Where are the Gods?

[Josef]

"Transpersonal" means beyond the personal. I think Buddhism could agree that whatever spiritual essence there might be to the universe, it is not a personal God.

Buddhism isn't concerned with any kind of "spiritual essence" of the universe.

[Serenity509]

LOgically the counter to this would be by established argument I may draw upon from about 1000 or so years ago..what point then such god?

Is there inherent meaning and purpose to the universe? Pandeism answers this question to the affirmative, while also explaining why God, after designing Creation, would allow it to contain suffering and evil.

Pandeism or Pan-Deism (from Ancient Greek: πάν pan "all" and Latin: deus meaning "God" in the sense of deism), is a term describing beliefs incorporating or mixing logically reconcilable elements of pantheism (that "God", or its metaphysical equivalent, is identical to the Universe) and deism (that the creator-god who designed the Universe no longer exists in a status where it can be reached, and can instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most particularly the belief that the Creator of the Universe actually became the Universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity.[1][2]

Through this synergy pandeism claims to answer primary objections to deism (why would God create and then not interact with the Universe?) and to pantheism (how did the Universe originate and what is its purpose?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism

[ronnewmexico]

The hindu universal mind or god essence in buddhism is also not consistant with generally accepted buddhist belief.

Some hindu/buddhists hold that view, but generally normally that is not accepted as buddhist religious view.

[Serenity509]

"Transpersonal" means beyond the personal. I think Buddhism could agree that whatever spiritual essence there might be to the universe, it is not a personal God.

Buddhism isn't concerned with any kind of "spiritual essence" of the universe.

It is fundamental to Zen that the person who is committed to its process give up the strong belief that Suchness or tathata (i.e., spiritual substance) is perceivable as something determinate for sensory consciousness. It is not. The direct penetration into Suchness is a mystery; moreover, it shall ever remain a mystery even while we stand in its presence, awakened.
http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/201 ... hness.html

Have you ever had a mystical experience? Would you give a name to what you experienced?

[Malcolm]

However, Buddhism and the Buddha explicitly rejects the notion of design.

Does the universe appear to be a cosmic accident or does it appear designed?

It appears to have arisen based on causes and conditions -- that is all. In other words, everything in the universe is dependently arisen, also the universe is dependently arisen.

We don't care about "transpersonal" experience in Buddhism.

"Transpersonal" means beyond the personal. I think Buddhism could agree that whatever spiritual essence there might be to the universe, it is not a personal God.

The universe as no essence, that what "dependent origination" means "no essence".

[Josef]

Have you ever had a mystical experience? Would you give a name to what you experienced?

Nope. I certainly wouldn't describe any of my personal experiences as "mystical".

[catmoon]

Have you ever had a mystical experience? Would you give a name to what you experienced?

Yes I have, several of them in fact. The name I give to what I experienced is "mystical experience".

[Serenity509]

Have you ever had a mystical experience? Would you give a name to what you experienced?

Yes I have, several of them in fact. The name I give to what I experienced is "mystical experience".

What is it that you were experiencing? What is the mystical?

[Serenity509]

When I think of the universe having design, what I mean is that the big bang happened with an intended purpose behind it. I don't believe in a designer who micromanages everything in existence, but I am partial to the idea of a first cause.

The idea that God became the Creation, rather than being an outside being who at one point made the Creation, is worth looking into. It's compatible with the view that the universe is all there is, while also giving a spiritual meaning to existence.

His book, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, And What's Behind It All, claims that the ultimate purpose for the existence of the universe and every being in it will never come from scientific experimentation alone. It will come from a conscious realization in each of us that we are creating God’s experience.

The ultimate being, or the wholly other, or that infinite consciousness beyond which there can be no other, Haisch prefers to call God. It is the consciousness of God that produces what exists and we are part of it. Our consciousness is part of God’s consciousness: what an exalted existence we have.

As human beings, our purpose is to live out the experience of God’s existence in a physical realm. In God, everything exists in potentia or as possible. But we are the incarnations of God’s consciousness in actu, or as living conscious creatures with physical bodies.
http://blogcritics.org/books/article/bo ... z1QJzHIqQr

[Malcolm]

but I am partial to the idea of a first cause.

The logic of dependent origination rejects first causes. This is the principle reason your view is not compatible with Buddhadharma. Buddha rejected first causes.

[Quiet Heart]

Where are the "Gods"?
I'm sure that all of you know or at least suspect the answer.
The "Gods" are symbols of very real human desires and problems....but no less "real" simply because they are only a symbol of something that is internal.
Try telling a heroin addict that he or she has no "evil being" living in themselves that drives them to do evil things. That's not what their life feels like to them.
Or at a more personal level, try telling an old fool like me that there is no "God" making me get up at 4 A.M. on a Sunday morning to come on this forum and feel the need to explain such things to others....who probably already know the answer anyhow
If you consider those two opposites....that's where the "Gods" and the "Devils" really are.
Don't you think that is what the answer is?

