Concepts relative to "God" in Buddhism

[konchog uma]

does it ever make you wonder why buddhism is the only spiritual tradition not to honor the creator according to its understanding?

 

I guess I'll take your lack of response to mean that you have never wondered that.

 

I wonder that. Do buddhists think that this occured spontaneously, without a being to guide it? That the big bang just happened, and from some random explosion in space all this occured?

 

It seems more likely that from a random tornado in a junkyard, a working 747 would be assembled.

 

I know the doctrine of beginninglessness but an event called the big bang actually happened, even if its just a phase in a great cycle. The expansion of the universe and the red/blue shift when we observe stars tells us that very clearly.

 

Because of a long near-death experience i had, the "creator" (or intelligent singularity, or spirit of the All, or whatever have you) is obvious to me. But before that, it wasn't. So i don't expect anyone else to believe what i believe, not having experienced what i did. But i am curious how buddhists reconcile the basic reality that all mystics have perceived the great spirit except them?? Don't some buddhists say "well i'm buddhist but not dogmatically.. maybe there are things buddhism doesn't understand" or am i the only one?

[xabir2005]

I guess I'll take your lack of response to mean that you have never wondered that.

I don't have to wonder... I know from my experience, insight and understanding that God is incompatible from Dependent Origination, which is why the Buddha explicitly rejected notions of a Creator. Once you have realized anatta and dependent origination, you will see what notions are incompatible... The notion of creationism falls under the view of partial eternalism, which are eliminated with right knowledge and insight.

I wonder that. Do buddhists think that this occured spontaneously, without a being to guide it? That the big bang just happened, and from some random explosion in space all this occured?

No, the teaching of dependent origination rejects the view of creationism PLUS the view that things arise randomly, by chance, spontaneously, without cause... and it rejects that things exists without cause, independently.

 

Every arising has a cause, so it is not just 'random', but it is not by some ultimate God.

 

As for how this physical universe began, here's an excerpt that may offer some general intro understanding of the Buddhist POV:

 

Buddha: Mind pre­cedes all dham­mas.

 

Namdrol: When we say that matter comes from mind, it is very simple: physical matter arises due to the traces of action and affliction collectively aggregated in all minds every time the container universe forms.

 

Basically, dependently originated. And this physical universe is not the only one - there had been innumerable past universes, and there will be innumerable future universes.

It seems more likely that from a random tornado in a junkyard, a working 747 would be assembled.

Not random, but rather cause, conditions and effect.

I know the doctrine of beginninglessness but an event called the big bang actually happened, even if its just a phase in a great cycle. The expansion of the universe and the red/blue shift when we observe stars tells us that very clearly.

There is a beginning and end to this universe, but there will be innumerable future universes, and there was innumerable past universes. This is the Buddhist understanding of universes. This is why there is no beginning to samsara even though there is a beginning and end to a particular universe.

Because of a long near-death experience i had, the "creator" (or intelligent singularity, or spirit of the All, or whatever have you) is obvious to me. But before that, it wasn't. So i don't expect anyone else to believe what i believe, not having experienced what i did. But i am curious how buddhists reconcile the basic reality that all mystics have perceived the great spirit except them?? Don't some buddhists say "well i'm buddhist but not dogmatically.. maybe there are things buddhism doesn't understand" or am i the only one?

Can you describe what you perceive to be intelligence? Is this intelligence separate from you? How do you know this intelligence is some sort of Creator?

 

Ever read books like Tibetan Book of the Dead? In Vajrayana Bardo texts, there is an instruction to the dying in their bardo states (they can still hear you even though clinically dead) to understand all of their perceptions as their own display. The experiences and visions you perceive in your bardo, near death state are an expression or display of your own cognition. They do not represent some external figure apart from yourself. Understanding this you do not fall into the error of assuming a subject-object duality.

