-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Buddhism and God: What's the problem?
- Thread starter AfterGlow
- Start date
Ahhhhh Grasshopper...Is this not why we have the beauty and insight of the Zen parables? To break down the Western linear rational mindset?
Roshi Bonzamate asks-
If a man speaks in the forest...
And there is no woman there to hear him...
Is he still completely wrong in what he says?
:4th: this March.
Three Rooms walk into a Monk... many laughs. Especially the Penguin.
:sarcastic
:drool:
Zenplus, ZenneZ, Zen but not Ben, Zen and everything except Buddha...
Your form of Karma seems to be that the words contain all the meaning needed, except that added abstract and historic meanings should be rejected for the literal ones.
According to you, I am a Sikh, so I want Buddha explained in the form of a Guru?
How did you find out about Buddhism? Did you reach enlightenment yourself Zenzen? On which auspicious day did this miracle occur, coincidence you think that you picked Zenzero as a name?
Please don't dodge the question by saying teaching is only occurring in a dual mind, the scriptures that define Buddhism exist, why do they exist? Is the Buddhas path self realized or not? It can't be self realized if upon reaching enlightenment Buddha keeps his ego by teaching. Or do you deny this?
Like it or not the teachings of Buddhism are in dualistic terminology, if we go by what you are stating, and this is the heart of the matter, are the Buddhist texts written by unenlightened hopeful's who are recounting their observations of the historic Buddha and have mistaken his actions all together thereby invalidating the noble path--or was the historic Buddha only partially enlightened?
When I reinforce my position as a Sikh, I am pointing out the difference in faiths, in Sikhism, it is by IK ONkar's Grace that one becomes enlightened--the buddhist scripts state that it is self realized. What Self? Who is enlightened? Maya?
My reading of Gil Fronsdal's Dhammapada shows that Buddha believed in "God". He refers to a causeless face called the "housebuilder". It was not a flattering reference; being that Buddha saw life and living as more misery than joy.
My own take is a belief in "God the Law". Natural law operates this machine called the universe, and if anything has happened once, it can surely happen again, because by Occams Razor, the simplest conclusion is that inferred from what has already been established. This may include the survival of entity, and we are ignorant not to accept the possiblity that entity is included among those things which may be repeated.
However, if true, there is no behavior which may excuse us from rebirth. The reward for living life peacefully is immediate and "here and now". The rewards for vigilence are many. As an example, building a six pack of nuclear power plants on the edge of three converging tectonic plates could be considered an arrogant and ill thought out move. Religious practice can only provide comfort to the capacity for centering and reason. It cannot change the effect of natural law.
My own take is a belief in "God the Law". Natural law operates this machine called the universe, and if anything has happened once, it can surely happen again, because by Occams Razor, the simplest conclusion is that inferred from what has already been established. This may include the survival of entity, and we are ignorant not to accept the possiblity that entity is included among those things which may be repeated.
However, if true, there is no behavior which may excuse us from rebirth. The reward for living life peacefully is immediate and "here and now". The rewards for vigilence are many. As an example, building a six pack of nuclear power plants on the edge of three converging tectonic plates could be considered an arrogant and ill thought out move. Religious practice can only provide comfort to the capacity for centering and reason. It cannot change the effect of natural law.
Wombat
Active Member
Thanks for the Gil Fronsdal's reference.
Interesting guy, fascinating reading.
Thats what I come here for...the occasional link that expands/challenges my world view.
Much appreciated.
I agree, such behaviour "could be considered an arrogant and ill thought out"...but it is difficult to think it out if you are bound and blinkered by Nationalism/national self interest. If you are a nation that has previously gone to war over resources and embargo on resources (Japan/oil/1930s) then the independence of Nuclear power (even mounted on a faultline) seems an acceptable risk.
It is difficult at this stage of Nationalist/adolescence to imagine or envisage any global adult alternative....but pray let me try-
The rewards for Unity are many. A united planet mounts solar panels in space, outside the earths protective atmosphere, there vast quantities of solar energy are available and easilily captured. All that remains is getting that energy to earth- Microwave or more likley Carbon String cable (Space Elevator).
We >have< the technology and the capacity to eliminate the need for Nuclear power...all that is required is the will of the people to move governments.
Island Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ah huh...And if "Religious practice" provided "centering" on the fact that we are One World- One People, striving for our various realizations of The Golden Rule, then our "reason" would be directed to the resolution of those global issues that endanger us- War, resources, environment, natural disasters...
And, if religion served as a catalyst for global unity and cooperation...would it not then "change the effect of natural law"?
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend sikh,
What IS, is not [maya]
What is not, IS [truth]
The form that you see is an illusion is unreal and zenzero is just a label you can use any label as nothing changes by changing labels except the sift in the mind that changes.
truth/Consciousness cannot be seen but the consciousness within every form can merge with the universal consciousness which you label as Ik Onkar.
Can explain where the separation took place between that Ik Onkar and you as you are a part of IT!
Love & rgds
What IS, is not [maya]
What is not, IS [truth]
The form that you see is an illusion is unreal and zenzero is just a label you can use any label as nothing changes by changing labels except the sift in the mind that changes.
truth/Consciousness cannot be seen but the consciousness within every form can merge with the universal consciousness which you label as Ik Onkar.
