Proofs for existence of God

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it really isn't a matter of your acceptance or denial. the teachings are what they are and this concept is fully articulated in the Pali canon. i usually don't like to quote scripture and all of that, since it is my view that doing so often detracts from the conversation. however, should you desire to verify that Sunyata is a foundational teaching of Buddha Dharma, i can provide the Sutta support for you to do so.

I was only trying to be funny - and apparently failing! No, disagreement is not an issue. I'm aware of the suttas you refer to here - at least the versions in the the Majjhiima, which is on my shelf. There's a certain amount of dance involved when we generalize from the same textual base, but following a different slant on things, rooted in our slightly different mentalities.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

this is one of the main reasons why it is important to understand which philosophical school a particular Buddhist lineage upholds. we've started a bit of a discussion here:

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=719.

I have noticed this thread before, and have read various accounts over the years of their development, for example, in Conze. At the moment at least other than the broad distinction between the early abhidhamma on the one hand and the mind-only and Madhaymika on the other hand I'm not much concerned with this history.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it would seem, to me at least, that this shift in emphasis is due to the Sangha. in particular, as beings become Arhants their practice shifts. nevertheless, this is a rather fine point and discussion which isn't really appropos to this thread, in my view.

Yes, the non-historical nature of the Mahayana sutras was not much to the point. That was only a speculative gambit on my part exploring just how traditional a view you were taking on the compiling of the canon.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

re-reading the dialog, i would suppose that i'm objecting to the implication that the teaching of sunyata did not include "no self" prior to the arising of the Mahayana.

Ah, so there in fact was a clarity problem, either in the writing or the reading. My point was the exact opposite: the non-self had by far a deeper pedigree at least in terms of editorial space in the Pali Canon than did sunnata, which was the great motif of the Mahayana. Incidently, for me the distinction between Theravada and Mahayana is not fundamentally about the bodhisattava ideal, as is mentioned so often, but about a development from the abc's of escape from suffering to an exploration and textual elaboration of the meaning of enlightenment itself.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i would whole-heartedly disagree with this view. Arya Nagarjunas oft quoted teaching is that "samsara and nirvana are one and the same." however, Nirvana/Nibbana is not The Absolute.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i suppose that my point is, essentially, that whilst these tools must be put down at the correct time, we must use these tools before we can put them down.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

to a certain extent i agree. however, the Buddha Dharma is unique in this world system and, as such, the other traditions found in this world system can only help in some ways and hinder in others.

I'd only add this: my sense that the other great traditions taken in their totality point to the same reality, i.e., that the right individuals can get "there" in these other traditions. At the same time, I agree with the basic Buddhist position that all metaphysics, all our tendencies to reify experience form a hindrance to be overcome. I guess I would revert back to your previous point about being able to pick up the right tools at the right time. The right people, with the right preparation, can use these traditions. Why would they do so, from a Buddhist point of view? Simply because they may be traditions they were raised with and are accessible to them. The Dalai Lama goes almost this far, as you proably know, but as a Buddhist he may stop short of affirming the possibility of full and perfect enlightenment within a non-Buddhist tradition. That, as I undersand it, is the traditional Buddhist position.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i don't advocate an Orthodox, Protestant or Messianic view of the Buddha Dharma to any being. however, it is my feeling that without understanding, correctly, the Orthodox view, ones foundation in the Protestant or Messianic view will not be very firm.

I would feel bady if I thought I've pushed you into being a defender of the faith. Take a look at the thread I've started in the Buddhism forum to understand the way I prefer to cognize these things. I'm impatient with docrinal formulations - even ones I agree with - a loose canon and a born heretic - hence my namesake. You'll recall of course that while Devadatta was a villain in the Pali Canon, the Lotus tells us that he once taught the Buddha everything he knew - probably by providing all the bad examples!

Cheers.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i would whole-heartedly disagree with this view. Arya Nagarjunas oft quoted teaching is that "samsara and nirvana are one and the same." however, Nirvana/Nibbana is not The Absolute.