 

Basically, your experience cannot be denied, but the framework in which the experienced is interpreted is often based on dualistic and inherent thought (dualistic means subject-object, inherent means something inherently existing, self, etc). This is why the old Masters say, keep the experience but refine the view.

 

I have to say that your experience sounds very much like the experience/realization of I AMness with the aspect of impersonality. This experience is well described as the 'Spirit of ALL' since it appears like you break out of the vase of individuality into an all-pervasive, impersonal Presence. That experience is without subject-object duality. I have had such realization before.

 

However the mind wrongly interpretes this as a universal substance or source... until further insights develope. The experience is impersonal (stripped of the construct of personality) but to call it a universal source is an extrapolation due to the framework of duality and inherency.

 

Eventually you will see that the 'all-pervading Presence' is actually the essence of the individual mindstream when the mind ceases gross conceptualization and experiences, and stripped off of the construct of personality. This experience appears transcendental and often (falsely) interpreted to be some cosmic God.

 

When anatta is realized, consciousness is understood to be an individual mindstream that is nonetheless non-dual and without any self, but not a universal source of things.

 

This is elaborated in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

 

I haven't said anything because buddhist babble drives me nuts, and i can't explain god. I don't understand it.

 

God is easy to explain,...just look up what the word points to in a dictionary. From that definition, it's also easier to understand the concept.

 

God (god), n.,

1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).

2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).

3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).

4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol (conditions).

5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (conditioned).

6. A very handsome man (condition).

7. A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).

8. Used to express disappointment, disbelief, frustration, annoyance (conditions).

 

Everything about god is a condition,...even the Christian concept in the late second century apology 1John 1:5,...god is light, and in him is no dark,...which defines their god as purely Yang,...that is, the male half of duality,...but Light as Wu Wei or the Unconditional fulcrum upon which duality's light effects its motion,....is not separated from dark,...Creation, through the nurturance of darkness, dies into light.

 

The Patriarchy wants to deny the rhythmic balanced interchange of nature, by indoctrinating ideas like light conquering dark. They don't want to know that all phenomena, through the nurturance of darkness, dies into light. Polarity's Yang light does not hold within itself the potential to birth, for it is a result already spawned through Yin's darkness.

 

Unfortunately, a prevalant human construct suggests that light is good and dark is evil,...not because it is, but because to understand the truth would wreck the fragile fabric of society's patriarchial brewed philosophical and religious beliefs they cling to for their identity.

 

Moving, incandescent objects are borne from moving, dark, objectless space. All incandescent Yang is surrounded by Yin's dark. Where is it ever true that light conquers dark? There is no amount of light that can illuminate all dark, for in Duality, darkness always surrounds it. Rudolph Steiner once said that light was the antipathic aspect of polarity, whereas darkness is its sympathic expression.

 

To me, Buddhist is basically honest about the concept of god. Does that make Buddhists superior? Yes! They're honest enough to get past the god meme, and move on. Theists are still stuck in the meme.

 

V

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I guess I could even accept an idea of God being dependently originated, since "there is no beginning" God could still have always existed. Also, Buddha spoke about a time span reaching back hundreds of trillions of years when he speaks of tens of thousands of kalpas, so for "The All" to originate around this time, sure, that doesn't really diminish my limited human conception... I can't conceive of any such time frames so they are just as infinite, to me.

 

It doesn't seem to make any sense that humans depend on light and warmth, and light and warmth are dependently originated from other circumstances, but there is still nothing more primary than light and warmth, which itself may have arisen due to circumstances, but which life after that all depended on.

 

And of course, acknowledging this possibility or truth does not mean that someone has to accept the dogma of this or that religion.. It's just further investigation into dependent origination. What were the circumstances that led to "God?" There probably were some.

 

maybe this poem I wrote a while back explains something.. though our understanding is irrelevant to God's existence, the same as it is to the truth of dependent origination I think..