Can explain where the separation took place between that Ik Onkar and you as you are a part of IT!
Love & rgds
Zenzero,
Lets try it this way, can you explain why you would help others to reach enlightenment? The concern for fictional Maya, does it not get in the way of you fully reaching enlightenment?
I'm trying hard to understand it from your point of view, but the view you are holding is strictly speaking not in Buddhist scriptures. There is no merging with the sole reality in Buddhism, you might say that is a question of interpretation, but such an interpretation cannot exist without studying the other dharmic faiths. If a person has no familiarity with the other dharmas and only relies on the Buddhist scriptures, in my view a contradiction occurs. If we follow only the Buddhist scriptures we must ask what the buddha is holding concern for by engaging in teaching. Either the scriptures are incomplete/incorrect or the Buddha was only partially enlightened.
Thank you for your replies and please excuse me if I have come accross as less than polite.
Lets try it this way, can you explain why you would help others to reach enlightenment? The concern for fictional Maya, does it not get in the way of you fully reaching enlightenment?
I'm trying hard to understand it from your point of view, but the view you are holding is strictly speaking not in Buddhist scriptures. There is no merging with the sole reality in Buddhism, you might say that is a question of interpretation, but such an interpretation cannot exist without studying the other dharmic faiths. If a person has no familiarity with the other dharmas and only relies on the Buddhist scriptures, in my view a contradiction occurs. If we follow only the Buddhist scriptures we must ask what the buddha is holding concern for by engaging in teaching. Either the scriptures are incomplete/incorrect or the Buddha was only partially enlightened.
Thank you for your replies and please excuse me if I have come accross as less than polite.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Sikh,
Each form and no-form including the human form that we are in are all parts of that which is labelled as God/Ik Onkar/etc, and so unless you address the issue as to when you got separated as an individual entity we can not make progress.
The beginning of the search is an end in itself.
Rgds enlightenment.
It is always there, just the mind delusions have created an illusion/maya/curtain over it.
Love & rgds
n.b.
Each form and no-form including the human form that we are in are all parts of that which is labelled as God/Ik Onkar/etc, and so unless you address the issue as to when you got separated as an individual entity we can not make progress.
The beginning of the search is an end in itself.
Only when you understand who *you* your *self* is you will not understand who the *other* *self* is, to further understand any view point of the other.
Sorry there is none here to help anyone to reach anywhere.
Rgds enlightenment.
It is always there, just the mind delusions have created an illusion/maya/curtain over it.
Love & rgds
n.b.
Efforts towards understanding is well understood and where the mind is/should be absent/still it is powerless to mind/notice/feel any behavioral patterns.
AfterGlow
Invisible Puffle
The suttas teach that an enlightened being is free from negative thought and emotion, but they are still alive, conscious and human. The Buddha would have lacked any concern for self benefit, but he would have seen the suffering in other people and so passed on his method out of simple human compassion.
AfterGlow, if nothing is permanent, you must acknowledge this includes concern for impermanent suffering, or do you say that suffering is permanent? Do you see the contradiction? Why is the Buddha attached to eradicating suffering? You write the Buddha would have lacked any self concern but that is still a dual process of looking at it, lord Siddhartha is no more, the concerns and goals of his ego are no more, from this state he should not be attached to shifting Maya into different forms--if we go solely by what enlightenment is according to Buddhist scriptures themselves.
Zenzero, I am talking about Buddhist scriptures and how they define enlightenment.
Be honest, your argument of a duel state of mind can also be applied to the Buddhist scriptures. Do you Zenzero disagree that since separation of the permanent is illusion, enlightenment and its opposite ignorance is a form of duality? A fictional part cannot be enlightened or ignorent, how can it teach?
You are stating that the permanent is all there is and the many things that appear separate is illussionary, including us, including teaching, and I agree, but this idea is not in Buddhist scriptures. Ik Onkar is God Zenzero, and as Sikhs we attribute all phenomena to Ik Onakr, everything that occurs is a play of Ik Onkar, but Buddhist scriptures don't believe in a sole consciousness, do you disagree? Point out where they do please.
Be honest, your argument of a duel state of mind can also be applied to the Buddhist scriptures. Do you Zenzero disagree that since separation of the permanent is illusion, enlightenment and its opposite ignorance is a form of duality? A fictional part cannot be enlightened or ignorent, how can it teach?
You are stating that the permanent is all there is and the many things that appear separate is illussionary, including us, including teaching, and I agree, but this idea is not in Buddhist scriptures. Ik Onkar is God Zenzero, and as Sikhs we attribute all phenomena to Ik Onakr, everything that occurs is a play of Ik Onkar, but Buddhist scriptures don't believe in a sole consciousness, do you disagree? Point out where they do please.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend sikh,
Full marks to your response
Frubals but unfortunately cannot do so twice in quick succession.
Kindly keep aside gautama for the time remember that it is dharma that is spoken of here and so the commonality must be understood.
Ik Onkar is God, fine but what does he look like? can you describe, can you prove God?
