Do Buddhists Believe in God?

[Rosanne]

Originally posted by Brian@Dec 24 2003, 12:05 AM
I've been asked about a thousand times in the last few weeks, by friends, family, and acquaintances, the million dollar question:

"Do Buddhists celebrate Christmas?"


I love this question. Most people just assume that we don't. Let me explain my viewpoint, as an american buddhist:

My family celebrates Christmas. Let's look at Christmas for what it really is: It is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. While the actual date may be highly doubtful (in fact, the entire season is probably doubtful - scholars claim that Jesus was probably born in the spring sometime), the point of the celebration is timeless. Jesus Christ was a bodhisattiva of high regard. He did a great many works in the latter part of his lifetime which were of great value to humanity. Therefore, of course we would celebrate his life and his birth.

Now, add to that the cultural aspect of the Christmas holiday. In the west, Christmas is a time to reflect on the past year, reflect on our families and loved ones, and generally bring good cheer to those around us. This fits perfectly within the realm of Buddhism, so it is very logical for us to celebrate the holiday.

So, with all that in mind, I say "Merry Christmas" to you and yours.
Do Buddhists believe there is a God/Grand Creator?

[Brian]

This topic is big, so I gave it it's own thread.

Let's look at this from a practical standpoint: Judaism was the only monotheistic faith (recorded, anyway) at the time of the Buddha (500 BC). Siddharta lived in India, during a time of many Gods. All of those Gods, with all of their power, could not end the suffering of one single man.

The Buddha never spoke of "one god" or any god, for that matter. Chances are, he never met a Jew, so the concept of monotheism was a foreign one to Indians of the day.

With that said, there are Atheistic Buddhists, Christian Buddhists, and Polytheistic Buddhists (Tibetans, for example). Buddhism isn't concerned with Theism.

One of the monks at my temple, Achahn Dharmananda, put it very well. He said "Buddhism is not atheistic. It is HUMANistic."

That's the best way I can put it - as a buddhist, I am concerned with becoming a perfect human being. I am not worried about God or any of that. It's just not on my "to-do" list right now. :lol:

[Gnome]

I am a Strong Christian who believes in the ways of the buddhist. To strive to be a better person is buddhism and thats what everyone should do

[Daniel]

Perhaps Im missing the jist.. so ...

Do buddhists believe in a "higher power" :)

Your answer was a little verbose... break it down into a "yes, no or per buddhist choice" :)

[tycho]

neither really...

to sum up brian: buddha never spoke of any "god" hence god is not something that buddhist really worry about. it is more important to us to strive to become our own better person than to concern ourselves with the exsistance or non-exsistance of a god and what he, she or it thinks of us

[Brian]

That's exactly right. It's neither "yes" or "no" -- some buddhists choose to believe in and actively worship a god, some don't. Whether that is a form of attachment is a whole different discussion, but essentially, distilled down to my modern american viewpoint, I would say "If God works for you, then go with it. If not, don't waste your time thinking about it".

You should worry about God AFTER the enlightenment :lol:

[federica]

Brian,
Surely, after Enlightenement, you don't worry about anything....?! :p :lol:

[Brian]

Have you ever read "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry..." by Jack Kornfield? :p

After the enlightenment, you still have to worry about the laundry, the kids, the bills, etc. :lol:

[federica]

Do you know the story....? :)

[federica]

The Legend of Mi Fo Lo (The Laughing Buddha) or Pu T’ai (hemp cloth sack Buddha)


Mi Fo Lo is the squat, rotund Buddha of infinite joy. He carries a heavy sack tied to a gnarled branch of an ancient peach tree. The peach represents Wisdom and Maturity. In his hand he often carries a gourd filled with the sweet nectar of Knowledge.
The sack is heavy and cumbersome, but he carries it with patience and fortitude, and the smile of infinite Joy, Serenity and Happiness never leaves his face.

One day, upon his travels, he is wandering down a stony rugged path, and he chances to meet a disciple. The greet one another, and then the disciple asks, “Master, what is Enlightenment – understanding, acceptance, the True Way?”
In response, Mi Fo Lo simply places the sack upon the ground.
Bemused, and a little puzzled, the disciple takes this in, and then ventures to ask, “ Well, if that is so – what next?”
Mi Fo Lo simply picks up the sack and placing it upon his shoulder once more, smiles his farewell warmly, and continues on his way.


(It little matters what you carry in Life – more important is the way in which you bear your load.)

[federica]

See last thread in recommended reading..... ;)

[federica]

Running parallel to my last posting in 'Recommended reading', I believe we sometimes spend far too much time observing the differences in religions, and fail to try to spot the striking similarities. In his book "The Good Heart", H.H. The Dalai Lama demonstrates how similar the creed of Christ was to the teachings of the Buddha.
It is odd to me that after Christ's episode at the temple in Jerusalem, where his parents found him teaching his elders, ("Did you not know I would be at my father's house?" he questioned, after they'd been looking for him for hours.) no more is heard about him until he hits thirty. Where did his dad go? And where had he been, and what had he been doing? MY theory (and it is total conjecture and hypothesis on my part, I grant you ) is that he either travelled, or studied. Other religions, other creeds, other faiths... much of what is taught in the new testament can be threaded and interpreted via the sutras and the teachings of Siddharta Gautama.... many of St. Paul's words could have stepped right out of the mouth of the Buddha himself...

Remember - there is a chasm between Christianity as a Faith, and Christianity as a doctrine, implemented by those who interpret it with a 'human' mentality.....

To repeatedly talk of differences is divisive and un destructive. Seek rather, when confronted or challenged, to not dispute the Love taught by fundamental true Christianity, but to couple it with that which you already hold dear in your hearts. :)

[Lars]

This topic is big, so I gave it it's own thread.

Let's look at this from a practical standpoint: Judaism was the only monotheistic faith (recorded, anyway) at the time of the Buddha (500 BC). Siddharta lived in India, during a time of many Gods. All of those Gods, with all of their power, could not end the suffering of one single man.

The Buddha never spoke of "one god" or any god, for that matter. Chances are, he never met a Jew, so the concept of monotheism was a foreign one to Indians of the day.

With that said, there are Atheistic Buddhists, Christian Buddhists, and Polytheistic Buddhists (Tibetans, for example). Buddhism isn't concerned with Theism.

One of the monks at my temple, Achahn Dharmananda, put it very well. He said "Buddhism is not atheistic. It is HUMANistic."

That's the best way I can put it - as a buddhist, I am concerned with becoming a perfect human being. I am not worried about God or any of that. It's just not on my "to-do" list right now. :lol:

This is the first time I've posted Brian.

For those of you that don't know me, I am a Lutheran pastor. Brian and I met through the tragic death of one of Brian's friends last October. I like what Brian is doing. Buddhism is a large part of our small world -- and so I commend Brian for perservering with this website.

I have an affinity and appreciation for many things Buddhist -- especially Zen Buddhism and Shin Buddhism. Still, I am a committed orthodox Christian and I must say there is a great deal of difference between basic Christianity and basic Buddhism (i.e. with out regard to the many variations of both).

Most significant is the difference between Jesus Christ and a bodhisattva. In Christianity, Jesus is the divine only and eternal son of God who, paradoxically, also lived on earth as a regular finite human being. How this occurred is a mystery, but it only occurred once according to Christians and is central to the Christian sacred story. A bodhisattva is an enlightened man or woman on the verge of entering Narvana, but holds back in order to enlighten (or "save") others through teaching and example. It is believed that there have been many bodhisattvas over history.

Another difference is that Jesus, during his ministry, miraculously healed many persons with any ailment through the power of their mutual trust in God. The bodhisattva is not endowed with any such powers; rather, he or she must help people to understand the truth of themselves and the world, such the notion of "anatta," or the absence of a supposedly permanent and unchanging self or soul. Also, a bodhisattva will generally not be betrayed and killed by the people he or she assists, for they have little reason to be suspicious or jealous of him or her (as many religious leaders were of Jesus).

The reward of Nirvana for the bodhisattva is sort of akin to Jesus rising from the dead because both Nirvana and Resurrected Life represent an end to the suffering that Jesus, the bodhisattva, or any person experiences in this world. But buddhism generally does not understand the suffering of a bodhisattva as necessarily redemptive or "world changing." Indeed the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to remove one's self from suffering by exiting this existance via enlightenment. One does not need a god's help to attain enlightment in buddhism -- but does need discipline and an openness to wisdom.

A Christian cannot be resurrected into a life of bliss without a God's direct involvement (or mercy). So from a Christian point of view, people have to put God on the to-do list if they are interested in how one arrives at eternal life and bliss. If any person who is not a Christian were to receive eternal life -- it would still be contingent upon God's willingness to grant that person mercy and grace (not upon how virtuously they were to live their lives or how often they were to meditated upon the buddha's name). There is a branch of Japanese buddhism that teaches a doctrine remarkably similar to the Christian notion of mercy and grace as the means to salvation (Shin Buddhism), but that is for a whole new discussion.

Just food for thought. Peace to all. Lars

[bodhi]

Buddhist do belief in higher beings such as god but Buddha is not a god.

Buddha is much more for he is an enlightened being who has transcend birth and death.

Just as buddhist belief in heaven but is not their goal as their goal is to achieve enlightenment.

There is no father and son relationship as in god and their son, but in teacher and student relationship for Buddhism is not a religion but an education. It teaches one to become an enlightened being just like the buddha.

[Justin]

Belief should not be the question, as God tends not to be tangible. What we have here is a western black/white thing. The statement, "Either it is or it isn't" just does not hold true. Belief is what you make it and nothing more. It is a personal thing, not to be contradicted by anyone. I work with many religeous people and they will all tell you that their belief/relationship with God is one thing or another. Should you choose to have belief in God, or Oxygen, or space aliens, is an entirely personal choice and not to be placed in competition with the teachings of Buddah.

[federica]

hello Giei....

[ZenLunatic]

Buddhist do belief in higher beings such as god but Buddha is not a god.

