The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:Hi Mike. I am in no way advocating that Buddhists should embrace the idea of God. Just to recognize that for others its playing a very important role. So much so that we should show a bit more respect, for that which others hold as essential and sacred. Otherwise we can become (in a purely metaphorical sense) not that different from the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues...
While a god notion may be important to individuals that does not mean it cannot be criticized, and it ridiculous to say that criticizing a god notion of whatever stripe is going to - or might lead to - lead to Taliban (god believers) type behavior, when it has been god believers who, more than any others, have historically shown the most intolerance, often with violence.

This is not off the mark:

"The assumption that a God is the cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in the eternal self (atman, i.e. permanent spiritual substance, essence or personality); but that belief has to be abandoned, if one has clearly understood that everything is impermanent and subject to suffering." - Abhidharmakosha 5, 8 vol IV, p 19:

Buddhists certainly can recognize that belief in a god can bring about good results, but ultimately, no matter how subtle and refined the idea is, being grounded in a faulty perception, it is unsatifactory.
>> 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
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by christopher::: »

Hi Tilt, everyone...

In another discussion Peter and I are discussing the Brahma Viharas which Ajahn Vajiro described this way...
"Ajahn Vajiro; senior incumbent of Bodhinyanarama Monastery in New Zealand.

In the teachings of the Buddha there are mentioned the Brahma Viharas. These are usually translated as the divine, or heavenly abidings. This is from a literal translation:

"Brahma - God, and Vihara - Dwelling. They can be brought down from the heavens, to earth, by considering that as emotions they motivate and encourage the transcending of the limitations of basic human existence."
I asked Peter if this might be simply a metaphor and if he knew more about this. He responded:
PeterB wrote:It is a metaphor.

On the other hand the Buddha did not deny the existence of the Brahmas, traditionally there are said to be one Brahma, who is a Mahadeva, A great Deva, for every world system. He taught though that ( unlike the Biblical Jehovah ) they are subject to birth, decay and death.
I was surprised to hear that the Buddha taught this. There are indeed differences with this conception and that of the Biblical God, but there are also many similarities.

Interesting.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by kannada »

Just use the legal argument re 'God':

"The onus of proof is on the asserter, not the denier"
Just a view - nothing more...
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by christopher::: »

kannada wrote:Just use the legal argument re 'God':

"The onus of proof is on the asserter, not the denier"
Matters of faith are often impossible to prove, in a legal way...
But we mortals sure do love to believe...

Image

equals...

Image

????


:juggling:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by Ceisiwr »

Matters of faith are often impossible to prove, in a legal way...
But we mortals sure do love to believe...


gods were just a way of ancient humans understanding the world around them and attempting to explain it




metta
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by PeterB »

christopher::: wrote:Hi Tilt, everyone...

In another discussion Peter and I are discussing the Brahma Viharas which Ajahn Vajiro described this way...
"Ajahn Vajiro; senior incumbent of Bodhinyanarama Monastery in New Zealand.

In the teachings of the Buddha there are mentioned the Brahma Viharas. These are usually translated as the divine, or heavenly abidings. This is from a literal translation:

"Brahma - God, and Vihara - Dwelling. They can be brought down from the heavens, to earth, by considering that as emotions they motivate and encourage the transcending of the limitations of basic human existence."
I asked Peter if this might be simply a metaphor and if he knew more about this. He responded:
PeterB wrote:It is a metaphor.

On the other hand the Buddha did not deny the existence of the Brahmas, traditionally there are said to be one Brahma, who is a Mahadeva, A great Deva, for every world system. He taught though that ( unlike the Biblical Jehovah ) they are subject to birth, decay and death.
I was surprised to hear that the Buddha taught this. There are indeed differences with this conception and that of the Biblical God, but there are also many similarities.

Interesting.
I am not sure that their are many similarities Chris. The Brahmas did not create the world, thery just sort of care take it according to the mythos of the Vedas. The Buddha did not say that this idea was untrue, he said it was irrelevant to our Enlightenment.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by mikenz66 »

PeterB wrote:
christopher::: wrote: I was surprised to hear that the Buddha taught this. There are indeed differences with this conception and that of the Biblical God, but there are also many similarities.

Interesting.
I am not sure that their are many similarities Chris. The Brahmas did not create the world, thery just sort of care take it according to the mythos of the Vedas. The Buddha did not say that this idea was untrue, he said it was irrelevant to our Enlightenment.
Try this Sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And Ajahn Brahm's talks about it here: http://www.bswa.org/audio/podcast/SuttaStudy.rss.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MN49 Brahmanimantanika Sutta
Monday, 9 March 2009 5:00 p.m.
Ajahan Brahm explains and discusses MN49, the Brahmanimantanika Sutta (The Invitation of a Brahma)
The Invitation Of A Brahma
Monday, 10 April 2006 4:00 p.m.
Ajahn Brahmavamso explains the Brahmanimantanika Sutta from the Majjhima Nikaya (#49). Here the Buddha teaches God a lesson. :-)
Mike
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by christopher::: »

Interesting. Thank you.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
Avery
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by Avery »

You should keep in mind that being respectful of other religious people, even when you know they're wrong, will prepare you for:

1. Being respectful of people who are wrong in other ways, and thus resolving conflicts with them.

2. Keeping your cool when people criticize your own beliefs.

3. Learning how to properly approach Buddhists who don't fully understand Buddhism, and think Buddha was a god or that monks can divine the future.