 

and the earth and beginning

always and spinning

from initial attraction

far from reaction

 

a musical vibration

caused anticipation

and then came creation

and our situation

[xabir2005]

I guess I could even accept an idea of God being dependently originated,

No, if God were dependently originated, that would strip God of the title of creator, since God would then be a D.O-ed manifested/manifestation rather than the manifestor or creator. God would then not be an agent and thus no God at all, and the process would have arisen due to dependent origination without agency which is what I am point out to be directly observable and realizable (but not by the process of inference I gave you which is just to point out certain logical inconsistencies).

since "there is no beginning" God could still have always existed.

"There is no beginning" was said by Buddha in reference to samsara - not a creator since he rejected the notion of creationism.

 

Basically the Buddha's criticism of God is that if there were such a thing as a God, that would have been an evil (if personal) or harmful (if impersonal) entity... since there is so much suffering in life.

Also, Buddha spoke about a time span reaching back hundreds of trillions of years when he speaks of tens of thousands of kalpas, so for "The All" to originate around this time, sure, that doesn't really diminish my limited human conception... I can't conceive of any such time frames so they are just as infinite, to me.

He did not speak about an ultimate beginning, but he does talk about kalpas, aeons, etc... even aeons after aeons, the cycle of samsara goes on and on. No beginning can be found.

It doesn't seem to make any sense that humans depend on light and warmth, and light and warmth are dependently originated from other circumstances, but there is still nothing more primary than light and warmth, which itself may have arisen due to circumstances, but which life after that all depended on.

It makes perfect sense plus it can be seen in direct experience that all manifestation dependently originates.

 

Buddha say mind precedes all dhammas - in that case, warmth and light also preceded from mind and karma. In other words, our experience, whatever they occur, don't occur purely as a result of matter - the materialist or modern science understanding of things. Buddha is not a materialist. He says things dependently originate, but yet mind precedes all dharmas. Of course this doesn't make mind an agent because mind itself dependently originate dependent on previous moments of mind, a process that has no beginning. But the basic point here is that we do not say 'brain creates mind', Buddhists are not materialists, and we believe that the mind continuum does not merely cease upon physical death which would as a consequence reject rebirth and karma (the view of annihilation), but neither do we posit an unchanging self or soul, so we teach a middle way beyond extremes.

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

@L7S

 

That seems to be the case every time I debate concepts with some of the more evangelical types (like the Evangelical Atheists. Can I coin that term?..). I guess I probably come off as an evangelical type here too, though I'm more out for an inquiry and discussion. Maybe I'm getting too used to it dealing with so many people who do the same type of thing.. At least I have it all in writing HERE..hahaaa!!

 

 

No, you cannot say that (LOL). Evangelism is a Christian term,...you could say "MFPOS proselytizing atheist SOB", and I wouldn't object. However, I do agree that you come off as an evangelist, because of your clinginess to Christian concepts.

 

Of course, that does not make you better or worse than a "MFPOS proselytizing atheist SOB",...because you are both arguing beliefs. For example,...I understand that there is no god,...but I'm not an atheist, because atheists "believe" in no god. I could be labled a Buddhist in that I neither believe nor dis-believe in a god,...(and use a path of practice and spiritual development, largely based on the oral instructions of Sakyamuni Buddha, which lead to the understanding of both the relative and absolute nature of reality.)

 

Belief in a god is a belief that there is a creation. And yet there is no creation,...just a dream. Non-believers in a god also believe in a creation, although one that happened without a creator. What they fail to reason, is that all beliefs are dishonest. If a belief were true, it would not be a belief.

 

V

[Vmarco]

 

It doesn't seem to make any sense that humans depend on light and warmth, and light and warmth are dependently originated from other circumstances, but there is still nothing more primary than light and warmth, which itself may have arisen due to circumstances, but which life after that all depended on.

 

maybe this poem I wrote a while back explains something.. though our understanding is irrelevant to God's existence, the same as it is to the truth of dependent origination I think..