In my last reply I put agreed to this, but I misread what you're were saying, so I've gone back to check your previous post. The original distinction you made was between "relative" and "actually real", so nirvana was not directly in play at that juncture. Of course, I probably shouldn't have employed the word "absolute" which is even more slippery than most words. I should perhaps have used the word "ultimate". The ultimate nature of all dharmas is emptiness; the conventional nature of all dharmas is dependent origination, or interdependence. "Conventional" and "ultimate", "emptiness" and "dependent origination" are in the end identical. Now, in the Mahayana, nirvana is also spoken of as synonymous with emptiness - the Lotus says that all dharmas from the beginning are ever of the nature of nirvana - and so this is how I suppose you slid from "actually real" to "nirvana".

So I think the misunderstanding flowed from these too errors - your premature equivalence of "actually real" and "nirvana", and my use of the word "absolute". In fact, "absolute" should probably be left out of Buddhist discussions altogether, as it's much more appropriate to substantialist philosophies than to buddhadharma.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i don't advocate an Orthodox, Protestant or Messianic view of the Buddha Dharma to any being. however, it is my feeling that without understanding, correctly, the Orthodox view, ones foundation in the Protestant or Messianic view will not be very firm.

This kind of slid past me the first time. What do you mean by Orthodox, Protestant and Messianic as applied to Buddhism?

Cheers

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Devadatta,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Devadatta

I was only trying to be funny - and apparently failing! No, disagreement is not an issue. I'm aware of the suttas you refer to here - at least the versions in the the Majjhiima, which is on my shelf.

humor can be hard to detect across the internet, i've discovered perhaps we need more emoticons here?

There's a certain amount of dance involved when we generalize from the same textual base, but following a different slant on things, rooted in our slightly different mentalities.

to an extent, i agree with this view. i don't suppose that i would term it a "dance" which has the connotation of "dancing around the issue" which usually means that people are not being honest or forthright in their responses. i gather that this is not your use of the term in this instance.

I have noticed this thread before, and have read various accounts over the years of their development, for example, in Conze.

totally outside the scope of our conversation, however, i've found Conzes' translations to be somewhat influenced by his own understanding of the practice outside of the traditional understandings. nevertheless, this is just a bias of mine, i suspect.

Yes, the non-historical nature of the Mahayana sutras was not much to the point. That was only a speculative gambit on my part exploring just how traditional a view you were taking on the compiling of the canon.

i generally hold to a traditional view, by which i mean a Hinyana view of the basis of the praxis, in my discussions with beings. even though i practice in the Mahayana, it is part of the teachings in my particular school that before one can actually practice the Mahayana, one needs to have a certain amount of understanding and realization in the Hinyana, wether in this arising or a previous one.

Ah, so there in fact was a clarity problem, either in the writing or the reading.

probably the reading!

My point was the exact opposite: the non-self had by far a deeper pedigree at least in terms of editorial space in the Pali Canon than did sunnata, which was the great motif of the Mahayana. Incidently, for me the distinction between Theravada and Mahayana is not fundamentally about the bodhisattava ideal, as is mentioned so often, but about a development from the abc's of escape from suffering to an exploration and textual elaboration of the meaning of enlightenment itself.

my understanding between the Hinyana and Mahayana is pinned to the changes to the Vinya, in particular, the minor rules which were to be relaxed after Buddha Shakyamunis paranirvana.

i've elaborated a bit more on my view, such that it is, in the "Buddhist response to Dr. Naik" thread, should you be interested in taking a peek

I'd only add this: my sense that the other great traditions taken in their totality point to the same reality, i.e., that the right individuals can get "there" in these other traditions. At the same time, I agree with the basic Buddhist position that all metaphysics, all our tendencies to reify experience form a hindrance to be overcome. I guess I would revert back to your previous point about being able to pick up the right tools at the right time. The right people, with the right preparation, can use these traditions. Why would they do so, from a Buddhist point of view? Simply because they may be traditions they were raised with and are accessible to them. The Dalai Lama goes almost this far, as you proably know, but as a Buddhist he may stop short of affirming the possibility of full and perfect enlightenment within a non-Buddhist tradition. That, as I undersand it, is the traditional Buddhist position.

indeed. from a technical point of view, religious traditions that espouse a valid moral and ethical path are considered to be Spiritual Refuges. however, in the traditional sense, Buddhism is the Final Spiritual Refuge.

