Interfaith Dialogue

Anything goes (almost).

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby Nighthawk » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:16 am

LastLegend wrote:
tobes wrote:However, the basic claim that causality itself can be eradicated - in the sense that subjectively, one is no longer constrained by it - that is an axiomatic claim which arises out of the Buddha's (and other's) particular insight. It's a particular claim about the nature of causality and the nature of human subjectivity and how they relate.


NO NO NO NO

If you are angry, you are the one who suffers. If you no longer react with anger, you no longer suffer.


I feel a lot of times after reacting with anger I feel a lot more peace rather than just bottling up all my frustrations inside. Of course this is not a skillful thing to do from the Buddhist standpoint, but it would not be 100% accurate to say you no longer suffer if you do not react. For me anyway...
Nighthawk
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby LastLegend » Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:23 am

Nighthawk wrote:
LastLegend wrote:
tobes wrote:However, the basic claim that causality itself can be eradicated - in the sense that subjectively, one is no longer constrained by it - that is an axiomatic claim which arises out of the Buddha's (and other's) particular insight. It's a particular claim about the nature of causality and the nature of human subjectivity and how they relate.


NO NO NO NO

If you are angry, you are the one who suffers. If you no longer react with anger, you no longer suffer.


I feel a lot of times after reacting with anger I feel a lot more peace rather than just bottling up all my frustrations inside. Of course this is not a skillful thing to do from the Buddhist standpoint, but it would not be 100% accurate to say you no longer suffer if you do not react. For me anyway...


Can you explain more please?
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby Sherab » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:32 pm

mint wrote:
Sherab wrote:"He is Other than Creation" - Creator and his creation are mutually exclusive? If so, then there can be no interaction between the Creator and the Created.
"If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.

If there can be no interaction between the Creator and the created, then the idea of a Creator is meaningless to the created.

If there can be no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created, then there is not even an iota of hope that the created can ever know the Creator. If the created can never know the Creator in any meaningful way, then how can the Creator ever be definitve in meaning to the created? For example, if the Creator in truth, plays a humongous joke on the created by creating the created and portraying Himself, the Creator as good, while He, the Creator is really in truth, evil, how can the created ever be sure that that is not true? Since there can be no certainty regarding the Creator, the idea of the Creator is as good as irrelevant.

Ergo, the idea of a Creator is either meaningless or irrelevant.



You assume that "other" means "wholly different" and not "above".

Please read my response again.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby mint » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:00 pm

Sherab wrote:
mint wrote:
Sherab wrote:"He is Other than Creation" - Creator and his creation are mutually exclusive? If so, then there can be no interaction between the Creator and the Created.
"If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.

If there can be no interaction between the Creator and the created, then the idea of a Creator is meaningless to the created.

If there can be no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created, then there is not even an iota of hope that the created can ever know the Creator. If the created can never know the Creator in any meaningful way, then how can the Creator ever be definitve in meaning to the created? For example, if the Creator in truth, plays a humongous joke on the created by creating the created and portraying Himself, the Creator as good, while He, the Creator is really in truth, evil, how can the created ever be sure that that is not true? Since there can be no certainty regarding the Creator, the idea of the Creator is as good as irrelevant.

Ergo, the idea of a Creator is either meaningless or irrelevant.



You're simply repeating the same logical mistake as in the original article. If God is truly Other then we simply can't make meaningful statements about Him based on our knowledge of this side of the gap. The logical conclusion of 'God is Other' is not "well then He can't do x'. It is that "well then I can't know what He can't do--if anything". Saying that 'if x, then y' applies to God requires that His existence be based on the same axioms as ours. Yet if He is truly a Creator, then He is creator of those axioms and stands above/beyond/outside them.

Logic can lead to the valid point that the created cannot initiate any interaction with the Creator. But it cannot say anything at all (positive or negative) about the Creator's ability to initiate such interaction because in doing so, one is not talking about the Creator--but about the created mind's created conception of the Creator.

An omnipotent God (assuming He exists) can interact with Creation in any way He chooses (fundamental to the definition of 'omnipotent') and in doing so can, if He chooses, be experienced by His Creation. But He can't be logicked into or out of existence.
User avatar
mint
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:45 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby justsit » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:12 pm

mint wrote:An omnipotent God (assuming He exists)...

Therein lies the flaw.
User avatar
justsit
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:24 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:40 am

omnipotent means all-powerful.
an all-powerful being is not possible,
because an all powerful being would then have the power to have never existed.
If a being doesn't have that power, then it isn't an all-powerful being.
If a being has the power to have never existed,
the being can't use it
and if the being can't use it,
then that being lacks that power,
and again, it isn't an all-powerful being.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby Sherab » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:48 am

@ Mint,

Please re-read this:
"If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.
If there can be no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created, then there is not even an iota of hope that the created can ever know the Creator. If the created can never know the Creator in any meaningful way, then how can the Creator ever be definitve in meaning to the created? For example, if the Creator in truth, plays a humongous joke on the created by creating the created and portraying Himself, the Creator as good, while He, the Creator is really in truth, evil, how can the created ever be sure that that is not true? Since there can be no certainty regarding the Creator, the idea of the Creator is as good as irrelevant. (Note that here, I’ve argued against YOUR definition of what is meant by “other”).