 

and the earth and beginning

always and spinning

from initial attraction

far from reaction

 

a musical vibration

caused anticipation

and then came creation

and our situation

 

Only Divided Light is warm,...Undivided Light is neither warm nor cold.

 

Music does not exist outside of the nature of things.

 

Wu Wei did not "vibrate a sound" and creation was spawned.

 

Buddha explained it well:

 

"From beginningless time until now, all living beings have mistaken themselves for things and, having lost the original mind, are turned around by things." Shurangama sutra

 

V

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

Buddha say mind precedes all dhammas - in that case, warmth and light also preceded from mind and karma. In other words, our experience, whatever they occur, don't occur purely as a result of matter - the materialist or modern science understanding of things. Buddha is not a materialist. He says things dependently originate, but yet mind precedes all dharmas. Of course this doesn't make mind an agent because mind itself dependently originate dependent on previous moments of mind, a process that has no beginning. But the basic point here is that we do not say 'brain creates mind', Buddhists are not materialists, and we believe that the mind continuum does not merely cease upon physical death which would as a consequence reject rebirth and karma (the view of annihilation), but neither do we posit an unchanging self or soul, so we teach a middle way beyond extremes.

 

Well, exactly. What you call Mind, others call God.

 

It's just that various authorities and cultures have attributed various things to "God" and so most people think of these attributes when they are talking about God, but a mystic does not limit his conception of God in such a way, other than in words, but even the best words are just empty metaphors at the best of times...

Edited January 6, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[xabir2005]

Well, exactly. What you call Mind, others call God.

There is some fundamental difference though.

 

What I call mind is empty of self, impermanent (as in arising and ceasing moment to moment but uninterruptedly flowing like a river), everchanging, without agency, dependent on conditions.

 

What they call God is inherently existing and have a Self, independent, ultimate, unchanging, an ultimate agent and origin for all things.

 

Both may have a similar experience of the luminous mind, but one sees the empty nature of luminosity and thus attain liberation from all clinging (Buddhism) but the other may fail to see its empty nature and thus reify it into something much more solid and inherent thus causing grasping and delusion.

 

As Thusness say, Although there is non-duality in Advaita Vedanta, and no-self in Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta rest in an “Ultimate Background” (making it dualistic), whereas Buddhism eliminates the background completely and rest in the emptiness nature of phenomena; arising and ceasing is where pristine awareness is. In Buddhism, there is no eternality, only timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). There is no changing thing, only change.

 

 

It is not mere semantics but there is a vast practical difference... I have gone through those experiences and phases of insight so I know.

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Man, some people are so hopelessly connected to prior conceptions of terms. It's like they think blue is sky because the sky is blue.... Intelligence is quite absurd..

[Harmonious Emptiness]

@Xabir

 

So, you are IT, your mind is EVERYTHING, so you are GOD. Every tradition has said God is in us, like the Zulu who say that everything is a circle with smaller circles inside of it, which all have smaller circles inside of them, etc., etc., and those circles are consciousness. We are consciousness, everything around us is consciousness, and consciousness is God, consciousness is Mind, Consciousness IS

[konchog uma]

[xabir2005]

@Xabir

 

So, you are IT, your mind is EVERYTHING, so you are GOD. Every tradition has said God is in us, like the Zulu who say that everything is a circle with smaller circles inside of it, which all have smaller circles inside of them, etc., etc., and those circles are consciousness. We are consciousness, everything around us is consciousness, and consciousness is God, consciousness is Mind, Consciousness IS

Your stance is simlar to Advaita Vedanta notion of Brahman.

 

When you realize anatta, it is not longer seen as such. It does not mean consciousness is denied but the inherency of consciousness. One sees that the notion of agency, or an ultimate awareness observing or manifesting things is an illusion... in seeing there is just the seen without seer, no agent, no source behind things. So there is not 'awareness and manifestation' not even 'awareness manifesting as everything' since 'awareness' is only 'manifestation'. There is no 'The Awareness', but six streams of dependently originated awareness-es as explained in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/12/dependent-arising-of-consciousness.html , which is distinct from the monistic non-duality of Advaita.

