How can there not be a god?

Or perhaps it's just a way of getting along with people ... loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity.

 

Buddhism in general does not speculate on the nature of a possible God. What Buddhism does is cause one to discover the nature of oneself. One cannot begin to speculate on the nature of something external without having discovered the nature of the internal. Buddhism provides a mechanism to tame and train the mind. Everything perceived is a projection of ones own mind. This is not to say that things do not exist, but with the initial perception of a ‘thing’ (objective phenomenon), one forms mental constructions in order to process the information. The mental constructions enable one to make sense of all that is perceived. These mental constructions do not exist external to the mind and they shape all perception. Without understanding ones own mental construction, ones own mind, one cannot understand the true nature of phenomena.

For one with no experience with Buddhism, they must first be shown that A. the mind is unstable and B. that it can be made stable. One cannot train the mind effectively without first taming it. Without first taming the mind and training the mind, all the teachings of Buddhism are philosophical, theological, or theoretical. For a Buddhist, the question of whether God exist is merely an extension of the more fundamental question; What is the true nature of All things?

 

Majjima Nikaya
Sutta 100
Sangarava Sutta

... the bramin student Sangarava said to the Blessed one: "Master Gotama's stiving was unfaltering, Master Gotama's stiving was that of a true man, as it should be for an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One. But how is it Master Gotama, are there gods?"

"It is known to me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are are gods."

"But how is this, Master Gotama, that when you are asked, 'Are there gods?' you say: 'It is known to me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are gods'? If that is so, isn't what you say empty and false?"

"Bharadvaja, when one is asked, 'Are there gods?' whether one answers, 'There are gods,' or 'It is known to me to be the case that there are gods,' a wise man can draw the definite conclusion that there are gods."

"But why didn't Master Gotama answer me in the first way?"

"It is widely accepted in the world, Bharadvaja, that there are gods."
____________________________

Notice in particular what Buddha said ... "It is known to me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are gods", and "It is widely accepted in the world, Bharadvaja, that there are gods."

I, myself do not believe in the existence of God or gods. To me, god- or hell-beings are not but constructs of the mind, just like our own existence.

However, I also do not disparage others who "widely accept in the world that there are gods." To do otherwise would be wrong view, imposing my own views onto others. Asserting "my views" over others, even if it is from knowledge gained from the study and practice of Buddhism is not right view.

Darrell

 

I could not disagree with what you said. Better for one to develop their own understanding than to believe in anothers understanding.

 

One must remember that our Earth has not always been in its present form and that nature has grown and thickened to the point where it is unrecognisable to any one who might have seen the original shape. You speak as if we need a God because our Earth is so beautiful with green, luscious trees which are made up of complex cell patterns. Well, I say to you, it has grown. We grow and we become more complex. We start simple and become complicated. I ask of you, go back in time to when the first life form was roaming this Earth. Ask this life form why it believes in a God. "Look at my complexity." it would say, "How can I not be the work of God? Look what he has built me up to. I am his masterpiece." Of course the Earth is much more complex in its current state. Of course it is a masterpiece of complexity. However, it has grown to be as such through millions of generations. We see our world as only a work of God for it's unconditional perfectness. Though, if you go back to visit that life-form from the beginning of Life On Earth, things will be under the same circumstances. It might have taken a million years before it became a living form... but to that lifeform; it is a masterpiece of divine design. Wait for millions of years to come and wait for another curious soul to venture back in time to ask us questions and think of what you might answer.

 

I am so tired of people asking this question. this is just another 'my beliefs are more right than yours this is why' but really we can argue and argue till the cows get home and not get anywhere. people have different beliefs and obviously good reasons to back them up, just accept that.

 

'buddhists' are the nothing in everything, and the everything in nothing. hope this helps...

 

So what's in the meat?

 

Protein.

 

Go kiss a fish, hoser..

 

I just might. Of course, I'll place him back in the lake so he can go free once again.

 

hmm if anyone noticed buddism chalenges you to question teaching, i for one question the lack of a god, there is to many "miracles" and what not, growing up catholic and being in a catholic school also has an affect on my thoughts but i think that their must be some THING that is past our knowlage. so The Buddah did not belive in god, but budism does not discourage belife in a god or gods

 

the argument which the Buddha most frequently uses is what is now called the "argument from evil" which in the Buddhist sense could be stated as the argument from dukkha (suffering or un-satisfactoriness). This states that the empirical fact of the existence of dukkha cannot be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being who is also all good. The following verses from the Bhûridatta Jataka bring this out clearly:

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!

The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha.