traditionally speaking, the ability to practice the Dharma is dependent on ones capacities. beings are unique in their capacities, as such, some beings cannot practice the Buddha Dharma, even though they may desire to do so.

i suspect that, in the final analysis, there are two operative views in this regard. and, it would appear, that we have those two views

I would feel bady if I thought I've pushed you into being a defender of the faith. Take a look at the thread I've started in the Buddhism forum to understand the way I prefer to cognize these things. I'm impatient with docrinal formulations - even ones I agree with - a loose canon and a born heretic - hence my namesake. You'll recall of course that while Devadatta was a villain in the Pali Canon, the Lotus tells us that he once taught the Buddha everything he knew - probably by providing all the bad examples!

Cheers.

Buddha Dharma does not, fortunately, rise or fall predicated on any particular verbalisations and so forth. so, i don't really feel like i'm "defending the faith" so to speak. i've taken the advice of different capacities to heart and thus, it is of little concern if a being engages the Dharma through any of the Three Vehicles or any combination thereof. my, individual, practice is actually a mix of practices from all Three Vehicles, though the bulk of them are from the Vajrayana view.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

This kind of slid past me the first time. What do you mean by Orthodox, Protestant and Messianic as applied to Buddhism?

Cheers

Namaste Devadatta,

it can help for non-Buddhists with a Christian background to get a handle on some of the differences between the Three Vehicles, in my view.

actually, i saw this for the first time when i read a Thurman translation of a Vajrayana text and i, personally, found it very odd to hear. however, i do understand the utility of using terms that have an understood meaning... especially when it comes to distinctions within a singular religous paradigm.

i suppose that, if there is interest, i could post up something that elaborates a bit more on how these categories could be applied to Buddhist thought.. however, that seems like a rather academic exercise and not much of a conversational bit.

metta,

~v

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

totally outside the scope of our conversation, however, i've found Conzes' translations to be somewhat influenced by his own understanding of the practice outside of the traditional understandings. nevertheless, this is just a bias of mine, i suspect.

Well, no, I think what you're saying is less bias than a recognition that Conze properly speaking belongs to the "Asian Studies" strand of transmission, if I can coin that expression. He's a Western scholar by definition looking in from the outside. No one would dispute that Conze couldn't help but deviate to some degree from tradition. The question is how that tradition is defined and whether Conze's representations of it presented any serious problems. I think it's fair to say that your view of tradition is more delimited than mine, and hence you are more likely to take exception to his colourings than I would be. It's not bias but perspective.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i generally hold to a traditional view, by which i mean a Hinyana view of the basis of the praxis, in my discussions with beings. even though i practice in the Mahayana, it is part of the teachings in my particular school that before one can actually practice the Mahayana, one needs to have a certain amount of understanding and realization in the Hinyana, wether in this arising or a previous one.

I would call that the traditional understanding altogether, which recognizes the fundamental nature of the discourses of the Nikayas or Agamas. The only difference being that some Theravadin practioners may question the authenticity or necessity of the later parts of the canon, while Mahayanists look to them for ultimate meanings and consider the earlier sutras provisional. Even a heretic like me recognizes that the early sutras are where you must grapple with the dharma before anything that follows makes any sense.

But it interests me that you use the term "Hinayana". It's a term as you know that's used polemically in some sutras, is not much in favour among Theravadins, and can mislead the uninitiated in the first approach to the canon. I'm guessing your use of the term follows from your readings in the Tibetan tradition. And this points to another condition of our differing perspectives, since I have read very little in that tradition or in the Vajrayana.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

my understanding between the Hinyana and Mahayana is pinned to the changes to the Vinya, in particular, the minor rules which were to be relaxed after Buddha Shakyamunis paranirvana.

Again, that is the traditional line of demarcation or point of divergence cited by all the histories. I was referring to later attempts to give a basic explanation for the obviously huge shift in style & emphasis between the Pali Canon and later Mahayana sutras. Leaving aside the official views, I was drawing on my own sense, from my own readings, of the patently contrasting impulses underlying the two classes of text. (I'll check out the Dr. Naik thread you mentioned.)

