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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

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

Post by Jechbi »

Hi Marie,
imagemarie wrote:For example, narrative and cosmological modes of thinking would lead one to ask whether the agent who performed an act of kamma was the same as the person experiencing the result, someone else, both, or neither.In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind, without reference to who or what lay behind those processes". (my emphasis
That is excellent. It also points to another possible "supreme protector" that a person might turn to: the perceived self. As you correctly point out (in my view), this entire teaching should be understood to mean that there is no supreme protector, period.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

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

Post by Jechbi »

Tilt, just to be clear, even when I disagree with you, I think you are an insightful scholar, and I appreciate your comments. In this case, I still disagree with you.
tiltbillings wrote:“Keeping in mind that the Buddha has addressed god- issara - notions quite directly, what would be the supreme [abhi] protector [issaro] of the world?” You did not address this question.
I'm sorry, I thought I had answered. I'll try to be more clear.

Keeping in mind these things that you say, I would argue that supreme [abhi] can mean some form of God but does not necessarily mean some form of God. The definitions you provided earlier make clear that there are layers of possible meaning. (There's Abhidhamma, for example.)

Moreover, I think it's important not to lose sight of the overall thrust of this text. These are key characteristics of Dhamma. Generally, they seem to describe misperceptions of self. They seem to be geared toward helping address the core Dhamma message of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. In that regard, I believe layers upon layers of deep meaning are lost if we narrowly interpret "supreme protector" as meaning God and only God, and nothing other than God. Keeping in mind everything you've said, and keeping in mind the context of Dhamma as it is taught throughout the texts, I don't think it's possible to justify limiting the translation to merely "Supreme God," a term that itself reflects a very narrow viewpoint.

Not only that, but to me it looks like this: When the text is translated so narrowly, highlighting an abnegation of the God concept, it seems like an agenda-setting translation rather than one that's true to the underlying meaning of the text itself. I think we fail to do the text justice if we pull it out and use it as a tool to advance an atheist viewpoint. The text loses too much in the process.

Here is my first post responding to your translation, which prompted your objections:
Jechbi wrote:As I read it, the importance of this passage is not that it discusses the existence or non-existence of God, but rather that it points to our own individual accountability for the dukkha that we experience. It's basically restating that I am the owner of my kamma. I think that if we try to use the passage as support for the atheist viewpoint, we're missing the point.
I still think -- based on my understanding of this text in particular, based on all that you've said here with regard to the definitions of these words, based on my understanding of the Buddhadhamma as it is taught throughout the texts -- that if we think this particular text is only about God, then we're missing the point.

I hope I have answered your question in a way that you will not regard as mere gainsaying. If not, I will try to do better.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
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 »

I believe layers upon layers of deep meaning are lost if we narrowly interpret "supreme protector" as meaning God and only God, and nothing other than God.
This is your basic complaint, and as I said: “The Buddha addressed the idea of god more than once in the suttas. The idea of a god as a supreme protector of the world is a potent idea. Abhi-issaro is a powerful way of making a point that there is no thing, no one, no force outside us that can protect us.”

In other words, I do not subscribe to your limited interpretation of what I have said.

The question is how do you want to get at the layers of meaning, which I have not denied are there?

The problem with leaving abhi-issaro translated as "supreme protector" is the question of what is included in that somewhat odd expression and it would require a footnote to draw out what is actually meant by it.

Reading it in the Pali, it is rather clearer what the range of that expression would be, and it would be inclusive of a god notion of whatever sort that one might turn to as a refuge. Translating it as “Supreme God,” by virtue of the capital letters, suggests, as you complain, a limited reading. In either translation one needs to tease out the meanings.

One might leave “supreme god” in lower case, which would be suggestive of a broader range of meanings, making it easier to tease out what is intended.

I am open to suggestions. Abhi, is an intensifier: supreme god, higher god, godly god. That sort of thing. Give us an expression that would illustrate - unambiguously - the range of meanings.

Sometimes that requires a clumsy compromise: “supreme protector/supreme god” sort of thing. Or “higher power,” which sort blows the 12 steppers away.

So, enough wrangling, let have some fun with this.
>> 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 and Jechbi.

I'm going to wade back into this conversation for a sec, but do not intend to stick around for long. Many seem to agree with Tilt, that the Buddha is quoted as you described. There is the issue of how to interpret the meaning of these comments, translated across languages, as Jechbi suggests. Another even bigger question mark in my head though is how sure can we be that the Buddha really made these statements? I think its simply impossible to know.

