Emptiness and Existence
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
dude, i said "Who said Buddhists say creator god does or doesn't exist? We just don't emphasize and don't really care".
as mentioned on another thread, the question of whether creator god exists or not is irrelevant as we're already here. we're in charge of our own destiny and live our current life to the fullest and benefit others, no?
Your apathy towards the issue of God's existence is noted, but apathy does not settle the question of whether God exists. Why would this question be irrelevant just because we are already here? Wouldn't it be relevant to know what is God's purpose for creating us so that we are living our lives to the fullest extent in accordance with the purpose for which we are created for? Why do you think it does not matter whether our view of our own destiny matches with God's intention for us?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
"believe" is not the word. clarify is more suitable.
there's two kind that Buddhism mention. one is Brahma, the first being who first appeared in our universe, who have the great power to create using his freewill. but he's also subjected to death after a very very long eon.
the second is about the ultimate source. clear light, but it need to be accompanied by more explaination, so that Buddhists will not be misleaded.
"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. "--Dalai Lama
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html
/\
So this Brahma you speak of is not the Creator of the universe, but appeared in the universe i.e the universe existed prior to this Brahma?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Your apathy towards the issue of God's existence is noted, but apathy does not settle the question of whether God exists. Why would this question be irrelevant just because we are already here? Wouldn't it be relevant to know what is God's purpose for creating us so that we are living our lives to the fullest extent in accordance with the purpose for which we are created for? Why do you think it does not matter whether our view of our own destiny matches with God's intention for us?
nope. still irrelevant to us. life still goes on, right?
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
nope. still irrelevant to us. life still goes on, right?
Apathy is no substitute for a reasoned answer. Yes we are still here, but only because God made us. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Apathy is no substitute for a reasoned answer. Yes we are still here, but only because God made us.
is it because it's not the answer you're looking for? Apathy is my answer.
also, this is where we differ in regards to "only because God made us". we don't emphasize on this at all. still irrelevant to us.
-
With all due respect to BroInChrist. I think if you are trying to convince Buddhists who know their stuff about God, you cannot keep telling us God exist or that God created us without giving a good evidence or at least a line of logic that points in that direction. The fact that we exist definitely does not point and hint that God exist at all.
Why? If he existed, he would give a more concrete evidence that he exist and why does his existence is revealed to some and not to all. You see, you have to cover these loopholes in your arguments. Otherwise, there's a lot of talk but you don't convince anybody. Right?
-
i think it's hard for broinchrist to swallow because the believe in almighty/creator/etc god is the core of his faith whereas it has absolutely no place in buddhism.
in buddhism, whether there is god or not, one can still adhere to the noble 8 paths and cultivate one's mind and action. whereas in theism esp monotheism, if there is proof that there is no god(s)/ no proof that god(s) exist, their entire faith system might collapse.
that's the beauty of buddhism. it's universal and timeless. it was, it is and it will always be relevant as long as sentient beings are still stuck in samsara regardless of whether there were adam and eve or not, whether there are heaven and hell or not, whether there are gods and demons or not.
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
is it because it's not the answer you're looking for? Apathy is my answer.
also, this is where we differ in regards to "only because God made us". we don't emphasize on this at all. still irrelevant to us.
Apathy is your attitude, not your answer.
The answer I am looking for is whether God exists or not, a yes and no answer will suffice. Does the Buddha know the answer to that? I don't care is not an answer. Saying the question is irrelevant is just sidestepping the question. At least if you say "I don't know" it can still be deemed an honest answer.
-
Originally posted by Steveyboy:
With all due respect to BroInChrist. I think if you are trying to convince Buddhists who know their stuff about God, you cannot keep telling us God exist or that God created us without giving a good evidence or at least a line of logic that points in that direction. The fact that we exist definitely does not point and hint that God exist at all.
Why? If he existed, he would give a more concrete evidence that he exist and why does his existence is revealed to some and not to all. You see, you have to cover these loopholes in your arguments. Otherwise, there's a lot of talk but you don't convince anybody. Right?
Yet I have not seen an argument from you why our existence does not point to there being a God! You simply assert that.
I have already given lots of arguments for the existence of God. A painting points to a painter. The universe points to a Creator. Things don't make themselves. Evidence of design is all around us, in fact it is in us! The eye is a marvel of design. It couldn't just evolve by itself. The existence of the universe is already sufficient evidence to show that God exists, just like the existence of a painting is sufficient to prove that a painter exists. I certainly cannot convince someone who refuses to be convinced, but I believe my arguments have been persuasive and compelling. Staunch atheist Anthony Flew saw the evidence for God from the design in living things and finally gave up resisting the conclusion that there is a God. Neither do I agree with you that there are loopholes in my arguments, and you have not demonstrated them either.
