"there is a God!"

[Bud Jetsun]

Yes, a common understanding for many.  I wouldn't have any problem with it if it were associated with the processes of nature (the nature of the universe).

 

Logos is the process of nature, way of nature, phenomena. It was 'God' until a mass delusion of God personification and the delusion God had to be searched for and found somewhere perpetuated by most organized 'religion'(a mis-nomer when its construct indoctrination based.)

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[gentlewind]

Yes, a common understanding for many.  I wouldn't have any problem with it if it were associated with the processes of nature (the nature of the universe).

But for me it is all inclusive Marblehead. We are miniature universes ! Everything is the Universe or Multiverse because we know nothing, even though some believe they do !!!

 

I am fascinated by a blade of grass, worm or slug; they are all Universal Representatives ! I treat all Life with the deepest of respect.

 

I am not gentlewind, he is a character I am playing. The flesh vehicle being occupied by whatever  it is, gets me from A-Z and through its encounters with other flesh vehicles it learns vital lessons - even those deemed failures. It is the mind which happily labels experiences as good or bad etc. Truth is there are no good or bad experiences. The flesh form is Consciousness experiencing Earth Wars !!! Well the current edition is Earth Wars. There may be a more peaceful edition in the future, hopefully !

[3bob]

First there is a God, then is no God then there is....(to borrow and swap words to a saying)

[Bud Jetsun]

First there is a God, then is no God then there is....(to borrow and swap words to a saying)

 

That was the Buddhas own description.

 

 

"Gautam Buddha - Does God exist"

Once upon a time, Gautam Buddha was visiting a village. While he was entering the village, one man asked him, "Does God exist?". Gautam Buddha replied, "No, Absolutely not." The man went after hearing the answer. In the afternoon, another man came and asked, "Does God exist?". Buddha replied, "Yes, of-course". Later in the evening, another person came and asked, "Does God exist?". Buddha did not answer and kept silence. Then he closed his eyes. On seeing this, the man also became silent and closed his eyes. Then something transpired in the silence. Then the man opened his eyes, with a smile and tears in his eyes, touched Buddha's feet and with a heart full of gratitude thanked Buddha and said, "You are the first and only man who actually answered my question."

One of Buddha's attendant, Ananda, on seeing all this became puzzled as to what the truth is. So when Buddha was going to sleep, Ananda said, "First you answer me; otherwise I will not be able to sleep. You have to be a little more compassionate towards me too. I have been with you the whole day. Those three people don't know about the other answers, but I have heard all the three answers. What about me? I am troubled."

Buddha said, "I was not talking to you at all! You had not asked, I had not answered YOU. The first man who came was a theist, the second man who came was an atheist, the third man who came was an agnostic. My answer had nothing to do with God, my answer had something to do with the questioner. I was answering the questioner; it was absolutely unconcerned with God.

"The person who believes in God, I will say no to him because I want him to drop his idea of God, I want him to be free of his idea of God -- which is borrowed. He has not experienced. If he had experienced he would not have asked me; there would have been no need.

"The person who believed in God, he was trying to find confirmation for his belief from me. I was not going to say yes to him -- I am not going to confirm anybody's belief. I had to say no, I had to deny, just to destroy his belief, because all beliefs are barriers to knowing the truth. Theist or atheist, all beliefs, Hindu or Christian or Mohammedan, all beliefs are barriers.

"The person who did not believe in God, also only had a belief that needed to be broken. Else he would never start to search the truth and will only accept his belief as truth.

"And the person with whom I remained silent was the right inquirer. He had no belief, hence there was no question of destroying anything. I kept silent. That was my message to him: Be silent and know. Don't ask, there is no need to ask. It is not a question which can be answered. It is not an inquiry but a quest, a thirst. Be silent and know.

I had answered him also; through my silence I gave him the message and he immediately followed it -- he also became silent. I closed my eyes, he closed his eyes; I looked in, he looked in, and then something transpired. That's why he was so much overwhelmed, he felt so much gratitude, for the simple reason that I did not give him any intellectual answer. He had not come for any intellectual answer; intellectual answers are available very cheap. He needed something existential -- he needed a taste. I gave him a taste."

[Marblehead]

First there is a God, then is no God then there is....(to borrow and swap words to a saying)

Okay.  That was funny.