Bodhi,

Don't be so quick to answer for "all" buddhists. I do not believe in a higher being, as I'm sure many others don't as well. Don't fall into the fallacy of 'hasty generalization' about any group. It's no more right to say "buddhists believe this..." as it would to say "Christians think this way..." or "Republicans all want this...." We each have our own idiosyncratic ideologies, which is what makes us unique. And although all Buddhists share a commonality, we can't be lumped into one group like that. That's why there are so many flavors of Buddhism out there!

[comicallyinsane]

This is the first time I've posted Brian.

For those of you that don't know me, I am a Lutheran pastor. Brian and I met through the tragic death of one of Brian's friends last October. I like what Brian is doing. Buddhism is a large part of our small world -- and so I commend Brian for perservering with this website.

I have an affinity and appreciation for many things Buddhist -- especially Zen Buddhism and Shin Buddhism. Still, I am a committed orthodox Christian and I must say there is a great deal of difference between basic Christianity and basic Buddhism (i.e. with out regard to the many variations of both).

Most significant is the difference between Jesus Christ and a bodhisattva. In Christianity, Jesus is the divine only and eternal son of God who, paradoxically, also lived on earth as a regular finite human being. How this occurred is a mystery, but it only occurred once according to Christians and is central to the Christian sacred story. A bodhisattva is an enlightened man or woman on the verge of entering Narvana, but holds back in order to enlighten (or "save") others through teaching and example. It is believed that there have been many bodhisattvas over history.

Another difference is that Jesus, during his ministry, miraculously healed many persons with any ailment through the power of their mutual trust in God. The bodhisattva is not endowed with any such powers; rather, he or she must help people to understand the truth of themselves and the world, such the notion of "anatta," or the absence of a supposedly permanent and unchanging self or soul. Also, a bodhisattva will generally not be betrayed and killed by the people he or she assists, for they have little reason to be suspicious or jealous of him or her (as many religious leaders were of Jesus).

The reward of Nirvana for the bodhisattva is sort of akin to Jesus rising from the dead because both Nirvana and Resurrected Life represent an end to the suffering that Jesus, the bodhisattva, or any person experiences in this world. But buddhism generally does not understand the suffering of a bodhisattva as necessarily redemptive or "world changing." Indeed the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to remove one's self from suffering by exiting this existance via enlightenment. One does not need a god's help to attain enlightment in buddhism -- but does need discipline and an openness to wisdom.

A Christian cannot be resurrected into a life of bliss without a God's direct involvement (or mercy). So from a Christian point of view, people have to put God on the to-do list if they are interested in how one arrives at eternal life and bliss. If any person who is not a Christian were to receive eternal life -- it would still be contingent upon God's willingness to grant that person mercy and grace (not upon how virtuously they were to live their lives or how often they were to meditated upon the buddha's name). There is a branch of Japanese buddhism that teaches a doctrine remarkably similar to the Christian notion of mercy and grace as the means to salvation (Shin Buddhism), but that is for a whole new discussion.

Just food for thought. Peace to all. Lars



I used to be Christian and I never felt right with myself. Everything I read in the bible was either a contradiction or it preached God's unforgiveness and anger. Sure Jesus preached th eopposite but only if we as humans excepted him. I don't see why it should matter. I am more understanding than th eGod in the bible. I understand people get confused and don't always understand what is being taught and they decide to go down a different path, why can't God? God is supposed to be more understanding than me, right? I myself put my faith in God and the teachings of Buddha. I don't believe Jesus was the son of God and I don't believe the true God is anything like th eone in the bible.

[federica]

Which one are you referring to? the one in the Old Testament or the one in the New? There is a classic difference. Don't confuse the two......

[comicallyinsane]

Both. They are considered the same by Christians. That's where the contradiction is.

[federica]

You are incorrect in your generalisation and evaluation of how Christians see God. I have been an active member in a Catholic community, and everyone I spoke to had a different viewpoint and perception of God. "He" is not 'someone' you can categorise so simply...... With all the love in the world, you must be careful of bracketing everybody into one habit..... :)

[comicallyinsane]

You are right. I was generalizing. I have never met any Christian or Catholic who separated God in the old and new testaments.

[federica]

Well how do you do!! In order to be able to see the distinction, study and understanding of the origin, meaning and the interpretation of the scriptures is first required. Please don't think that I'm putting myself up as an expert - far from it!! But having 'straddled' the two... Buddhism and Christianity - I'm fortuante to have a distinctly amateur insight into how some things might be looked at. Having said that, remember the Buddhist adage.... "Only accept the things which enable you to see the Truth face-to-face." ;)

[Canon]

Hi, iam a bit confused about his whole thing, iam a christian but i wan tot practice the way of the buddist but i dont want to quit my other faith.....is this possible, i would also like to know what are the main foundations of buddism, does it include worshing some type of god..argh all of this is so confusing.

[wolfscalissi]

Welcome canon
The teachings of the Buddha are for anyone . No of course you do not have to "quit your other faith". It is possible to use the teachings here to go deeper into your own faith, find the path amongst the weeds as it were. There are rabbis and priests who practice Zen Buddhism and still maintain thier own teachings and faiths. welcome to our humble little site. Sit back , read, ask lots of questions and enjoy yourself. you may find you are more like than unlike most of the people here! :bigclap:

^gassho^

[comicallyinsane]

Welcome Canon. Also please don't ever be afraid to ask questions. We will not judge you or make fun. We only want to help. :)

[federica]

We were all "new" once..... and now we're in the privileged and honoured position of being able to welcome those newer than ourselves.... the questions you might pose have in all probability been asked before, by one of us....! So fire away, and sit back and enjoy the show - you're in it!! :)

[comicallyinsane]

As the old cliche goes. "The only dumb question is the one you don't ask". :bigclap:

[Canon]

Thank-you

[Brian]

Welcome to the site, Canon! :)

[kinlee]

I enjoy reading the material at http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm
fyi.

cheers,

[pj.pilgrim]

I'd like to recommend this site regarding the buddhist's attitude to worship of god.
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/what_about_god.htm

The Buddha did not say that one should not or cannot worship a God. He teaches the way to liberation from suffering and in applying the method taught by him, the worship of god is redundant. Indeed, if one is overly attached to the idea of God, it may become a hindrance. For example one may believe that all good or all the bad things that hsppen to oneself is ordained by god, when in truth, we are responsible for our actions and destinies. So instead of beseeching the favours of god, Buddhists venerate the Buddha out of gratitude, respect, and love.

[comicallyinsane]

I look at God as a being that leaves us alone. We are here to figure things out for ourselves. God is just there to channel everything else we don't deal with . It is like a documentary where the people making it never get involved with the animals.

[Noi]

Buddhism is a difficult religion to concieve because it challenges us as individuals, not what we believe in.

[emmak]

I look at God as a being that leaves us alone. We are here to figure things out for ourselves. God is just there to channel everything else we don't deal with . It is like a documentary where the people making it never get involved with the animals.
Like the Truman Show?

[comicallyinsane]

Maybe. In that movie Truman did help a lot of people without knowing it. Maybe we are helping God?

[Elohim]

QUOTE: "Buddhism is a difficult religion to concieve because it challenges us as individuals, not what we believe in."

That is a very excellent was of looking at it Noi.

[federica]

Maybe we are helping God?


Of Course we're helping God....he needs us as much as some need him... If NOBODY believed in Him, He'd be redundant.... He would cease to 'exist'..... at least in our Conscious, sceptic minds, he would.... but if He does exist, and no-one believes in him - who'd notice? So belief in God is a two-way street. And just as in any relationship, both partners have to commit and contribute... which is why the relationship with one's "Self" is so darned hard, at times....!

[buddhafoot]

Yeah, but what if ....

We ARE supposed to worship God, follow his laws and ways...

There are going to be a lot of people in deep dooh-dooh when this whole gig is up!

Michael

[comicallyinsane]

"What if" sure is a wide question to ask.

[emmak]

If this elusive 'God' does exist, why doesn't the whole world follow christianity? I am not having a go at anyone, but I struggle to come to grips with deities, and if they are all supposedly the one god to follow, how can there be so many? If God created Adam and Eve, why don't Palestinians believe this? There is no universal truth to it.
Hope I am not offending anyone....

[buddhafoot]

Yeah? Well, I'm just obnoxious enough to ask the big question, sometimes!

Yeah, baby!. That's me! The big question asker!

Michael

[comicallyinsane]

Who is this Foot Diety we hear about?

[buddhafoot]

I have no idea. It's the name of my band that came from a cat who should be dead and that's why we call him FrankenPuss but the keyboard player that owns him calls him buddhafoot.

Whew!

Michael

[buddhafoot]

But actually, now that I think about it, I have done some searches on google and found images of (supposedly) Buddha's foot (done in artwork) with a whole bunch of symbols on the underside of the foot.

Still don't know what it's all about. Just an odd coincedence.

Michael

[comicallyinsane]

LOL. You took my silly joke and actually started a new religion, I think. LOL

[Simonthepilgrim]

We can find lotrs of examples of "Buddha footprints" because, for the first centuries after his parinibbana/death, no human images of Gautama were used. A footprint or an empty bowl or, even, an umbrella were used a symbols of the Tathagata.

[sharpiegirl]

If I may interject and refer back to the original thought about Christ and Buddism.
I am part wat though a book called 'Christ the Eternal Tao'. The author escapes me at the moment (I will get back to you on that). If I understood my reading on both Tao and Buddhism, there are MANY similarities (individual rather than follow the leader worship) This book points out MANY similarities between Christ and Lao Tzu...adn now I am realizing, Buddha.
Could it be that they are all connceted in one way or another???? (big question)

As for why the Middle East and Jews don't follow Christianity...it all goes back to communication (or lack thereof in His time), and just plain old non-believers.

Buddhafoot...as far as 'deep doo doo' whe nthe time comes...even going the Way, or with Buddism, both have the same fundamental teaching: compassion. So how can anyone do wrong?

Have a peaceful day everyone!

[sharpiegirl]

oppss...I forgot to add Christianity in that last comment....sorry

[Brigid]

"Could it be that they are all connceted in one way or another???? (big question)"

Yes. We are all connected. All sentient beings are interdependent. Time and place in history makes no difference. It's as simple as that.