In the 1960s Shunryu Suzuki gave lectures, which were tape recorded. His words were transcribed by followers and then made into a book, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. In recent years the tapes have been listened to again, and many descrepencies were noted. Some have complained that in numerous passages the book does not represent his meaning accurately.

Who is the author of these statements about God, attributed to the Buddha, and have phrases been edited, mistranslated or added over time? How can we verify these statements about metaphysics, conversations with Gods and the underlying unseen nature of the Universe as truths?

The Buddha's teachings about how our minds work, about the 4 noble truths, 8 fold path, importance of precepts, the 4 brahma viharas, dependent origination and the ending of suffering have been verified by hundreds of thousands of practitioners across the ages. This is a recipe that has been handed to us, that we can test and apply ourselves, bringing observable results. Unfortunately, when it comes to statements about Gods and metaphysics, these teachings are unverifiable, we need to take them on faith.

In another thread PeterB wrote:
PeterB wrote:I think that we can honour each other's position and at the same time recognise that their are real differences. For example [it is recorded that] The Buddha did clearly state that the God view ( in terms of an objectified out-there entity ) is not compatible with the Enlightenment that he rediscovered. There appears to be no way to resolve that issue.. so yes, maybe the most realistic option is, to quote a medieval English mystic, to leave it in "the cloud of unknowing" and walk away. It seems to me that dissonance of any kind provides us with an opportunity to develop Upekkha.
Perhaps some things simply do not have answers, and so will remain as mysteries and question marks. The idea of God arising in one's mind is not needed for liberation, may indeed by incompatible with Enlightenment. This is a sensible view for a Buddhist to hold.

I just wonder how helpful the idea of "No God" is for our practice, if asserted to as an essential truth to defend. It could obscure and hinder one's practice as much as the idea of God, if made too important, or held too tightly.

But at this point i have too many questions, few or no answers...
tiltbillings wrote:
So, enough wrangling, let have some fun with this.
Indeed! Or turn one's mind to something else.

It's up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

End of rant.

:soap:
Last edited by christopher::: on Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

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

Post by kc2dpt »

Jechbi wrote:...if we narrowly interpret "supreme protector" as meaning God and only God, and nothing other than God.
Tilt has not done this. What he has said is that any interpretation will include, but not be limited to, common ideas of God as the supreme protector.
Jechbi wrote:As I read it, the importance of this passage is not that it discusses the existence or non-existence of God, but rather that it points to our own individual accountability for the dukkha that we experience. It's basically restating that I am the owner of my kamma. I think that if we try to use the passage as support for the atheist viewpoint, we're missing the point.
You seem to be trying to oppose two ideas here which are in fact not opposed.

1] The passage basically restates that I am the owner of my kamma.
2] Therefore the passage cannot be used to support the atheist viewpoint.

Is that a fair restatement of your point? If so then it is, in my view, an incorrect point.

Either god is supreme or kamma is supreme. Both can't be supreme. Either I am subject to kamma or a god to intervene. It can't be both. Therefore, if a passage says "It's kamma" then it is also saying "It isn't a supreme god".
if we think this particular text is only about God, then we're missing the point.
I do not think tilt, nor anyone else, has said it is only about God. It seems, however, that you are saying it is NOT about God at all.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

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

Post by kc2dpt »

christopher::: wrote:Another even bigger question mark in my head though is how sure can we be that the Buddha really made these statements? I think its simply impossible to know.
Completely irrelevant. If you want to dismiss any uncomfortable teaching with "Well, how do we know he really said that" then you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you aren't up to discussing a teaching then don't discuss it. But this sort of argument is beyond useless and ventures into reckless.
How can we verify these statements about metaphysics, conversations with Gods and the underlying unseen nature of the Universe as truths?
Whether one can or can't verify them as truths, one cannot do so on an internet discussion forum. All we can do here is discuss what the recorded scriptures do or do not say. Beyond that is a matter for you and your meditation cushion.

Let me say this again (for all the good it will do)...