From the Buddhist standpoint the classic theistic statement that "God created man in his (i.e. God's) image" has actually to be reversed. It is man who has created God in his (i.e. man's) image! And as man's own image changes so does that of his God. Thus in the present time with the rise of feminism there is an attempt to change the gender of God from a man to a woman (or perhaps even to a neuter). To liberate himself mankind has to shed his delusions, and one of these is the existence of God.

The Buddhist view is that gods may lead more comfortable lives and be addicted to all the sense pleasures, but in terms of wisdom might be inferior to humans. They are even represented as coming to receive instruction from monks and even lay persons. Later on with the Hindu revival and proliferation of God-cults the Buddhists were increasingly vocal against the pretensions of God and his retinue of lesser gods. Nargarjuna the Indian Buddhist philosopher of the 2nd century CE expressed a commonly shared Buddhist view when he wrote:

The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods.

In the West a number of "arguments" have been adduced to prove or disprove the existence of God. Some of these were anticipated by the Buddha. One of the most popular is the "first cause" argument according to which everything must have a cause, and God is considered the first cause of the Universe. The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence, and this law must also extend to "God" should such an entity exist. But while the "first cause" claims that God creates everything, it exempts God from the ambit of this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God such exemptions could be made with respect to other things also hereby contradicting the principle of the first cause.

 

Even living is a miracle, it depends on one's appreciation of Life, whether one has become so familiar (jaded) with natural phenomena that one dismisses all of life's miracles as having Natural parameter constraints.

To dismiss miracles is likely to develop into a belief system which will dismiss Black Magick, the path of Will, just as readily.

The mind is a powerful instrument, one which can be used as a weapon; one which seemingly attains super natural powers through the participation of meditation. Yogis have demonstrated their ability to do supernatural feats. Supposedly the adept, once he has been in meditation for awhile also discovers this ability. The question then becomes whether the adept should become corrupted by this power, whether one succumbs to the temptation of the mind, whether to glorify the ego, whether to think one is a god with more power over others, (which surely the adept has discovered by direct comparison to others who are not aware), whether to do good or evil.

Those of us who are more attuned to Nature, who are psychic sensitives, can more readily accept supernatural events and see miracles, perhaps even everywhere, whereas those who are more intellectual are more likely to dismiss them as hallucinations of the mind. Such a preponderance fails to experience the emanated vibrations left over from the experience and tends to leave them devoid of emotional sensitivity, dull, deadened, no fire in their eyes, no spark in their soul. Upon meeting such people I often wonder how they can have faith in their minds, fore, if they gauge reality through the mind, then the mind becomes the sole arbitrator of reality, a mind which is known to lie. Not questioning the instrument of their consciousness one accepts its precepts unquestioningly.

Such is nature of delusion; it is no different than accepting the reality of the ego or of espousing a belief that the world is Maya, that the world is Illusion; and being part of the world, their very subjectivity, their very lives, of experiencing pleasure and pain, of life and death, of good and evil is also Illusion.

Such a precept may lead to espousing a philosophy of Nihilism and Fatalism. One cannot live just in the mind, nor can one live just live out of the mind, fore their bodies are still part of the world; and with the body comes all that is associated with it, the responsibilities of life.

 

We're not arguing, we're discussing. I'm not offended at all.

We are banting the word "miracles" as if we knew exactly what it means, as if we have witnessed them ourselves, when in fact it may be a belief. To accept that they happen every single second may make us take less notice of "them," thereby minimising their importance. Are we speaking of supernatural powers or the birth of a child? If one can see wonder everywhere then that openness to awe will colour their life's view.

My own personal experience does include supernatural phenomena, ghosts, spirits, angels and demons. My own mother has told me tales of miracles, one or two of which you would readily dismiss as being impossible. So who is to say that they do not exist when one has an actual experience of it happening?

If you watch "Ringu II" (The Ring II, but in Japanese), the doctor shows actual pictures where a spirit is captured. He then says that it is a phenomena produced by the patient's mind. If everything is of the mind, then what isn't? And if it is of the mind, then why dismiss it?

As an existential experience the experiencing of non-duality obliverates one's faith in reality. There may be no need for miracles, magick or will, but miracles, magick and will still exist as a physical manifestation. What happens is that one understands the futility of exercising that power. But the power does exist, if one were to choose to exercise it.

You have obviously never seen Michael "Air" Jordan play.

There was a ballet dancer back in the 1940's who used to float down, defying gravity. He said that when it happened, "he" was not present. The rationalists accuse him of wire rigging.

As a dancer I have experienced such moments of bliss. Just because others have not experienced it does not mean that Bliss does not exist. Nor does it mean that it is not supernatural because I am human.