[zenmonk_genryu]

Good point. Plus the other connection is that because one person sees something that happens to be true, doesn't mean that others can't see it. Nor does it mean that they must have communicated in order to see it, or to express what they've seen. Just as both I and someone I've never met, many miles away, can see a sunset and express certain things about it doesn't mean that we've communicated in any way.

[Nirvana]

Liked that Sunset analogy and the lack of communication bit, esteemed Zenmonk Genryu!

Really like this thread, have been following. Thought I'd finally put a word in.

One of my favorite bedside books is a Japanese Buddhist book put out by Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai --Society for the Promotion of Buddhism (English on the left-hand page, Japanese on the right). It has basic Buddhist texts, but I've often wondered if it was influenced by Christianity, because the Buddha is presented in a very Christian way. Is there a deistic trend in some popular Japanese Buddhism?

"Do not think that the compassion of the Buddha is only for the present life; it is a manifestation of the timeless compassion of the eternal Buddha that has been operative since unknown time, when mankind went astray due to ignorance." -P 30 (Sounds theistic to me, an entity with great benign powers welling from timeless eternity.)

Also all this talk about "saving all people" throughout the book --reminds me of Jesus.

Can anyone, will anybody, weigh in on this book for me? Maybe it's just me, having grown up Catholic, but it's Christianity-plus to me.

[sharpiegirl]

I too often find Christian thought in Buddhist text that I read. My mother is a Catholic..and she and I will have conversations about this...she is having a hard time accepting the fact that I have been more influenced by Buddha than Jesus. Many of the fundamentals are similar...I like how Buddhism is quite individual...rather than 'follow the leader'.

[zenmonk_genryu]

There are several Catholic priests and nuns, as well as lay people who are active in the Christian Zen movement, and are authorised Zen teachers. It might be worth getting hold of a book like 'Zen gifts to Christians', by Father Robert Kennedy SJ, that may help put your mother at ease.

[Brigid]

Here's another, from the perspective of a Roman Catholic nun:

"Zen Contemplation: A Bridge of Living Water". By Elaine MacInnes.

[zenmonk_genryu]

Interview with Sister Elaine (http://www.al.com/living/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/living/113593774785890.xml&coll=1&thispage=1)

[Brigid]

I met her.

[zenmonk_genryu]

And...? C'mon you can't just leave it there you know.

[Brigid]

O.K. She gave a talk about her life and studies in Japan and how she now teaches prisoners how to meditate. She called me a fellow seeker and I found that she was as tough as a bag of old nails. (That's a compliment). Her work with prisoners was inspiring and resonates with me. I have a thing about creating the circumstances for failure and then being locked up for rising to the challenge. I've already had a lot of experience with Catholic nuns and other than her studies and practice in Japan, she struck me as quite similar in thought and manner to the many nuns I've already met or under whom I've studied. But she was quite lovely and, as I've said, I liked her work with prisoners. That's all.

[federica]

O.K. She gave a talk about her life and studies in Japan and how she now teaches prisoners how to meditate. She called me a fellow seeker and I found that she was as tough as a bag of old nails. (That's a compliment). Her work with prisoners was inspiring and resonates with me. I have a thing about creating the circumstances for failure and then being locked up for rising to the challenge. I've already had a lot of experience with Catholic nuns and other than her studies and practice in Japan, she struck me as quite similar in thought and manner to the many nuns I've already met or under whom I've studied. But she was quite lovely and, as I've said, I liked her work with prisoners. That's all.

I don't feel so bad now, as Nick called me 'a tough old Bird'...!!
....almost as good as
'She scrubs up nicely'....!!
Sorry....
Back on Topic....

I tried to volunteer here to do the same for young offenders in a remand centre, by going in and teaching them Qi Gong, but the authorities didn't want to play ball.... :(

I shall perhaps try something similar if, as and when I return to the UK... they are more receptive there...
Not that I am in any way trying to draw favourable comparison with Sister Elaine, just saying I'd like to do similar..... :o

[sharpiegirl]

Rev Genryu.. I agree, there are those in the ministry that are 'Buddhist-like' (for a lack of a better term). I teach at a private Catholic school and the principal here is an example. Her demeanor and personality are beautiful.
Secondly, she sent us to a two day conference called, PEACE Begins With Me- Empowering Children to be Peacemakers. The two authors (one a Catholic nun) use a program referred to as H.O.P.E (The Holistic Orientation for Peace Education).
Each lesson begins with the teacher and children in a centering and prayer time. All of which are focused on air, breathing, nature and inner harmony. It is a beautiful program and I have found that benefits tremendous in my class. I started something called, "peace-Light". I explained that we all have a peacelight and it is up to us to make sure that it is 'burning bright'. This helps the younger ones recognize 'conscience' and the effect of their actions on others around them (karma).
Other exercises that Sister will do, such as the beginning of the school year, are very buddhist like...but in her mind, Jesus-like.

[Nirvana]

For Christians, Jesus Christ is the "Icon" of God. That is heterodox Judaism, since it breaks the commandment not to make any "graven Image."

My Question: How can somebody who grew up loving Jesus just STOP?

I will always love Jesus, and through Him, that "thing called God," whatever that is. I find myself of two minds. Though certainly opposed to the mentality that there's this "power" that will set things right, since I believe that to be a fairy tale, I still believe in a God in the Vedantic sense of a Supreme Being whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.

Yet, at heart, I am a Buddhist.

Do I have real problems? (You have no obligation to be nice if you respond.)

MANY THANKS,

Nirvana (Curious Worker Bee)


----

[buddhafoot]

Nirvana,

To me... I see a crossroad coming down between your Buddhism and Christianity. I'm not going to say anymore because you may find a way to do without having to think about what I've said.

If you find some way that allow the two to co-exist within you - then what the hell do you need an opinion from me? Just smack me upside the head and tell me to "shut it".

Best of luck, my friend.

-bf

[Xrayman]

Okay,
Nirvy, heres my 2 cents worth.

i think you may wish to be called a Christian Buddhist-nothing wrong with holding two philosophies. Although your priest may object....

Love Jesus and believe and test the validity of your beliefs in Buddha-it's really as simple as that.

I was raised a Christian, my wife a Catholic-yet we both practise a Buddhist approach to many things-she prays for help from her father (her dad-in heaven) and GOD, while I pray to Buddha's leading light.. whats wrong with that?

Don't give up loving Jesus/God/Holy sprit to persue Buddhist exploits-the two are not mutally exclusive.

love and I hope this helps!

[zenmonk_genryu]

Okay,
Nirvy, heres my 2 cents worth.

i think you may wish to be called a Christian Buddhist-nothing wrong with holding two philosophies. Although your priest may object....




Very true, but then Buddhism is not philosophy, it's something you do rather than believe in.

[Martin of Norwich]

Nirvana

I don’t suppose this helps but, perhaps like you, I’ve spent most of my life trying hard to believe in something I tried to call “God”. And I loved the way you put it: “A Supreme Being whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere”.

But I can’t get my head round what “God” would be. Isn’t “God” just a word, a label? Isn’t “being” the same? The more I try to think of something that is both “everywhere” and whose end is “nowhere”, the less meaning the concept I’m trying to imagine has, the more it resembles “nothing”.

If the Buddha’s teaching is to “let go”, I sometimes wonder if one of the things I need to “let go” of are the creeds I’ve attempted to believe in and the labels I’ve applied to things which I can’t get my head round. It may even be that the experience of those who have awakened is always the same, though always unique, but that each labels or communicates it differently according to their own language / upbringing so that to someone like me who is not awakened what is the same may sound different?

Or maybe I’m just confused. But I take comfort in Zenmonk G’s comment that Buddhism is something one “does”. So I’m trying to "do" it.

Martin.

[refractorist]

I grew up in a very Christian household and all of my family are still fervently fundamentalist Christians. But as I got old I stopped believing in god and rejected my Christianity. Then after I started practicing Buddhism I sort of went back to Christianity and realized that not only are all the ethical teachings the same but Jesus was a pretty swell guy. Even though I no longer believe he is the son of god I think he had a lot of great things to say and (if the gospels are to be believed) lived a life full of love and compassion.

As well I found talking about Buddhism using the language of Christianity to be a great way to relate to my family. Like:

The supreme teachers, the precious Jesus and Buddha,
The supreme refuges, the holy precious Gospel and Dharma,
The supreme guides, the precious Church and Sangha.

Keith

[Brigid]

Keith, my parents are both Catholic and I've had to do the same thing. You explained it very well. One of the things my parents don't understand is what Genryu explained; Buddhism is not something you believe, it's something you do. They practice their religion in a passive way, listening to masses and interacting only when appropriate, taking communion etc. But it's completely based on belief, not process. My doctor, who has helped me so much with my back injury, is a very smart guy. I was talking about my sense of existential claustorphobia, and he reminded me to stop thinking of myself as a being and try thinking of myself as a process. I live in a very small farming community and he's the only one here I can talk to about these things. Apart from you guys, I mean. The idea of process has really helped me. I can understand it and it helps me to relax my mind. And I'm thinking, I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that relaxation of my mind is what I need to get me going in the right direction.

[federica]

Somebody had a signature as 'work in progress'... I have even referred to myself as that.
We are not the same being we were yesterday... Tomorrow too, we shall be different... Neither better, nor worse, necessarily. Just different.
The important thing is to focus on what we are at the moment, and to develop that.

[sharpiegirl]

I could not just 'give up' loving Jesus! Regardless of faith, there is documentation that such a man existed and died for us...what a perfect act of loving-kindness!

I like the way it was worded by Rev. Genryu: Buddhism is something you do!
I also like knowing that one could be considered Christian-Buddhist! I haven't stopped attending Mass bit I have applied Buddhist teachings to my every day life. I haven't been happier!:cheer:

I will continue to learn more abot Buddha and who knows what will happen...

I like Keith's blending of the language too!! Thanks Keit!

[Nirvana]

I don’t suppose this helps but, perhaps like you, I’ve spent most of my life trying hard to believe in something I tried to call “God”. And I loved the way you put it: “A Supreme Being whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere”.
That was Voltaire who said that, "God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere." However, unlike Martin, I always found belief in God and Jesus and Mary easy. What was hard for me were all the strange Calvinistic or super-Calvinistic notions that seemed the opposite of liberating. These notions were often of a nasty or threatening bent, and I distrusted them. To me, OVERSIMPLIFICATION of the Christian religion was a Falsification of it.
But I can’t get my head round what “God” would be. Isn’t “God” just a word, a label? Isn’t “being” the same? The more I try to think of something that is both “everywhere” and whose end is “nowhere”, the less meaning the concept I’m trying to imagine has, the more it resembles “nothing”.