We do not discuss truth here or on any other internet forum. We discuss what is and is not the recorded teachings of Buddhism.
The Buddha's teachings about how our minds work, about the 4 noble truths, 8 fold path, importance of precepts, the 4 brahma viharas, dependent origination and the ending of suffering have been verified by hundreds of thousands of practitioners across the ages. Unfortunately, when it comes to statements about Gods and metaphysics, they are unverifiable, we need to take them on faith.
Not true at all. As I said in my previous post, there is either kamma or there is a god calling the shots. There isn't both. Put another way, there is suffering and the cause of suffering. Hundreds of thousands of practitioners across the ages verified for themselves that the cause of suffering is not God but is in fact craving of our own making.
I just wonder how helpful the idea of "No God" is for our practice, if asserted to as an essential truth to defend.
Either you assert that God is the cause and end of your suffering or you assert that you cause and end your suffering. Seems to me it makes all the difference in the world. Either you are going to strive to develop the Noble Eightfold Path or you are going to pray to God and hope he hears your prayers. Really, it couldn't be more different.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

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

Post by kc2dpt »

Let me just add... maybe you accept kamma and the four noble truths and all the rest of Buddhism... but still cling to the idea that there is a God out there somewhere, doing something. But if this God is not related to you or your suffering or the way out of suffering in any way whatsoever (which he could not be if you do in fact accept Buddhism) then of what relevance is this God at all? If you can't see it or smell it or hear it or interact with it in any way AND it does not interact with you in any way either... then of what point is there to speak of it?

If it makes you feel better... it's not that Buddhism denies God, rather it denies God as relevant in any way shape or form.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
imagemarie
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:35 pm

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

Post by imagemarie »

it's not that Buddhism denies God, rather it denies God as relevant in any way shape or form
touché

:anjali:
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 »

Peter wrote:
Jechbi wrote:...if we narrowly interpret "supreme protector" as meaning God and only God, and nothing other than God.
Tilt has not done this. What he has said is that any interpretation will include, but not be limited to, common ideas of God as the supreme protector. ...
I do not think tilt, nor anyone else, has said it is only about God. It seems, however, that you are saying it is NOT about God at all.
Thanks, Peter, for the incisive clarification. Sometime I get a bit too close to what is being said see some of what is going on. What you have written here helps.
>> 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::: »

Peter wrote:Let me just add... maybe you accept kamma and the four noble truths and all the rest of Buddhism... but still cling to the idea that there is a God out there somewhere, doing something. But if this God is not related to you or your suffering or the way out of suffering in any way whatsoever (which he could not be if you do in fact accept Buddhism) then of what relevance is this God at all? If you can't see it or smell it or hear it or interact with it in any way AND it does not interact with you in any way either... then of what point is there to speak of it?

If it makes you feel better... it's not that Buddhism denies God, rather it denies God as relevant in any way shape or form.
Hi Peter. I really do not want to get drawn into another debate about this. I don't think its helpful to my practice, to anyone's practice. And i do not hold an anthropomorphic view of a being watching over us, in line with the traditional Christian, Muslim and Hebrew presentations of God.

I feel a kinship with the Native American Indian approach to this, which focuses more on Nature and the Universe as our home, and our kinship with all other sentient beings, with the mountains, rivers, stars. How all this came into being is a "Great Mystery" but i honor that mystery, have an interest in science and ecology, and am deeply thankful for all that exists.

The fact that we live here in the midst of billions of galaxies, all mysterious to us, is something that is meaningful, for me. The Universe itself, Nature and the Great Circle of Life, is in my mind a refuge of sorts. Something that we do touch and interact with, every single day.

I've talked about this at length in the Evolution and Creative Design discussion, but do not wish to continue spinning in heated debate about it, again.

:group:
"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
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

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

Post by kc2dpt »

christopher::: wrote:The Universe itself, Nature and the Great Circle of Life, is in my mind a refuge of sorts.
"And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." — SN 56.11

That's what us unawakened folks do - go for refuge to unstable places. You, me, likely everyone on this forum does it. :shrug: It doesn't change what the Buddha's message was.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

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

Post by Jechbi »

Thank you Peter and Tilt for your comments.
Peter wrote:You seem to be trying to oppose two ideas here which are in fact not opposed.

1] The passage basically restates that I am the owner of my kamma.
2] Therefore the passage cannot be used to support the atheist viewpoint.