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
i think it's hard for broinchrist to swallow because the believe in almighty/creator/etc god is the core of his faith whereas it has absolutely no place in buddhism.
in buddhism, whether there is god or not, one can still adhere to the noble 8 paths and cultivate one's mind and action. whereas in theism esp monotheism, if there is proof that there is no god(s)/ no proof that god(s) exist, their entire faith system might collapse.
that's the beauty of buddhism. it's universal and timeless. it was, it is and it will always be relevant as long as sentient beings are still stuck in samsara regardless of whether there were adam and eve or not, whether there are heaven and hell or not, whether there are gods and demons or not.
You are right in observing that belief in God is at the core of my faith. The question then is whether God exists or not. If He does, and you decide to ignore that, then all your cultivation of mind and action will come to naught because you failed to find out what God requires of you. But if God does not exist, I won't be any worse off because in Christianity there is also a cultivation of mind and action. The Christian has no objection to the 8 fold path as commendable and good moral values, the only thing I see is that it is impossible to keep them perfectly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As for me, the crux of the issue is whether the claims made are true.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Apathy is your attitude, not your answer.
The answer I am looking for is whether God exists or not, a yes and no answer will suffice. Does the Buddha know the answer to that? I don't care is not an answer. Saying the question is irrelevant is just sidestepping the question. At least if you say "I don't know" it can still be deemed an honest answer.
huh? dude, we really don't care if there is creator god or not. More accurately, it doesn't matter to us at all. you don't get it?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Yet I have not seen an argument from you why our existence does not point to there being a God! You simply assert that.
I have already given lots of arguments for the existence of God. A painting points to a painter. The universe points to a Creator. Things don't make themselves. Evidence of design is all around us, in fact it is in us! The eye is a marvel of design. It couldn't just evolve by itself. The existence of the universe is already sufficient evidence to show that God exists, just like the existence of a painting is sufficient to prove that a painter exists. I certainly cannot convince someone who refuses to be convinced, but I believe my arguments have been persuasive and compelling. Staunch atheist Anthony Flew saw the evidence for God from the design in living things and finally gave up resisting the conclusion that there is a God. Neither do I agree with you that there are loopholes in my arguments, and you have not demonstrated them either.
"Yet I have not seen an argument from you why our existence does not point to there being a God!" -> huhh??? why not from outer space? why not from this why not from that? this is exactly the reason why we are apathic to whether god exists or not. we focus on working our liberation.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:You are right in observing that belief in God is at the core of my faith. The question then is whether God exists or not. If He does, and you decide to ignore that, then all your cultivation of mind and action will come to naught because you failed to find out what God requires of you. But if God does not exist, I won't be any worse off because in Christianity there is also a cultivation of mind and action. The Christian has no objection to the 8 fold path as commendable and good moral values, the only thing I see is that it is impossible to keep them perfectly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As for me, the crux of the issue is whether the claims made are true.
"If He does, and you decide to ignore that, then all your cultivation of mind and action will come to naught because you failed to find out what God requires of you."-> come to naught? you know? so, all the good morals and actions don't mean anything?
"The Christian has no objection to the 8 fold path as commendable and good moral values, the only thing I see is that it is impossible to keep them perfectly." -> did you read my reply on another thread? is it really impossibe or lack of wiil? Wait.. Did you confuse precepts and eightfold path? Eightfold path says right view, right speech etc. to set the context and us to fill in the contents. For example, lets say I'm vegetarian. Today I eat choy sam, tomorrow mushroom, the following day broccoli. All vegetarian. What's perfect vegetarian? Also, precepts aids our eightfold path and they're are not exhaustive. You understand?
"As for me, the crux of the issue is whether the claims made are true" -> likewise for us about claims made in the bible.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
So this Brahma you speak of is not the Creator of the universe, but appeared in the universe i.e the universe existed prior to this Brahma?
Brahma thought that He was due to delusion. when Buddha became enlightened, Brahma came to request for Buddha's teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahm%C4%81_(Buddhism)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.046.than.html
we can equal this universe(be it start from big bang or not) is one Three Thousand Great Chilocosm(aka Buddhaland). A Great Chilocosm comprises Small Chilocosm, Medium Chilocosm and Great Chilocosm, and is termed a "Three Thousand Great Chilocosm". A Great Chilocosm comprises 1,000,000,000 "small worlds/galaxies".
