Interfaith Dialogue

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 5878
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by kirtu » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:58 am

Namdrol wrote:
tobes wrote: I think even on the most basic level, a certain amount of belief is required: to experiment with any degree of efficacy, one also has to assume that there is something true or meaningful in the 4NT's.

:anjali:
No, suffering is self-evident.
Only gross personal suffering is evident for everyone. For some people even more subtle personal suffering isn't evident to say nothing of the suffering of others. People have to have some spiritual awareness in order to see the suffering of others. It's one reason why really blind people band together at times and inflict utter suffering on others - they really don't see mass murder or criminality as suffering or they justify it away.

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche

User avatar
tobes
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by tobes » Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:01 am

5heaps wrote:
tobes wrote:However, I think that the other two noble truths are certainly not articles of empiricism or logic - you do not know that duhkah can cease forever. You take it as an article of faith that it can, because you trust the teachings of the person who made that claim.
nope, they do follow logically from the first 2 truths
(also, one has direct perception of nirvana a long time before one actually gets there)

whether a person believes in the 4NTs in the beginning or not is irrelevant since its depends on the caliber of the student. some will be attracted to some sort of belief, others will pursue it based only on its logical merits. if we were to get into cognition theory i would strongly argue that its not even possible to _accept_ beliefs, since beliefs are personal constructions, not engagement with actual objects.
Yes, there is a logical coherence between the first two noble truths and the second two. But this does not mean that the truth of cessation is a logical truth.

It is a claim about human existence and the potentials therein, which is grounded in one particular person's experience, and subsequently, many other peoples experience. This is why many people argue that Buddhism is more or less existentially grounded, not rationally - even though, of course, it uses rationality in many places and considers it a pragmatically useful method.

:anjali:

User avatar
tobes
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by tobes » Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:07 am

Namdrol wrote:
tobes wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
At the level of the 4NT, belief does not ever need to enter into it. This is the beauty of the Hīnayāna approach -- one never needs to beleive anything. One can decide to experiment with the 4NT as a hypothesis and see if it is correct.

Mahāyāna and other forms of Buddhism (apart from Dzogchen) require more of a metaphysical commitment from the get go.
I think even on the most basic level, a certain amount of belief is required: to experiment with any degree of efficacy, one also has to assume that there is something true or meaningful in the 4NT's.

:anjali:
No, suffering is self-evident.
It's not at all. Suffering is not a good translation for duhkah - because duhkah pertains to why conditioned phenomena are unsatisfactory.

It seems clear to me that most people take it as self-evident that conditioned phenomena are satisfactory. That's why everyone is out driving bmw's, getting pissed, eating chocolate and shagging.

:anjali:

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by LastLegend » Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:33 am

tobes wrote:
Yes, there is a logical coherence between the first two noble truths and the second two. But this does not mean that the truth of cessation is a logical truth.

It is a claim about human existence and the potentials therein, which is grounded in one particular person's experience, and subsequently, many other peoples experience. This is why many people argue that Buddhism is more or less existentially grounded, not rationally - even though, of course, it uses rationality in many places and considers it a pragmatically useful method.

:anjali:
What is considered rational and what is not?
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)

Bodhidharma [my translation]
―I come to the East to transmit this clear knowing mind without constructing any dharma―

Jnana
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by Jnana » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:05 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:People are bringing descriptions of God to the table, and these are all just things that people have made up over the centuries, God is like this, or God is like that, or whatever.
You can call anything God.
God is whatever you want it to be.
God can be a banana pizza if you want.
So, if you say, something like "God is a great expanse of selfless oneness with everything...isn't that just like what Buddhism teaches" it doesn't mean anything.
Yes. Buddhism is not a type of theism or pantheism and notions of theosis, etc., are foreign to Buddhism.

User avatar
Lhug-Pa
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

God on Buddhism

Post by Lhug-Pa » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:07 am

G.O.D. is a Masonic Hebrew acronym (Gomer Oz Dabar) that refers to the Three Pillars of the Temple of Solomon or the Masonic Temple. Sheikh Elijah Muhammad of the Nation of Islam was a Mason who taught that Man—particularly the Black Man, and more particularly a student of the Moor Sharreif Drew Ali known as Sayyid W.D. Fard Muhammad—is GOD (A.rm L.eg L.eg A.rm H.ead). And the Masonic Temple is like a Mandala representing the Microcosm (Man) and the Macrocosm (the Cosmos).