If the Buddha’s teaching is to “let go”, I sometimes wonder if one of the things I need to “let go” of are the creeds I’ve attempted to believe in and the labels I’ve applied to things which I can’t get my head round. It may even be that the experience of those who have awakened is always the same, though always unique, but that each labels or communicates it differently according to their own language / upbringing so that to someone like me who is not awakened what is the same may sound different?

Or maybe I’m just confused. But I take comfort in Zenmonk G’s comment that Buddhism is something one “does”. So I’m trying to "do" it.
We all have our own mental constructs and cognitive nuances, but the only significant difference betweem Martin and me that I can find in what Martin writes is the need to "let go" of the Creeds (I don't know about letting go of all my former labels.) For me, that is no problem. I take the creeds and other creed-like hymns AS HYMNS ONLY. If I recite them in a liturgical setting, I REALLY mean them whilst I recite them, but I mean them as poetry, as words pointing even beyond the things being sung of. In other words, the creeds are true at a certain level, but not at a higher level of truth.

:wavey: Thanks, everyone for your replies. Yea, and Buddhafoot, I'm been moving away from the church for a long time, while still trying to be a friend of the churches. Holy Communion, the Resurrection, &c don't mean very much to me anymore FOR PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS. However, I will always love Jesus, as Teacher and as the Incarnation (thinking of the Holy Infant & Christmas.), as Anglicanism (which has informed my adult years) has a marked incarnational approach to Christianity

I believe a Buddhist can be very respectful to people that hold fast to the Idea of God and would be able to engage in constructive dialogue with God-believers. Furthermore, a Buddhist could be able to use theistic language, but would more than likely try to focus on more practical things in his own personal faith than on the unprovable theological issues.
------
BAGGAGE is something we all have, especially the Treasure of our memories, many of them very beautiful and very dear.

[Simonthepilgrim]

..............................
------
BAGGAGE is something we all have, especially the Treasure of our memories, many of them very beautiful and very dear.


I make a difference between baggage and luggage. Luggage we pack ourselves, baggage we accrete from others.

[federica]

It doesn't matter what you call it, or from whence it came... you're still carrying it...

The point is -

How you carry it.....

[Brigid]

"The point is -

How you carry it....."

Aint that the truth though.

[Elohim]

All,

The Weight of Mountains (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/mountains.html)

;)

Jason

[Nirvana]

I make a difference between baggage and luggage. Luggage we pack ourselves, baggage we accrete from others.
NICE CULTURAL EXCHANGE HERE, Esteemed Pilgrim!

In the USA you buy Luggage in a store, whereas Baggage is what you carry with you in your travels. We have LUGGAGE sections in department stores, sometimes next to MEN SWEAR.:winkc:

On the matter of luggage, though, I do not feel as though I "packed" my own memories... No matter in which manner they're instilled in me, most of them are real treasures. --Especially if these memories link me to other people, I should be happy indeed. WHY should I separate myself from my Christian brethren?

REAL EVIL is that which separates us from one another; REAL BEATITUDE is what makes us want to share ourselves, our fortunes, and our hopes with one another.

And, back to my point in my response to MARTIN OF NORWICH, I do not believe a Buddhist is necessarily prohibited from using Theistic concepts interiorly from time to time. N.B. I am not claiming that it's desirable in itself to have this baggage, just that one's being aware THAT he or she does carry it is not necessarily out of keeping with right view.

I believe a Buddhist should be very respectful to people that hold fast to the Idea of God and would be able to engage in constructive dialogue with God-believers. And, I repeat, that furthermore, a Buddhist could be able to use theistic language, but would more than likely try to focus on more practical things in his own personal faith than on the unprovable theological issues.
----

[M Bolden]

Heheheheheh, most of the folks I know down that Valley Creek meditation center are Christian, them folks go there to do yoga and breath in and breath out. I asked if any of them are Buddhist, about half a dozen bald headed folks reply with a yes. What do you know, these folks are former Christian who I think are presently alienated with Christianity. My opinion is that I think they are fooled by a religion that promise them heaven but took them for a ride in materialistic hell, heheheheheh, so I think they 'hate' god now and join Buddhism.

I told them you can not find god in this pile of flesh or the suffering world, god is immaterial like the Divine Light. I told them to go re read the Gospel of Thomas and look at Jesus as the Light bringer to us sinners. I think Christianity go down after some doped up Christian preached the resurrection of the flesh. I do not think that is right. I talk to them former Christian and they told me that Buddhism teaches no-soul, what, I said. They Nirvana is when you die, you become nothing, what, I said. I answered them folks that my Buddhist teacher said that there is a version of the so call Buddhist 'god' and what you know, he said it is the Light mentioned in the Avatamsake Sutra. I be damn, heheheheheh, now I know I can be both Buddhist and Christian. Those old boys down that Valley Creek road are certainly mistaken, that is just my 2 cents.

Hellelujah
M Bolden

[federica]

heheheheheheheheh....

You can be a Christian and uphold Buddhist values, but you can't be a Buddhist and believe in an omnipotent Deity. Not to my mind anyway....

heheheheheheheheh..... :wtf:

[Brian]

M Bolden has been banned for signing up under multiple account names. NamThien2006 and m Bolden are the same person, and obviously this user's fake "kentucky type" is a complete joke.

[federica]

"heheheheheheh"....

Right you are. :)

[Simonthepilgrim]

heheheheheheheheh....

You can be a Christian and uphold Buddhist values, but you can't be a Buddhist and believe in an omnipotent Deity. Not to my mind anyway....

heheheheheheheheh..... :wtf:

I love your optimistic naivety, Fede! People can believe anything! Afetr all, there are people who believe that we are at war to free some people somewhere. Believing in an omnipotent deity (or an impotent one for that matter) is no great stretch for people who believe what they read in newspapers or hear from pulpit, hustings and podium. Alas! Babylon the Great is fallen!

[federica]

Alas! Babylon the Great is fallen!

Naaaaah!! Now where did you read that - ?? !! ??:tongue2: :lol:

[Simonthepilgrim]

Naaaaah!! Now where did you read that - ?? !! ??:tongue2: :lol:

You're right: I've had occasion to dip into John's Trip or the Book of Revelation recently. Do you think that GBII and his cohorts are trying to "immanentize the eschaton"?

[buddhafoot]

I was wondering why you were being so.... catty, freddie.

I saw you start off a post with "heheheheheheheheheh" and thought, "Wow!, she's being a total biatch!" :)

-bf

[federica]

Now u c why.....

all my words carry great and deep meaning oh Buddhacat......
all words have purpose, all shallowness depth, all height lowliness, all bulls**t roses....
besides, it's fun to heheheheheheheheheh.... it entails two keys in rapid succession, and says so much.....



I'll shut up now.


I'm getting carried away.

Or maybe....






I should be.

[Brigid]

M.Bolden, a.k.a. NamThien's last post creeped me out a bit. I kinda wish I hadn't read it. I feel a little queasy. Thanks for banning him, Brian.

Brigid

[Elohim]

Fede,

See, I told you that he reminded me of someone familiar. I can smell b.s. a mile away. It's sad that people cannot simply be honest. Even if a person's views are a bit off the radar, I'm much more inclined to listen to them, and take them seriously, when the person offering those views is upfront. But, why humour someone who likes to play games by faking poor grammar and accents [poorly might I add]? I know I have no patience for such nonsense, and I'm glad you guys don't either.

;)

Jason

[Xrayman]

I wish I was omni-potent.

Sorry.

[Nirvana]

You are all very perceptive in deciphering people, apparently... M Bolden came across to me as a young man with a sincere Cathar/Quaker/Thoreau-Emerson streak... I responded to his posts in kind on the thread Jesus and Buddha were teaching the same message. ..I, frankly, found Embolden refreshing, unlike his darker, more mischievous "side," NamThien2006.

Do you think I'm wacky, too? .. In October I took a tour of "Cathar country" in Languedoc and Catalunya, and I enjoyed so much talking to some of the locals about the old days and the old beliefs.

I think I'm gonna start a Michael Molinos thread, having to do with people who are/were spiritualist Christians. I think part of me will always be (nondogmatic) Christian, but that does not mean that I have to buy the whole package. How can I just throw away all my memories of what Jesus means and meant to me? We all pick and choose, and memory is very selective. I don't fit in to an Evangelical Christian Church, because I don't have any CLAIMS on or about Jesus, just recollections of things he said and did.

You can be a Christian and uphold Buddhist values, but you can't be a Buddhist and believe in an omnipotent Deity. Not to my mind anyway.... I find myself agreeing to this, Federica, but, with Simon's input in mind, I find that I sometimes lapse into my old ways for minutes at a time. Call me inconsistent or demented, but it's like this... My father is an Episcopal priest, I have several friends, some priests, who are in the OCA (Russian Orthodox Church in America). And I love the Liturgy. And sometimes I go to church... Not just to support my father and friends, but because it's "going back home."

Now, please don't think that this means I'm not really aspiring towards a full understanding of and a fuller experience of the Buddhist experience and all that can entail. It's just that I have always had a keen sense of the Sacred, and know that to have a sacred experience is to have a re-visiting of an experience you've had before. In other words, I believe that all things are essentially spiritual and our quest is to find the divine in all; and that we cannot afford to turn our backs completely on that which has helped us along our way. My swami said perhaps it was my dharma to remain a Christian, but that I should follow my own bliss.

I have the Buddha in my heart, in my throat, and ringing in my ears.


With All Kind Regards to ALL,

Shalom,


Nirvana
-----

[Elohim]

Nirvana,

We like you just fine.