 

So what this realization entails is the deconstruction of 'Awareness' into the six streams of dependently originated consciousness, without a cognizer. There is just a process and stream of activities of knowing without knower, and each manifestation of cognizance is distinct, disjoint, it is just a diverse display of manifold rather than a collapsing of multiplicity into Oneness such as in the case of One Mind.

 

By the way my advice (because this is my path and Thusness's) is to contemplate and realize I AM, which then progresses to Non Dual (at first One Mind) then eventually into No Mind and Anatta. So for us it is advisable to go through step by step, but understand the importance of right view otherwise progress will be stalled.

 

I have discussed all these experientially in details in my article Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/21871-experience-realization-view-practice-and-fruition/

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[konchog uma]

@xabir: thanks for taking the time to answer. I meant it doesn't fit with what i experienced. My mind is open, but thanks for reminding me. I just disagree with some of buddhism. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

its actually because i am openminded that i disagree with some of buddhism hahah

Edited January 6, 2012 by anamatva

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

 

Eventually you will see that the 'all-pervading Presence' is actually the essence of the individual mindstream when the mind ceases gross conceptualization and experiences, and stripped off of the construct of personality. This experience appears transcendental and often (falsely) interpreted to be some cosmic God.

 

When anatta is realized, consciousness is understood to be an individual mindstream that is nonetheless non-dual and without any self, but not a universal source of things.

 

Sorry, but I have to go with the comprehensive authority of Tsele Natsok Rangdrol on this one again. Your main points seem to fall off the dart board when contrasted to his teachings. Basically, I'm just trying to show that some concepts of God can still hold up within Buddhist framework, though not all of them, of course..

 

 

"Your natural essence... ultimately.. has no true existence. Thus, it is a great emptiness free from the limitations of arising, dwelling, and ceasing - the unconditioned dharmadhatu. Since the beginning it is a nature in which the three kayas are spontaneously present, and it is known as the "ground mahamudra of the essential nature of things."

The Guhyagarbha Tantra teaches:

"This mind-essence devoid of ground and root

Is the basis of all phenomena."

"This essence is not something that exists within the mind-stream of just one individual person or just one buddha. It is the actual basis of all that appears and exists, the whole of samsara and nirvana."

Edited January 7, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[xabir2005]

"This essence is not something that exists within the mind-stream of just one individual person or just one buddha. It is the actual basis of all that appears and exists, the whole of samsara and nirvana."

You are misunderstanding what is being said here. What he is saying is that this essence or nature is not only perculiar to an awakened Buddha. All deluded sentient beings too have similar essence and nature, and this is the essence and nature of all displays whether nirvana OR samsara (which means sentient beings too are of similar nature).

 

However none of this implies a universal substratum or God. The idea of a universal consciousness is generally alien to Buddhism except maybe some very late misinterpretation of Tathagatagarbha.

Edited January 7, 2012 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Well, though the interpretations might not be Buddhist, I still find plenty of references to phenomena which is confirmed in many other ways. My earliest understanding of this was that Buddhism does not believe in a Creator, but no matter how people want to understand this, there are similarities and they seem to be more and more prevalent the more I read.

 

So, though Buddhism generally espouses that there is no Creator, they have merely replaced the same doctrines with other philosophical understandings, such as the kayas, Amida, and numerous other ways. It's almost like Western culture has incorporated so many other traditions into their religious culture so that they can celebrate these things under their own accepted terms. So, Christians don't believe in the existence of other gods, but they have angels and patron saints that effectively serve the same purpose. Christians don't recognize Celtic seasonal rites of passage, but they celebrate them almost exactly the same ways under different representations.

