"Moreover, Subhuti, what I have attained in _Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi_ is the same as what others have attained. It is something that is undifferentiated, neither to be regarded as a high state, nor is it to be regarded as low state. It is holly independent of any definitive or arbitrary conceptions of an individual self, other selves, living beings or a Universal Self."

Buddha

in Whitall N. Perry

Varanasi: Indica, 1998 (1971), p. 882

[_Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi_ means "unexcelled perfect realization of the totality of existence" (my translation.)TJH

I'm wondering what you all think about Buddhist believing or not beleiving in God.

Here Buddha has identified that what he has experienced as the same as what others have, ie. Nirvana, the term is taken from the Sanskrit texts that form the basis of Hinduism, and as at this time in India, there were no Buddhists, only the religious sects that make up Hinduism, he can only be referring to the Hindus -that what he has experienced is the same as what they have. But by definition the Hindus believe that Nirvana/Samadhi is union with or realisation of God. Where as later on in this quote we see that Buddha says that this state shouldn't be reffered to or regarded as such a thing, as it's beyond this completely, having no qualities at all.

There seems to be a discrepency, but I don't believe there is one, if you look deeper into Hinduism, you will see that they say about God exactly the things Buddha said about Nirvana, qualitivly, and that you shouldn't try to refer to God in any manner that implies qualities, but that this is God none the less.

Read the discriptions of Nirvana from Buddhist sources, the most explicit one I have found being in the Biography of Milarepa, you can see that they also seemingly discribe the exact same state, as Buddha said, to those given by Hindus. This also seems to apply to writings of other religions, or more so mystical sects within these religions, being Sufism, Qabbalah, and is alluded too, though not (as far as I know) been very explicilty spoken of in Christianity, but the basis is there to form a fairly strong sujestion.

There are Buddhists that hold these same views, that the experience of .... whatever state that is, has been the same experience for Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. So conversly can it be said that these Buddhists believe in God? But just not GOD. I'm trying to aviod the dogmas that seperate these religions, for example Christians beleive that Jesus is God, where as Buddhist would completely reject this, perhaps not completely, but only to say that Buddha and Christ in essence are the same. Each of these religions have they're version of Logos, which is usualy personified by a Diety or Prophet or a type of mind or consciousness. Like where a Christian would see Christ a Muslim would see Mahummad and a Thervada Buddhist, the Nirmanakaya Mind.

It seems that when you get to the core of it, everything lines up.

There exists still the difference between Gods and Nirvana, in that Gods have been the victims of anthropomorphism; we have applied traits of ourselves to the idea of enlightenment and completely bastardized it. Nirvana is without attributes; gods very much so have defining characteristics that separate them greatly from a state of being and the realm of phantasms. Buddhism is atheistic in nature: all that is divine is contained inside the self, inside the mind, and enlightenment can only be reached inside one's self. Theistic religions apply human traits to enlightenment, removing it from the self and forming it into external spirits or gods. While the underlying basis of enlightenment is the same in both theistic and atheistic religions, Buddhists clearly do not believe in a god or God, as a god requires attributes to be such; a god is an entity, whether conscious or not.

"There ain’t nothin left after that."

But the slender leader frowned. "Let’s blow anyway."

Something would come of it yet. There’s always more, a little further – it never ends. They sought to find new phrases after Shearing’s explorations; they tried hard. They writhed and twisted and blew. Every now and then a clear harmonic cry gave new suggestions of a tune that would someday be the only tune in the world and would raise men’s souls to joy. They found it, they lost, they wrestled for it, they found it again, they laughed, they moaned – and Dean sweated at the table and told them to go, go, go. At nine o’clock in the morning everybody – musicians, girls in slacks, bartenders, and the one little skinny, unhappy trombonist – staggered out of the club into the great roar of Chicago day to sleep until the wild bop night again.

Buddhism is not, in any practical sense, about God. A lot of Buddhists believe in God, and a lot don't, and a lot of Buddhists are agnostic, which is probably the most common stance, of the three. Buddhism itself doesn't really address the issue. Mahayana Buddhist mythology often involves gods, demons, etc., but they could just as easily be taken metaphorically. Most Tibetan Buddhists are also Bonists (Bonism is a pre-Buddhist native Tibetan religion), and the two have intertwined to a significant degree, but that just gives example to how flexible Buddhism is, as it can harmoniously coexist with other religions, even inside an individual. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus who also consider themselves Buddhists, or who have at least adopted the Buddhist philosophy.

I think different religions are just explantions of different aspects of life & creation.

Eastern religons are focused more on the relationship between man and the universe (creation, Tao, whatever you call it)

and deal with it in great detail as to man & how to live in harmony with the universe.