Buddhism talks about dependent origination. there's no so called "beginning" nor "end", just infinitum cycle.
if i may extract from someone's post:The Budhha's explanation of the universe was what the present scientists found out to be. He divided the process of "creation" (for lack of better word) into four stages...formation, existence, degeneration, and destruction. Upon destruction, all the material elements returned to their original base elements, and after a long long time, they began to group together and the process of formation would start again. So you can understand, that the whole process is a cycle, and has no beginning or ending. These forces of "creation, formation, existence, and destruction" are universal throughout the entire cosmic space which has no ending. Time is a non factor, it has no meaning in this cosmic display of life cycle. Space is also a non entity; it is just void.
At any point in time there is this incessent cycle of creation, existence, degeneration and destruction of stars, planets, and even galaxies! Space has no ending, which can be better decribed as void. The Buddha called our galaxy, Cakkavala. Cakka meaning wheel or spiral. Our galaxy is spiral in shape. The whole universe, the Buddha called it Loka Dhatu, meaning, world of elements. In this endless void, there exists countless galaxies. The size and distance of these galaxies are beyond our human imagination and understanding! Our earth world is just an insignificant speck of dust in this whole unimaginable universe of cosmic existence!
this universal cycle of formation, existence, degeration, and ultimate destruction; repeats itself ad infinitum. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
How have I imposed my views on you or others? I was rebutting your earlier point that I have gone too far in stating that the gods people worship do not exist. But this is not anymore going too far than atheists or some Buddhists saying that the God that Christians worship do not exist, be it because of the so-called problem of evil or some other reasons. I think I made a fair statement here, don't you agree?I would urge that you do not hastily throw such allegations that I am imposing my views on others, anymore than I would accuse you of the same. All I am doing is stating my beliefs, defending them where necessary, and contrasting them with yours and fellow Buddhists here. No one is forced to read what I wrote or to accept my beliefs.
Allegation is a strong term...
as far as i can see, u have been expressing your views persistently on buddhist views... I think i had mentioned before, apple and orange cannot be compare together
isn't that a way of imposing views on others?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
This allegation that I am proselytising sounds like a conversation-stopper. I am fully cognizant that this is a Buddhist forum, but I am also aware that there are buddhists here who holds certain views about Christianity that are wrong or distorted. I believe that they are open-minded about my correcting some of these wrong ideas. But if you or the Mods here think that I have overstayed my welcome here, I will be happy to take my leave from this forum. It is a Buddhist forum after all. So just feel free to let me know.allegation... fierce
once u mention "God" - that's a conversation-stopper to me.. I must respect God.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
A fishing net has many holes in it, you can say it consists of a lot of empty space. But so?before i forget, what do u mean by the fishing net to Rutherford's conclusion?
Please clarify
-
aiyah what phylosophy. if god do ecist in present day, i point a gun at him and pullthe trigger - he will shatter the brains out like a melon. so much for god. so long winded. aiyo!
-
woah nearly forgot... almost got buried
BIC - kindly clarify what you mean to the fishing net to Rutherford conclusion...?
Since you like to talk so much
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
woah nearly forgot... almost got buried
BIC - kindly clarify what you mean to the fishing net to Rutherford conclusion...?
Since you like to talk so much
This was in response to the quote that atoms are largely empty space as if to draw the conclusion that the universe is made up of nothing. If you look at a fishing net, it would consist of much "empty space" between the wires/ropes. There is thus more empty space relative to actual material making up the net. But can we draw the conclusion that the net is made up of basically empty space? Empty space is not nothing. There is an equivocation on the term empty.
-
According to diamond sutra, the actual material of the net is One unity appearance.
It is also metaphor as Indra's net (also called Indra's jewels or Indra's pearls) used to illustrate the concepts of emptiness, dependent origination and interpenetration.
Francis Harold Cook describes the metaphor of Indra's net from the perspective of the Huayan school in the book Hua-Yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra:
Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering "like" stars in the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring. -
Originally posted by zeus29:
huh? dude, we really don't care if there is creator god or not. More accurately, it doesn't matter to us at all. you don't get it?
"Yet I have not seen an argument from you why our existence does not point to there being a God!" -> huhh??? why not from outer space? why not from this why not from that? this is exactly the reason why we are apathic to whether god exists or not. we focus on working our liberation.
"If He does, and you decide to ignore that, then all your cultivation of mind and action will come to naught because you failed to find out what God requires of you."-> come to naught? you know? so, all the good morals and actions don't mean anything?