 

So, you can pray to Amida, or Vajradhara, both representations of Dharmakaya, or even to Buddha, and say that this is entirely different to the beliefs of "Creator" spirituality, but it's just the same dance to a slightly different tune. The practice and the result is what counts, not the clothes we dress them up in.

 

Not to say that you are, but to sit around and act superior due to having "the correct" hand-me-down understanding is the fool-trap of fool-traps.

[xabir2005]

Well, though the interpretations might not be Buddhist, I still find plenty of references to phenomena which is confirmed in many other ways. My earliest understanding of this was that Buddhism does not believe in a Creator, but no matter how people want to understand this, there are similarities and they seem to be more and more prevalent the more I read.

 

So, though Buddhism generally espouses that there is no Creator, they have merely replaced the same doctrines with other philosophical understandings, such as the kayas, Amida, and numerous other ways. It's almost like Western culture has incorporated so many other traditions into their religious culture so that they can celebrate these things under their own accepted terms. So, Christians don't believe in the existence of other gods, but they have angels and patron saints that effectively serve the same purpose. Christians don't recognize Celtic seasonal rites of passage, but they celebrate them almost exactly the same ways under different representations.

 

So, you can pray to Amida, or Vajradhara, both representations of Dharmakaya, or even to Buddha, and say that this is entirely different to the beliefs of "Creator" spirituality, but it's just the same dance to a slightly different tune. The practice and the result is what counts, not the clothes we dress them up in.

 

Not to say that you are, but to sit around and act superior due to having "the correct" hand-me-down understanding is the fool-trap of fool-traps.

The problem however HE, is that Buddha placed right view as the foremost, most important factor for realization. It is the first factor of the noble eightfold path. Without right view, no matter how you practice, you will not realize anatta, d.o. and emptiness and you will fail to attain liberation. If you held views of eternalism or annihilationism, you will fail to grasp Buddha's realization no matter how hard you practice. But if you have been instilled right view from the start, your progress will be fast like mine.

 

Since the view is more important than the practice and without the right view, practice will not lead to insight, hence more importance is placed on the view. Of course the practice is also important and without experience and realization, the view can't be truly seen. So the view, realization and experience are three essential things.

 

In short, different view leads to different results. Liberation is dependent on right view.

Edited January 10, 2012 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The problem however HE, is that Buddha placed right view as the foremost, most important factor for realization. It is the first factor of the noble eightfold path. Without right view, no matter how you practice, you will not realize anatta, d.o. and emptiness and you will fail to attain liberation. If you held views of eternalism or annihilationism, you will fail to grasp Buddha's realization no matter how hard you practice. But if you have been instilled right view from the start, your progress will be fast like mine.

 

Since the view is more important than the practice and without the right view, practice will not lead to insight, hence more importance is placed on the view. Of course the practice is also important and without experience and realization, the view can't be truly seen. So the view, realization and experience are three essential things.

 

In short, different view leads to different results. Liberation is dependent on right view.

 

I could care less

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I could care less

 

edit:

and I say that because people are attached to a particular understanding of "God."

Even some Buddhists pray to "the Heavens" I'm sure, and they know that there is a higher power that they need to humble themselves to.

 

If you want to say "it's all me. There is no Tao, there is no Wuji. It's just there because I made it up, and it will follow me on the way out of existence" then you are more deluded than any wrong views that the Buddha warned about.

 

Really, at the end of the day, I don't think I'm a Buddhist, because I believe there are some circumstances that require destructive action. I see that things are not as concrete as they appear in our limited life times, and that everything has this same nature. That is only half of the Buddhist View. The other side is that I don't reject the existence of phenomena, or a higher power, order, mind, love, balance, etc..

 

There are laws of science. I don't think Buddhism denies that. There is also a higher power underlying existence, call it Love, Chi, Tao, Wuji, or whatever you like. I don't think they need to be separated any more than emptiness from a mountain.