Also note that my argument about the contraction of creation and self-sufficiency of God is logically sound since a self-sufficient God needs not create, and if you say that our existence is true, then any God that exists cannot be self-sufficient if the source of our existence is attributed to him. Go ask any one who studies logic.

Now lets takes your assumption that God is above man's logic. I assume here you are making a distinction between God’s logic and man’s logic.

If man is created by God, is man’s knowledge a sub-set of God’s knowledge? If yes, then man’s logic is also a sub-set of God’s logic. If man’s logic is a sub-set of God’s logic, what is logical to man is necessarily logical to God. So my logical argument of the contradiction between creation and self-sufficiency of God should also hold in God’s logic. But if my logical argument holds, then God’s logic cannot be God’s logic because God is no longer God under my argument.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby mint » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:04 am

Sherab wrote:@ Mint,

Please re-read this:
"If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.
If there can be no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created, then there is not even an iota of hope that the created can ever know the Creator. If the created can never know the Creator in any meaningful way, then how can the Creator ever be definitve in meaning to the created? For example, if the Creator in truth, plays a humongous joke on the created by creating the created and portraying Himself, the Creator as good, while He, the Creator is really in truth, evil, how can the created ever be sure that that is not true? Since there can be no certainty regarding the Creator, the idea of the Creator is as good as irrelevant. (Note that here, I’ve argued against YOUR definition of what is meant by “other”).

Also note that my argument about the contraction of creation and self-sufficiency of God is logically sound since a self-sufficient God needs not create, and if you say that our existence is true, then any God that exists cannot be self-sufficient if the source of our existence is attributed to him. Go ask any one who studies logic.

Now lets takes your assumption that God is above man's logic. I assume here you are making a distinction between God’s logic and man’s logic.

If man is created by God, is man’s knowledge a sub-set of God’s knowledge? If yes, then man’s logic is also a sub-set of God’s logic. If man’s logic is a sub-set of God’s logic, what is logical to man is necessarily logical to God. So my logical argument of the contradiction between creation and self-sufficiency of God should also hold in God’s logic. But if my logical argument holds, then God’s logic cannot be God’s logic because God is no longer God under my argument.


You're still trying to confine God to our understanding. Our understanding, logic, and knowledge is limited to the rules and confines of our existence. God's existence is greater than ours, therefore our understanding isn't capable of encompassing His being.
User avatar
mint
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:45 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby Dechen Norbu » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:09 am

That's very well, mint, to someone who believes God exists. It's a matter of faith. If you try to turn that in some kind of logical argument for someone else to accept the existence of God, it will be called speculation. There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.
However there is something that loses me. If that God is all mighty, then he is a sadistic. Otherwise he would end suffering. There would be no misery, sickness or death. So he is either good or all mighty. Our experience tells us that he can't be both. How do you solve this?
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:44 am

People believe in God because the concept of such a being has introduced to them.

This is demonstrated by the fact that if you introduce a divine persona (a god or other celestial creature) from one particular culture to an individual from another culture where that particular divine persona does not exist, that individual will not be familiar with it, and may not even believe in it, even if it is explained to them.

So, for example, if you tell a person who is from, for example, a Christian background about, that a chair spirit lives in your furniture, the Christian would wonder, "why would anybody think furniture has a spirit?" Because such a funny idea had never been introduced to them before. But the Christian hads no problem believing in a God, because that is an idea, a very concept, that has been previously introduced to them, and so they believe it.

Likewise, if you grow up never being told of the concept of a "god" then there is no reason why such an absurd concept should ever occur in your imagination, except as a magnification of the ego.

The concept of a god is absolute. And since it is a personification, it has the curious quality of bringing out in people both extreme humility and extreme ego inflation. So, this belief can have some very good effects or it can have some very bad effects.

However, both extremes depend totally on the assumption that a 'self' inherently exists, and this is a notion which is the opposite of that which forms the basis of the dharma, for the actions, expressions and qualities of a god can only be reckoned in the context of, in contrast with and in comparison to, a 'self' (atma, soul, etc.).

When it is demonstrated that there is no self, then nothing has been created, hence no creator. No 'self' is born or dies, no 'self' experiences the omnipotence of a god.

When the self isn't there, a god isn't there either.

There is a lot that god cannot do. God can't go anywhere. god can't know the joy of being pleasantly surprised. God can't acquire a new skill or learn from mistakes. And God cannot act logically or illogically, since doing either one would deny the other, and that would be an incomplete.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:54 am

mint wrote: God's existence is greater than ours


Really? Prove it.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby Sherab » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:10 am

mint wrote:
Sherab wrote:@ Mint,

Please re-read this:
"If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.
If there can be no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created, then there is not even an iota of hope that the created can ever know the Creator. If the created can never know the Creator in any meaningful way, then how can the Creator ever be definitve in meaning to the created? For example, if the Creator in truth, plays a humongous joke on the created by creating the created and portraying Himself, the Creator as good, while He, the Creator is really in truth, evil, how can the created ever be sure that that is not true? Since there can be no certainty regarding the Creator, the idea of the Creator is as good as irrelevant. (Note that here, I’ve argued against YOUR definition of what is meant by “other”).