This is true Dhamma.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by tiltbillings »

Klaus Klostermaier's A SURVEY OF HINDUISM, pgs: 137-8,
149-50.

== "In the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad we read a dialogue in which
Yajnavalkya is asked the crucial question: _Kati devah_, how many
are the devas [gods]? His first answer is a quotation from a Vedic text:
'Three hundred and three and three thousand and three." Pressed
on, he reduces the number first to thirty-three, then to six, then to
three, to two, to one-and-a-half and finally to One. 'Which is the
one deva [god]?' And he answers: "The prana (breath, life). The
Brahman. He is called _tyat_ (that).' Though the devas still figure in
sacrificial practice and religious debate, the question 'Who is God?' is
here answered in terms that has remained the Hindu answer ever since.==


What follows a rather biting caricature of the creation story of the
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad that pre-dates the Buddha.

There are, Bhaggava, some ascetics and Brahmins who declare as their
doctrine that all things began with the creation by a 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. Then I asked: "In that case, how
do the reverend teachers declare that this came about?" But they could
not give an answer, and so they asked me in return. And I replied:

'There comes a time, monks, sooner or later after a long period, when
this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly reborn
in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made,'
feeding on delight," self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious -
and they stay like that for a very long time.

'But the time comes, sooner or later after a long period, when this world
begins to expand. In this expanding world an empty palace of Brahma"
appears. And then one being, from exhaustion of his life-span or of
merits, falls from the Abhassara world and arises in empty Brahma-
palace. And there he dwells, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-
luminous, moving through the glorious - and he stays like that for a very
long time.

'Then in this being who has been alone for so long there arises unrest,
discontent and worry, and he thinks: "Oh, if only some other beings
would come here!" And other beings, from exhaustion of their life-span
or of their merits, fall from the Abhassara world and arise in the
Brahma-palace as companions for this being. And there they dwell,
mind-made,... and they stay like that for a very long time.

'And then, monks, that being who first arose there thinks: "I am
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
I will remain so for ever and ever."

These beings were created by me. How so? Because I first had this
thought: 'Oh, if only some other beings would come here!' That was my
wish, and then these beings came into this existence!" But those beings
who arose subsequently think: "This, friends, is 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."

How so? We have seen that he was here first, and that we arose after
him."

'And this being that arose first is longer-lived, more beautiful and more
powerful than they are. And it may happen that some being falls from
that realm and arises in this world. Having arisen in this world, he goes
forth from the household life into homelessness. Having gone forth, he
by means of effort, exertion, application, earnestness and right attention
attains to such a degree of mental concentration that he thereby recalls
his last existence, but recalls none before that. And he thinks: "That
Brahma,...he made us, and he is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject
to change, the same for ever and ever. But we who were created by
that Brahma, we are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, fated to fall
away, and we have come to this world."

-- Digha Nikaya 24

Also from the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad"
== 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 (SN IV 16):
== "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." ==
>> 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
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by PeterB »

Thanks Tilt. What is clear is that the Buddha is saying that there is no Refuge in a objectified " god", out there.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by tiltbillings »

PeterB wrote:Thanks Tilt. What is clear is that the Buddha is saying that there is no Refuge in a objectified " god", out there.
That is how I would read it.
>> 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
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by PeterB »

Interestingly its what Lex Hixon says is true of the Sufis too, but this is not the place for that discussion.
kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by kannada »

Heya Christopher:::

Good to read ya! Did you feel the earthquake?
christopher::: wrote:
kannada wrote:Just use the legal argument re 'God':

"The onus of proof is on the asserter, not the denier"
Matters of faith are often impossible to prove, in a legal way...
But we mortals sure do love to believe...
I used the 'legal system' analogy because it is a sound logical system. Those who assert must prove - others rest content to deny.

This not only goes for for those 'Giddig' (filled with God - as in giddy (olde Welsh)) who proselytize his presence under their various brand names, but for anyone who cares to raise an assertion. Buddhists should be wary when poking fun at God-believers. How much of the Buddha's teachings can they guarantee came directly from Buddha? Is there any certainty that what a Buddhist practices is actually the Dharma Teachings of their Master, or admixtures from a variety of sources over thousands of years?

I agree with you. Ultimately all religious practitioners of whatever creed are believers, in one form or another...

Take care

k
Just a view - nothing more...
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Post by christopher::: »

Yeah. Which is in part the beauty of the Buddha's dharma. At the core are these teachings about how our own minds work. We all seem to agree that these gems can be put into practice, verified and tested. They work! As do the brahma viharas... call them whatever we like.

As for the metaphysics of each tradition::: God saying this, creating the Universe, being like this, Buddha talking to God, Moses or Jesus talking to God, it does all sound rather fantastical and mythic. Teachings to be careful about approaching literally, imo.

What's most important (in my life) are the recipes and essential moral codes these wise men left for living our lives in a more peaceful, loving, compassionate, joyful, wise and enlightened way.

Beliefs differ. The core teachings of most of the world's religions are for us here, in this world. Still, for many people the metaphysics and the real world teachings come as one package. Thus the importance of being respectful.

Just my pov.

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Post Reply