos?
This is not so, however, when there is no literal identity: as, for example, in most forms of the Abrahamic religions. There, we have the problem of showing how the belief in a God who is somehow different from self, is dependent upon a belief in that self. I thought that your conviction that this is so would be somehow communicable, but I fully understand that it might not be.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
If they are ignorant, then the belief in god is grounded in ignorance, and what is the key feature of avijja?Sam Vara wrote:Mkoll:
Sorry, you've lost me here. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. My original point is merely that a person does not need a belief in a self in order to believe in God. At least, they don't need to believe in a permanent personal existent in order to think that there is such a thing outside of them (i.e. a God). They do need ignorance, though...
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
tiltbillings
You didn't ask me any question. You asked yourself a rhetorical question, as this clearly demonstrates:Now you have spent a few words not answering the question I now asked you twice. Try answering the question and you may very answer the question.
You answer it with an assertion that you do not back up. If it were a question to me, rather than a professorial flourish, then you would not have answered it. That's fine - as I said, if you can't communicate it to me, then I'm happy to leave it there as an issue of mutual incapacity rather than you having to take refuge in pretense.Where does the belief in a god come from, what drives it? Simply, I would say, working from the Buddha's teaching that what drives it is the precarious sense of self that we have.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
Oh, my. Since I wrote what I wrote, I can say that it was not a rhetorical question, nor was I asking it of myself. Now, if you do not want to have a dialogue, that is your choice. The answer to my questions that were put to you was partially answered in your response to Mkoll. To repeat:Sam Vara wrote:tiltbillings
You didn't ask me any question. You asked yourself a rhetorical question, as this clearly demonstrates:Now you have spent a few words not answering the question I now asked you twice. Try answering the question and you may very answer the question.
And from here you could actually address the non-rhetorical question, and from there we can continue.tilt, asking Sam Vara a key question, wrote:
If they are ignorant, then the belief in god is grounded in ignorance, and what is the key feature of avijja?Sam Vara wrote:Mkoll:
Sorry, you've lost me here. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. My original point is merely that a person does not need a belief in a self in order to believe in God. At least, they don't need to believe in a permanent personal existent in order to think that there is such a thing outside of them (i.e. a God). They do need ignorance, though...
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
I agree that a person does not need an explicit or doctrinal belief in a self, e.g. that one is a soul in a body or that the Atman of Brahman is the universal Self, etc.Sam Vara wrote:Mkoll:
Sorry, you've lost me here. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. My original point is merely that a person does not need a belief in a self in order to believe in God. At least, they don't need to believe in a permanent personal existent in order to think that there is such a thing outside of them (i.e. a God). They do need ignorance, though...
My point was that there is an implied belief in a self when one believes anything or takes any position because every position is in relation to a sense of self. It's like when you lift your arm, your hand will always come with it. Here are some examples of what I'm trying to say.
I say or think: "God exists." God exists for me.
I say or think: "The sky is blue." The sky is blue for me.
I say or think: "Sitting here is painful." It's painful for me.
In my understanding, only the arahant can say things without any reference at all to a sense of I because he's completely destroyed ignorance which is a condition of this implied belief in self. For everyone else, everything we think we attach a sense of "I" to automatically, and whether it's subtle or gross depends upon our spiritual faculties and development. Also, when someone says they believe something, there is always a pronoun that comes before the word "believe" and that's "I".
I'm sorry if I'm not making my position clear, but this is about as clear as I can make it.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
No, you are now putting it in a way that I can understand, and I agree entirely - thank you. We were talking at cross-purposes, and it was to do with the implied sense of self, rather than the explicit belief in an eternal existent. My point is that many Christians, for example, do not attribute permanent aseity to the soul, whereas they do to God. But this, as you point out, is entirely consistent with a level of ignorance which means that both are implicitly seen as existing in the here and now "for them".Mkoll wrote:I agree that a person does not need an explicit or doctrinal belief in a self, e.g. that one is a soul in a body or that the Atman of Brahman is the universal Self, etc.Sam Vara wrote:Mkoll:
Sorry, you've lost me here. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. My original point is merely that a person does not need a belief in a self in order to believe in God. At least, they don't need to believe in a permanent personal existent in order to think that there is such a thing outside of them (i.e. a God). They do need ignorance, though...
My point was that there is an implied belief in a self when one believes anything or takes any position because every position is in relation to a sense of self. It's like when you lift your arm, your hand will always come with it. Here are some examples of what I'm trying to say.