[Everything]

This is singularly your own personal choice in delusion. I can inherently can not offer an explanation or definition of the of the unexplainable and undefinable, yet in enjoyment of the pursuit of the futile, out of Compassion for your awareness I will make an attempt.

 

All things equally are God, all aspects of this moment of Now which contains all that is real to the limit of a humans ability to know it is God. God is not something you look for, as every aspect of your being to look with is already God, and there is no place you could look or mind to ponder with that is not already God. All phenomena that ever may have been, is Now, or will be is equally God. God is the nature of the emptiness from which all perceived phenomena arise. God is equally the emptiness and nothingness of all things and no things from before all phenomena existed to post all phenomena concluding simultaneously.

 

When a human mind (including my own of course) chooses to apply it's own personal perception limited delusions of 'knowing' to God, in that instant perception of God and all that is of God (Now) is replaced by some inherently lacking human constructed model.

 

Whatever one creates as a model or understanding of God's being or equally God's not being, this is delusion. There remains nothing a human can know, there is only this perception of Now which embraces all that is Real.

 

When we choose to create the faith based illusion of having 'known something' (supporting the existence of God or denying the existence of God), this is a human immersed in deluding themselves with the unknowable to replace all that is Real (which each being is free to believe is of God or of no-God makes no difference, either way you don't know and lack the mechanism for knowing).

 

We are here to perceive phenomena for a fleeting moment. When I eat an apple, I don't personally have a clue what micro-nutrient components of that apple belong becoming my brain or my muscles or energy to oxidize with the air I breath etc. When I break my body, it knows how to heal despite myself not even understanding the function of the broken mechanism, when I plant a seed and it grows, when I awake and feel the suns warmth, when I drop and object and it falls to the earth, these phenomena do not occur because some human's labeled various aspects they observed and quantified rates of effect and applied meaningless tags like 'gravity', 'light' and 'cellular reproduction' etc.

 

This collection of phenomena of unlimited beauty is my personal delusion of God, any and all are equally welcome to call the collection of phenomena 'not-God' if they want, the phenomena remains equanimous to the humans choice in recognition appreciation of the unlimited beauty it offers in all aspects from all perspectives.

 

Real Divine Love doesn't control, nor does it imply a bias to the choice in interpretation/perception of sensation. It simply IS the phenomena provided for your perceptions. There is no point at which a human suffers that is not exclusively the choice of that being to suffer (ignorance causing fear-rooted thoughts). Real Divine Love (Reality of Now) permits you to freely choose to toil and suffer pointlessly as hard as you like. Without that range of experience one could not appreciate the choice of non-suffering unbreakable bliss that is also equally always available entirely irregardless of whatever the current transitory fleeting sensation may be or not be in this one precious moment of Now we each get until our singular divine entitlement unavoidably concludes it.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

Sounds good to me. As long as it is not is not some old guy with a beard in the clouds who needs slaves to carry his throne. Edited November 8, 2015 by Everything

[Bindi]

Some famous Western thinkers thoughts on God:

According to Freud, man invents God through his imagination to calm his fears.

Jean-Paul Sartre, though an atheist, admitted his need for God.

Walter Kaufmann referred to man as the “God-intoxicated ape.”

Jung was asked if he now believed in God. "Now?" Jung asked, "Difficult to answer. I know. I don't need to believe, I know."

Edited November 9, 2015 by Bindi

[3bob]

Bud, I think that was a Zen saying I borrowed (?), a Buddhist permutation that took place quite some time after the historic Buddha passed.  Also your quote is part bad baloney since Islam, which did not exist around 2500 years ago, was mentioned in the quote.

 

Also if the historic Buddha played his version of hide and seek with people for various reasons with various effects, well that is nothing new under the sun.

Edited November 8, 2015 by 3bob

[Brian]

 