Also note that my argument about the contraction of creation and self-sufficiency of God is logically sound since a self-sufficient God needs not create, and if you say that our existence is true, then any God that exists cannot be self-sufficient if the source of our existence is attributed to him. Go ask any one who studies logic.

Now lets takes your assumption that God is above man's logic. I assume here you are making a distinction between God’s logic and man’s logic.

If man is created by God, is man’s knowledge a sub-set of God’s knowledge? If yes, then man’s logic is also a sub-set of God’s logic. If man’s logic is a sub-set of God’s logic, what is logical to man is necessarily logical to God. So my logical argument of the contradiction between creation and self-sufficiency of God should also hold in God’s logic. But if my logical argument holds, then God’s logic cannot be God’s logic because God is no longer God under my argument.


You're still trying to confine God to our understanding. Our understanding, logic, and knowledge is limited to the rules and confines of our existence. God's existence is greater than ours, therefore our understanding isn't capable of encompassing His being.

You are merely rehashing an argument that I have already reasoned out for you as flawed.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby Sönam » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:43 am

Every one is speaking of that concept, God, but noone yet has answered to the simple question ... what is it (or he, she), is it to be seen (or ear, smelt, and so on) somewhere, how do you recognize it is that and not something else ... and more http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5364&start=1160

How can we discuss of something that has not be defined, or experimented with criteria ...

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
Sönam
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby mint » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:38 pm

Dechen Norbu wrote:That's very well, mint, to someone who believes God exists. It's a matter of faith. If you try to turn that in some kind of logical argument for someone else to accept the existence of God, it will be called speculation. There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.


Absolutely--the basis of my disagreement is because you and others seem to think that logic could be used to disprove God, but I would have disagreed with you just as much if you had argued the obverse (that logic can prove God).

However there is something that loses me. If that God is all mighty, then he is a sadistic. Otherwise he would end suffering. There would be no misery, sickness or death. So he is either good or all mighty. Our experience tells us that he can't be both. How do you solve this?


I don't.

God's answer to the 'question of suffering' is not a logical discourse/explanation (cf. Job 38).
User avatar
mint
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:45 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby steveb1 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:09 pm

mint wrote: "God's answer to the 'question of suffering' is not a logical discourse/explanation (cf. Job 38)."

It certainly isn't. How do you see it as an answer at all? Yahweh simply shows up at the end and does a lot of boasting about how old and big and tough and powerful and wise he is. He does not explain why he made a deal with Satan to torment the "innocent, righteous" Job.
steveb1
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby mint » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:22 pm

steveb1 wrote:mint wrote: "God's answer to the 'question of suffering' is not a logical discourse/explanation (cf. Job 38)."

It certainly isn't. How do you see it as an answer at all? Yahweh simply shows up at the end and does a lot of boasting about how old and big and tough and powerful and wise he is. He does not explain why he made a deal with Satan to torment the "innocent, righteous" Job.


Why do you feel you deserve an answer? Have you done anything special to deserve an answer?
User avatar
mint
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:45 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby Norwegian » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:29 pm

If you cannot expect an answer or an explanation from God, why on earth would anybody follow such a God? Might as well be a devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Makes equal amounts of sense.

The God found in the Bible is not a compassionate being at all.

Image
Norwegian
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby mint » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:36 pm

Norwegian wrote:If you cannot expect an answer or an explanation from God, why on earth would anybody follow such a God? Might as well be a devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Makes equal amounts of sense.

The God found in the Bible is not a compassionate being at all.

Image


Big talk and hot air coming from a gent with access to the internet, clean water and fresh food.

Africa, Latin America and India are the most rapid-growing areas for reliance upon such an uncompassionate being.
User avatar
mint
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:45 pm

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby Sönam » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:46 pm

Norwegian wrote:If you cannot expect an answer or an explanation from God, why on earth would anybody follow such a God? Might as well be a devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Makes equal amounts of sense.


In fact, can any one give me only one good reason to believe more in a Christian like God than a supra-civilization of extraterrestrials or any other fantasy?

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
Sönam
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Buddhism on God

Postby Indrajala » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:02 pm

mint wrote:You're still trying to confine God to our understanding. Our understanding, logic, and knowledge is limited to the rules and confines of our existence. God's existence is greater than ours, therefore our understanding isn't capable of encompassing His being.


You are mistaken.

"God" is equivalent to Mahā-brahma, a deity in the form realm (rūpa-dhātu) in the first dhyāna heaven. Some accounts state he is convinced he himself is the creator of the universe and many lesser deities and humans believe this to be the case as well. Other accounts state he is aware of his purported status as creator, but in reality was merely the first being to appear when the universe was last reborn. The lesser deities who appeared after him looked to him as a father and out of pity for them he announced himself as the father of creation.

A normal human being with no experience of dhyāna might not understand or be able to truly encompass his existence as you state, but anyone with mastery of the first dhyāna and beyond would have superior understanding of the universe to him.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Japan

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

>