Is that a fair restatement of your point?
No, it is not. My point is that a translation that uses the loaded term "Supreme God" lends itself to a narrower interpretation than I believe is appropriate, and such a translation appears to me to support an agenda that is not the point of this text.
tiltbillings wrote:
I believe layers upon layers of deep meaning are lost if we narrowly interpret "supreme protector" as meaning God and only God, and nothing other than God.
This is your basic complaint, and as I said: “The Buddha addressed the idea of god more than once in the suttas. The idea of a god as a supreme protector of the world is a potent idea. Abhi-issaro is a powerful way of making a point that there is no thing, no one, no force outside us that can protect us.”
That is fine, but those sentiments are not reflected in the translation you are putting forward, particularly if you use the term, "Supreme God." That on its face suggests something much more specific than "no thing, no one, no force outside us." The term "God" does not incapsulate all that. Therefore, it appears to me that your translation does not reflect your sentiments.
tiltbillings wrote:The problem with leaving abhi-issaro translated as "supreme protector" is the question of what is included in that somewhat odd expression and it would require a footnote to draw out what is actually meant by it.
It may be that the term "abhi-issaro," like other Pali terms, does not have an adequate English-language equivalent.
tiltbillings wrote:I am open to suggestions. Abhi, is an intensifier: supreme god, higher god, godly god. That sort of thing. Give us an expression that would illustrate - unambiguously - the range of meanings.

Sometimes that requires a clumsy compromise: “supreme protector/supreme god” sort of thing. Or “higher power,” which sort blows the 12 steppers away.

So, enough wrangling, let have some fun with this.
That seems reasonable. Although the term "god" (lower-case g) can be understood to mean something different than "God" (upper-case g), I think the word should be avoided for this translation, because it is prone to misunderstanding in our time and place. "Lord, ruler, master, chief" appear to be variants, based on what you wrote in the second post in this thread. None of those seems quite right, either.

Given the subject matter of the text, a loose translation for abhi-issaro in this context might be "great liberator." Who else can liberate but a master, one who is in charge, a ruler? There is no great liberator.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
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::: »

Peter wrote:
christopher::: wrote:The Universe itself, Nature and the Great Circle of Life, is in my mind a refuge of sorts.
"And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." — SN 56.11

That's what us unawakened folks do - go for refuge to unstable places. You, me, likely everyone on this forum does it. :shrug: It doesn't change what the Buddha's message was.
Indeed. On one hand we see the impermanence, instability and fragility of this world- family, friends, sangha, nature, clouds, mountains, nature, universe. Attachment brings suffering, passion brings suffering, craving and pleasure bring suffering.

And yet, this place where we find one another, its still home, isn't it? The experiential realm of our lives, this place we are lucky enough to have been born into for practicing compassion, joy, unselfishness, metta, upekkha, for learning the dhamma...

:group:
"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
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 »

Jechbi wrote:That is fine, but those sentiments are not reflected in the translation you are putting forward, particularly if you use the term, "Supreme God." That on its face suggests something much more specific than "no thing, no one, no force outside us." The term "God" does not incapsulate all that. Therefore, it appears to me that your translation does not reflect your sentiments.
Appears to me that you are, at best, giving an extremely narrow reading to what I am saying and to my translation. The terms God/god do indeed point to the idea of something greater than us, outside us, some bigger thing, some one or some force in charge that we turn to for protection, for shelter, and God or god can work nicely as a figurative way of expressing the idea of something greater than us, outside us, some bigger thing, some one or some force in charge that we turn to for protection, for shelter.
Given the subject matter of the text, a loose translation for abhi-issaro in this context might be "great liberator." Who else can liberate but a master, one who is in charge, a ruler? There is no great liberator.
"great liberator" Now, that is a confusing bit. What the heck is it supposed to mean? It is hardly catches the meanings of the word abhi-issaro; it is definitely not balanced with the first part of the line - "the world is without shelter." It may fit your understanding, but I'll go with either Supreme God or supreme god or supreme Lord/lord or supreme protector or even just protector (plus footnote) and feel content with the fact I am doing far more justice to the immediate context of the sutta and the broader context of the suttas and to the terminology than a confusing "great liberator."

"great liberator." Goodness. I am going to back away slowly now.
>> 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
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

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

Post by Jechbi »

Hi Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:"great liberator." Goodness. I am going to back away slowly now.
Well, the tone of your response is one of ridicule. So I guess once again we have a failure to communicate.

Editing post to add this:
tiltbillings wrote:"great liberator" Now, that is a confusing bit. What the heck is it supposed to mean?
If you think in terms of "liberation" as a term for the cessation of dukkha, that may help you understand what this means. I think this notion of liberation is very common, for example when we express the sentiment, "May all beings be liberated, may all beings be happy."

As I said, this is a loose translation. As I said, there may be no adequate English equivalent for the Pali. This often is the case, for example "suffering" is not an adequate equivalent for "dukkha."

I offered this alternative in the spirit of respectful discussion, and at your request. It's unfortunate that you choose not to receive it as it was intended.

Peace.
Last edited by Jechbi on Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
Post Reply