Yes, Yogis are human, but to just say that because they are human all physical phenomena must therefore have a rational basis is illogical. If a Tibetan monk can make himself appear thousands of miles away and be able to converse and remember the conversation, to say that it is a natural ability of all humans is mitigating the supernatural power he possesses. It is super and supra natural only because other humans cannot perform them.

When a bell peals, who is it that hears it? Where does the sound fade into?

As a psychic sensitive I can feel emotions, energy and residual energy. I have been kissed by ghost, cannot get near a dead person, have detected the presence of ghosts, spirits, angels and demons. I know what it is to be possessed. I have seen Black Magick at work. I know the way of Will. I have been able to move clouds with my hands and mind. But I've also been able to see time stop, to see a water fall stop in mid air, just as I have witnessed birds stopping in midflight. I do know what it is to have been very close to the abyss and having a sense of dying, of felling completely terrified that I was actually experiencing death; I have experienced the "twinkling out" of consciousness into nothingness, the dying for a second or two, sometimes even with full consciousness. Such experiences could be of the mind, but then what isn't? So when one speaks of Duality, one speaks of the mind. To go beyond the mind is to go beyond Duality. But can such experiences be comprehended by those without any experience?

We can discuss the "you" and "I" all we want, but it will have to be limited to linguistics and semantics, devoid of existential experience. If I say that while meditating I can watch the thought process separate from me, then the "Watcher" is me, and as such it is separate from existance. This "watcher" in me may be the same "watcher" or "witness" in you but being formless it still takes on the form of the container, which in this case is my mind-body.

Do "I" think that there is a separate "me" from "me"? Yes, it is the witness, the watcher, G-d. Have I performed miracles? Yes, in a sense, if only small ones, the transfer of life force energy. Most people who fall in love also experience this selfless energy, can sense it, can transfer it. In the same way evil can give off energy emanations, can leave residual energy traces. Whether or not one considers it part of Duality, to dismiss Duality as illusion without experiencing it, it is but a belief, a mental projection, an idea in the mind, a learning, something not existential.

There is no need for Love but it happens. There is no need for birth and dying, but it happens. Yes, everything just IS, but to get to that state one must transcend what appears to be. One can only understand what appears to be by going through it. It is only with the witnessing of time stopping that one can dismiss time, not be repeating what others say, it has to be existential, one must experience it for oneself. If everything is energy, then there must be those who can be more sensitive to it, those who can work with it and manipulate it, those who can corrupt it.

Au contraire. They very much exist. They exist so long as one gives attention to it. Such a belief system may be the cause of the ascetics torturing their bodies. Pain does it exist, but one has to witness it, not cause it. When "I" have a headache I am aware that my body is in pain. 'I' take medicine to alleviate that pain. My mind and body are one, but I also know that I have a witness which can watch what is happening, something which is not of the mind, though it sees the mind working. The hardest part is not remembering, falling into unconsciousness when the world intrudes at inopportune moments, like when a car cuts me off and I react unconsciously and curse him. At an intellectual level I may rationalise that I am cursing myself because he and I are one, but we are but two fish in an ocean. The pychic sensitive in me knows that my anger has produced adrenaline and can watch its effects, how it poisons the body. That is existential experience.

The world does exist, as does pain and pleasure. We are just trying to understand the world through transcendence. That will take existential experiencing, not mental rationalisation, being identified with the thinking process.

It is my firm belief that Buddha could have performed miracles had he chosen to. But he decided not to, just as we decide not to do evil or decide to do good. But our decisions to do good are often conditional, we expect something in return, even if in the back of our minds we are praying that some part of our karma is paid off. Such egotistical acts of doing good, doing with the expectation of reward, is disengenious. All it does is puff up our egos, we think for hours and days the good that we have done. By continuously thinking it over and over, replaying it back in our minds, all we are doing is strengthing the mind, goiving more power to the ego.

Miracles are done through egolessness, through desirelessness. The power of the no-mind is then released as a wave of energy which can affect the material world, transcen it and bring forth physical manifestation. If one sees suffering and thinks that they are being compassionate and does nothing, one is evil. Being conscious of casuality one can chose when to act and when to react. But one must first become aware of cause in everyday life, be able to see what forces one has pt into action. Only then can one choose to transcend it. It is much harder to do, or not do, than to think not to do.

