Interfaith Dialogue

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 4568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Serenity509 wrote:I am not the first person to have interpreted Eastern philosophy in light of the Urantia Book.
I might interpret a chicken as a meal.
From the view point of the Chicken, is that a valid interpretation?

I am still missing your point.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 »

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Serenity509 wrote:I am not the first person to have interpreted Eastern philosophy in light of the Urantia Book.
I might interpret a chicken as a meal.
From the view point of the Chicken, is that a valid interpretation?

I am still missing your point.
Are you familiar with Ken Wilber?

Ken Wilber - The 3 Perspectives of God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN4bTkuszuI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buddhism looks at Nirvana and says "that's the ultimate truth." A Christian looks at Jesus or a Muslim looks at Allah and says "that's the ultimate truth." Ken Wilber's point is that whether you relate to ultimate reality in the first, second, or third person, it's really different perspectives on the same truth.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by DGA »

Nobody takes Ken Wilber seriously. More specifically, no one takes Wilber seriously as an authority on Buddhism.

http://www.integralworld.net/meyerhoff-ba-toc.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's pretty good at shilling crappy books and seminars, though. Cursed mean green meme got me down...
Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 »

Jikan wrote:Nobody takes Ken Wilber seriously. More specifically, no one takes Wilber seriously as an authority on Buddhism.
It would be good if you could address the points that he makes.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by DGA »

Serenity509 wrote:
Jikan wrote:Nobody takes Ken Wilber seriously. More specifically, no one takes Wilber seriously as an authority on Buddhism.
It would be good if you could address the points that he makes.
It would be good if you'd address criticisms of your position that have been raised in this thread. You've made claims that can't be demonstrated; I assume this is why you've ignored requests for sources that support your claims.

But to your point: the link to the Meyerhoff article does the job already. If you want another example, take a look at Wilber's book Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality, and find the moment where he insists that emptiness can be equated with God as understood by Meister Eckhardt, which is an undemonstrable claim.

If you want to understand Buddhism, leave whackadoodle speculators like Wilber alone and ask some actual Buddhists--and listen to what they have to say to you.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21590
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Grigoris »

The Tao of God??? More new age baloney! I find it difficult to believe it could be an embellishemnt of the "original" Tao te Ching.

Ken Wilber??? Even more new age crock!

You have moved from the realm of boring to the realm of irritating. Wanna give it a rest?

And who defined Nirvana as an ultimate truth?
Nirvana - (mya ngan med pa) lit. 'blowing out'; extinguishing of the emotional fetters; the unconditioned state free from birth and death. [RY]

Nirvana - The extinction of samsara [RY]

Nirvana (mya ngan (las) 'das (pa), in compounds zhi). The cessation of everything samsaric such as ignorance and suffering, the Liberation of an Arhant or a Buddha. Hinayana Nirvana is supremely blissful but unhelpful to others, and the Arhant must eventually abandon that self-absorbed state and enter the Mahayana. 'Nirvana' is also used for the passing away of a buddha (and sometimes for that of other, presumably saintly persons), 'the N.' being the passing of 'the Buddha', Shakyamuni; when we ask buddhas not to enter N., they are of course in N. already in one sense, but we want them to continue manifesting themselves, not to pass away. [RY]

Nirvana (mya ngan las 'das pa). The extinguishing of the causes for samsaric existence. The lesser nirvana refers to the liberation from cyclic existence attained by a Hinayana practitioner. When referring to a buddha, 'nirvana' is the great non-dwelling state of enlightenment which falls neither into the extreme of samsaric existence nor into the passive state of cessation attained by an arhant. [ZL] [RY]
http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/N_continued" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 4568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Serenity509 wrote: Buddhism looks at Nirvana and says "that's the ultimate truth." A Christian looks at Jesus or a Muslim looks at Allah and says "that's the ultimate truth." Ken Wilber's point is that whether you relate to ultimate reality in the first, second, or third person, it's really different perspectives on the same truth.
I think you are looking at everything backwards.

If one person says that by airplane is the best way to travel, and another person says that by ship is the best way to travel, this does not mean that an airplane is a ship, or that they will even arrive at the same destination.

The only thing they have in common is that they each think their way is best.

You are asserting that because different philosophies, that teach radically different things, are each believed by their followers to be the 'true way" that therefore they are the same!!!

What you are saying, is: "the more people believe something is true, the truer it becomes".
The Nazis tried that in Germany and it didn't work.

"ultimate truth" is not based on peoples opinions.

Does this make sense to you? (are you even reading this???)
:zzz:
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Serenity509 »

I think we might be arguing like the blind men and the elephant, failing to see that we have different perspectives of the same ultimate reality.
A number of disciples went to the Buddha and said, "Sir, there are living here in Savatthi many wandering hermits and scholars who indulge in constant dispute, some saying that the world is infinite and eternal and others that it is finite and not eternal, some saying that the soul dies with the body and others that it lives on forever, and so forth. What, Sir, would you say concerning them?"

The Buddha answered, "Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, 'Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind... and show them an elephant.' 'Very good, sire,' replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.

"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'

"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.

"Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An elephant is not that!' 'Yes, it's like that!' and so on, till they came to blows over the matter.

"Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene.

"Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."