It makes no difference to me what you, or anyone else believes in. I definitely believe in everyone's freedom to choose what they wish to believe. What matters to me is how that belief is presented here. I only give people a hard time when I feel that they are being less than truthful, especially in reference to the Buddha's teachings. This is a Buddhist forum first and foremost. For example, if a person honestly feels that there is some permanent "self" in Buddhism, then they should give their reasons for believing such, except not in some poorly faked broken English, or an equally fake Kentucky accent [my uncle is from Kentuncky and I used to live there for God's sake.] Hell, I believe that I even know our good friend on E-Sangha as well, but I won't blow his cover there if it really is him...

Anyway, I personally love studying other religions. I don't think that there is anything wrong with exploring all of the possibilities out there. You name it, and I've looked into it. I have always been fascinated with the Bon Hommes, and their earlier Gnostic counterparts as a matter of fact. If I were ever to be [in the highly unlikey event] a Chrisitian, those would be the only two sects that I would even remotely seriously consider being a part of [too bad they were all wiped out...]. There are certainly many monastics that are worthy of respect and admiration. One doesn't have to be a "Buddhist" monk to have a good heart, and some wise words of wisdom to share. I just believe that it is only the "Buddhist" monks that can lead me to the end of suffering, and that is conviently what I am looking for.

In conclusion, I would like to say that you have always presented yourself respectfully, and even though I don't agree with all of your posts, I enjoy reading them. If NamThien2006/M_Bolden had done the same, I bet that he would still be here... or maybe he still is? In any case, I'm a bit jealous. I would have loved to take that tour as well. Perhaps you could share some of the details with us?

Peace be unto you.

:)

Jason

[Simonthepilgrim]

Verdana,

I entirely relate to what you say: it is so close to my own position as to be deeply reassuring!

It was only in the last few years that I have really looked at my reasons for wanting to find common ground between the spiritual systems which attract me. Before that, I was only looking for commonality, against all the evidence presented for difference.

[ECM]

Hi everyone,
I have been away for a while, so I have missed many posts. So I was reading back posts, and found this thread. About God -- what is God? One of the books that influenced my thinking on this was Good Goats by the Linns. And the other was the Zen Teachings of Jesus, by Ken Leong. Great books reaching for liberation from views that are mired in culture, superstition, and old thinking. Sometimes we think we know what something means, but suddenly discover a whole new side, like jumping out of a box. God? The old man in the sky? I don't believe in it. God -- the light in the world, the glint in the otter's eye, the vibrancy of the mountains, a process in motion, the emptiness that fills the mind in meditation? We need new definitions of God.

[federica]

Christians may do, but Buddhists don't.

Nice to have you back ECM :)

[zenmonk_genryu]

Well said. What we need is no definition at all.

[Bobby_Lanier]

Hi everyone,
I have been away for a while, so I have missed many posts. So I was reading back posts, and found this thread. About God -- what is God? One of the books that influenced my thinking on this was Good Goats by the Linns. And the other was the Zen Teachings of Jesus, by Ken Leong. Great books reaching for liberation from views that are mired in culture, superstition, and old thinking. Sometimes we think we know what something means, but suddenly discover a whole new side, like jumping out of a box. God? The old man in the sky? I don't believe in it. God -- the light in the world, the glint in the otter's eye, the vibrancy of the mountains, a process in motion, the emptiness that fills the mind in meditation? We need new definitions of God.

I have found a huge difference between the God of the Old Testament and God or Theos of the New Testament. It seems like the God of the New Testament has changed from being an external nature god much like the gods of the ancient world to one of being a transcendent principle much like Tathagata in Buddhism. Although this remains a tentative assessment on my part, I can't help but see Christianity as a kind of Buddhist Judaism.

Presently, I am reading a book by Zacharias P. Thundy entitled Buddha and Christ: Nativity Stories and Indian Tradition, 1993. He points out many parallels between Christian and Buddhist/Hindu concepts which he finds embodied in both narratives. You may find the book interesting.

Love ya all,

Bobby

[federica]

This is why there is much to dispute the existence of Jesus Christ - definitely as one person (if at all) possibly as a composite of many people, and more probably as a personification of previous worshipped beings, mostly mythological. His story is preceded by very similar tales, and is more than likely a reworking of fables or allegorical and cautionary stories.

[Will]

Do Buddhists believe there is a God/Grand Creator?

Yes, we believe that there is a god who wrongly believes he is the Supreme Being.

He is called Mahabrahma in the following sutta. A bhikkhu is looking for the answer to a query among the lower devas or gods. They suggest that the Great Brahma will surely know the answer, so the bhikkhu deepens his meditation and asks the Great Brahma.

The pompous response of Great Brahma may have inspired the "Wizard" of Oz behind-the-curtain scene.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn-11-tb0.html#bigbrahma

[federica]

Yes, we believe that there is a god who wrongly believes he is the Supreme Being.

So in other words - no.

[Brigid]

Yes, we believe that there is a god who wrongly believes he is the Supreme Being.

He is called Mahabrahma in the following sutta. A bhikkhu is looking for the answer to a query among the lower devas or gods. They suggest that the Great Brahma will surely know the answer, so the bhikkhu deepens his meditation and asks the Great Brahma.

The pompous response of Great Brahma may have inspired the "Wizard" of Oz behind-the-curtain scene.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn-11-tb0.html#bigbrahma
When I came across this a few months ago I found it utterly fascinating. I'm glad you repeated it here, Will. I'm going to do a little more research into Mahabrahma and see where that takes me. It's so interesting.

Brigid

[Will]

So in other words - no.

A plain Yes or No without explanation, is not what I meant.

Buddhists believe in (and some know) very powerful, very wise gods and the leader of them is considered by all the lower gods and much of the human race as the Creator & Supreme Being. The Creator figure is real and does exist and millions take refuge in him. Buddha and some sages in his lineage know this being.

However powerful & wise Mahabrahma is, he did not create the universe; he is not immortal, just very long-lived and he really cannot save his worshippers. He can grant blessings & boons, but he lacks the full wisdom, compassion & power of a Buddha.

So for those who believe in God, he is not a chimera; but he is still a deluded sentient being, a poor refuge and not what his worshippers think he is.

[federica]

But you're answering the question in a negative. The question asks whether Buddhists believe in a God, a grand creator. Given that Brahma is no such thing, even by his own admission, then the answer is no.

[Martin of Norwich]

To attempt to answer the question "Do I believe in / Is there a God?" at all, I would need to understand it. And I am so far from understanding what a "Grand Creator / First Cause / Ultimate Reality" would be that any answer I could give would be meaningless. Which makes the question, for me, meaningless.

Goethe's Faust said (I think) much the same here: http://german.about.com/library/blgretchenE.htm


Martin

Martin.

[ajani_mgo]

We are all God if you look at it in a sense. (In a sense, so I'm sorry theologians.)

[Magwang]

If all things are mind-made (Dhammapada), then we made God when we started to think about God?

...or is it all in my head?

::

[federica]

That just about sums it up, Magwang....:)

[harlan]

I really can't bear the thought that it might really just/only 'be in my own head'. I never thought it did any good to contemplate the existance of a 'higher' power. My thinking on it would not affect the existance...so just mind my own business of being a good person right now.

Recently, I had an experience that I find very difficult to resolve...other than to simply believe. I can choose to think it is all in my own head...but that would mean that any being I may have envisioned would simply die with my passing. And it would simply be unbearable to accept that. To accept that...would mean to live without hope.

[Magwang]

I really can't bear the thought that it might really just/only 'be in my own head'. ... To accept that...would mean to live without hope.
::
Why? Hope for what?
::

[federica]

Harlan, I do not know, obviously, of the experience you mention...
I had such a Religious uprbringing, being raised a Roman Catholic, and staunchly practising for nigh on 40 years....
when much younger, I had an 'experience' of my own... only I had a close friend in the room, who saw and witnessed the same thing...
I was convinced then, and for a long time afterwards, that we had been given a short glimpse of the Divine....

I don't give it a second thought. It is completely unnecessary and redundant to what I now know.
Any wish, desire, thought, hope or impression of the Divine, is simply not relevant.

I am, and shall be till I die. That's all I need. the Present Moment and my being in it.
All else is desire, clinging, attachment and just leads to suffering.

[harlan]

I had read somewhere, that 'hope' is an attachment, and one has to let go of that as well. Almost stillborn...to experience the birth and death of hope at the same time.

"All else is desire, clinging, attachment and just leads to suffering."

[Magwang]

Hey, Harlan - I wasn't prying. I just would like to hear your view on why you feel that you need a God for hope, salvation, mercy...or anything else.

Some Christians scold me for vainly thinking I can find salvation without God. If man is sinful and incapable of salvation by his own means, then God's creation is a failure. Which means God failed.
::
::

[harlan]

I don't care if there is a God, grand unified field theory, or if it rains today anywhere else than where I am. I gotten a glimpse of such beauty, of an incredible love, that I don't want to NOT believe. And yet, belief is attachment. How does one resolve that and further one's self on the Buddhist path?

[federica]

Only you can work that one out for yourself, Harlan.

[harlan]

'No, no, no...I want the answer! Give it to me! I neeeed...' :)

Sucks to grow up. LOL

[Magwang]

...a glimpse of such beauty, of an incredible love, that I don't want to NOT believe. And yet, belief is attachment. How does one resolve that and further one's self on the Buddhist path?
::
Well said H.

I think about it too.

But love can just be.
::

[federica]

I don't care if there is a God, grand unified field theory, or if it rains today anywhere else than where I am. I gotten a glimpse of such beauty, of an incredible love, that I don't want to NOT believe. And yet, belief is attachment. How does one resolve that and further one's self on the Buddhist path?

She needs an answer....!! :tonguec:

Look at it this way, then, perhaps...

Remember this experience...
Be glad you had it....
Remember more significantly, the feeling it has given you....
But don't ever under any circumstances, feel you have to label it, as coming from anywhere or any"one".....
Rather, focus on knowing that, if you let it, this is how you could be experiencing every second of every single day.

[sharpiegirl]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading that, Federica...
Thank you!

A true statement to live by!

Sharpie

[federica]

;)

[not1not2]

I don't care if there is a God, grand unified field theory, or if it rains today anywhere else than where I am. I gotten a glimpse of such beauty, of an incredible love, that I don't want to NOT believe. And yet, belief is attachment. How does one resolve that and further one's self on the Buddhist path?