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

. from a technical point of view, religious traditions that espouse a valid moral and ethical path are considered to be Spiritual Refuges. however, in the traditional sense, Buddhism is the Final Spiritual Refuge..
i suspect that, in the final analysis, there are two operative views in this regard. and, it would appear, that we have those two views

It's interesting. Here is where we meet the Buddhist "bottom line" as it were. One of my attractions to Buddhism is that it takes so long to get there, whereas in some other traditions one is put on notice from the getgo!

However, you've read in the Pali Canon no doubt what are essentially polemical dismissals of all those wrong view out there, beginning with the Brahmajala Sutta, and running through all those benighted Brahmans, Niganthas, Skeptics, etc. I think the refuting of the skeptic - in the Digha or Majjhima, I forget which - was a particularly blatant exercise in sophistry by whoever composed this sutta. My point is that the Buddhist tradition starts off with an excellent point about the danger and perhaps ultimate futility of all metaphysical assertions, but goes on to misrepesent and over-simplify in the usual ways the positions of its opponents. At this juncture in history this hardly seems sustainable. I mean take a peak into Meister Eckhart, Shankara, or the Kabbalah, and you might find much that's useless or a hindrance from your point of view, but to say that these gambits, that so much mirror Buddhist gambits, are incapable of leading to a similar state of enlightenment is simply not supportable, in my view. It's only support is a kind of faith-based belief in essence no different than "Jesus is the one and only son of God", or that "there is no God but God, and Muhammed is his final and most perfect prophet".

I know we've reached a point where I can speak freely and you won't misunderstand my motives.

Cheers.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it can help for non-Buddhists with a Christian background to get a handle on some of the differences between the Three Vehicles, in my view.

actually, i saw this for the first time when i read a Thurman translation of a Vajrayana text and i, personally, found it very odd to hear. however, i do understand the utility of using terms that have an understood meaning... especially when it comes to distinctions within a singular religous paradigm.

I am indebted to Uma's dad for his well foot-noted translation of the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, which while being wildly over the top, as is the Mahayana wont, contains passages that even a heretic can love.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i suppose that, if there is interest, i could post up something that elaborates a bit more on how these categories could be applied to Buddhist thought.

No, no, don't do that! It would deny me the fun of making up my own categories!

Cheers.

[Amelialee]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

No, no, don't do that! It would deny me the fun of making up my own categories!

Cheers.

These last couple of words i understand that the talk on that particular forum is about Buddhism, nobody touches other religions...slightly reminds one from time to time that ..ok folks, let's look at other points of view, but nobody does, and the main stream flows into Buddhism. Hillarious..

It's no point to talk about something different. Getting into one religion is not the matter of this forum i guess..but it's easy to figure out that it actually is. You can get a mindful pleasure after "making up your own categories", but that's it. What about the condition of the heart at the moment? Denying it? Pretending that the heart is only the part of the human body that circulates blood through the body? The spiritual condition of what is in your heart is far more important than physical realizing and understanding - is also condition here.
If nobody minds, I would like to ask anybody to describe their personal spiritual condition of HIS/HER heart at the moment of life. It would be interesting to hear some views.

*sav

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Amelialee

These last couple of words i understand that the talk on that particular forum is about Buddhism, nobody touches other religions...slightly reminds one from time to time that ..ok folks, let's look at other points of view, but nobody does, and the main stream flows into Buddhism. Hillarious..

It's no point to talk about something different. Getting into one religion is not the matter of this forum i guess..but it's easy to figure out that it actually is. You can get a mindful pleasure after "making up your own categories", but that's it. What about the condition of the heart at the moment? Denying it? Pretending that the heart is only the part of the human body that circulates blood through the body? The spiritual condition of what is in your heart is far more important than physical realizing and understanding - is also condition here.
If nobody minds, I would like to ask anybody to describe their personal spiritual condition of HIS/HER heart at the moment of life. It would be interesting to hear some views.

*sav

Hi Amelia. Don't know if I completely grasp your objection, but here goes:

- I agree we've gone off-target here, but with no malice intended. I tried earlier to suggest that this line be moved to the Buddhism forum, and I would repeat that suggestion now to the moderators.