 

white feather.... things are BLOWINGGGG my mind lately!!!!

it seems like, with god (and how i read the bible, when i pick it up), i stumble across little things that fit into everything perfectly. when i opened this page, and read your last comment, and you were talking about ' non-dualty' (which is the part of your comment my eyes wandered to first), that too is exactly what i needed/meant to read*

saturday night, i shared with a friend for the first time something i was confused about needing to be shared, i shared with him what i kinda kinda call healing, but i know that does not do live up to what we experienced. i've been giving him bodywork and massages this last week or two, but saturday night i sat him down, and spoke to him through some relaxing and connecting (i've never done this outside of myself). in no time at all, the great spirit was UNDENIABLE! UNDENIABLE!!!!! the BEAUTY we both felt!!! i thought that, for a moment, all my concerns and thoughts on connection, on telepathy, on all sorts of shit, INCLUDING MY OWN INSANITY, were here, now***. that night, within that connection actually, God started talking to me like never before. i was seeing meaning and purpose in EVERYTHINGGGGGGGGGGGGG. i went and picked up my book from school, and in that too, every single single single line was telling me to go out and do what i KNOW i gottt to do.

God told me "there are devil's in these walls", and with that, it sunk so so so true, and i was nothing, nothing except everything i'm meant to be, that we're alllll supposed to be ~as One.

God/my insanity/my heart/'my expectations(?)' are telling me to DROP OUT OF SCHOOL, to GET ON THE ROAD, and simply that. i once thought that i could be a 'healer', and for a moment during the experience, i said "yeah, i'm a healer', but again i was told "there are devils in these walls". again i was ripped open, and i knew exactly that i just needed to get on path - with no expectations - with just faith. i know god will bring me to whatever he wants to bring me to. i'm writing about this here, because i know i should. ***all that is being shown to me is going against everything i've ever learned, but in just the same time, exercises everything i KNOW, like love, and i know this is what i need to do.

do you have any words you can share?

much much much love, and peace. ~Ethan

 

Meagain,

I think I fully covered the "miracles / ego" thing. Miracles must be performed from an egoless enlightened state. One does what is right, at the moment.

Both are wrong, for both are prose.

My answer would probably have been very different, depending on the moment.

Rinzai said, "Never speculate hapzardly. Understanding and not understanding are both wrong."

Understanding is done through the mind. Not understanding is ignorance. One who knows does not understand in the same way as one who contemplates. His knowledge is existential.

Rinzai's okay, but few will understand his shout. I prefer Hyakujo and Ma Tzu and Dogen.

To be against miracles, without having gone through the temptation to perform them, without attaining the ability to perform them, is a mental belief. As such it is not existential and is false, useless and will ultimately have to be dropped.

I'm surprised that you didn't tell the old Buddha story where a mother loses her young son and upon hearing that Buddha can bring him back to life she runs to his "house" and implores him to bring him back.

He tells her, "Yes. I can bring him back. But you must do one thing first. Go into the town and find me a house where no one has ever died."

She goes to each and every house and inquires whether or not someone has died in their home, and each and every house has had someone die in it.

She returns to Buddha sane, knowing that others have had as great a loss as hers.

Did Buddha lie to the woman? Of course he did! And he also didn't. Out of compassion he lied to her, got her so tired that she accepted the inevitability of death. But her faith in Buddha's words didn't diminish - she fully still believed that Buddha could bring her dead son back to life.

It's like the story of when a traveller asks Buddha if there is a God. Buddha said, "No. There is no God." Later on in the day another traveller asks the same question. This time Buddha said, "Yes. There is a God." To both he told the truth. To both he lied. One was expecting an answer and he had already made up his mind. The other was honestly inquiring, so Buddha answered so that his hope would not be dashed, so that he would continue to search for God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rinzai addressed some followers. "Followers of the Way, you seize upon words from the mouths of old masters and take them to be the true Way, saying, 'These good masters are wonderful, and I, a simple-minded monk that I am, don't dare measure such old worthies.'

"Blind idiots! You go through your whole life holding such views, betraying your own two eyes. It is only the great master who dares disparage the buddhas and patriachs. From olden days our predecessors never had people anywhere who believed in them. Only when they had been driven out did their worth become recognised. If they had been completely accepted by people everywhere, what would they have been good for? Therefore it is said, 'The lion's one roar split's the jackal's skulls.'"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rinzai's roar came from his silence.

One word is "understanding," the other is "know". One understands with the mind but one knows with the heart. You would reduce both to the mind.

I think that this is a mistranslation. The tenses seem "wrong". At the very least he should have said, ""The greatest miracle my master does is he chooses to not do miracles." And even that sentence does not seem right.

I can almost assure you that Rinzai's roar was not heard with the ears so much as felt in one's stomach. The listener's mind would have stopped thinking and only silence would have been felt.