I'm not so sure how correct it is to say that all 'belief is attachment'. Belief is simply our mental model of the world and how phenomena function. If we have experiences of phenomena which go beyond a materialistic paradigm, then we will likely alter our beliefs of what is possible. Now, while belief may not be attachment, we can certainly be attached to our beliefs. This creates problems as our belief systems make us divide and categorize all of our experience and make stories out of it based off of our mental model. This is okay I guess, but we need to be aware that this is what we are doing. If we are not aware of how beliefs are formed and function from moment to moment, we will be blindly lead around by them. This can lead us into many pitfalls.

Now, on a more personal note, based on what you've said, I would say to definitely not throw out the experience you had as incorrect or insignificant. Your experience is your experience. And personal experiences such as these can open up our mind to possibilities that point beyond the 5 sense spheres. So, I would actually say to embrace this experience and look at it very deeply. I would also look deeply into the story you create around it. Don't value judge with should & shouldn't or good & bad, just look at it. Don't worry about theological implications or conflicts with buddhist beliefs, just pay attention. Become very aware of it and learn everything you can about the nature of experience from it.

Also, I wouldn't discard hope either, just pay attention to how this hope is affecting your actions. Is it inspiring your practice or is it causing you to neglect the here and now? Are you becoming obsessed by the experience? What do you want from this hope, and this life? How does this experience give you hope? What sort of thoughts and stories is your mind making out of this hope?

Once again, don't judge when answering, just know what is going on within you. These are all things you need to know for yourself. If you can answer them, you are doing very well in your practice. Keep it up!

take care & be well

_/\_
metta

[masteravatardavidstar]

I am a Strong Christian who believes in the ways of the buddhist. To strive to be a better person is buddhism and thats what everyone should do
WELL SAID BROTHER GNOME ! AFTER ALL - JESUS' MAIN TEACHING WAS ,"LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF".SOMETHING I'M STILL WORKING ON AS A BUDDHIST> THANKS FOR THE IMPUT.:woowoo: :woowoo:

[masteravatardavidstar]

I tried loving the guy who pulled my hair on the bus today. I'm still working on it.

[masteravatardavidstar]

This is the first time I've posted Brian.

For those of you that don't know me, I am a Lutheran pastor. Brian and I met through the tragic death of one of Brian's friends last October. I like what Brian is doing. Buddhism is a large part of our small world -- and so I commend Brian for perservering with this website.

I have an affinity and appreciation for many things Buddhist -- especially Zen Buddhism and Shin Buddhism. Still, I am a committed orthodox Christian and I must say there is a great deal of difference between basic Christianity and basic Buddhism (i.e. with out regard to the many variations of both).

Most significant is the difference between Jesus Christ and a bodhisattva. In Christianity, Jesus is the divine only and eternal son of God who, paradoxically, also lived on earth as a regular finite human being. How this occurred is a mystery, but it only occurred once according to Christians and is central to the Christian sacred story. A bodhisattva is an enlightened man or woman on the verge of entering Narvana, but holds back in order to enlighten (or "save") others through teaching and example. It is believed that there have been many bodhisattvas over history.

Another difference is that Jesus, during his ministry, miraculously healed many persons with any ailment through the power of their mutual trust in God. The bodhisattva is not endowed with any such powers; rather, he or she must help people to understand the truth of themselves and the world, such the notion of "anatta," or the absence of a supposedly permanent and unchanging self or soul. Also, a bodhisattva will generally not be betrayed and killed by the people he or she assists, for they have little reason to be suspicious or jealous of him or her (as many religious leaders were of Jesus).

The reward of Nirvana for the bodhisattva is sort of akin to Jesus rising from the dead because both Nirvana and Resurrected Life represent an end to the suffering that Jesus, the bodhisattva, or any person experiences in this world. But buddhism generally does not understand the suffering of a bodhisattva as necessarily redemptive or "world changing." Indeed the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to remove one's self from suffering by exiting this existance via enlightenment. One does not need a god's help to attain enlightment in buddhism -- but does need discipline and an openness to wisdom.

A Christian cannot be resurrected into a life of bliss without a God's direct involvement (or mercy). So from a Christian point of view, people have to put God on the to-do list if they are interested in how one arrives at eternal life and bliss. If any person who is not a Christian were to receive eternal life -- it would still be contingent upon God's willingness to grant that person mercy and grace (not upon how virtuously they were to live their lives or how often they were to meditated upon the buddha's name). There is a branch of Japanese buddhism that teaches a doctrine remarkably similar to the Christian notion of mercy and grace as the means to salvation (Shin Buddhism), but that is for a whole new discussion.

Just food for thought. Peace to all. Lars
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I used to be Lutheran / I used to be a Christian. Now I'm a Buddhist.............. Fortunately, the thing that you and I both have in common is that we're both human. You and I may (or may-not) disagree on certain issues --- but we're still connected to each other ---- so I welcome you Brother Lars and wish you a very HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! .....NAMASTE !!!! And LOVE >>>ALWAYS LOVE

[VoidWhereProhibited]

I enjoyed this:

http://www.answers.com/topic/god-in-buddhism

[masteravatardavidstar]

I enjoyed this:

http://www.answers.com/topic/god-in-buddhism
OK !

[Nirvana]

OK, somebody bumped this thread, and I’ve reread it. In it ELOHIM asks me to share some things I learned about the Cathars in my trip a year ago to Languedoc and Catalunya.

There are several histories of the Cathars which you can access on the world wide web, so I won’t delve into the history or the problems here. However, in my visits to Toulouse, Albi, Carcassonne, and excursions around Cathar outposts I learned a few interesting tidbits I’d be happy to share here. Albi is very important, since the Church perceived the “heresy” as being centered there, and the Cathar “heresy” was dubbed “Albigensian.” The formidable cathedral St-Cecile was built there after the massacre of the few remaining Cathars to show the triumphant power of the Church. One must note that it was the Church that really governed Europe from about 500 CE to the Renaissance.

The Cathars believed that the universe was in a duel between the God of the New Testament, who reigned over spiritual things, and the God of the Old Testament, who ruled over matter. This was the Marcion (ca. 85-160 CE) version. Others believed the material world was reigned over by Satan. At any event, they believed in a dual reality characterized by spirit dueling with matter, and vice-versa. All these things can be found out by summary reading.
Back to Marcion, who lived in the first and second centuries common era, it is to be remembered that he rejected all of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament, save ten epistles of St. Paul and the Gospel According to Luke. He taught that there were two gods, proclaiming that the punishing, lawgiving, creator God of the Old Testament, and the good, merciful Father-God of the New Testament were different. He declared that the creator god was inferior to the other. Manichaeism followed from that, and the Cathars were latter-day Manichaeans.


Now, not seeing things through the prism of the one-world theory that the Church adhered to, the Cathars tended to reject not only the authority of the Church but also the outward symbols of the Church, such as the sacraments and the hierarchy. It was pointed out to me by a local artisan in the nave of St-Nazaire in Carcassonne that the Sacrament of Holy Communion was an impossibility, since nothing of a material nature could be holy. Therefore, the “Bread,” or “Body,” signifies the Word of God, not the “flesh,” which is corrupt. And the “Wine,” or “Blood,” can only signify life force or “spirit.” She seemed not to know to which realm water belonged, as much was made of “Living Water” in the gospels.

Well, I could write more on this later, if requested. One final point: Most of the talks I had or received with people concerning the Cathars on this trip to Languedoc had to do with economics. The land was very wealthy and from Roman times had been a major wine-producing area. The Cathars were not all “The Pure” (Cathari), but mostly loyal followers and admirers who supported them and believed they had a higher spiritual authority than the commonly perceived corrupt clergy of the Church. Thus, they did not eschew possession of property or wealth. They were very wealthy and prospered more than those in the northern kingdom that were tempted to come down there by the Pope. People simply weren’t filling the Church coffers, so the Pope persuaded the petty King of the northern part of France to send down troops. Had it not been for the Albigensian heresy, there might very well be today a trans-Pyrenees country between France and Spain occupying today’s Languedoc, Provence, and Catalonia, and perhaps even a much larger area.

attached image is of the formidable cathedral St-Cecile in Albi.
A strong statement of the Church's temporal power.
Inside, over the chancel, the Cathars are depicted as sinners being dragged away to hell
and St. Dominic and all the Inquisitors being crowned with halos and such. The Cathedral
is propaganda-art.

[masteravatardavidstar]

OK, somebody bumped this thread, and I’ve reread it. In it ELOHIM asks me to share some things I learned about the Cathars in my trip a year ago to Languedoc and Catalunya.

There are several histories of the Cathars which you can access on the world wide web, so I won’t delve into the history or the problems here. However, in my visits to Toulouse, Albi, Carcassonne, and excursions around Cathar outposts I learned a few interesting tidbits I’d be happy to share here. Albi is very important, since the Church perceived the “heresy” as being centered there, and the Cathar “heresy” was dubbed “Albigensian.” The formidable cathedral St-Cecile was built there after the massacre of the few remaining Cathars to show the triumphant power of the Church. One must note that it was the Church that really governed Europe from about 500 CE to the Renaissance.

The Cathars believed that the universe was in a duel between the God of the New Testament, who reigned over spiritual things, and the God of the Old Testament, who ruled over matter. This was the Marcion (ca. 85-160 CE) version. Others believed the material world was reigned over by Satan. At any event, they believed in a dual reality characterized by spirit dueling with matter, and vice-versa. All these things can be found out by summary reading.
Back to Marcion, who lived in the first and second centuries common era, it is to be remembered that he rejected all of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament, save ten epistles of St. Paul and the Gospel According to Luke. He taught that there were two gods, proclaiming that the punishing, lawgiving, creator God of the Old Testament, and the good, merciful Father-God of the New Testament were different. He declared that the creator god was inferior to the other. Manichaeism followed from that, and the Cathars were latter-day Manichaeans.