- But you also appear to be offended by the amount of discussion of Buddhism in the forums - although again I'm not sure if that's what you're saying. But if you look at the numbers of postings, you'll find that Christianity is preponderant by a wide margin. Buddhism is unlikely to overwhelm these forums anytime soon!

- As for heart, the topic of this thread is proof for the existence of God. This may or may not include discussions of the heart, depending on your way of articulating your ideas and beliefs. I appreciate your point of view, and the points of view of anyone who follows your lead. But others prefer to talk about these things in different ways, and just because "heart" isn't the element pushed to the forward, it doesn't mean that heart is lacking.

Best Wishes.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Amelialee

These last couple of words i understand that the talk on that particular forum is about Buddhism, nobody touches other religions...slightly reminds one from time to time that ..ok folks, let's look at other points of view, but nobody does, and the main stream flows into Buddhism. Hillarious..

It's no point to talk about something different. Getting into one religion is not the matter of this forum i guess..but it's easy to figure out that it actually is. You can get a mindful pleasure after "making up your own categories", but that's it. What about the condition of the heart at the moment? Denying it? Pretending that the heart is only the part of the human body that circulates blood through the body? The spiritual condition of what is in your heart is far more important than physical realizing and understanding - is also condition here.
If nobody minds, I would like to ask anybody to describe their personal spiritual condition of HIS/HER heart at the moment of life. It would be interesting to hear some views.

*sav

hello Amelialee
as a bible believer, my point of view on topics like this is not something i would engage in because for me they are a waste of time & do very little for me. we either believe or we do not.
i dont think the heart is just a blood pump no more than the mind is just a brain, i think the heart is a real spiritual condition, the same with the mind.
i can't speak for the others but that is why you wont see too much from me on topics like this.
for me, it is like arguing over the sky being purple or black, when it can be all the colors at once.
if someone does not believe in God, then naturally you will not hear the things that pertain to God or the spirit. so someone looking for physical proof, or trying to convince others with physical proof does not work, because God is a spirit. so, they would not be seeking God but rather seeking something else. that could be why you are seeing it the way you are seeing it in this particular thread & why it went the way it did.
you can see the topics are quite different in each religion in each different forum, though sometimes they are the same.

i hope that helps a little & welcome to CR

[presser_kun]

I cannot prove that you who read this exist. I do, however, assume that you do.

Why?

It seems like a safe assumption to me.

Safe because, even though my senses may be being fooled, even though it is a very real possibility that I am mad, locked in a prison, or, Matrix-style, asleep in a watery cocoon, the world I live in is consistent.

Natural law (physics, biochemistry, et cetera) has been explored and fleshed out (sic) to an amazing degree of refinement. Your existence is consonant with natural law, so I am confident that my assumption of your existence is sound.

* * *

Some of us assume that God exists, some of us doubt that he does.

Does anyone reading this thread assume that God doesn't exist?

Regardless of your position on this issue, I posit that we all, either consciously or non-, assume what seems to be consistent with what we see in the world.

Is this an accurate statement, in your view?

Assume, for a moment, that God exists. Does doing so violate natural law in any way?

Assume, for a moment, that God doesn't exist. Is there anything in the world that doesn't make sense due to the absence of a supreme being?

Underlying these questions is another assumption: that the word, God, means -- well, something.

To avoid getting caught in the trap of semantics, for the present argument, I am assuming (there's that word again) that God means an omnipotent being capable of bringing the universe into being, i.e., capable of creating what we call existence itself.

I am not including in this definition a personality, a sense of loving or caring.

Please, if this offends you, that I would divorce God's power from his care and concern for his children, remember that this is but a thought experiment. I'm attempting to get down to fundamentals. God may, if he exists, be a loving and caring father figure, but the only thing required of a being for it to be classed as a God is that it have superhuman power.

Is that a fair assumption?

That word again -- we often differ because of our assumptions.

Anyway, my point, rambling though I have on my way to it, is this:

We may not be able to prove with hard fact that God exists, but we can make assumptions based on the evidence we see in front of us each day.

What evidence do you see in the world that supports the existence of God?

What evidence do you see that supports the belief/assumption that there is not a God?