That was the Buddhas own description. "Gautam Buddha - Does God exist"Once upon a time, Gautam Buddha was visiting a village. While he was entering the village, one man asked him, "Does God exist?". Gautam Buddha replied, "No, Absolutely not." The man went after hearing the answer. In the afternoon, another man came and asked, "Does God exist?". Buddha replied, "Yes, of-course". Later in the evening, another person came and asked, "Does God exist?". Buddha did not answer and kept silence. Then he closed his eyes. On seeing this, the man also became silent and closed his eyes. Then something transpired in the silence. Then the man opened his eyes, with a smile and tears in his eyes, touched Buddha's feet and with a heart full of gratitude thanked Buddha and said, "You are the first and only man who actually answered my question."One of Buddha's attendant, Ananda, on seeing all this became puzzled as to what the truth is. So when Buddha was going to sleep, Ananda said, "First you answer me; otherwise I will not be able to sleep. You have to be a little more compassionate towards me too. I have been with you the whole day. Those three people don't know about the other answers, but I have heard all the three answers. What about me? I am troubled."Buddha said, "I was not talking to you at all! You had not asked, I had not answered YOU. The first man who came was a theist, the second man who came was an atheist, the third man who came was an agnostic. My answer had nothing to do with God, my answer had something to do with the questioner. I was answering the questioner; it was absolutely unconcerned with God."The person who believes in God, I will say no to him because I want him to drop his idea of God, I want him to be free of his idea of God -- which is borrowed. He has not experienced. If he had experienced he would not have asked me; there would have been no need."The person who believed in God, he was trying to find confirmation for his belief from me. I was not going to say yes to him -- I am not going to confirm anybody's belief. I had to say no, I had to deny, just to destroy his belief, because all beliefs are barriers to knowing the truth. Theist or atheist, all beliefs, Hindu or Christian or Mohammedan, all beliefs are barriers."The person who did not believe in God, also only had a belief that needed to be broken. Else he would never start to search the truth and will only accept his belief as truth."And the person with whom I remained silent was the right inquirer. He had no belief, hence there was no question of destroying anything. I kept silent. That was my message to him: Be silent and know. Don't ask, there is no need to ask. It is not a question which can be answered. It is not an inquiry but a quest, a thirst. Be silent and know.I had answered him also; through my silence I gave him the message and he immediately followed it -- he also became silent. I closed my eyes, he closed his eyes; I looked in, he looked in, and then something transpired. That's why he was so much overwhelmed, he felt so much gratitude, for the simple reason that I did not give him any intellectual answer. He had not come for any intellectual answer; intellectual answers are available very cheap. He needed something existential -- he needed a taste. I gave him a taste."

About what year would this have been?

[3bob]

The title of this thread also relates to a moment  some may have after things have gone very badly and then turn around for the better, and they say, "there is a God"  (sometimes in the context of an 'after-all' or in recognition of greater forces at work)

[3bob]

belief in the "noble eight fold path" could also fall under such a guillotine in the belief of destroying beliefs (thus some kind  of catch 22) while we are at it,

 

but I'd say no, imo beliefs have a place and a use and can also be called vehicles...(a very common Buddhist term)

[Michael Sternbach]

Logos is the process of nature, way of nature, phenomena. It was 'God' until a mass delusion of God personification and the delusion God had to be searched for and found somewhere perpetuated by most organized 'religion'(a mis-nomer when its construct indoctrination based.)

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

An important distinction, Bud. I believe, no, I know that there is something (or call it Nothing, with a capital "N") that can be called God. When I said before that people create their God - by which they are influenced in turn - I meant they create a thought form that represents God for them. Thus all those individual and cultural variations.

[Marblehead]

 

Friedrich Nietzsche considered his own atheistic views to be so unbearable that he wished he could be convinced he was wrong.

 

 

Are you sure about that?

[Bindi]

Are you sure about that?

 

No, I think my dodgy source was being overly enthusiastic, though it was quite likely that being Nietzsche was unbearable.

 

Maybe Nietzsche's "I would believe only in a God that knows how to dance" was to blame.

[Marblehead]

No, I think my dodgy source was being overly enthusiastic, though it was quite likely that being Nietzsche was unbearable.

 

Maybe Nietzsche's "I would believe only in a God that knows how to dance" was to blame.

Yeah, Nietzsche was in ill health for much of his life.  This had to effect his entire life.

 

But yes, to dance and enjoy life sounds good to me.  I sure wouldn't want to follow anyone who suggested that these two things were sins.

 

And really, Nietzsche's "God is dead." was pointed directly and only at the Christian God.  And he was not an anti-Semitic.  Plus, he had good thoughts regarding Buddhism.

[Marblehead]

I will speak to only this as I have no intention of pretending to question your beliefs:

 

And here I thought that it was because Nietzsche's lack of God resulted in a crisis of meaning which led him to conclude that nihilism was an accurate view of the world. In such a world, embracing nihilism would have been an embracing of death---too dionysian for an aspiring apollonian uberman.