[Kyosan]

:smile:
Where are the "Gods"?
I'm sure that all of you know or at least suspect the answer.
The "Gods" are symbols of very real human desires and problems....but no less "real" simply because they are only a symbol of something that is internal.
Try telling a heroin addict that he or she has no "evil being" living in themselves that drives them to do evil things. That's not what their life feels like to them.
Or at a more personal level, try telling an old fool like me that there is no "God" making me get up at 4 A.M. on a Sunday morning to come on this forum and feel the need to explain such things to others....who probably already know the answer anyhow
If you consider those two opposites....that's where the "Gods" and the "Devils" really are.
Don't you think that is what the answer is?

That is what I think. The gods and Mara are in our own minds. Thanks for putting it in words.

[Kyosan]

When I think of the universe having design, what I mean is that the big bang happened with an intended purpose behind it. I don't believe in a designer who micromanages everything in existence, but I am partial to the idea of a first cause.

The idea that God became the Creation, rather than being an outside being who at one point made the Creation, is worth looking into. It's compatible with the view that the universe is all there is, while also giving a spiritual meaning to existence.

Speculation about creator/creation, that is not what Buddhism is about. Buddhism is concerned about the uncreate, that which is neither created nor distroyed.

[Serenity509]

but I am partial to the idea of a first cause.

The logic of dependent origination rejects first causes. This is the principle reason your view is not compatible with Buddhadharma. Buddha rejected first causes.

What is the universe dependent on for its origination?

[Serenity509]

When I think of the universe having design, what I mean is that the big bang happened with an intended purpose behind it. I don't believe in a designer who micromanages everything in existence, but I am partial to the idea of a first cause.

The idea that God became the Creation, rather than being an outside being who at one point made the Creation, is worth looking into. It's compatible with the view that the universe is all there is, while also giving a spiritual meaning to existence.

Speculation about creator/creation, that is not what Buddhism is about. Buddhism is concerned about the uncreate, that which is neither created nor distroyed.

Do you ever wonder what the mystical is for the mystic?

[PadmaVonSamba]

What is the universe dependent on for its origination?

nothing ever had to happen.
Time and space, didn't ever have to happen.
So, then, what did happen?
We think of time as being really long.
We say that the whole universe is billions of years older than the Earth.
But what is a year? It is the movement of the Earth.
So, before there was an earth, there were no years.
Everything that is happening in the whole universe is only happening at this very moment.
the Big bang only happened a second ago, but to us it seems lime a really long second.
We divide that second up into billions of years.

We think of space as really vast.
But suppose, instead of vast empty space,
the universe was like an infinitely large and ever expanding block of solid cement?
Without an opposite to contrast it to, vast empty space and vast solid cement are exactly the same thing.

Whatever you think the universe is, that thought is limited by your own mental projections.
God is nothing but your own reflection in a mirror.
But everything moves from the center outward.
if you want to find the center of the universe, cut open an avocado, or crack open an egg or look at your own heart, because it is all the same thing.
they are all at the center of the universe , this very second.

So, What is the universe dependent on for its origination? Nothing.
Where does it start? Nowhere.
When did it begin? Right now.
Whatever your thought are about it,
thoughts are just a figment of your imagination.
Because outside of your imagination, where are your thoughts?

[Serenity509]

Do you believe that the universe is uncaused and self-existent?

[Serenity509]

In contrast to the familiar Judaeo-Christian monotheistic view, according to which the whole universe just appears ready- made through Divine Fiat (or command), and the materialistic view which simply ignores first principles, Emanationism explains creation as a gradual process of emanation and descent from a transcendental Absolute to mundane reality. Thus there is no Creator God standing apart from, even if intimately connected with, the universe as in monotheism; but rather a series of stages of down-grading of Consciousness-Being, by means of which the Absolute principle actually becomes the multiplicity of entities and objects
http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews ... ionism.htm

[Kyosan]

Do you ever wonder what the mystical is for the mystic?

"Mystical" can mean several things. Buddhism is a mystical religion in the sense that the Buddhadharma is difficult to comprehend, and ordinary people who don't put much effort into practicing most likely won't comprehend it.

[Serenity509]

Do you ever wonder what the mystical is for the mystic?

"Mystical" can mean several things. Buddhism is a mystical religion in the sense that the Buddhadharma is difficult to comprehend, and ordinary people who don't put much effort into practicing most likely won't comprehend it.

When a person has a mystical experience, what aspect of reality is the person experiencing?