In other words, evidence for God's existence is a much more productive discussion topic than proofs for God's existence.

I look forward to your thoughts on these ideas.

peace,

press

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by presser_kun

Regardless of your position on this issue, I posit that we all, either consciously or non-, assume what seems to be consistent with what we see in the world.

Is this an accurate statement, in your view?

As far as I can see, it makes sense.

Originally Posted by PK

]but the only thing required of a being for it to be classed as a God is that it have superhuman power.

Is that a fair assumption?

No I don't believe so, an unlimited range of imaginary beings could be fantasised as have power extending beyond humans. Modern humans have potential to create and destroy in what would surely appear to be a superhuman fashion to the Cro-magnons. Would it be fair to describe alien races as gods because they can travel into deep space or make soy food taste nice?

Originally Posted by PK

We may not be able to prove with hard fact that God exists, but we can make assumptions based on the evidence we see in front of us each day.

What evidence do you see in the world that supports the existence of God?

Essentially none.

Originally Posted by PK

What evidence do you see that supports the belief/assumption that there is not a God?

The abscence of evidence for the positive. Although I would say this is weak reasoning and by no means conclusive.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Devadatta,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Devadatta

But it interests me that you use the term "Hinayana". It's a term as you know that's used polemically in some sutras, is not much in favour among Theravadins, and can mislead the uninitiated in the first approach to the canon. I'm guessing your use of the term follows from your readings in the Tibetan tradition. And this points to another condition of our differing perspectives, since I have read very little in that tradition or in the Vajrayana.

indeed, this is how it is in some cases.

to my way of thinking, this is a mistaken view. i use the term Hinyana to represent the first Turning teachings which were taken up by some 17 different schools at various points. in todays world, there is only one school left of the various Hinyana schools, Theravedan. as such, using the term Theravedan to denote Hinyana isn't as accurate as is should be since this presumes the non-existence of other views in this same Turning, in my view.

However, you've read in the Pali Canon no doubt what are essentially polemical dismissals of all those wrong view out there, beginning with the Brahmajala Sutta, and running through all those benighted Brahmans, Niganthas, Skeptics, etc. I think the refuting of the skeptic - in the Digha or Majjhima, I forget which - was a particularly blatant exercise in sophistry by whoever composed this sutta. My point is that the Buddhist tradition starts off with an excellent point about the danger and perhaps ultimate futility of all metaphysical assertions, but goes on to misrepesent and over-simplify in the usual ways the positions of its opponents.

i feel that this is difficult to know. we have a difficult enough time dealing with concepts that are still operative, let alone those ideas which have come and gone throughout history.

At this juncture in history this hardly seems sustainable. I mean take a peak into Meister Eckhart, Shankara, or the Kabbalah, and you might find much that's useless or a hindrance from your point of view, but to say that these gambits, that so much mirror Buddhist gambits, are incapable of leading to a similar state of enlightenment is simply not supportable, in my view.

the doctrinal reason that they don't is due to their lack of a teaching of anatta and thus, anuttara samyak sambodi is not possible. i'll grant that the other world religious traditions are certainly capable of helping a being enter the Jhanas but these states are not the final liberative effort, as it were.

metta,

~v

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the doctrinal reason that they don't is due to their lack of a teaching of anatta and thus, anuttara samyak sambodi is not possible. i'll grant that the other world religious traditions are certainly capable of helping a being enter the Jhanas but these states are not the final liberative effort, as it were.

Hi Vajra. First, I'd like to say that I think at times I come on a little stronger than I need to, so I apologize if I've been in any way strident at any point in our exchanges.

I think the point I would like to make here is that we shouldn't confuse worship of "Brahma" or the idea of Brahmaviharas, etc., as portrayed in the suttas with the much more sophisticated non-dual orthodox philosophies which were already around at the time of the Buddha and certainly became the dominant way of thinking later on. These non-dual philosophies are hardly any more satisfied with "pleasant abidings" or mere jhana states than is Buddhism. This is one of the reasons why I detect a polemical strain in the suttas, i.e., that nowhere do the suttas seriously address the equally subtle upanashadic philosophies that must have existed at the time. This is not to denigrate the tradition. It would be hard to imagine any set of sacred writings preserved by monks over centures that was completely free of a sectarian slant.