Then the Exalted One rendered this meaning by uttering this verse of uplift,

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
Jainism and Buddhism. Udana 68-69:
Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/ber ... rable.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Amida Buddha is Nirvana personified. How is this drastically different from a personal God, aside from the fact that Amida is not a Creator God?
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4483
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by LastLegend »

Serenity509 wrote:
Amida Buddha is Nirvana personified. How is this drastically different from a personal God, aside from the fact that Amida is not a Creator God?
I think you personify Amitabha, but Amitabha does not personify himself.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21590
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Grigoris »

Are you so sure you are holding onto the elephants trunk? Best ask somebody that can see! :tongue:
:namaste:
PS
Amida Buddha is Nirvana personified.
Says who?
Last edited by Grigoris on Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 1726
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Paul »

Serenity509 wrote:I think we might be arguing like the blind men and the elephant, failing to see that we have different perspectives of the same ultimate reality.
We are more like people with different opinions on 'ultimate reality'. If you want God, I'm afraid you won't find it in Buddhist teachings - it's just not there.
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
Malcolm
Posts: 33826
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

Serenity509 wrote:
Amida Buddha is Nirvana personified. How is this drastically different from a personal God, aside from the fact that Amida is not a Creator God?
Seems to me you should study Buddhism with a real Buddhist teacher.

N
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 4568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Serenity509 wrote:I think we might be arguing like the blind men and the elephant, failing to see that we have different perspectives of the same ultimate reality.
I Don't think anybody is arguing with you.
I don't recall that you have actually stated any point (from which to base an argument).

Since you were raised in a Christian household, it makes sense that this is all so confusing.

Christians base many of their beliefs on the outward appearances of things. They say, "oh a beautiful flower" and so forth, believing that a flower has some objective quality of beauty to it. But outward appearances are deceptive.

Christains teach that the earth was created.
But Buddhists know that the Earth was not created. How do we know this? Because if something is a created "thing" then it must be all finished, like baked pottery. But earthquakes and tsunamis tell us that the earth is hardly finished coming into being. it's like an undercooked cupcake...dry and crispy on the outside but hot and gooey on the inside. The people who wrote the bible didn't know anything about plate tectonics. they thought that when the Earth shook, God was punishing them!

Buddhists also say, "oh a beautiful flower" but we know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We know that a flower isn't beautiful or ugly.

If you grew up in a Christian household, you may still view things as solid, independently existing things. Or maybe not. I don't know. I have no way of figuring out what is going on in your head. Buddhists view all things as merely the momentary appearance of an unimaginable, yet interconnected, chain of events.

That is why there is no God in Buddhism. It just doesn't fit.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 4568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Serenity509 wrote:
Amida Buddha is Nirvana personified. How is this drastically different from a personal God, aside from the fact that Amida is not a Creator God?
What does "a personal God" mean?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
Malcolm
Posts: 33826
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Serenity509 wrote:
Amida Buddha is Nirvana personified. How is this drastically different from a personal God, aside from the fact that Amida is not a Creator God?
What does "a personal God" mean?

It means a god who is a person i.e. Jesus, Krishna, etc. i.e. a god who acts though a persona, unlike for example Brahmin.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 4568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Serenity509 wrote:
Amida Buddha is Nirvana personified. How is this drastically different from a personal God, aside from the fact that Amida is not a Creator God?
Maybe this will put it into a context that you can relate to:

Would you consider Christianity to be just a type of Judaism?

From the Christian way of looking at things, Buddha is just another kind of God.
From the Buddhist way of looking at things, there is no "God" so the similarity doesn't make any sense at all.

If I ask you if you are the same as a Garfabuninkie, that doesn't make any sense to you,
because you do not maintain any concept of a "Garfabuninkie".

If I tell you that there are people who believe in something called a Garfabuninkie, and a lot of people say you remind them of a Garfabuninkie, and then I ask you to explain to me what the difference is between you and a Garfabuninkie,
what can you say? Are you the same as a Garfabuninkie or not?
I'm sorry, but this is really the position you are presenting here.
You ask buddhists to explain why the Buddha does or does not fit into
some preconceived idea you have, that you happen to call "god".


There is really only one answer:
Garfabuninkie!
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 4568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Serenity509 wrote: Amida Buddha is Nirvana personified
From a buddhist perspective, "nirvana personified" doesn't make any sense.
Maybe from a Christian perspective, Buddhism doesn't make any sense!
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 4568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Serenity, have you ever had beef jerky?
Beef jerky is made by taking strips of steak, salting them or soaking them in brine
and then hanging them up in the sun to dry.
Every Sunday, millions of Catholics around the world take the Eucharist,
where they believe they are eating the body of Christ.
Christ was also hung up out in the hot sun.
So, can you please explain to me what is the difference between Jesus and beef jerky?


When Christian missionaries from England first went to Tibet to try to make converts, the word they used to translate Christ's ressurection from the dead was the Tibetan word for 'zombie'. The Tibetans asked, "why would anyone follow a religion started by a zombie?" ...the missionaries didn't have much luck converting the Tibetans.

My point is that you can't just substitute one thing for another because they look the same, and assume that they are the same.

have you asked, "what is the difference between "Amitabha" and the Christian definition of "God?"
I think that is what you want to know.
I think it was answered a few posts back.
maybe I am wrong.
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
Malcolm
Posts: 33826
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Serenity, have you ever had beef jerky?
Beef jerky is made by taking strips of steak, salting them or soaking them in brine
and then hanging them up in the sun to dry.
Every Sunday, millions of Catholics around the world take the Eucharist,
where they believe they are eating the body of Christ.
Christ was also hung up out in the hot sun.
So, can you please explain to me what is the difference between Jesus and beef jerky?
:roll:

Romans?
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21590
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: God in Buddhism

Post by Grigoris »

Namdrol wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:Serenity, have you ever had beef jerky?
Beef jerky is made by taking strips of steak, salting them or soaking them in brine
and then hanging them up in the sun to dry.
Every Sunday, millions of Catholics around the world take the Eucharist,
where they believe they are eating the body of Christ.
Christ was also hung up out in the hot sun.
So, can you please explain to me what is the difference between Jesus and beef jerky?
:roll:

Romans?
Jews!
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”