In [i]The Supreme Wisdom Lessons[/i], Sheikh Elijah Muhammad wrote:The said, Nation of Islam, has no birth record.  It has no beginning nor ending.

Buddhism is 35,000 years old.

Christianity is 551 years old.
Albert Pike 33° wrote:Image
XVIII. KNIGHT ROSE CROIX

"The first Masonic Legislator whose memory is preserved to us by history, was Buddha, who, about a thousand years before the Christian era, reformed the religion of Manous. He called to the Priesthood all men, without distinction of caste, who felt themselves inspired by God to instruct men. Those who so associated themselves formed a Society of Prophets under the name of Samaneans. They recognized the existence of a single uncreated God, in whose bosom everything grows, is developed and transformed." — Morals and Dogma

phpBB [video]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ8g4FCNYtQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:57 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
tobes
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by tobes » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:14 am

LastLegend wrote:
tobes wrote:
Yes, there is a logical coherence between the first two noble truths and the second two. But this does not mean that the truth of cessation is a logical truth.

It is a claim about human existence and the potentials therein, which is grounded in one particular person's experience, and subsequently, many other peoples experience. This is why many people argue that Buddhism is more or less existentially grounded, not rationally - even though, of course, it uses rationality in many places and considers it a pragmatically useful method.

:anjali:
What is considered rational and what is not?
Within Buddhism, for example: rational - Nagarjuna's critique of Sarvastivadan metaphysics. Not rational - Asanga's account of the Bodhisattva bhumi's.

That is not to say one is correct and one is incorrect, only that Buddhism contains both rational and non rational methods in its vast canons.

:anjali:

User avatar
Sönam
Posts: 1999
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: God on Buddhism

Post by Sönam » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:26 am

Yeap, but it works only for english speaking peoples ...

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by LastLegend » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:28 am

So does rationality has to do with the 5 senses then? What can be verified with 5 senses is rational?
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)

Bodhidharma [my translation]
―I come to the East to transmit this clear knowing mind without constructing any dharma―

User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1562
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by treehuggingoctopus » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:42 am

tobes wrote:I think even on the most basic level, a certain amount of belief is required: to experiment with any degree of efficacy, one also has to assume that there is something true or meaningful in the 4NT's.
More and more it appears to me that the way we use such words as 'belief', 'believing', 'faith', etc., does indeed obscure much more than it could possibly reveal. To state the obvious: these words, just like any other word, may be used - and are used here, in this very thread - to represent an infinity of 'things'; surely the kind of 'faith' or 'belief' which, say, one's proper engagement in Dzogchen practice calls for is utterly different from the 'faith' spoken of in some forms of Pure Land Buddhism, for instance?

Playing darts surely involves some sorts of 'beliefs', too - the numerous 'assumptions' that one makes, both consciously and otherwise, when attempting to hit the board, as well as the 'faith' that such a feat is possible, that one can actually succeed etc.. But to speak of darts in such a way seems a bit counter-intuitive, doesn't it? The problem is that such English words as 'believing', 'belief' and especially 'faith' are haunted even now by the theistic discourse that heavily relied on them and loaded them with a peculiar meaning - which, I'm afraid, is both very, very far away from the meaning the mundane example I outlined above entails and which differs greatly from the kind of 'faith' or 'belief' our Dharma practices require.

My point being: we very much tend to talk past each other here; some clarifications could help, perhaps, couldn't they?
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17350
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: God on Buddhism

Post by Grigoris » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:07 am

Lhug-Pa wrote:G.O.D. is a Masonic Hebrew acronym (Gomer Oz Dabar) that refers to the Three Pillars of the Temple of Solomon or the Masonic Temple. Sheikh Elijah Muhammad of the Nation of Islam was a Mason who taught that Man—particularly the Black Man, and more particularly a student of the Moor Sharreif Drew Ali known as Sayyid W.D. Fard Muhammad—is GOD (A.rm L.eg L.eg A.rm H.ead). And the Masonic Temple is like a Mandala representing the Microcosm (Man) and the Macrocosm (the Cosmos).
Yeah whatever! Or more succinctly: so what?
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: God on Buddhism

Post by catmoon » Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:00 pm

I would like to remind certain members that this is a Buddhist forum, and is thus is not an appropriate place to propagate other belief systems, specifically

-Rosicrucianism
-Cabala
-Conspiracy theories
-Scientology
-UFO theories
-Numerology

Pastafarianism is optional.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.

User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 2876
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by Dechen Norbu » Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:39 pm

Hi guys,
I was away for a couple of days. Tobes, thanks for the link. I'll try to listen tonight. It sounds promising.
Jnana, thanks for your answer. I need to digest it properly, since I have to catch up with some of the concepts you presented, before I comment, but at a glance seems that you made some very good points.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28008
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by Malcolm » Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:58 pm

kirtu wrote:
Namdrol wrote: No, suffering is self-evident.
Only gross personal suffering is evident for everyone.

Kirt
That is sufficient.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

plwk
Posts: 2933
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: God on Buddhism

Post by plwk » Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:59 pm

Lolcatism...

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28008
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by Malcolm » Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:01 pm

tobes wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
No, suffering is self-evident.
It's not at all. Suffering is not a good translation for duhkah - because duhkah pertains to why conditioned phenomena are unsatisfactory.

It seems clear to me that most people take it as self-evident that conditioned phenomena are satisfactory. That's why everyone is out driving bmw's, getting pissed, eating chocolate and shagging.

:anjali:

In the contrary, suffering is a perfectly adequate translation for dukkha. Suffering is self-evident because all actions in which sentient beings engage is aimed at avoiding suffering, for example, driving beamers, getting pissed, eating choclate and shagging.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Sönam
Posts: 1999
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: God on Buddhism

Post by Sönam » Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:04 pm

catmoon wrote:I would like to remind certain members that this is a Buddhist forum, and is thus is not an appropriate place to propagate other belief systems, specifically

-Rosicrucianism
-Cabala
-Conspiracy theories
-Scientology
-UFO theories
-Numerology

Pastafarianism is optional.
May I suggest that you extend the list to all non Buddhist religions and philosophies ... otherwise you may create a hierarchy between non Buddhist beliefts. From a strict Buddhist POV, there is no reason than cabala (for exemple) should be more or less restricted than catholic or jewish belieft.
The "specifically" in your communication may sounds ... segregationist

Sönam
(lol ... you have started! :rolling: )
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -

User avatar
Lhug-Pa
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by Lhug-Pa » Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:53 pm

Gregkavarnos wrote:Yeah whatever! Or more succinctly: so what?
:namaste:
Well it's just that with all this talk around here lately about what Buddhism says about God, no one seems to have bothered to ask what God says about Buddhism.

:anjali:

User avatar
florin
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by florin » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:17 pm

Lhug-Pa wrote:
Gregkavarnos wrote:Yeah whatever! Or more succinctly: so what?
:namaste:
Well it's just that with all this talk around here lately about what Buddhism says about God, no one seems to have bothered to ask what God says about Buddhism.

:anjali:
Is there actually a God who is in the business of pointing out whats wrong with buddhism?
The nature of diverse phenomena is non-dual. This means that both pure vision and impure vision are a manifestation of the energy of the primordial state. Even though in reality there is no duality, everything manifests separately. KG

User avatar
Lhug-Pa
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Post by Lhug-Pa » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:31 pm

Some of the Devas and Asuras I'm sure.

But I didn't refer to anyone criticizing Buddhism, as I simply referred to what they stated about Buddhism.

On second thought, the Sheikh Elijah Muhammad saying that Buddhism is only 35,000 years old whereas Islam has no beginning or ending, could be taken as criticizing Buddhism. But it's a lot more credit than say Stephen Batchelor would probably give Buddhism. ;)

Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fa Dao, Heruka85, mechashivaz, Motova, pemachophel and 55 guests