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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

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

Post by Ben » Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:19 am

Hi Juan

Its nice to see you posting and I apologise I did not respond to your earlier post.
I'm in the middle of packing house and unfortunately I'm unable to give you the attention that your post deserves - at this point in time.
If I get some time over the next few days, I'll dig out some references that should elucidate the Theravadin (albeit from a Classical) point of view. That is, if it hasn't already been eloquently represented by some of our learned members.
Metta

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com..

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

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

Post by christopher::: » Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:28 am

Ben wrote:Hi Christopher
christopher::: wrote:I think anthropomorphism may be the issue here that keeps popping up. The traditional Christian, Hindu and Hebrew presentations of God are all highly... ...by John Seed; from THINKING LIKE A MOUNTAIN - TOWARDS A COUNCIL OF ALL BEINGS by John Seed, Joanna Macy, Arne Naess & Pat Fleming, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, 1988
Thanks for posting the above. I think its very interesting but I have a problem with understanding how it actually relates to the Theravada. I mean no disrespect to you, but I am wondering whether you are trying to recast the Buddha's teaching to be in line with the view that you are sharing. To help me understand better, do you have any references from the Pali Tipitaka which validates your notion?Thanks

Ben
Hi Ben. The concept of anthropomorphism is relevent to discussions about religious conceptions of an entity called "God" imo, but no, i cannot say the issue relates specifically to the Theravada. I only raised this because we seem to have several similar discussions going on about "God" without a clear understanding of the great variety of ways in which that word is used and conceptualized by people in various traditions....
tiltbillings wrote:
The question of the utility of a god notion, whether one anthropomorphizes it or assumes it to be some vague. mysterious creative power, still obtains. It really explains nothing.
For Theravadin Buddhists these concepts may have little utility. Again, i simply raised the issue because when communicating with others it can be helpful to understand how the term God is conceptualized by people in different ways, in line with the points Mike just raised.

For you, it explains nothing.

For others, it explains everything.

For Christians, there is a Holy Trinity. Hindus have Brahmin, and Shiva. For Muslims there is Allah. Taoists have the Tao. For modern folks there are recent movements such as Deep Ecology, which have similarities with Native American world views concerning Nature as our Mother.

NonBuddhists get a sense of comfort, safety and support from these beliefs, which is similar to the way Buddhists go to refuge in the three jewels, imo.

That is my view, which I raise here because the concept of refuge is the topic we are discussing.

I do understand, its not meaningful for many here.

This is why religion is such a deeply personal matter, imo.

: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

User avatar
Macavity
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:36 am
Location: Thailand

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

Post by Macavity » Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:38 am

clw_uk wrote:As of yet i have never heard or read an answer to this riddle by someone who believes in God/Ultimate being/One
I take it you haven't read much theistic literature then. Since this is a problem that every thinking theist has to wrestle with, naturally the literature on the subject is huge. I don't want to go off topic, so won't go into detail, but just try googling for 'theodicy'.

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

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

Post by clw_uk » Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:58 am

Macavity wrote:
clw_uk wrote:As of yet i have never heard or read an answer to this riddle by someone who believes in God/Ultimate being/One
I take it you haven't read much theistic literature then. Since this is a problem that every thinking theist has to wrestle with, naturally the literature on the subject is huge. I don't want to go off topic, so won't go into detail, but just try googling for 'theodicy'.

Hey


No argument answers the question without violating the riddle

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”


The traditional Chrisitian view is that God cant stop us from sining, thus negating a God

Since if there is a God he either is willing to prevent evil, but not able, Is he able, but not willing or Is he both able and willing

In which case then he is not omnipotent , malevolent or anept


Or if on a last and failing stand you say he is neither able nor willing

Then why call him God?



This applies to the Abrahamic faiths, however the above riddle does away with any kind of God view/belief



There is no answer to the problem of Evil/Suffering in relation to God since evil/suffering negates the existence of a God (or i should say makes it highly unprobable)

metta
Last edited by clw_uk on Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

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

Post by christopher::: » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:13 am

Our Universe is filled with mysteries and riddles, for sure.

: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

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16412
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 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:16 am

clw_uk wrote: As of yet i have never heard or read an answer to this riddle by someone who believes in God/Ultimate being/One

Probably because there is no answer to it since the existence of suffering negates a loving God (and i would say God in general)
This is the sort of "Cartoon view of religions" that I was complaining about above.

While I have no particular interest in defending God, there are plenty of people out there who have some sort of answers. E.g. here:
http://www.religion-online.org/showchap ... 736&C=2479" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosop ... #post10727" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I would say it would depend on what one perceives God to be. Epicurus describes God as a 'He' and obviously separate from himself. A "somewhere out there" type of God. This is not how I perceive God to be so a direct answer to this question would be difficult, but here we go...

