lyndon taylor wrote:Are you familiar with the dhammakaya, that was supposed to be the source of some of the Buddha's wisdom. If you want to understand my understanding of god, I suggest you read about the Tao, and link that to the dhammakaya and maybe emptiness, to me God is the embodiment of Truth(Dhamma) and Wisdom, maybe its linked into kamma as well and its definetly a she presence, not a he.............
I've read the major Taoist philosophical works: Tao te Ching, Chuang Tzu, Zhuangzhi, Wen Tzu, Liezi. There is a vast difference between the Dhamma and the Tao.
In my experience, when one syncretizes, one's vision tends to become selective. Thus, one picks and chooses the parts that are amenable to one's old belief system and cuts out or even mutilates concepts so it all fits together for oneself. There's no abandoning of previous views. Rather, those views are used as a foundation for further views. There's no "starting fresh" with syncretism. NB I am not accusing you of this Lyndon but am simply presenting a perspective.
A rather poor simile is that the Buddha's teachings are like diamond, a mineral made up of a one single pure element: carbon. Syncretism is like tourmaline or most minerals which are aggregates of many elements.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
New to this thread so forgive me for not continuing it's stream.
'God' or 'gods' can mean so many different things to different people that I think it difficult to discuss unless all are speaking of the same conceptual framework.
However, as regards a creator 'god', I can't but reflect that if dualism is an impermanent state of affairs, then there simply can't be a creator God.
How can God have created everything since whatever s/he creates can't include s/he-self since s/he pre-existed. S/he must be outside of 'everything', which is therefore not everything.
andyebarnes67 wrote:New to this thread so forgive me for not continuing it's stream.
'God' or 'gods' can mean so many different things to different people that I think it difficult to discuss unless all are speaking of the same conceptual framework.
However, as regards a creator 'god', I can't but reflect that if dualism is an impermanent state of affairs, then there simply can't be a creator God.
How can God have created everything since whatever s/he creates can't include s/he-self since s/he pre-existed. S/he must be outside of 'everything', which is therefore not everything.
Creator gods need creator gods and so on ad infinitum. An almost universal "need" in humans is some kind of explanation as to where the cosmos - and they themselves come from. The (almost) insurmountable problem of comprehension requires the (almost) impossible task of understanding that all matter (including oneself and one's own mind) is information - something that exists but is not "real". As to where the information comes from, I will leave that for another day...
Mkoll wrote:You say that you have no issue with God and yet you take a position of athiesm. Is this not taking issue? Why not take no position, take no issue? Not theist, not athiest, not agnostic, not any position in regards to this.
For all practical intents and purposes, I am an atheist.
I don't make a point of my atheism per se, nor of any other stance in matters of God, but I see that in order to get along with Buddhists, one needs to be a particular kind of atheist, have a specific atheist outlook.
That means, one has to believe e.g. that "creator gods need creator gods and so ad infinitum", "all theisms suffer from the problem of evil", "if God would be good, there would be no suffering, but since there is suffering, God either doesn't exist, or is evil" etc. etc.
Personally, I don't think the Pali Canon orders one to believe such things, but some Buddhist traditions and some powerful Buddhist individuals certainly do.
binocular wrote:So you're God?
You rule?
You're omniscient?
You're omnipotent?
Show us that it is not open to the question of evil. Prove me wrong. As I have said, I stand to be corrected, but snark, as this msg is, is not correction. Snark is snark. You will need to do better.
>> 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
tiltbillings wrote:Show us that it is not open to the question of evil. Prove me wrong. As I have said, I stand to be corrected, but snark, as this msg is, is not correction. Snark is snark. You will need to do better.
So my being accepted into a Buddhist group now depends on my successfully changing the minds of Buddhists in matters of God?
That's a tall order.
The one thing you and several others here have conclusively proven is that I am not welcome here, and have no place among Buddhists such as yourself.
tiltbillings wrote:Show us that it is not open to the question of evil. Prove me wrong. As I have said, I stand to be corrected, but snark, as this msg is, is not correction. Snark is snark. You will need to do better.
So my being accepted into a Buddhist group now depends on my successfully changing the minds of Buddhists in matters of God?
That's a tall order.
The one thing you and several others here have conclusively proven is that I am not welcome here, and have no place among Buddhists such as yourself.
Accepted into a Buddhist group? Changing minds? These are your issues, not mine. If you cannot answer the questions I raised, it is of no matter to me, and it certainly does make you any less a Buddhist. Being or not being a Buddhist is for you to decide, not me or anyone else. Don't go laying your self-made issues at my feet.
>> 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
Wow, this thread took some ugly turns. My real concern here is there is a need for more metta. Some theists are getting their backs up against the wall because of some of the responses here. This is understandable, based on some of the posts that were not too friendly towards the theistic positions put forward. Maybe a more conciliatory attitude would help here.
But there’s a huge ‘but’ from my (Buddhist - in personal capacity only) side.
Please note that what I’ve written below is not intended to be in bad faith towards theists here but they are genuine questions I have for theists. It’s also not directed at any particular individuals, rather the general ‘feel’ of these threads.
Knowing (I can only hope) what the Buddhist (Theravada & Mahayana) position is on theism, why do some still feel the need to bring the topic here?
There are countless Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, New Age, Wiccan forums where the concept of ‘god’ / ‘goddess’ can be discussed with people who at least can agree on the basic assumptions around theism. But still people ‘bring the heat’ here, so to speak. I honestly wonder why that is. This forum is an excellent opportunity for theists to broaden their understanding of religion & spiritually from the Theravada Buddhist view. Why waste it?
If there are elements of Buddha Dhamma that work for you, use it and let that be that. Why the need to convince others of your personal position? If you would like to place a god equal to or above the Triple Gem, you are welcome to that as well. It might bare fruit that you are personally content with though. But that is not the dhamma that will bare the fruit Nibbana.
As for the charge that Buddhists are ‘mean’ when they are simply stating their position based on the actual teachings of Gotama Buddha as presented in the earliest Nikayas and traditions: Maybe it’s how its being said? Do they need to work on ‘delivery’? Do Buddhists need to change their position on theism to be regarded as ‘not mean’?
I leave you with the quote below from the book: the Buddha & His Dhamma, by Ven S. Dhammika:
"Once, the young Brahmin Ambattha abused the Sakyans in the presence of the Buddha. When the Buddha asked him why he was so angry with the Sakyans, he said: “Once, I went to Kapilavatthu on some business for my teacher, the Brahmin Pakkharasati, and I came to the Sakyans’ assembly hall. At that time, a crowd of Sakyans was sitting on high seats in their assembly hall, poking each other with their fingers, laughing and playing about together, and I am certain that they were making fun of me. No one even offered me a seat. It is not proper that they do not respect Brahmins.” The Buddha defended the Sakyans saying: “But, Ambattha, even the quail, that little bird, can say what she likes in her own nest.”
Dhammafriend
Metta
Dhammafriend
Natthi me saranam annam buddho me saranam varam For me there is no other refuge, the Buddha is my excellent refuge. Etena saccavajjena vaddheyyam satthu-sasane By the utterance of this truth, may I grow in the Master’s Way.
