Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website
-
If I am here and then God must there somewhere with his heaven. You can tell me what the bible or pastor said but you cannot prove to me! As it is hearsay based on you believing it to be true! The strength of argument is based on your conviction! Just like some parents telling of monsters under the bed when they would'nt sleep! For me it was pontianak on the rooftop! Boy do I believe and was I afraid! Do I believe in God, yes I do, as it is created in the image of man, owing vulnerablility of our existence as a naked ape! A device of insurance for existence of an immortal soul which cannot die!Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The Christian view of God is not a process or a principle, or some nebulous "force" that fills the universe. God is a divine being, a Person. Indeed God neither needs our approval or acceptance to exist. That, however, is not the interesting question. The more interesting question, and one of constant debate and the key subject of philosophy is the question, Does God exist?
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Without the clinging to "Self", we do not require the carriage of eternal soul, much less a belief in God. We need to perpetuate our existence and wishing to continue our existence beyond death. With the belief of Eternal God perhaps we may sleep better knowing there is an afterlife. But since God is not self evidencing, God adherents simply attribute events and occurrence to God and his omnipotence!
1. Which comes back to the question, does the Self exist? If it does not, then why do we go about our daily lives as if it does? Wouldn't it be more plausible and more rational to conclude that the Self does exist instead of trying to suppress our daily experience? I think a litmus test of a true worldview must be such that we can live it out consistently. I suspect that your reply would that the "Self" is an illusion once we have deconstructed ourselves in a philosophical manner. But this begs the question: why even do that at all?
2. Having a belief in God is a different issue than the question of whether there is a God. Whatever the motivation one has for believing in God, it is irelevant to the question of whether there is a God. Do you agree?
3. You said that the existence of God is not evident. I beg to differ. I think it is very evident. What atheists do is to deny or suppress the obvious or the evident. Just like the existence of a painting points to the existence of a painter, the existence of the universe points to the existence of a Creator. In fact, the existence of living things (each designed to do what it does) points to an intelligent Designer.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
If I am here and then God must there somewhere with his heaven. You can tell me what the bible or pastor said but you cannot prove to me! As it is hearsay based on you believing it to be true! The strength of argument is based on your conviction! Just like some parents telling of monsters under the bed when they would'nt sleep! For me it was pontianak on the rooftop! Boy do I believe and was I afraid! Do I believe in God, yes I do, as it is created in the image of man, owing vulnerablility of our existence as a naked ape! A device of insurance for existence of an immortal soul which cannot die!
1. The strength of an argument lies not with the strength of one's convictions. It lies with the truth of the premises and whether the conclusion necessarily flows from the premises. If the premises are false and the conclusion does not follow, then the argument is unsound and no amount of conviction would make it a strong argument. It becomes mere gainsaying.
2. Parents tell kids that monsters are under the bed. The issue is, are there really monsters under the bed, regardless of what kids believe? You may believe that there is pontianak on the roof and based your fear on that belief. But that does not mean there is one on the roof.
3. You seem to believe that evolution (apes to man) is true, and thus that belief in a supernatural God is false, since it is a projection of man's need to survive. If that is so, then it also applies to all beliefs, including Buddhism. Are you willing to bite this bullet?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
Thich Nhat Hanh Says...
"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the wave realizes it is water."
there's no "transformation" to unenlighten being, as wave is already a part of the ocean. water is the Buddha-nature that both wave and ocean have originally.
Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?
A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.
We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.
Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape.
In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.
This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.
Dalai Lama's answer.
ps: we and Buddhas sits at equal level. unlike you all always sit under God. Buddhism is more into democracy already, while u all are still into imperialism.
1. It is incoherent and irrational to speak of the wave realising that it is water, just as to say that a rock realising that it is rock. These are inanimate objects. Self-consciousness or self-awareness are not part of their make-up.