First, it's not God who creates or prevents evil, it's us... Mankind. We've created all the evil in the world and likewise we can prevent it. To place that burden on the unseen and unknown is silly IMHO. So God, not being able to prevent it doesn't fit my ideology either. Who or where is God and how so would God prevent something that mankind creates?

Impotent? Well, if you take a look at the complexity of creation and the sexed opposites of all that is created right down the cellular level, I would have to say that 'God' is quite potent.

People are funny. We hurt our neighbors, say mean words to our children, start wars based on religions... and then look to a deity in the sky and ask how come there is evil? Evil is as man has created it to be. If you embrace evil thoughts then your manifestations will match those thoughts. If people would just look around them and look in the mirror and take a close look at their own actions, they will quickly realize why there is evil. It's not God who is creating this evil it's man. Likewise, it's not God who is creating the good of man, it's man. We are creating beings and for some reason people just can't understand that. It's just so much easier to place the burden of responsibility on some unforeseen deity... what about looking within ourselves?

So long as people continue to blame God for the bad and evil in the world and not take responsibility for what man has created, we'll stay blind to that which is directly in front of us, beside us and within us.

We've created a God separate from ourselves just like we've created an Ego which is also separate from ourselves. Until we can step up to the plate and take responsibility for what we've created as a mankind, we will always ask questions in sheer blindness.

As a human being I know beyond a reasonable doubt that all the EVIL I have experienced in my own life is the evil I have created... but for a long time it was very easy to blame God.
It's very easy to come up with similar riddles about Buddhist thought:
  • "If there is no self what is the point of awakening?"
  • "If there is no self how can rebirth happen?".
  • "If there is no self why do I have to be good?"
To answer those questions takes a little bit of sophistication in Dhamma. The answers will make little impression on non-Buddhists, just as the Christian Theology arguments will make little impact on non-Christians. By all means don't agree with Christians, etc (I don't) but please don't assume that all followers of other religions do not have arguments of comparable sophistication...

Metta
Mike

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

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

Post by clw_uk » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 am

christopher::: wrote:Our Universe is filled with mysteries and riddles, for sure.

:namaste:

I couldnt agree with you more :smile: . I look at the theories of black holes, worm holes and white holes and i feel blown away. However these things have evidence supporting them while the God hypothesis does not and i would say it isnt needed, as laplace said

"I have no need of that hypothesis"


I would also say it adds an unnatural and cruel aspect to existence


metta
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

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

Post by clw_uk » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:26 am

Hey mike


It's very easy to come up with similar riddles about Buddhist thought:

"If there is no self what is the point of awakening?"
"If there is no self how can rebirth happen?".
"If there is no self why do I have to be good?"

If there is no self what is the point of awakening?"
There is dukkha, ideas of self add to that dukkha, going past "I" leads to peace. Being stuck in Self view is what leads to the above question

My answer would be, locate said "Self"
If there is no self how can rebirth happen?".
Doesnt apply to Buddhas teachings, however if you mean in terms of D.O. thats easier

When there is clinging there is a natural arising of the idea/thought/perception of "I", e.g. cling to the body and there is "I am the body"


If there is no self why do I have to be good?"
When there is understanding of Not-self there can be no "evil" since there is no selfishness, anger, hate, revenge, sadness, depression, want etc only peace. Once again someone stuck in self view asks the above "not self so I can do what I like


Your "riddles" carry no weight, Epicurus (or Sextus Empiricus) riddle does as it shows how there cannot be a loving God since if you assert such a being you cannot square it with the riddle, in short the answer to the riddle isnt "there is a God" but "there is no God" or at least "there is no loving God"



You can aruge logically for Buddhism, God you cannot thats why faith is stressed in Theistic religions and why the believers always fall back on "Its what i believe" which is all well and good on a personal level but in realistic terms it doesnt mean anything and doesnt match reality


While I have no particular interest in defending God, there are plenty of people out there who have some sort of answers
You sure about that, you seem to firmly oppose Atheistic arguments (such as painting them as "cartoon")
metta
Last edited by clw_uk on Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Post by tiltbillings » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:31 am

christopher::: wrote:
For you, it explains nothing.

For others, it explains everything.
What does god explain? Why there is suffering? People claim god explains all sorts of things, but when pushed, and it often does not take much, as you have shown us, that the idea of god devolves into: god is a great mystery, we could never hope to understand the working, mind, nature of god, and on and on and on. In other words, god explains nothing.