Again, what you find when you look into Shankara or in the mystical traditions of the monotheistic faiths is finally is a kind of metaphysical deconstruction very similar to that of the Buddhist tradition. Accomplished sages on both sides can of course argue the fine points of doctrine & method, but in terms of fundamentals these are very much parallel procedures.

It comes down as always to the pragmatic question of upaya. A Buddhist I think is justified in holding to the view that building up complex metaphysics is simply a waste of time & effort and a breeder of confusion: why not start with deconstruction from the getgo?

But I think a non-Buddhist mystic is equally justified in holding that the build up & maintenance of metaphysical systems is a useful & necessary support (leaving aside its social usefulness), and besides, East or West, the road to truth is a long one.

Cheers.

[Vajradhara]

Namatse Devadatta,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Hi Vajra. First, I'd like to say that I think at times I come on a little stronger than I need to, so I apologize if I've been in any way strident at any point in our exchanges.

no worries

I think the point I would like to make here is that we shouldn't confuse worship of "Brahma" or the idea of Brahmaviharas, etc., as portrayed in the suttas with the much more sophisticated non-dual orthodox philosophies which were already around at the time of the Buddha and certainly became the dominant way of thinking later on. These non-dual philosophies are hardly any more satisfied with "pleasant abidings" or mere jhana states than is Buddhism.

are you specifically refering to Vedanta?

nevertheless, it seems to be a well established tradition that, within the Indian experience, several schools had identified one of the Jhanas with ultimate liberation. there is a rather famous Sutta that talks about this sort of thing.. in fact, it goes on to cite the example of one particular being who had become so absorbed in the Jhanas that he thought he had eliminated the fetters, whilst he was in meditation, his hair grew so long that rats started to gnaw on it. when he was aroused from his meditation and saw what the rats did, his anger returned. thus the Buddha establishes that the Jhanas are not ultimately liberative.

This is one of the reasons why I detect a polemical strain in the suttas, i.e., that nowhere do the suttas seriously address the equally subtle upanashadic philosophies that must have existed at the time.

my study of this particular aspect of the discussion has led me to the conclusion that the early Upanashadic writings are, in fact, a response from the Brahamaical schools to the Buddhist critique of their tradition. as a consequence, the more sophisticated philosophical doctrines of the Upanashads is not something that is typically discussed in the Pali canon. there is, by contrast, a well established line of argument to be found in the Mahayana canon regarding some aspects of Vedanta and so forth.

Again, what you find when you look into Shankara or in the mystical traditions of the monotheistic faiths is finally is a kind of metaphysical deconstruction very similar to that of the Buddhist tradition. Accomplished sages on both sides can of course argue the fine points of doctrine & method, but in terms of fundamentals these are very much parallel procedures.

to a certain extent, i would agree with this. however, their aims or intentions are quite disparate, in my view.

metta,

~v

[Nitai]

Hare Krishna,


I was long time here although I started the thread. I read some posts because I don't' have much time, but generally it seems to me that all of you are good word and logic jugglers. You didn't prove nor disprove the existence of God.

The problem is that by material logic and reasoning you cannot understand God.
There is an interesting word used in the Veds - acintya, what means that which is beyond this material world, that which our argument, logic and philosophical speculation cannot touch, that which is inconceivable. Therefore intelligent persons, avoiding useless argument and speculation, should accept what is stated in scriptures like the Vedas Given by infallible God Himself.

Sounds dogmatic? Well, this is only the theoretical knowledge what you accept. The realization of that knowledge as the Absolute Truth is the higher type of knowledge. It is called vigyana, not only gyana - knowledge. The prefix vi indicates its superioruty. So, vigyana is beyond faith it is the realization of the scriptural truths. There are also different levels of Vigyan and on the highest level one can see God face to face, speak with Him, joke with Him, etc.

So, the process for attaining vigyan is very simple. Just chant

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare

This chanting is for free and its up to you if you would like to make the experiment. It is up to you if you like to continue to hover on the mental platform and just unendingly juggle with logic and reasoning. And it is up to you or if you like to become transcendentally situated on which platform God is realized.