God n stuff

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

I thought about posting this reply on the Pure Land forum but then thought better of it and shall now let drop here.

Thus: I simply asked a question about Amida Buddha and about his sutras and the Masters who taught about him.

May I please intrude in a forum where I do not belong and muddy the waters of the OP's question which I should not do?







http://books.google.com/books?id=nC5WPK ... e&q&f=true

Now that I have as usual annoyed everybody I shall leave.

Ta ta.

[steveb1]

Actually, in Christian theology, non-existence is one of God's attributes. Since "existence" means "to arise out of", and God does not arise from anything (unlike everything that exists), then non-existence is one of God's properties. Uncaused Cause, Prime Mover Unmoved, First Cause, - etc. - are words that indicate God's "place" outside of things that arise. Chains of cause and effect, arising, decay, re-arising, are traits of "Creation" but God stands outside these processes and is not influenced by them. Hence, in a very true Christian-theological sense, it is appropriate to say, "God is real, but does not exist".

[viniketa]

Indeed. Buddha refused to comment on whether god exists or does not exist. He said we all have enough to stress over what with birth, sickness, old-age, dying, and all that wanting-the-greener-pasture-over-the-next-fence...

[tomamundsen]

Indeed. Buddha refused to comment on whether god exists or does not exist. He said we all have enough to stress over what with birth, sickness, old-age, dying, and all that wanting-the-greener-pasture-over-the-next-fence...

You sure about that? I remember him describing how Brahma was the first being born in our universe, wished for man to be created, and beings started appearing. The Buddha noted that it was only a coincidence that beings started to be born in this world, while Brahma incorrectly thought that he had created them.

Also, with Madhyamaka, you can't have a first cause. So there is no god.

[viniketa]

You sure about that? I remember him describing how Brahma was the first being born in our universe, wished for man to be created, and beings started appearing. The Buddha noted that it was only a coincidence that beings started to be born in this world, while Brahma incorrectly thought that he had created them.

Also, with Madhyamaka, you can't have a first cause. So there is no god.

Sure as anyone can be about what Buddha said and didn't say. I can't find the specific sutta (yes, it's in Pali), but this is the lounge so...

Do you recall the sutrā about Brahma? Do you recall how he said Brahma was 'born'? As for 'first cause', even with a capital "G", God doesn't necessarily mean a creator god...

As this is not a forum on comparative religion per the TOS, I'm done with the topic.

[tomamundsen]

You sure about that? I remember him describing how Brahma was the first being born in our universe, wished for man to be created, and beings started appearing. The Buddha noted that it was only a coincidence that beings started to be born in this world, while Brahma incorrectly thought that he had created them.

Also, with Madhyamaka, you can't have a first cause. So there is no god.

Sure as anyone can be about what Buddha said and didn't say. I can't find the specific sutta (yes, it's in Pali), but this is the lounge so...

Do you recall the sutrā about Brahma? Do you recall how he said Brahma was 'born'? As for 'first cause', even with a capital "G", God doesn't necessarily mean a creator god...

As this is not a forum on comparative religion per the TOS, I'm done with the topic.

It's in the Brahamajala Sutta, starting around verse 42.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html

[oushi]

I went through few religions now, and the best description of God/Father that I can recall, is in Gospel of Thomas. Entire conflict between theists and atheists is irrelevant.

[catmoon]

I went through few religions now, and the best description of God/Father that I can recall, is in Gospel of Thomas. Entire conflict between theists and atheists is irrelevant.

Hm, I don't think it's irrelevant. If the Theists are right then we'd all have to abandon the Dharma, tear down the monasteries and put up cathedrals.

[plwk]

If the Theists are right then we'd all have to abandon the Dharma, tear down the monasteries and put up cathedrals.

How dare anyone question teh Ceiling Cat.....

[oushi]

I went through few religions now, and the best description of God/Father that I can recall, is in Gospel of Thomas. Entire conflict between theists and atheists is irrelevant.

Hm, I don't think it's irrelevant. If the Theists are right then we'd all have to abandon the Dharma, tear down the monasteries and put up cathedrals.

Before you tear down monasteries, go read the gospel. Not only will you preserve monasteries, but you will also enter cathedrals like home.

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

[catmoon]

How dare anyone question teh Ceiling Cat.....

To which one can only reply,



Now where were we? Seems to me we did have a topic around here at one time....

[Jeff]

I went through few religions now, and the best description of God/Father that I can recall, is in Gospel of Thomas. Entire conflict between theists and atheists is irrelevant.

Hm, I don't think it's irrelevant. If the Theists are right then we'd all have to abandon the Dharma, tear down the monasteries and put up cathedrals.

Before you tear down monasteries, go read the gospel. Not only will you preserve monasteries, but you will also enter cathedrals like home.

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

Also...

Luke 17: 20-21
20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’[d] For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

[viniketa]

Indeed. Buddha refused to comment on whether god exists or does not exist.

I should have been more accurate in my statement. The Acintita Sutta is what I was thinking of:

Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

Brahmā is mentioned in a couple of suttas, including the Brahmajāla and Kevatta, but not as being 'born'. Brahmā is only one aspect of 'God', limited to creation. So, Buddha does not discuss whether or not Brahmā created the world. 'Brahman' (note spelling) would be closest to the 'God of Abraham'. Buddha does not mention Brahman to my knowledge, nor the 'personal' aspect of 'God', Īśvara. Reference to a 'servant of Brahman' should be spelled 'brahmin', though it's often spelled brahma or brahman.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Also, with Madhyamaka, you can't have a first cause. So there is no god.

Not the God of Aquinas for sure.

But the Womb of the Thus-Come-One to whom it is appropriate to demonstrate devotion and which out of love embodied in human form to lift humanity out of suffering into ungraspable presence?

Well - why not?

I bow low to my master Samantabhadra with grateful tears. Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Swaha.

Beyond existence/nonexistence: ungraspability/radiance/love.

PS: There are countless Buddhas like grains of sand on the beach.

[oushi]

Does anyone know when NOW started, and when it's going to end?

[Osho]

Yes.....
NOW
[or should that be.. THEN?]

[oushi]

Yes.....
NOW
[or should that be.. THEN?]

Ok, lets do it again. When NOW ends next time, immediately raise your hand, and reply to this post afterward.

[catmoon]

[oushi]

Damn! I didn't predict that.

[Osho]

OK we're in a new NOW now.
All hail the cat!