Where are the Gods?

[Pema Rigdzin]

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?

According to Buddhism, he or she is experiencing his/her mind.

[Serenity509]

Other Buddhists would say they are experiencing the eternal Buddha.

[deff]

which would be the nature of their own mind, no? you can't experience something outside your mind, that's an oxymoron as far as i can tell

[Pema Rigdzin]

Other Buddhists would say they are experiencing the eternal Buddha.

And where do you suppose this "eternal Buddha" is found?

[gregkavarnos]

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.

I disagree, the buddhadharma
Is incredibly simple and logical if one leaves their ideological-religios baggage at home. It is true that we don't practice enough in order to REALISE this knowledge.

[gregkavarnos]

Other Buddhists would say they are experiencing the eternal Buddha.

Yup, of course they would say this. And what exactly is Samantabhadra? The true nature of mind, the Dharmakaya.

[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.

What is the universe dependent on for its origination?

I already explained this, the collective karma (actions) of the sentient beings from the previous universe, ad infinitum. This is all very clearly and consistently explained in Buddha' teachings. We can understand that this really is the teaching of the Buddha because Hindus used to argue against dependent origination and so on, trying to prove that Ishvara creates the universe.

[ronnewmexico]

Ser...anyway you split parse or parcel it you will find this is not buddhist thought.

You certainly may find some buddhists such as hindu/buddhists that hold that and those similiar views. You exemplify the potential of that.
That such is present and that some consider that buddhism be philosophy as you contend does not mean it is that for the majority nor for those that hold lineage or consider buddhism in a religious context.

To deny that people may consider buddhism as a philosophy is the same error as denying that buddhism may be not considered as religion.
Both may be effective personal spiritual paths. But to deny one or the other because of personally held beliefs lead to error.

Buddhism as religion has as the scholors attest...no such componants.There are deviations such as I mention hindu buddhists and other sorts but those are generally not recognized as forms of buddhism. Buddhist first, many religions abscribe to the buddha as saint or some equilivence. But they are not...buddhist religions.There is a very strict qualification on that.
No school identifies as theistic. That is the bottom line.

YOu may then extend your view to anything supernatural and any other things of inconcievable sort(they are myriad)...all have been tried and refuted.
Buddhism developed in the mileau of very sophisticated theisms, way beyond the simplistic western inventions that now present.
All.... each and every one is refuted, by the scriptures and by the teachings of those that hold lineage.

Educate yourself to it..study it.
You I expect will persist. And if any does present a successful argument you will not be convinced but go away mad to my experience(all seem to).
Nothing will be served. You will remain with your opinion on how thing are, to naught.
So I say don' t waste time...study it first.

The basic answer has been provided by those of scholorship(not me)..no you are wrong.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Other Buddhists would say they are experiencing the eternal Buddha.

Bring them here and I will beat them up.

[deff]

[PadmaVonSamba]

I don't think that God's incarnation in Christ necessarily did happen. History cannot demonstrate that Jesus actually claimed to be God.

History cannot even demonstrate that Jesus actually existed!

[PadmaVonSamba]

Serenity, I am curious...
are you a vegetarian?

[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".

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

If I knew what it was, it would hardly be mystical now would it?

Perhaps they are nothing more than hallucinations induced by borderline diabetes. But there have been a few strange sights in the dark, and some completely unexplained, radically altered states of mind.

[Josef]

If I knew what it was, it would hardly be mystical now would it?

Perhaps they are nothing more than hallucinations induced by borderline diabetes. But there have been a few strange sights in the dark, and some completely unexplained, radically altered states of mind.

Any experience you have through dharma practice can be explained.

[Malcolm]

Other Buddhists would say they are experiencing the eternal Buddha.

One cannot experience anything that is eternal.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Other Buddhists would say they are experiencing the eternal Buddha.

One cannot experience anything that is eternal.

what about sunlight?

[Josef]

Other Buddhists would say they are experiencing the eternal Buddha.

One cannot experience anything that is eternal.

what about sunlight?

Definitely not eternal.

[Malcolm]

Other Buddhists would say they are experiencing the eternal Buddha.

One cannot experience anything that is eternal.

what about sunlight?

Sunlight is not eternal since it is produced.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Sunlight is not eternal since it is produced.

Okay, um...
so what you are saying is that
one cannot experience something which is not produced.
and I assume here that by produced you mean arising from causes
and so what you are saying is that if it is not the result of cause, it cannot be experienced.
Am I getting this right?
I think that Serenity's position (which i do not support)
is that this 'god' thing does not arise from conditions but has always been there as the great spirit of the universe or whatever, and so serenity is drawing some comparison between that and the idea of original mind, buddha nature, what remains after kleshas have been exhausted, which is being regarded as not produced by a cause.

All the same, I am one of those fools who loves to find an exception to the rule, so I will keep pondering if anything can be said to be experienced but which does not arise from causes.

What I am working on right now, is pondering at what point the non-conscious matter in the universe, of which we are composed, begins witnessing its own existence, as we do. Somehow your statement seems to fit into that. In his 17 stanzas, Nagarjuna asserts that one thought follows another, and that a thought does not spontaneously arise from no thought. So, I would like your thoughts on the arising of awareness itself.
If we refer to the 12 links of dependent arising and say that they are beginning-less, how does begingingless-ness differ from what we would refer to as being eternal?

[conebeckham]

"Experiencing" something means there is an experiencer, and an experience to be experienced. Also, there is a time prior to the experience, and a time after the experience. Because there are therefore multiple factors or conditions for this "phenomenon" of "experiencing" to occur, all experiences are dependently arisen, and therefore unreal.