2. I think the question is not over the difference between a primordial Buddha and a Creator God. The question is whether there is a Creator God.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. It is incoherent and irrational to speak of the wave realising that it is water, just as to say that a rock realising that it is rock. These are inanimate objects. Self-consciousness or self-awareness are not part of their make-up.
erm, rock realising that it's rock is quite different from wave realising that it is water. analogically, we human realised that we all are Buddha potential within ourselves, rather than we human realised that we are human.2. I think the question is not over the difference between a primordial Buddha and a Creator God. The question is whether there is a Creator God.
it's already explained by HHDL in Buddhism view point. the notion is different. in our cosmology, there was a Brahma god who was the first being to be "created" or born in this universe of ours. he thought that he was the creator god, and also have the power to create form with freewill, but actually he is still an unenlightened being with a mind. He is still in Samsara. He's only in Paranirmitavasavartin heaven他化自在天. there are other heavens above him. so even that "creator god" also dwell in a "universe" or location or space.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. It is incoherent and irrational to speak of the wave realising that it is water, just as to say that a rock realising that it is rock. These are inanimate objects. Self-consciousness or self-awareness are not part of their make-up.
2. I think the question is not over the difference between a primordial Buddha and a Creator God. The question is whether there is a Creator God.
So is there a God that creates? -
Let me use an analogy about self; imagine a lightbulb or the sun representing our consciousness which illuminates, our body in front of it representing phenomena, and a wall the reflection of the processes. All long as all the elements are in play, we see the shadow, each time the body moves, shape of the shadow changes. Now is this self, is it the real or illusory? It is real as we witness and interact with it's presence. It is illusory because it is simply a result of luminosity, phenomena and reflection of mind. It does not exist by itself. It only appears so.Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Which comes back to the question, does the Self exist? If it does not, then why do we go about our daily lives as if it does? Wouldn't it be more plausible and more rational to conclude that the Self does exist instead of trying to suppress our daily experience? I think a litmus test of a true worldview must be such that we can live it out consistently. I suspect that your reply would that the "Self" is an illusion once we have deconstructed ourselves in a philosophical manner. But this begs the question: why even do that at all?
2. Having a belief in God is a different issue than the question of whether there is a God. Whatever the motivation one has for believing in God, it is irelevant to the question of whether there is a God. Do you agree?
3. You said that the existence of God is not evident. I beg to differ. I think it is very evident. What atheists do is to deny or suppress the obvious or the evident. Just like the existence of a painting points to the existence of a painter, the existence of the universe points to the existence of a Creator. In fact, the existence of living things (each designed to do what it does) points to an intelligent Designer.
-
Being a fully functional human being comes with a consciousness, self as witnessed on the same person is different in outlook and perception while young, teenage and adult and old age are different. Self can be liken to a operating system with inherent upgrading software. Just a operating system cannot exist outside a computer, a computer that does not have an operating system is just an expensive paperweight.
-
regardling the light and human analogy, i have another point of view.
humans are the problem ourselves. whever a light shines, we stand in front and block it, thus the reasult is a shadow of drakness.
while i see moredenr people worshipping 'gods' are really selfish (a centre onlyy around their own group and covent) and 'professional beggarism', there is nothing more to make me even wanna pick up the heavy book and read.
-
What better proof than it were to come out from the horse's mouth! But that's not to be forthcoming, but from either third party or some texts rewritten over the centuries!Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. The strength of an argument lies not with the strength of one's convictions. It lies with the truth of the premises and whether the conclusion necessarily flows from the premises. If the premises are false and the conclusion does not follow, then the argument is unsound and no amount of conviction would make it a strong argument. It becomes mere gainsaying.
2. Parents tell kids that monsters are under the bed. The issue is, are there really monsters under the bed, regardless of what kids believe? You may believe that there is pontianak on the roof and based your fear on that belief. But that does not mean there is one on the roof.
3. You seem to believe that evolution (apes to man) is true, and thus that belief in a supernatural God is false, since it is a projection of man's need to survive. If that is so, then it also applies to all beliefs, including Buddhism. Are you willing to bite this bullet?
-
Let's not forget we are not refering about somebody in past tense, eg. someone who who has long past on. Neither are we talking some ordinary being, but aliving God, omnipotent and omnipresent, creator of the world, king of kings!
-
Believing and fearing in monsters or pontianaks due to ignorance and relying on hearsay. Cultivating wisdom, constant vigilance and an inquiring mind help dispels this ignorance. One simple way is let go of one's fear as a child and look under the bed or look up the roof, one who realise that monsters and pontianaks do not exist outside of one's mind. Similiarly looking for God one realises the omnipresence too resides in ones' mind! Thus if God is omnipresent in one's mind so too is God is omnipresent in everything one encounters! Perhaps you've read about the wizard of oz where everyone wears green tinted glasses and thus everthing appears green!Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. The strength of an argument lies not with the strength of one's convictions. It lies with the truth of the premises and whether the conclusion necessarily flows from the premises. If the premises are false and the conclusion does not follow, then the argument is unsound and no amount of conviction would make it a strong argument. It becomes mere gainsaying.