God is a comfort food, but mostly god is a product of our need for security and protection in a universe that does not really care about us, despite the stories we try to tell ourselves otherwise, which is something the Buddha recognized, and which is why his teachings are so radical and why some try to find in them that which is not there - god.
>> 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
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

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

Post by clw_uk » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:34 am

God is a comfort food, but mostly god is a product of our need for security and protection in a universe that does not really care about us, despite the stories we try to tell ourselves otherwise, which is something the Buddha recognized, and which is why his teachings are so radical and why some try to find in them that which is not there - god.

Sadhu!
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1603
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

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

Post by appicchato » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:47 am

tiltbillings wrote:...in a universe that does really care about us...
More like a universe that (seemingly) does not really care about us...

And one more tidbit to ponder...the difference between 'no self' and 'not self''...

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

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

Post by clw_uk » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:50 am

Hey mike

Taken from the link you gave
I would say it would depend on what one perceives God to be. Epicurus describes God as a 'He' and obviously separate from himself. A "somewhere out there" type of God. This is now how I perceive God to be so a direct answer to this question would be difficult, but here we go...
Seems to suggest that God is "in us". So God was in Hitler?

First, it's not God who creates or prevents evil, it's us... Mankind.
So God cant stop evil, if he can do anything then

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.



or if he is evil then

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.


or if he is just lazy and inept then

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?



or if he cant do either then

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”


We've created all the evil in the world and likewise we can prevent it.
So i dont see a need for God

Laplace - "I have no need of that hypothesis (god)"


To place that burden on the unseen and unknown is silly IMHO
Why not, if he is so great why cant he do something, unless he cant do everything and so isnt God

So God, not being able to prevent it doesn't fit my ideology either.
Yet he argues that man makes evil and God cant stop it
Who or where is God and how so would God prevent something that mankind creates?
Because if there is a God he could have made it so there isnt evil
Impotent? Well, if you take a look at the complexity of creation and the sexed opposites of all that is created right down the cellular level, I would have to say that 'God' is quite potent.
Obvious Creationist view here but i dont think i need to go into that. However id God designed the universe then he orchestrated many mass extinctions on earth over millions of years, invented the Aids virus and Cancer

People are funny. We hurt our neighbors, say mean words to our children, start wars based on religions... and then look to a deity in the sky and ask how come there is evil? Evil is as man has created it to be. If you embrace evil thoughts then your manifestations will match those thoughts. If people would just look around them and look in the mirror and take a close look at their own actions, they will quickly realize why there is evil. It's not God who is creating this evil it's man.
Yes man makes Evil but if there is such a God why doesnt he make it so evil goes away, why doesnt he enlighten us all? After all he can do anything .....

Likewise, it's not God who is creating the good of man, it's man. We are creating beings and for some reason people just can't understand that. It's just so much easier to place the burden of responsibility on some unforeseen deity... what about looking within ourselves?
Its not placing the burden on God, its asking how can you believe there is a God when Nazi's gas 3 month old babies and work their mothers and fathers to death in labour camps?
So long as people continue to blame God for the bad and evil in the world and not take responsibility for what man has created, we'll stay blind to that which is directly in front of us, beside us and within us.
Ditch the God idea and you have full responsibilty
We've created a God separate from ourselves just like we've created an Ego which is also separate from ourselves. Until we can step up to the plate and take responsibility for what we've created as a mankind, we will always ask questions in sheer blindness.
Ego is anatta and God is anatta (buddhist hat off). He seems to argue that God is in us again, once again was God in Hitler when he was thinking about the Final Solution
As a human being I know beyond a reasonable doubt that all the EVIL I have experienced in my own life is the evil I have created... but for a long time it was very easy to blame God.
The problem of Evil isnt blaming God, its asking how can such evil exist if there is a God


Answer is there cant be a loving God (of god in general) because of evil/suffering

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”


As i said you cant believe in God and answer the riddle, the answe to the riddle can only be found in Atheism (or agnosticism)



metta
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
Macavity
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:36 am
Location: Thailand

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

Post by Macavity » Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:41 am

clw_uk wrote:No argument answers the question without violating the riddle
In fact there are lots of proposed solutions that don't "violate the riddle." Like I said, you don't seem to have done much research on how real, live, flesh-and-blood theists have in fact approached the problem. Here's a place to start...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

But if you just want to smugly stick with your Richard Dawkins cartoon version of theism, then don't bother clicking.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16412
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 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:44 am

Macavity wrote: But if you just want to smugly stick with your Richard Dawkins cartoon version of theism, then don't bother clicking.
It's OK, we can do proof by cartoon instead...
Image
Mike

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

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

Post by christopher::: » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:41 am

Thanks for the helpful links, Mike and Macavity. It's easy to beat up on stereotypes, clw_uk. Harder to do some research and show respect for a wide variety of human beliefs and povs. For myself, the points Avery made the other day are important to keep in mind...
Avery wrote: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.
: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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Dmytro, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 98 guests