This is the knowledge that I belive Buddah had, the ultamite understanding of the harmony of creation. This knowledge can be attained by man because we are part of it (creation), however creation is not God, he is seperate, outside, man can never understand the infinate nature of God for obvious reasons.

quote:Originally posted by evolove:

"Moreover, Subhuti, what I have attained in _Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi_ is the same as what others have attained. It is something that is undifferentiated, neither to be regarded as a high state, nor is it to be regarded as low state. It is holly independent of any definitive or arbitrary conceptions of an individual self, other selves, living beings or a Universal Self."

Buddha

in Whitall N. Perry

Varanasi: Indica, 1998 (1971), p. 882

[_Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi_ means "unexcelled perfect realization of the totality of existence" (my translation.)TJH

I'm wondering what you all think about Buddhist believing or not beleiving in God.

........

There are Buddhists that hold these same views, that the experience of .... whatever state that is, has been the same experience for Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. So conversly can it be said that these Buddhists believe in God? But just not GOD. I'm trying to aviod the dogmas that seperate these religions, for example Christians beleive that Jesus is God, where as Buddhist would completely reject this, perhaps not completely, but only to say that Buddha and Christ in essence are the same. Each of these religions have they're version of Logos, which is usualy personified by a Diety or Prophet or a type of mind or consciousness. Like where a Christian would see Christ a Muslim would see Mahummad and a Thervada Buddhist, the Nirmanakaya Mind.

It seems that when you get to the core of it, everything lines up.



Whether or not there is 'god' or believing/not believing, placing 'god' in a context that suggests a personal being, seems to lead only to paradox and confusion. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif) In my understanding, buddhist thought is as wide ranging as xtian or muslim, and some of the buddhist teachings regarding gods, demons and hells seem as negative as the worst of the other religions, however the more positive of the buddhist teachers state that the ultimate state of divinity is unknowable to us. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

As you observe, this is common to many spiritual paths, however when one talks of christ and buddha as personified beings, does one miss the significance of the analogy?

For example: if one simplifies and defines Buddha as meaning -- one who has an enlightened mind, Christ likewise -- as in the 'mind of christ',such as apostle paul claimed, or, the hindu, krsna/christ consciousness/'awareness' of the divine aspects of mind.

The most refreshing teachings of the buddhist teachers are those that focus on one's mind, our thoughts and desires, our state of mind. The internalised conversations 'I' am having with 'me' -- are they positive, do they in fact tend to lead one from suffering to happiness?

Shantideva speaks of the "bodhichitta", the enlightened mind as being achieved by thinking first of others, but not as 'other'. By considering the impermanence of our lives, and the incorporeal nature of our minds, one may come to the subjective realisation that 'all are one'. As in our bodies, is my body my hand, or my foot, my torso, or head?

The individual mind/consciousness is as the parts of the body, one component of a much larger unity. IN this realisation Shantideva promotes effective paths to a genuine 'altruism', that spirit of helping others with no thought of reward, for if the other is simply another part of the divine mind in which i share, then there is not 'other', and helping 'others' becomes helping oneself.

The positive teachings of buddhism, such as one's potential buddhahood being intrinsic to humanity, are elevating to thought, so that it may already be relatively true to say all is 'nirvana'.

Nirvana, the 'emptiness', 'nothingness', but not nothing as one would think, rather the strange nothingness that Boehme spoke of, that whilst it appeared to be nothing is in fact something. This would be energy, when an atom and an anti-atom are collided at near to light speed they both disappear, becoming apparently 'pure energy'. This state of pure energy is not detectable in the human/natural world of matter.

Space for instance appears to be an empty vacuum, however when it is observed how much energy is being transmitted thru this 'empty' space, this is different http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) If one calculated the smallest unit of energy necessary to sustain a waveform of sufficient power to travel the vast distances of the universe, then noticed how many sources of energy are visible to the eye -- every sun, every source of light is transmitted energy. Multiply the minimum level of energy by the number of sources, and one sees there is a dimension observable by human, that whilst it appears empty is in fact full. This energy, is it like spirit? Is God spoken of as 'spirit'? Could one cognise this as 'the ultimate', 'nirvana', 'emptiness'-- that is to our understanding, being creatures of matter http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Is 'God' then energy? Perhaps, but if in fact to a human being, god is unknowable, then it seems best to aspire to happiness. Epicurus is reported to have said the pursuit of pleasure is the highest form of human endeavour, however, the ultimate pleasure was only available if all 'others' were also experiencing pleasure. Sound like the buddhist's concern for the happiness of others, being essential to our individual happiness?

"It seems that when you get to the core of it, everything lines up."

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)