First, I must point out that Nietzsche was not a nihilist.  And never was one nor did he ever come close to being one.

 

What Nietzsche argued mostly was against what he saw as hypocrisy by the Christian Church and its dogma.  When he stated "God is dead." he was suggesting that the Christian Church had killed the original Jewish concept of God.  And he stated that Paul was the first killer.

 

His major protest was against being a member of the "herd".  He spoke in favor of living one's own life as one was inspired to do so.  Yes, we could call him an anarchist.

 

And it is my opinion that he would have been a great Taoist Sage had he known anything about Taoism and had he not had such ill health during his life.

[Michael Sternbach]

I will speak to only this as I have no intention of pretending to question your beliefs:

 

 

First, I must point out that Nietzsche was not a nihilist.  And never was one nor did he ever come close to being one.

 

What Nietzsche argued mostly was against what he saw as hypocrisy by the Christian Church and its dogma.  When he stated "God is dead." he was suggesting that the Christian Church had killed the original Jewish concept of God.  And he stated that Paul was the first killer.

 

Do you have the source for this?

 

His major protest was against being a member of the "herd".  He spoke in favor of living one's own life as one was inspired to do so.  Yes, we could call him an anarchist.

 

And it is my opinion that he would have been a great Taoist Sage had he known anything about Taoism and had he not had such ill health during his life.

 

Very interesting post overall.

 

Nietzsche would have liked not only the anarchistic side of Daoism but without a doubt also its wide spread interest in super powers and immortality.

[Marblehead]

Do you have the source for this?

I wish I could give a direct reference.  There is none other than a paper I wrote many years ago for a college course I was taking titled "A History of (Western) Civilization".  I aced the paper, my instructor showed it to the head Philosophy instructor and that instructor said that he would love to have me take one of his courses.  I was unable to because money was tight back then and I was in a structured VA program.

 

However,

to not being a nihilist,  it is my opinion that he was 180 against what he felt was the nihilistic trend of the Christian Church.  His search was for a better way.

 

The part about Christians killing God and his criticism of Paul is scattered throughout his writings.  The entire concept, as far as I know, cannot be found in any one single place or even publication.  "Thus Spake Zarathustra" contains the concept but not worded directly.

 

I have presented this warning before but will do so again:  One must be very cautious and questioning when reading any translation of Nietzsche other than Walter Kaufmann's.

 

And as a personal opinion, don't believe anything his sister said or wrote after Nietzsche died.  She was a Nazi sympathizer.

 

Very interesting post overall. Nietzsche would have liked not only the anarchistic side of Daoism but without a doubt also its wide spread interest in super powers and immortality.

I have mixed opinions regarding his "super powers and immortality".  I don't believe this should be taken literally but rather figuratively. 

 

I believe his "super powers" was a suggestion that we all should expand our capabilities and capacities as much as possible.  "To be all that we can be", if you will as opposed to being just another sheep in the herd.

 

Believe it or not, Nietzsche was a spiritual man.  Any mention of immortality should be associated with spiritual, not physical, immortality.  This can be verified through his approval of the Buddhist religion.

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2015 by Marblehead

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Nietzsche preferred Buddhism to Christianity, but he still considered it nihilistic and escapist. http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/buddhism.htm

 

In The Gay Science and Will to Power, Nietzsche comments on Buddhism further, characterising it as an effort to withdraw from pain into an 'Oriental Nothing - called Nirvana', by way of following the maxim 'One must not act'. In The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche categorizes Buddhism as one among a group of ideologies that promote '...nihilistic turning away from life, a longing for nothingness, or for life's 'opposite', for a different sort of 'being'' According to Nietzsche, Buddhism can be described as an effort, through restraint from action, to escape suffering and pass into absolute non-existence. But is this description accurate?

Cliff notes - no, because dukkha isn't merely suffering, but the existential incompleteness caused by ignorance; because what Nietzsche was calling 'non-action' is actually the awakened person's transcendence of needing to be told what to do, and one becomes awakened in the first place through vigorous right action; and nirvana isn't simply 'nothing'.

[Marblehead]

Nietzsche preferred Buddhism to Christianity, but he still considered it nihilistic and escapist. http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/buddhism.htm

 

 

Cliff notes - no, because dukkha isn't merely suffering, but the existential incompleteness caused by ignorance; because what Nietzsche was calling 'non-action' is actually the awakened person's transcendence of needing to be told what to do, and one becomes awakened in the first place through vigorous right action; and nirvana isn't simply 'nothing'.