Similarly whatever has been said will always be incorrect as only the individual himself can realize the TRUTH by BEING IT and never through the mind.
Gauatama simply wanted each individual to realize that potential which is in every form and is the TRUTH without any illusion which are only delusions and created by the mind and the separation is created by our own minds.
Only by stilling that mind that creates delusions can the TRUTH emerge and the BEING happens!
Love & rgds
Full marks to your response
Frubals but unfortunately cannot do so twice in quick succession.
Kindly keep aside gautama for the time remember that it is dharma that is spoken of here and so the commonality must be understood.
Ik Onkar is God, fine but what does he look like? can you describe, can you prove God?
Similarly whatever has been said will always be incorrect as only the individual himself can realize the TRUTH by BEING IT and never through the mind.
Gauatama simply wanted each individual to realize that potential which is in every form and is the TRUTH without any illusion which are only delusions and created by the mind and the separation is created by our own minds.
Only by stilling that mind that creates delusions can the TRUTH emerge and the BEING happens!
Love & rgds
IK Onkar is beyond Duality/Maya so cannot be described since we are and communicate in Duality/Maya. So yes, I agree, anything said will always be incorrect.
The point I'm making is that Buddhism cannot be understood only by Buddhist scriptures, the scriptures only work in the context of a responsible sole consciousness, you call it commonality but how many Buddhist know of such? In fact I would argue the opposite, most Buddhist will say that Lord Siddhartha gained enlightenment through his own efforts, Him and Him alone.
I too would accept this view if the scriptures are wrong about him teaching and its authors are mistaken. If one includes the scriptures, they only work with a working knowledge of the other Dharmas. And those Dharmas only work because they acknowledge that the sole and only reality/consciousness is ultimately responsible for the play of Maya. Not in a, interplay of actions resulting in Maya, but being responsible in the personal sense for Maya. This is why when people say Buddhism is atheistic I always ask how can that be? It could be if one rejected the Buddhist scriptures and any notion of the Buddha teaching after enlightenment, but they want both.
The point I'm making is that Buddhism cannot be understood only by Buddhist scriptures, the scriptures only work in the context of a responsible sole consciousness, you call it commonality but how many Buddhist know of such? In fact I would argue the opposite, most Buddhist will say that Lord Siddhartha gained enlightenment through his own efforts, Him and Him alone.
I too would accept this view if the scriptures are wrong about him teaching and its authors are mistaken. If one includes the scriptures, they only work with a working knowledge of the other Dharmas. And those Dharmas only work because they acknowledge that the sole and only reality/consciousness is ultimately responsible for the play of Maya. Not in a, interplay of actions resulting in Maya, but being responsible in the personal sense for Maya. This is why when people say Buddhism is atheistic I always ask how can that be? It could be if one rejected the Buddhist scriptures and any notion of the Buddha teaching after enlightenment, but they want both.
I guess I can only wonder why you feel that way, Sikh.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend sikh,
As mentioned before, understanding the *SELF* is primary to understanding the *other* self [others].
Only by working even Gauatama and Gautama himself like each individual himself to remove the mind delusion which has separated the two [creator & created] to realize that it was never two [creator/created] and becomes IT.
So by allowing your mind to think about what others maybe followers of buddha but with delusional minds will always result in creating further divide rather than bridging that which was/is never separated.
There is no difference whether one follows Sikhism and Buddhism as the end realization is the same. Religion is only a path/way to travel inwards if it can be labelled such but understand that this travel does nothing except to remove the mind delusions to realize that one has and is always free and that births and deaths are two sides of the same coin.
Love & rgds
As mentioned before, understanding the *SELF* is primary to understanding the *other* self [others].
Only by working even Gauatama and Gautama himself like each individual himself to remove the mind delusion which has separated the two [creator & created] to realize that it was never two [creator/created] and becomes IT.
So by allowing your mind to think about what others maybe followers of buddha but with delusional minds will always result in creating further divide rather than bridging that which was/is never separated.
There is no difference whether one follows Sikhism and Buddhism as the end realization is the same. Religion is only a path/way to travel inwards if it can be labelled such but understand that this travel does nothing except to remove the mind delusions to realize that one has and is always free and that births and deaths are two sides of the same coin.
Love & rgds
'whether one follows Sikhism and Buddhism as the end realization is the same...'
Yes, but not if one followed the Buddhist scriptures alone. They lead to duality and are probably one of the main reasons Chan/zen arose to compensate, for it is in the meditative state that duality can die and that state is hindered by the constant highlighting of Buddha's actions leading to concern for everyone after enlightenment, establishing a firm duality in an impermanent house.
As for destroying the bridge to enlightenment by concerning myself with delusional minds , why does your concern for my impermanence build that same bridge?
Yes, but not if one followed the Buddhist scriptures alone. They lead to duality and are probably one of the main reasons Chan/zen arose to compensate, for it is in the meditative state that duality can die and that state is hindered by the constant highlighting of Buddha's actions leading to concern for everyone after enlightenment, establishing a firm duality in an impermanent house.
As for destroying the bridge to enlightenment by concerning myself with delusional minds , why does your concern for my impermanence build that same bridge?