Now, not seeing things through the prism of the one-world theory that the Church adhered to, the Cathars tended to reject not only the authority of the Church but also the outward symbols of the Church, such as the sacraments and the hierarchy. It was pointed out to me by a local artisan in the nave of St-Nazaire in Carcassonne that the Sacrament of Holy Communion was an impossibility, since nothing of a material nature could be holy. Therefore, the “Bread,” or “Body,” signifies the Word of God, not the “flesh,” which is corrupt. And the “Wine,” or “Blood,” can only signify life force or “spirit.” She seemed not to know to which realm water belonged, as much was made of “Living Water” in the gospels.

Well, I could write more on this later, if requested. One final point: Most of the talks I had or received with people concerning the Cathars on this trip to Languedoc had to do with economics. The land was very wealthy and from Roman times had been a major wine-producing area. The Cathars were not all “The Pure” (Cathari), but mostly loyal followers and admirers who supported them and believed they had a higher spiritual authority than the commonly perceived corrupt clergy of the Church. Thus, they did not eschew possession of property or wealth. They were very wealthy and prospered more than those in the northern kingdom that were tempted to come down there by the Pope. People simply weren’t filling the Church coffers, so the Pope persuaded the petty King of the northern part of France to send down troops. Had it not been for the Albigensian heresy, there might very well be today a trans-Pyrenees country between France and Spain occupying today’s Languedoc, Provence, and Catalonia, and perhaps even a much larger area.

attached image is of the formidable cathedral St-Cecile in Albi.
A strong statement of the Church's temporal power.
Inside, over the chancel, the Cathars are depicted as sinners being dragged away to hell
and St. Dominic and all the Inquisitors being crowned with halos and such. The Cathedral
is propaganda-art.
OK! Good for you and ELOHIM. There are other people on this "thread" besides you two. And correct me if I'm wrong - but is'nt the subject of this "thread","DO BUDDHISTS BELIEVE IN GOD"? So why are you and ELOHIM ranting about the Cathars? You are right! "SOMEONE" has "...bumped this thread." Look in the mirror....P.S.: Next time a little more tact and courtesy / and a little less ego and sarcasm....Besides- Compassion should ALWAYS overrule ego.....Thank You For Your Loving Co-operation!

[buddhafoot]

masteravatardavidstart,

Ummm... I think Nirvana was being courteous by asking for his post to be bumped to another thread possibly?

Are you okay?

-bf

[Elohim]

Nirvana,

Thanks for sharing. I forgot all about this thread. If you feel like sharing anything else about it, please feel free to. I am always interested in history, especially religious history.

Regards,

Jason

[Simonthepilgrim]

As this thread has been bumped, and it contains some of "masteravatardavidstar's" pain, perhaps we have been asking the wrong question. I have met many Buddhists who believe in gods and not a few who believe in a single, overarching or subtending deity.

The question should, perhaps, then be:
How is it that some Buddhist can believe in God whilst others do not, all the while both groups calling themselves Buddhist?

[Celebrin]

i believe in the possibility of there being a god.. but god has no religion.. and u can't presume anything about gods.. thats just stereotyping something u cant understand

thats pretty much what buddhism says about it to me..

[Nirvana]

OK, somebody bumped this thread, and I’ve reread it...

I'm sorry if I didn't pick up on any new subject matter, but as this thread was one of my interests, I simply picked it up where I had dropped off.

I didn't foresee any slight in saying a thread had been bumped up, and certainly didn't mean to dismiss any new thoughts or topics. I realize that we all have different emphases and interests. I was of the impression that some channel-turning in threads was only natural. (I cannot talk with my dear sisters for five minutes without some of that going on.) To me, it's become amusing how threads meander on and off topic. Also, to discuss how some Christians did or did not [even] believe in [the ONE] God makes the idea of Buddhist theistic belief even a little bit more interesting to me.

I thank each and all for your patience, forbearance, and enthusiasm.

And LET THE FORCE BE WITH YOU!

[Nirvana]

I have met many Buddhists who believe in gods and not a few who believe in a single, overarching or subtending deity.

The question should, perhaps, then be:
How is it that some Buddhist can believe in God whilst others do not, all the while both groups calling themselves Buddhist?

Pilgrim:
Somewhere you wrote, in response to something Zenmonk Genryu said, that there's no accounting for the way people think, that people can mix all sorts of things together and live with them —even contradictions.
Please say more on what you have written in red above. Lend us your assessment.

[Simonthepilgrim]

Pilgrim:
Somewhere you wrote, in response to something Zenmonk Genryu said, that there's no accounting for the way people think, that people can mix all sorts of things together and live with them —even contradictions.
Please say more on what you have written in red above. Lend us your assessment.

This is probably one of the most contentious aspects 'post-modern' Buddhism: the whole God question.

My reading suggests that it only really arises at the Buddhist/monotheism interface. Shamanism and polytheism appear to have no difficulty fitting themselves to the Buddhist path, neither do mystical Islam (Sufism) or mystical Judaism/Christianity. Only when the atavistic belief in an 'Old Man In The Sky' is predominant and normative is there a problem. The results of this peculiar concept are a hardening of the system and a refusal to investigate beyond doctrine - on both sides, I would add.

As Buddhism spreads into the West, we can observe two broad 'schools' of thought among its new adherents: those who reject entirely that which has been the earlier faith-system and those who want to integrate it. Interestingly, it appears to be Christianity which causes the most trouble (what a surprise!). Jewish Buddhists, of whom I have known a few, seem to have little problem. Perhaps it is because no believing Jew needs to be taught the First Noble Truth!!!!

What has struck me most forcibly is the vigour of the aversion that so many express towards the Christian message, particularly in those areas of the world where the Protestant ethos has been dominant. This may be because Protestantism has, at least until the mid-20th century, been very anti-mysticism. One result of this aversion tends to be hard-line doctrinal rejection of any belief in God/gods and, with it, a refusal to admit the power and value of the message contained in such beliefs.

Each of us is formed (or deformed) by our culture and background. My own having been humanist and pluralistic, the idea that there are vital truths to be found in every system and that each system is, in some ways, defective is at the very foundation of my internal and external travels. Growing up speaking three languages certainly helped, as did the rigour of French education in the '50s and '60s, combined with the breadth of the English system which ran alongside it. Thus, the Battle of Waterloo (for example) was both a victory and a defeat.

Among my clearest memories are some of my parents' US friends who came to London to escape the clutches of the Tydings Committee and the McCarthy witch-hunt. At the age of 10 or 11 and an ardent fan of the USA, I met people who were, at one and the same time, proud to be US citizens and being told that they were "anti-American": being at school with Sam Wanamaker's daughters made this personal for me.

When I came to the Christian churches in my search, I found a Macathy-like attitude, on both sides of the Reformation fence, that disgusted me. The 'Prots' accused the 'RCs' of idolatry (which I knew to be untrue) and the 'RCs' saw 'Prots' as damned, which I also knew to be nonsense.

My solution was to say that each system must contain elements of the truth and could, if only they would listen to each other, learn more about the mystery of the world. This view was strengthened when Angelo Roncalli, as Pope John XXIII, called the Second Vatican Council and ecumenism became the order of the day.

Similarly, when I came across Buddhism as a living system, I was shocked to hear the vitriol poured on it by Christians but, also, at the venom from the Buddhist side. As I read more, I realised that the Buddha himself had veered away from making definitive statements about a Supreme Deity. I could entirely empathise with the statement that "in all my travels, I have never met such a one." As a result, I realised that I did not have to sacrifice the Christian baby along with the Church bathwater.

All faith systems contain irrational beliefs, even (dare I say it) Buddhism, unproven and currently unprovable. The fact that people have 'experienced' the 'truth' of them does not, alas, convince. I recall the Dalai Lama being asked by Jeremy Paxman what he would do if science demonstrated that rebirth was untrue. He replied: "I would stop believing in it at once." Then he smiled and asked: "What experiments could you set up to prove or disprove it?" I have to say the same about the God/gods memes(*).

As a result, I have no difficulty in accepting the labels people give themselves, like 'Christian' or 'Buddhist', despite their holding heterodox views and beliefs. At the same time, I recognise that the organisations which owe their very existence to maintaining a particular set of criteria may reject this self-labelling. From a longer historical perspective, rigid organisations which refuse to accomodate such apparent heterodoxy have a tendency to break up as a result of precisely this rigidity. Both Christianity and Buddhism found ways to incorporate new insights and 'memeplexes' (*). It is only when the leaders and teachers become doctrinaire and exclusive that they reject the marginal thinkers.

One such marginal thinker among the Christians was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. His scientific contributions to palaeantology are largely overlooked today, along with his original spiritual work. His concept of an unfolding and evolving universe, with the development of lithosphere, atmosphere and noosphere, informs much of my own thought. The Four Noble Truths and the Dharma Seals fit this cosmology very comfortably for me.

I know that this has been a long and rambling post. I write it between two periods of other study and apologise if it is less than entirely consistent.



(*) For more on memes and memeplexes, I refer those who don't know about theme to the excellent Wikipedia article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

@Palzang who is kind enough to remind me over and over not to use obscure or technical words and phrases: sometimes we have to use the precise and accurate word to describe something. As an example, the word "hypotenuse" describes a particular line in a right-angled triangle, no other single word does so: it is the right word to use. I attempt to do the same.

[Palzang]

I think the wise course would be to follow the Buddha's lead. It's a question the Buddha never would answer. His response was it was the wrong question to ask. It's not important whether there's a god or not. What is important is how we can change our lives around from being constantly suffering on the wheel of death and rebirth to one free of the wheel of death and rebirth. In other words, how does one transition from ego-clinging and self-worship to putting others first and living a life of service to others.

Palzang

[buddhafoot]

Cal Naughton Jr: I like to think of Jesus as wearin' a Tuxedo T-Shirt, that says, like, "I want to be formal, but I like to party too." I like to party, so I like my Jesus to party too.

Cal Naughton, Jr.: I like to think of Jesus as a mischievous badger.

Cal Naughton, Jr.: I like to think of Jesus as an Ice Dancer, dressed in an all-white jumpsuit, and doing an interpretive dance of my life.

Cal Naughton, Jr.: I like to picture Jesus in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I'm here to party.

-bf

[buddhafoot]

I like that way of thinking Pally.

Sometimes I get too caught up in thinking that something "needs" be answered - when it would be better for everyone involved if it had just gone unanswered or unspeculated.

I need to remember this more.