And I was trying so hard to be nice for our Buddhist friends.

 

Good link but I'm not capable of reading it without a biased mind right now.  Maybe one day.

 

I will instinctively disagree with the quote even though I am incapable of specifying why at the moment.

 

Perhaps Nietzsche did consider Buddhism to be nihilistic at its roots; I like to think not.

 

I doubt Nietzsche could properly be called an existentialist either.  He wanted us to go beyond that.  Beyond good and evil no less.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

And I was trying so hard to be nice for our Buddhist friends.

Aw, you are nice MH. Just wanted to contribute to the Nietzsche discussion, though I haven't studied his thought like you have. I like the little I know of Nietzsche and appreciate your info on it.

 

There's an interesting bit in the article about how 'kamma-niradha' is actually very like the 'beyond good and evil' idea.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[Marblehead]

Aw, you are nice MH. Just wanted to contribute to the Nietzsche discussion, though I haven't studied his thought like you have. I like the little I know of Nietzsche and appreciate your info on it.

 

There's an interesting bit in the article about how 'kamma-niradha' is actually very like the 'beyond good and evil' idea.

Thanks.  Most of my Nietzsche reading dates back to the mid-1980s so there is much that is not readily available in memory and I don't want to misrepresent him like so many others have.

 

I enjoy discussing Nietzsche almost as much as I enjoy discussing Taoism.  But I am constantly re-reading Taoism stuff so that is much fresher in my mind.

 

And yes, from my crude understanding of Buddhism the concept of "beyond good and evil" could fit in well with the philosophy (I couldn't use the word "religion" here).

[Bud Jetsun]

Bud, I think that was a Zen saying I borrowed (?), a Buddhist permutation that took place quite some time after the historic Buddha passed.  Also your quote is part bad baloney since Islam, which did not exist around 2500 years ago, was mentioned in the quote.

 

Also if the historic Buddha played his version of hide and seek with people for various reasons with various effects, well that is nothing new under the sun.

 

 

Quoting anything, particularly something that has been re-translated is a fools game, thank you kindly for highlighting the discrepancy.  There is an alternative translation I had read prior which doesn't mention anything other than "religion" rather than pointlessly naming some as whomever created this version decided to do. 

 

Like with any arrangements of letters, pick the gold from the tillings, then discard the tillings.  Then discard the gold. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Michael Sternbach]

I find it quite remarkable that the article linked above explains the concept of Kamma-niradha as follows:

 

As this passage illustrates, there are certain kinds of actions that are enjoined on the enlightened. However, it is inaccurate to use the word 'enjoined'in this context because the skillful actions are naturally done by the enlightened Buddhist, and are no longer performed as if they are obligations in a code of behavior. Following the Buddhist 'code', the eightfold path, is merely a means to the end of making it obsolete upon enlightenment. This is because of the way 'skillful action'is defined in Buddhism. The action that ceases is not activity in general, but only the unskillful actions that originate in spiritual ignorance.

 

Doesn't this sound a lot like wu-wei, as generally understood in Daoism? But it goes without saying that even amongst Daoists, interpretations vary, and the same can be observed in Buddhism. However, I believe that amongst the spiritually most advanced individuals across different "religions" and philosophies, opinions don't vary very much. It is at the less advanced stages that different views, seeming contradictions and confusion abound. Frequently and quite inevitably, the most enlightened ones are inadequately interpreted by the less enlightened ones. This may well be happening in the case of Nietzsche too.

[Marblehead]

I don't think Nietzsche was a nihilist. The main reason for my phrasing was that, in consideration of his evaluation of religion, most people would be left without a sense of purpose if left to their own devices. This feature would have been a byproduct of the absence of objective value and, hence, a nihilism. Not an absolute nihilism but one that would say that there is no strict order that needs to be adhered to. Hence, a universal notion of value was replaced with a personal notion of value.

This was Albert Camus' only criticism of Nietzsche.  Camus suggests that after Nietzsche told the Christians that "God is dead" he never offered a viable replacement for God.  So I agree with you, this would lead to nihilism.

 

But to be fair, Nietzsche fell too ill to continue developing his alternative, or replacement, for God.  It is impossible to say where his thoughts would have gone had his health recovered.