2. Parents tell kids that monsters are under the bed. The issue is, are there really monsters under the bed, regardless of what kids believe? You may believe that there is pontianak on the roof and based your fear on that belief. But that does not mean there is one on the roof.
3. You seem to believe that evolution (apes to man) is true, and thus that belief in a supernatural God is false, since it is a projection of man's need to survive. If that is so, then it also applies to all beliefs, including Buddhism. Are you willing to bite this bullet?
-
The naked ape is not meant to imply evolution in this instance, but rather looking at ourselves without the immense strength of the great apes, teeth or talons of apex predators or thick fur. What we do have is a brain and mind very much highly adapted. Religons is about empowerment and in theistic religons, entitlement. Buddhism is about empowerment, mastery over self over suffering, its cessation. I am sure you have some impression of the Four Noble Truths. Buddhism transcends self,breaking the shackles of suffering caused by self.
-
if i have a self, why i can't choose to be what i want???
Is there really a self? Why is the "self" different from baby to adulthood...? If self is permanent, why adults don't behave like babies...?
This God concept; i felt it's part of dependent arising... "created" when the universe is born. If there is really a intelligent designer, it must be a cruel one. Natural science tells us how the food chain is like, no one likes to be the prey. The living things are subjected to diseases... how vulnerable it is.
This intelligent designer concept seems to degrade the wisdom of our ancestors. Without them, we may not know how to grow rice now. I don't see how this designer teach humans to adapt to the harsh environment they lived before. -
Without one there cannot be many and without many it is not possible to refer to one. Therefore one and many arise dependently and such phenomena do not have the sign of inherent existence
-Nagarjuna
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
3. You seem to believe that evolution (apes to man) is true, and thus that belief in a supernatural God is false
no we don't believe that man came from apes (a lower life form), that's humiliating, on the contrary we came from devas(a higher life form)./\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
erm, rock realising that it's rock is quite different from wave realising that it is water. analogically, we human realised that we all are Buddha potential within ourselves, rather than we human realised that we are human.it's already explained by HHDL in Buddhism view point. the notion is different. in our cosmology, there was a Brahma god who was the first being to be "created" or born in this universe of ours. he thought that he was the creator god, and also have the power to create form with freewill, but actually he is still an unenlightened being with a mind. He is still in Samsara. He's only in Paranirmitavasavartin heaven他化自在天. there are other heavens above him. so even that "creator god" also dwell in a "universe" or location or space.
/\
1. Actually my point was that neither the rock or the wave can realise anything about itself as such things do not have the faculties to do any realising. It doesn't take much effort to realise that we are only human. But I don't quite see the point being made that all humans were Buddhas to begin with.
2. In your cosmoslogy there was a Brahma god who was created or born? Then it means such a being has a beginning and thus requires a greater cause. He is dependent on another entity or being higher than him. This differs from the Christian concept of God, that He is the eternal I AM, uncaused and there is none above Him or greater than Him.
-
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
So is there a God that creates?Yes. I believe there is a Creator God who made the universe and all that is in it.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Let me use an analogy about self; imagine a lightbulb or the sun representing our consciousness which illuminates, our body in front of it representing phenomena, and a wall the reflection of the processes. All long as all the elements are in play, we see the shadow, each time the body moves, shape of the shadow changes. Now is this self, is it the real or illusory? It is real as we witness and interact with it's presence. It is illusory because it is simply a result of luminosity, phenomena and reflection of mind. It does not exist by itself. It only appears so.
The question is, why do you equate the self with the shadow or see both as analogous? I think the analogy of the shadow is flawed. The shadow is cast because there are REAL objects like the sun and the object on which the light calls upon. The shadow is real because we can observe it, but it has no physical properties, it is just the absence of light because light travels in sraight lines. It disappears and move in accordance with the light source and the object. It is temporal but certainly not illusory. To call it illusory is to apply the wrong vocabulary. The laws of nature are set in place by a Creator God to give us the phenomena we observe in our daily lives. Just because things work in tandem or interact with each other does not negate their reality or render them illusory.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Being a fully functional human being comes with a consciousness, self as witnessed on the same person is different in outlook and perception while young, teenage and adult and old age are different. Self can be liken to a operating system with inherent upgrading software. Just a operating system cannot exist outside a computer, a computer that does not have an operating system is just an expensive paperweight.