-bf

[Celebrin]

Surely the first teachings in buddhism, don't trust pre-conceptions would prove the most useful in this situation..

[Nirvana]

Jewish Buddhists… seem to have little problem [appropriating Buddhism] perhaps… because no believing Jew needs to be taught the First Noble Truth!!!!
Funny, Simon.

Thanks for your very clear and helpful post. I find the autobiographical passages not rambling at all, just authentic descriptions of the experiences of a Pilgrim.

You wrote that
the whole God question in 'post-modern' Buddhism is only really problematic at the Buddhist/monotheism interface. Shamanism and polytheism appear to have no difficulty fitting themselves to the Buddhist path, neither do mystical Islam (Sufism) or mystical Judaism/Christianity. Only when the atavistic belief in an 'Old Man In The Sky' is predominant and normative is there a problem. The results of this peculiar concept are a hardening of the system and a refusal to investigate beyond doctrine - on both sides, I would add.

THANKS SO MUCH, PILGRIM, FOR YOUR KINDLY INSIGHTS AND DIRECTION. Your whole post is a gem, so please excuse me for picking out bits of it here

[Simonthepilgrim]

Surely the first teachings in buddhism, don't trust pre-conceptions would prove the most useful in this situation..

Not quite, Celebrin. His first, and his last, teachings were the Four Noble Truths. The first is directly experienced, the second can be discovered, the third is a message of hope and the fourth requires one to do something.

The Buddha certainly urged that people test the teachings for themselves and that requires that we actually get on and act in accordance with them. Only when we have experienced the truth or otherwise of the instruction can we make a decision as to what is 'useful'.

It is similar to how we learn, say, maths: we are told the rule and then need to do pages of exercises until it becomes part of us. Just hearing the rule is not enough; the exercises are the crucial part. The result can be that we have to let go of pre-suppositions, even some that could be dear to us or which have seemed skillful in the past.

One of the things that I have learned on this life's journey is that we need to hold our beliefs and opinions lightly: that way, when we find that they are wrong or taking us in the wrong direction, we can let them go without too much pain. I refer again to HHDL's remark that he would abandon even a deeply-held belief if science disproved it.

The whole point is to test, test and test again, with all possible attention and honesty. This can only be done by actually getting on with the task. Being a bystander is not an option.

[Nirvana]

One of the things that I have learned on this life's journey is that we need to hold our beliefs and opinions lightly: that way, when we find that they are wrong or taking us in the wrong direction, we can let them go without too much pain. I refer again to HHDL's remark that he would abandon even a deeply-held belief if science disproved it.

Priceless Thought! We should all pray for such grace.

____________________
"BE KIND" - the religion of ShangriLa---from the movie, "Lost Horizon"

[buddhafoot]

One thing that I thought was extraordinary regarding Buddhist and it's teachers...

May other religions have so much history and teaching based upon someone else's opinions or thoughts - but they've become doctrine and dogma to those religions. They can't give it up without losing face.

Maybe losing face in Buddhism is okay - because "saving face" is just another thing to let go of.

-bf

[Palzang]

One of the slogans of the Dorje Kasung in the Shambhala organization is: "Not afraid to be a fool." I always liked that one.

Palzang

[Simonthepilgrim]

At the depths of great faiths is the notion of the Fool.

Saint Paul calls on his readers to become "fools in Christ" and the great Saint Basil of Russia is also called the Holy Fool (as is Brither Francis of Assisi).

For the fiurst years that I was contributing and working on the Net, I used Trump Zero of the Major Arcana, the Fool, as my avatar

[Palzang]

Fortunately I've never had a problem living up to that one!

Palzang

[Nirvana]

One of the slogans of the Dorje Kasung in the Shambhala organization is: "Not afraid to be a fool." I always liked that one.
At the depths of great faiths is the notion of the Fool.

Saint Paul calls on his readers to become "fools in Christ" and the great Saint Basil of Russia is also called the Holy Fool (as is Brither Francis of Assisi).

QUESTION:

Is it foolish to believe in God or a god if it by some means that belief liberates a part of you and helps you deal more confidently and producively with problems that come your way in life?


2 MORE QUESTIONS:

Is it true OF YOU that you find some traits or tendencies of theists of this or that (or all) persuasions SO UNATTRACTIVE that you want to attack all belief? AND Might not this "GOD" issue really belong more to the field of aesthetics than to that of pure reason?

“BE KIND" — the religion of Shangri-La: from the movie, “Lost Horizon"

Meditate by emptying yourself and letting the universe fill you.

(Idea stolen from YogaMama)
Go Green!!!

[buddhafoot]

Simon...

Me too.

-bf

[ECM]

Perhaps another question to throw in the pot is -

What is God?

The old man in the sky?
Your guilty conscience?
A being?
A process that pervades the world?
The angry judge?
The energy of love and compassion?

ECM

[buddhafoot]

I think Palzang repeated a teaching of Buddha - in some form - that relates to this question very well.

Could it not be considered somewhat unskillful to worry about something like a God? There is no proof. Even Christ or the Apostles let us know that it is through "faith alone" that one would be saved, that is, don't look for signs and wonders because they probably ain't gonna happen. If you need miracles for your faith - you're screwed.

So - is there a god or gods? Who knows?

I guess if you're trying to bank on guaranteeing your afterlife - you need to get this issue resolved. If you're content with letting things play out the way they will - that might be the best approach.

If at some point it is proven that there is a god or gods - I'll accept it. It if is truth - I have no problem accepting truth. If it's proven there are no gods or god - I'll accept it.

As someone once said, Come Kalamas...

-bf

[Nirvana]

Trying to be perhaps more specific:

How is it that some believers, in knowing with such confidence THE UNKNOWABLE, manage to make so many people so vehemently opposed to their way of thinking?

Is something else also going on here?

For me, it's not so much a question of certitude as it is a matter of real integrity of belief and practice. That would include consistency and at least some measure of self restraint and real humility, if humility is one of the things the theistic religion teaches (true of Christinity). Real humility would not constrain others by force of arms or threats...

[Nirvana]

Perhaps another question to throw in the pot is -

What is God?

The old man in the sky?
Your guilty conscience?
A being?
A process that pervades the world?
The angry judge?
The energy of love and compassion?


IF [the one] God exists, what is THAT to you?
Is God a Buddha? Is God a realized being or just a figment of someone's imagination?
If a tree fell in a forest and no one was there to hear it, would it make a noise?
If we were perfectly acclimated to our environment and had never invented clothes or cover, would anyone ever be naked?
If we were all so intuned to the universe and acutely aware of the interconnectedness of all that we never felt lost or out-of-power, would these questions even faze us?

_____________________


all which isn't singing is mere talking
and all talking's talking to oneself
(whether that oneself be sought or seeking
master or disciple sheep or wolf)

gush to it as deity or devil
-toss in sobs and reasons threats and smiles
name it cruel fair or blessed evil-
it is you (ne i)nobody else

drive dumb mankind dizzy with haranguing
-you are deafened every mother's son-
all is merely talk which isn't singing
and all talking's to oneself alone

but the very song of(as mountains
feel and lovers)singing is silence

ee cummings

[Simonthepilgrim]

One of the things that fascinates me is that human beings spend so much time and effort on these questions.

To some brilliant thinkers, like Richard Dawkins, they are worse than a waste of time. What surprises me is that so many people who dislike the God 'meme', still attack it from within the same system. As Bateson points out, in order to do so, we must accept the laws of that system. Or, as Matthew Fox puts it, slaves remain in slavery as long as they continue to use the language of the slave-owners.

For me, it is not enough to assert one side or another of the God debate. Even personal experience is not enough, either of 'presence' or of 'absence', particularly second- or third-hand experience.

From my pov, the ball is squarely in the court of the theists - and I count myself among those who are more on that side of the court than the other. If the language in which we are presenting the meme is not persuasive, we must either change the language or question the meme itself.

We need to ask ourselves - and not the opposition - to define what, precisely, we do mean. When HHDL refers, as he regularly does when addressing the West, to 'God', does he mean anything at all similar to the 'God' of the Catholics or the Muslims?

We need to be clear when we are using metaphorical or allusive language. Indeed, I think that we need to clarify it for ourselves. There is a tendency to confuse the symbol with the symbolised.

As I say, I find it hard to credit that something which has occupied so much human energy for so much of human history and used so many resources is simply to be dismissed out of hand because we do not yet understand it.

[Palzang]

LOVE'S FOOL

Love.
What is love?
What is love.
Love is a fading memory.
Love is piercingly present.
Love is full of charm.
Love is hideously in the way.
Explosion of love makes you feel ecstatic.
Explosion of love makes you feel suicidal.
Love brings goodliness and godliness.
Love brings celestial vision.
Love creates the unity of heaven and earth.
Love tears apart heaven and earth.
Is love sympathy.
Is love gentleness.
Is love possessiveness.
Is love sexuality.
Is love friendship.
Who knows?
Maybe the rock knows,
Sitting diligently on earth,
Not flinching from cold snowstorms or baking heat.
O rock,
How much I love you:
You are the only loveable one.
Would you let me grow a little flower of love on you?
If you don't mind,
Maybe I could grow a pine tree on you.
If you are so generous,
Maybe I could build a house on you.
If you are fantastically generous,
Maybe I could eat you up,
Or move you to my landscape garden.
It is nice to be friends with a rock!

From TIMELY RAIN: Selected Poetry of Chogyam Trungpa. Written July 1975. First published in FIRST THOUGHT BEST THOUGHT.

[Palzang]

One of the things that fascinates me is that human beings spend so much time and effort on these questions.

To some brilliant thinkers, like Richard Dawkins, they are worse than a waste of time. What surprises me is that so many people who dislike the God 'meme', still attack it from within the same system. As Bateson points out, in order to do so, we must accept the laws of that system. Or, as Matthew Fox puts it, slaves remain in slavery as long as they continue to use the language of the slave-owners.

For me, it is not enough to assert one side or another of the God debate. Even personal experience is not enough, either of 'presence' or of 'absence', particularly second- or third-hand experience.

From my pov, the ball is squarely in the court of the theists - and I count myself among those who are more on that side of the court than the other. If the language in which we are presenting th