I say or think: "God exists." God exists for me.
I say or think: "The sky is blue." The sky is blue for me.
I say or think: "Sitting here is painful." It's painful for me.
In my understanding, only the arahant can say things without any reference at all to a sense of I because he's completely destroyed ignorance which is a condition of this implied belief in self. For everyone else, everything we think we attach a sense of "I" to automatically, and whether it's subtle or gross depends upon our spiritual faculties and development. Also, when someone says they believe something, there is always a pronoun that comes before the word "believe" and that's "I".
I'm sorry if I'm not making my position clear, but this is about as clear as I can make it.
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
I don't need to answer the question, thanks - I was asking you to justify an assertion, which you are not going to do. It's lovely of you to offer, but I'm not really interested in being catechised by you.tiltbillings wrote:Oh, my. Since I wrote what I wrote, I can say that it was not a rhetorical question, nor was I asking it of myself. Now, if you do not want to have a dialogue, that is your choice. The answer to my questions that were put to you was partially answered in your response to Mkoll. To repeat:Sam Vara wrote:tiltbillings
You didn't ask me any question. You asked yourself a rhetorical question, as this clearly demonstrates:Now you have spent a few words not answering the question I now asked you twice. Try answering the question and you may very answer the question.And from here you could actually address the non-rhetorical question, and from there we can continue.tilt, asking Sam Vara a key question, wrote:
If they are ignorant, then the belief in god is grounded in ignorance, and what is the key feature of avijja?Sam Vara wrote:Mkoll:
Sorry, you've lost me here. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. My original point is merely that a person does not need a belief in a self in order to believe in God. At least, they don't need to believe in a permanent personal existent in order to think that there is such a thing outside of them (i.e. a God). They do need ignorance, though...
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
Statistically, for the most part, that appear to be habit and acculturation.tiltbillings wrote:So, the question is what gives rise to a belief in a god, an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos?
/.../
what drives such a belief?
From an inconstruable beginning come habit and acculturation. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are acting on habits and acculturation & wandering on ...
I don't know of anyone who claims to believe in God who has in fact developed that belief for themselves, all alone, from scratch. All people who claim to believe in God appear to have picked it up from other people, or developed a variation thereof on their own, but did not invent it.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
I was simply offering dialogue. At that I can only shrug my shoulders. And I could easily justify my assertion, but a discussion often more interesing.Sam Vara wrote: I don't need to answer the question, thanks - I was asking you to justify an assertion, which you are not going to do. It's lovely of you to offer, but I'm not really interested in being catechised by you.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.
It depends on what one means by "belief" and "believe". This word has an interesting etymology and etymological meanings:Sam Vara wrote:There can be a belief without a believer in the same way that there can be any mental activity without an enduring self. "Thoughts without a thinker", etc. As you say in your second paragraph, "believing" arises upon conditions.
Given this background, "believe" has very little to do with the strictly cognitive meaning of "to hold as true or real." So when we read older texts, but assume that "believe" meant then what we tend to mean by it now, we're acting in an anachronism that can produce many new problems.belief (n.)
late 12c., bileave, replacing Old English geleafa "belief, faith," from West Germanic *ga-laubon "to hold dear, esteem, trust" (cf. Old Saxon gilobo, Middle Dutch gelove, Old High German giloubo, German Glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed," from intensive prefix *ga- + *leubh- "to care, desire, like, love" (see love (v.)). The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb believe.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=belief
believe (v.)
Old English belyfan "to believe," earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (West Saxon) "believe," from Proto-Germanic *ga-laubjan "to believe," perhaps literally "hold dear, love" (cf. Old Saxon gilobian "believe," Dutch geloven, Old High German gilouben, German glauben), ultimately a compound based on PIE *leubh- "to care, desire, love" (see belief).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none
I'm not sure what the Pali equivalent to "believe" is or would be, or even if there is any.
Secondly, whether a self is seen as needed or not may have to do with how one understands sentences in terms of whether one focuses on the subject of a sentence or on a noun. To some extent, this is predisposed with one's native language:
Highly inflected, synthetic languages, such as modern Slavic ones and many older languages tend to focus on the verb in a sentence, ie. on what is being done.
Analytic languages with less inflection, like English, tend to focus more on the subject of the sentence, the doer.
Last edited by binocular on Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!