 

You don't have to agree or believe or accept that, but I find your view of Buddhism to be overly nihilistic and have not been proven otherwise, so I think you are actually wrong on both sides of this issue which makes our correspondence on it quite hopeless..

[xabir2005]

edit:

and I say that because people are attached to a particular understanding of "God."

Even some Buddhists pray to "the Heavens" I'm sure, and they know that there is a higher power that they need to humble themselves to.

 

If you want to say "it's all me. There is no Tao, there is no Wuji. It's just there because I made it up, and it will follow me on the way out of existence" then you are more deluded than any wrong views that the Buddha warned about.

 

Really, at the end of the day, I don't think I'm a Buddhist, because I believe there are some circumstances that require destructive action. I see that things are not as concrete as they appear in our limited life times, and that everything has this same nature. That is only half of the Buddhist View. The other side is that I don't reject the existence of phenomena, or a higher power, order, mind, love, balance, etc..

 

There are laws of science. I don't think Buddhism denies that. There is also a higher power underlying existence, call it Love, Chi, Tao, Wuji, or whatever you like. I don't think they need to be separated any more than emptiness from a mountain.

 

You don't have to agree or believe or accept that, but I find your view of Buddhism to be overly nihilistic and have not been proven otherwise, so I think you are actually wrong on both sides of this issue which makes our correspondence on it quite hopeless..

My view has nothing to do with nihilism. It is the inseparability of luminosity, energy/appearance and emptiness.

 

There is no denying the experience or appearance of love, chi, or even tao. But there is nothing "self" about them. They are all psycho-physical phenomena. Love is a wholesome mental state. Chi is also a psychophysical phenomena that can be utilized for a good purpose. Tao, described by Lao Tzu has nothing to do with an ultimate self - it is instead, talking about the way things are, and is described as flowing like water.

 

There is no self so "all is me" is a false notion. But there is no self does not mean "nothing" or "void" or "nihilism" but on the contrary clarity, aliveness and luminosity in full blast without the confusion and obscurations of delusions like self-view. There is just seeing without a seer, hearing without a hearer, everything happening without a seperate observer apart from the observed.

 

Basically your misunderstanding of my message as nihilistic has to do with your not understanding what anatta, dependent origination and emptiness means. These truths are called by Buddha to be the middle way - that liberates us from views of existence and non-existence, eternalism and nihilism, and only when such false views are seen through Is liberation from samsara possible.

[xabir2005]

Buddhists don't pray to gods or heaven, and we consider such being in a higher plane but still worldly and impermanent. In other words gods are born there due to their good past life karma but they are not necessarily awakened and not necessarily liberated, thus are also subject to the cycle of samsara. Therefore rebirth in heaven (long life but still temporary) among the gods is not the ultimate aim of a buddhist.

 

We view awakened beings, arhats, bodhisattvas and buddhas as being of much higher status than worldly gods. However we don't consider such beings as God (creator), just beings like you and me who happen to awaken. Every single person can become awakened, can

become a buddha. We just need to practice.

 

In terms of devotion, Mahayana Buddhism has this aspect because we accept the presence of bodhisattvas and buddhas, while I think the stance of Theravada is that arhats and buddhas entered final cessation.

 

All phenomena arise due to causes and conditions, ceases due to the cessation of causes and conditions. Therefore the universe is not run by some omnipotent being, but by karma, by causes and conditions. So that is the "underlying law" if there is any.

Edited January 12, 2012 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Xabir, you're still missing my point. I see that these ideas don't fit in exactly with Buddhism, but there are some very close similarities which I am willing to overlook due to the fact that living humans can not know what exactly the truth of the matter is. You are obviously very sure and confident in your understanding and the teachings of Buddhism, but that doesn't mean that Buddhism was spot on with every detail of existence.

 

To me, the similarities are so similar they might as well be the same without my full understanding since any human full understanding is fully impossible anyways.

 

Another question for you, I guess, though: Do you think we are one with everything because everything is empty?

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack