Interfaith Dialogue

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24487
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:18 pm

Serenity509 wrote:
adinatha wrote:You won't find buddhists going around telling christians or hindus what to think.
When did I tell you what to think? It's a fact that many Buddhists have turned to the twelve step program for help. "Higher power" or "a power greater than ourselves" can be defined so broadly, even metaphorically, as to include your practice of the Dharma, the compassion of a bodhisattva, or the universe itself. It's not my problem if you can only imagine applying the term "higher power" to Abrahamic faith.

If they would just practice Dharma, they would not need 12 steps.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

Enochian
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Enochian » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:19 pm

-----
Last edited by Enochian on Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.

User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 14830
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Grigoris » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:21 pm

Serenity509 wrote:Do you have an objection to Buddhists being in the twelve step program?
None whatsoever, not Buddhists, not atheists, neither presbyterians, nor liberation theologists. I don't have a objection with anybody being in twelve step programs. Actually twelve step programs saved the lives of some of my good friends, BUT just coz there are Buddhists in twelve step programs this does not make twelve step programs Buddhist (or atheist, or presbyterianist or liberation theologist or whateverist). And like I said before, it would be a good idea to learn what Buddhism is before coming to a Buddhist forum and telling Buddhists what Buddhism is.

Actually it would be better than a good idea it would be just plain intelligent.

Know what I mean?
:namaste:
PS Last Legend, does chicken pho come out in a vegetarian version? Man I miss the vegetarian vietnamese restaurant I used to frequent when I lived in Melbourne. It's been 17 years since I last had a good vietnamese meal! :crying:
PPS Just coz I'm jealous that everybody else had the opportunity to say it and I haven't yet: there is no God in Buddhism, there is no higher, guiding, overseeing, castigating, creating, destroying, burning bush, sleeping on snake backs, judging, loving, whatever you want "it" to do, MF out there. There is your mind and your actions. Deal with them and everyting will be just fine!
"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

Enochian
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Enochian » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:34 pm

Read my signature

It really is that simple.
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.

Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:59 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Serenity509 wrote:
adinatha wrote:You won't find buddhists going around telling christians or hindus what to think.
When did I tell you what to think? It's a fact that many Buddhists have turned to the twelve step program for help. "Higher power" or "a power greater than ourselves" can be defined so broadly, even metaphorically, as to include your practice of the Dharma, the compassion of a bodhisattva, or the universe itself. It's not my problem if you can only imagine applying the term "higher power" to Abrahamic faith.

If they would just practice Dharma, they would not need 12 steps.
That makes no sense if alcoholism, like diabetes, is a biological disease.

Josef
Posts: 1629
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Josef » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:02 am

Serenity509 wrote:
Namdrol wrote:

If they would just practice Dharma, they would not need 12 steps.
That makes no sense if alcoholism, like diabetes, is a biological disease.
It makes a lot of sense actually. Whether or not it is a biological disease.

Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:03 am

gregkavarnos wrote: Actually twelve step programs saved the lives of some of my good friends, BUT just coz there are Buddhists in twelve step programs this does not make twelve step programs Buddhist (or atheist, or presbyterianist or liberation theologist or whateverist).
The point is not that twelve step is Buddhist but that Buddhists have found their own concepts of a "higher power," however metaphorically understood, in the twelve step program.

Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:04 am

Nangwa wrote:
Serenity509 wrote:
Namdrol wrote:

If they would just practice Dharma, they would not need 12 steps.
That makes no sense if alcoholism, like diabetes, is a biological disease.
It makes a lot of sense actually. Whether or not it is a biological disease.
Does practicing the dharma cure diabetes or cancer or AIDS? :shrug:

Josef
Posts: 1629
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Josef » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:06 am

Serenity509 wrote:
Nangwa wrote: It makes a lot of sense actually. Whether or not it is a biological disease.
Does practicing the dharma cure biabetes or cancer or AIDS? :shrug:
Does belief in a higher power?

Certain practices can definitely help.
There are a lot of practices that use the physical body and improve its functions and health in Vajrayana and Dzogchen.
There is nothing wrong with a 12 Step program but at a certain point a practitioner of Vajrayana or Dzogchen should no longer need such things.

User avatar
mudra
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:55 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by mudra » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:10 am

Enochian: Also buddhism is not about the four noble truths, eight fold path or any of that garbage people learn in high school. It is about DEPENDENT ORIGINATION.
Pardon me, I suggest you do some reflection. The very first thing the Buddha taught as an entry to the path was the Four Arya Truths, it is the proofstone of all Buddhist practice and teachings. The eightfold path, divided into ethics, concentration and wisdom, is the actual core of the fourth Arya (Noble if you wish) Truth.

These are completely in synch with dependent origination, and practicing them is the way that we finally understand the true nature of sunyata/dependent origination. To say that cause and effect is not important but dependent origination is, is to my mind incredibly... um well, ignorant/stupid.

Did I say 'entry into the path'? That doesn't mean just studying learning and pronouncing the refuge formula, or even just doing an academic study without further commitment. It means when you apply yourself to the practice to such and extent you actually begin a transformation of your innermost views so that they become aligned with the Buddha Dharma. Probably the majority of Buddhists have not actually properly entered the path.

To be polite: what you stated is not only untrue, it is misleading, demeaning the Buddha as someone who would have taught irrelevant doctrine. The Buddha taught many different aspects, we talk about the 84,000 divisions of the dharma he taught, we also talk about the 64 (or 60) qualities of the Buddhas speech, one of which is that from his utterance each listener gets the level of understanding that is appropriate to them, whatever type of being they are.

Furthermore:

I don't assume to know what kind of awareness or practice you have attained or do, however I do know that the everything that the Buddha taught, whether on a level for those who needed simpler or on more sophisticated levels, integrates perfectly. This applies to Sravaka, Pratekyabuddha, Mahayana practices, including Tantra, Dzogchen and so forth. It's not like you can put a 5 yr old kid (at least not one without extremely strong realizations from a previous lifetime) into post grad programs without going to kindergarten etc first. Every level of the education is important, and forms the basis of our understanding.

Those of us who squabble and presume that their version of Buddhism is the only correct one are in fact doing the Buddha Dharma great harm. If we don't know better, then we should listen and study more, and reflect very carefully, then we should try and integrate what we learnt. Otherwise if we don't practice it is like making breakfast and just looking at it and expecting it to be nourishing.
Last edited by mudra on Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
adinatha
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by adinatha » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:13 am

mudra wrote:
Enochian: Also buddhism is not about the four noble truths, eight fold path or any of that garbage people learn in high school. It is about DEPENDENT ORIGINATION.
Pardon me, I suggest you do some reflection. The very first thing the Buddha taught as an entry to the path was the Four Arya Truths, it is the proofstone of all Buddhist practice and teachings. The eightfold path, divided into ethics, concentration and wisdom, is the actual core of the fourth Arya (Noble if you wish) Truth.

These are completely in synch with dependent origination, and practicing them is the way that we finally understand the true nature of sunyata/dependent origination. To say that cause and effect is not important but dependent origination is, is to my mind incredibly... um well, ignorant/stupid.

Did I say 'entry into the path'? That doesn't mean just studying learning and pronouncing the refuge formula, or even just doing an academic study without further commitment. It means when you apply yourself to the practice to such and extent you actually begin a transformation of your innermost views so that they become aligned with the Buddha Dharma. Probably the majority of Buddhists have not actually properly entered the path.

To be polite: what you stated is not only untrue, it is misleading, demeaning the Buddha as someone who would have taught irrelevant doctrine. The Buddha taught many different aspects, we talk about the 84,000 divisions of the dharma he taught, we also talk about the 64 (or 60) qualities of the Buddhas speech, one of which is that from his utterance each listener gets the level of understanding that is appropriate to them, whatever type of being they are.

Furthermore:

I don't assume to know what kind of awareness or practice (your signature seems to emphasize only academic study), however I do know that the everything that the Buddha taught, whether on a level for those who needed simpler or on more sophisticated levels, integrates perfectly. This applies to Sravaka, Pratekyabuddha, Mahayana practices, including Tantra, Dzogchen and so forth. It's not like you can put a 5 yr old kid (at least not one without extremely strong realizations from a previous lifetime) into post grad programs without going to kindergarten etc first. Every level of the education is important, and forms the basis of our understanding.

Those of us who squabble and presume that their version of Buddhism is the only correct one are in fact doing the Buddha Dharma great harm. If we don't know better, then we should listen and study more, and reflect very carefully, then we should try and integrate what we learnt. Otherwise if we don't practice it is like making breakfast and just looking at it and expecting it to be nourishing.
Cause and effect are dependently originated.
CAW!

Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:13 am

Enochian wrote:Read my signature

It really is that simple.
Does the interconnectedness of all things rule out there being a spiritual force to the universe? If the universe always existed, thus not needing a Creator God, that wouldn't rule out there being a cosmic Self.

Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:15 am

Nangwa wrote:
Serenity509 wrote:
Nangwa wrote: It makes a lot of sense actually. Whether or not it is a biological disease.
Does practicing the dharma cure biabetes or cancer or AIDS? :shrug:
Does belief in a higher power?

Certain practices can definitely help.
There are a lot of practices that use the physical body and improve its functions and health in Vajrayana and Dzogchen.
There is nothing wrong with a 12 Step program but at a certain point a practitioner of Vajrayana or Dzogchen should no longer need such things.
Many people have turned to religion to solve their addictive behaviors, only to find that the twelve step program is what really worked for them. Its philosophy is broad enough as to incorporate Buddhist principles for those who choose to do so.

User avatar
mudra
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:55 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by mudra » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:17 am

adinatha: Cause and effect are dependently originated.
my point exactly.

Josef
Posts: 1629
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Josef » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:20 am

Serenity509 wrote:
Enochian wrote:Read my signature

It really is that simple.
Does the interconnectedness of all things rule out there being a spiritual force to the universe? If the universe always existed, thus not needing a Creator God, that wouldn't rule out there being a cosmic Self.
If ideas like this give you comfort thats fine. But its not Buddhism and is completely irrelevant to Buddhist practice.
Clinging to notions of a "cosmic self" is like clinging to the imputed and nonexistent self of the aggregates. It is antithetical to liberation.

Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:23 am

Nangwa wrote:It is antithetical to liberation.
Not if you believe liberation to be oneness with the cosmic Self.

Meher Baba and the Evolution of Consciousness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNEkQmxM4d0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Josef
Posts: 1629
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Josef » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:25 am

Serenity509 wrote:
Nangwa wrote:It is antithetical to liberation.
Not if you believe liberation to be oneness with the cosmic Self.

Meher Baba and the Evolution of Consciousness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNEkQmxM4d0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sure. But if you believe that you are not a Buddhist.
This leads us back to the earlier suggestion of non-dual Shaivism.
Trying to fit a "cosmic self" into Buddhism is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:28 am

Nangwa wrote:
Serenity509 wrote:
Nangwa wrote:It is antithetical to liberation.
Not if you believe liberation to be oneness with the cosmic Self.

Meher Baba and the Evolution of Consciousness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNEkQmxM4d0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sure. But if you believe that you are not a Buddhist.
This leads us back to the earlier suggestion of non-dual Shaivism.
Trying to fit a "cosmic self" into Buddhism is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Is there a spiritual layer to existence that we all can experience or is Nirvana simply nothingness? If you believe that the goal of religion is to attain nothingness, why have a religion at all?

Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:32 am

Amida Buddha is the heart of Shin Buddhist faith and practice. First revealed by the historical Buddha over 2,600 years ago, the name Amida is Japanese which is derived from Amitabha or Amitayus of the ancient Sanskrit language, which means ‘Immeasurable Life and Light’ or Oneness. The word Amida is a personification or symbol for the transcendent reality and mystery, which is “unborn, uncreated and formless” which is also known as dharmakaya, nirvana, shunyata (emptiness).

Shin Buddhism’s view on ultimate reality or God may be considered panentheistic. The term panentheism means “all within God (theos)” which means everything including ourselves is within God, but God is more than all of the components. This is exactly the Buddhist view but there is a big problem with this word; Buddhists don’t believe in a personal God. Instead we suggest a couple of new terms, as first coined by G.R. Lewis, that better describe our view of ultimate reality: panendharmism (all within dharma) or panenbuddhism (all within Buddha).

So what is panenbuddhism? Simply put, all things are within and part of ultimate reality, known as dharmakaya, which is an interpenetrating and boundless unfolding web of pure consciousness (pure awareness), personified as Amida. However, Amida is more than the sum of all of its components.

Everything in life is co-manifesting and intimately interpenetrating with everything else and has its ultimate reality in everything. That is to say, this dynamic reality is in constant flux and nothing has a stable eternal nature. There is no individual self or absolute identity but all things are temporary phenomena and are full of the totality, the Oneness of reality, personified as Amida Buddha. In Buddhism, this reality is known as shunyata or emptiness.

However, as stated above, Amida, as the personification of the dharmakaya, is more than the sum of all things. Reality is akin to a hologram that has been broken into countless pieces. Each broken bit contains the entire holographic image, and everything intimately reflects the light and life and everything else. Nevertheless, each bit cannot exactly claim to be the summation of all the broken pieces. What is important to realize is that everything, including what we consider vile and dark, is part of the endless web of existence and nothing and nobody is excluded. This is important in our understanding of the Shin Buddhist view of universal salvation. Please refer to the Amida as the One Life web page for a complete explanation.
http://buddhistfaith.tripod.com/beliefs/id7.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You don't have to use the term "God" to understand Amida Buddha as a power greater than ourselves.
Last edited by Serenity509 on Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Josef
Posts: 1629
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Josef » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:33 am

You are bouncing from one extreme to the other.
Nirvana is not nothingness and its not a spiritual oversoul that one merges with either.
Buddhism is the middle way because it avoids both of these extremes.
Buddhism is about nature, ones true condition. Not some higher power that you have to discover.
Buddhism is more scientific than that. And I don't mean scientific in the way we think of it from Western ethnocentrism.
Vajrayana and Dzogchen are scientific systems in themselves.
My dharma practice is scientific, not religious.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tiagolps, Yahoo [Bot] and 49 guests