Question then is, who built the software and hardware? I think an intelligent cause best accounts for it, don't you agree?
-
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
regardling the light and human analogy, i have another point of view.
humans are the problem ourselves. whever a light shines, we stand in front and block it, thus the reasult is a shadow of drakness.
while i see moredenr people worshipping 'gods' are really selfish (a centre onlyy around their own group and covent) and 'professional beggarism', there is nothing more to make me even wanna pick up the heavy book and read.
I think you are reacting to a caricature of the Christian faith.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
What better proof than it were to come out from the horse's mouth! But that's not to be forthcoming, but from either third party or some texts rewritten over the centuries!
It would be pretty much the same with Buddhism and many religions which have their own sacred texts.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Believing and fearing in monsters or pontianaks due to ignorance and relying on hearsay. Cultivating wisdom, constant vigilance and an inquiring mind help dispels this ignorance. One simple way is let go of one's fear as a child and look under the bed or look up the roof, one who realise that monsters and pontianaks do not exist outside of one's mind. Similiarly looking for God one realises the omnipresence too resides in ones' mind! Thus if God is omnipresent in one's mind so too is God is omnipresent in everything one encounters! Perhaps you've read about the wizard of oz where everyone wears green tinted glasses and thus everthing appears green!
Which begs the question, on what basis do you think that God is just like monsters or pontianak under the bed or on the roof which just exist as a figment of one's imagination? It's just like people saying that belief in God is just like belief in Santa Claus. But this is merely an assertion, or a mere dismissal by associating one with the other. No rational person believes that Santa Claus is a real person who flies on a reindeer-pulled carriage and deposits gifts down chimneys on Christmas day, but there are many such rational people who believe in God while not believing in Santa Claus. You need to interact with the reasons for faith, instead of dismissing it caverlierly.
-
This is what I have gathered from my learning of being a convert from Christianity to Buddhism. Isn't this a novelty?
In Christianity, they believe in God, the creator of all things including the devil and us.
In Buddhism, we believe that the Buddha taught us the way out of suffering and cyclic rebirths. The Buddha never claimed to be like God but just an ordinary man who had perfected his wisdom and compassion, hence he was able to show us the way out through his teachings and examples. In Buddhism, we do not believe in an almight creator force, it is actually the results of our actions that shapes our world.
My question to the Christians would be, if God is the creator, why did he create so much inequality? Why did he create the devil? Why is the devil stronger than God today? Why create some people to suffer and since the God theory originated from the middle east, why is there so much strife there when so many people in the middleeast is praying to God. Shouldn't God be kind and put an end to the suffering?
What about people who are born in countries who would never hear the word of God? Where do they go? Hell? Purgatory?
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to put Christianity down but for me, Buddhism answers more questions than Christianity.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
The naked ape is not meant to imply evolution in this instance, but rather looking at ourselves without the immense strength of the great apes, teeth or talons of apex predators or thick fur. What we do have is a brain and mind very much highly adapted.
Religons is about empowerment and in theistic religons, entitlement. Buddhism is about empowerment, mastery over self over suffering, its cessation. I am sure you have some impression of the Four Noble Truths.
Buddhism transcends self,breaking the shackles of suffering caused by self.Yes, we do have a brain and a mind that works. But I do not believe that it is because our brains have adapted, which is an evolutionary explanation. I believe we are created in God's image, completely different from the animal world. Our closest relatives are not the apes in the zoo or in the wild, but fellow humans. We are all related by descent from Adam and Eve that God created as fully mature and functioning human beings, not from some apelike brutish creature.
What do you mean when you say that theistic religions like Christianity is about empowerment or entitlement? Yes, I do have some understanding of the 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Paths taught in Buddhism. It attempts to address the issue of suffering and death. In my view, the meaning of anything is tied up with its origins. Where does death comes from? In fact, where does life comes from? Where does suffering comes from? All these things are addressed in the Bible.