"The Christian has no objection to the 8 fold path as commendable and good moral values, the only thing I see is that it is impossible to keep them perfectly." -> did you read my reply on another thread? is it really impossibe or lack of wiil? Wait.. Did you confuse precepts and eightfold path? Eightfold path says right view, right speech etc. to set the context and us to fill in the contents. For example, lets say I'm vegetarian. Today I eat choy sam, tomorrow mushroom, the following day broccoli. All vegetarian. What's perfect vegetarian? Also, precepts aids our eightfold path and they're are not exhaustive. You understand?
"As for me, the crux of the issue is whether the claims made are true" -> likewise for us about claims made in the bible.
1. Yes, I get it that you don't care about the existence of God. But you are not getting it that your apathy towards this question reflects a flaw in your approach to life.
2. Any so-called attempt at liberation from suffering that does not take into account the issue of God would IMO be very flawed.
3. Yes, your good deeds can amount to nothing ultimately. I am sure you have found yourself in similar circumstances, where you tried to do good but it amounted to nothing because you lacked the information.
4. Be it precepts of 8 fold paths, it is still impossible, and that's not for lack of trying. You have had countless attempts in the past and you are still here.
5. And since the issue is about whether truth claims are true, then apathy cannot be the answer!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Yes, I get it that you don't care about the existence of God. But you are not getting it that your apathy towards this question reflects a flaw in your approach to life.
2. Any so-called attempt at liberation from suffering that does not take into account the issue of God would IMO be very flawed.
3. Yes, your good deeds can amount to nothing ultimately. I am sure you have found yourself in similar circumstances, where you tried to do good but it amounted to nothing because you lacked the information.
4. Be it precepts of 8 fold paths, it is still impossible, and that's not for lack of trying. You have had countless attempts in the past and you are still here.
5. And since the issue is about whether truth claims are true, then apathy cannot be the answer!
1. who says not caring about the existence of god means a flaw in approach to life? Just because you think it is impt to care about the existence of god, doesn't means its right.
2. Any so-called attempt at liberation from suffering that does not take into account the issue of God would IMO be very flawed --> to you it mayb flawed, that doesn't equate to it essentially being flaw, further more, buddhism and christianity are 2 different realm. What is flawed to you, may not be flawed to us
The exchanges b/w ppl here and you is like... you asked a open ended question and expect a MCQ answer.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
1. who says not caring about the existence of god means a flaw in approach to life? Just because you think it is impt to care about the existence of god, doesn't means its right.
2. Any so-called attempt at liberation from suffering that does not take into account the issue of God would IMO be very flawed --> to you it mayb flawed, that doesn't equate to it essentially being flaw, further more, buddhism and christianity are 2 different realm. What is flawed to you, may not be flawed to us
The exchanges b/w ppl here and you is like... you asked a open ended question and expect a MCQ answer.
1. Flawed as in it simply chucks aside a question that is of utmost importance. You will of course deny that it is important at all. Yet this is not what most people think. Why else do you think the new Atheists are so "evangelistic" in their writings? Or that debates on the existence of God are always being staged? Or that philosophers address this question? Perhaps you do not stop to reflect on whether you have treated this issue too lightly and if you ought to continue to do so.
2. The issue of suffering has two sides to it, a physical side and a moral side to it. If there is no God, then all suffering is just physical and natural. There is no need to ask "Why" at all or feel depressed or even angry at suffering. It becomes just a brute fact and reality to be accepted, not overcome. Yet there is evidently a moral side to this issue. Suffering is seen as something morally not right, an evil even. It is the kind of question posed when people ask why if there is a God that there is so much suffering. So don't you see that the issue of suffering and God is related?
3. I don't think I asked many open-ended questions. Most of my questions are rather direct and the answers are few, thus an MCQ kind of question indeed!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Flawed as in it simply chucks aside a question that is of utmost importance. You will of course deny that it is important at all. Yet this is not what most people think. Why else do you think the new Atheists are so "evangelistic" in their writings? Or that debates on the existence of God are always being staged? Or that philosophers address this question? Perhaps you do not stop to reflect on whether you have treated this issue too lightly and if you ought to continue to do so.
2. The issue of suffering has two sides to it, a physical side and a moral side to it. If there is no God, then all suffering is just physical and natural. There is no need to ask "Why" at all or feel depressed or even angry at suffering. It becomes just a brute fact and reality to be accepted, not overcome. Yet there is evidently a moral side to this issue. Suffering is seen as something morally not right, an evil even. It is the kind of question posed when people ask why if there is a God that there is so much suffering. So don't you see that the issue of suffering and God is related?
3. I don't think I asked many open-ended questions. Most of my questions are rather direct and the answers are few, thus an MCQ kind of question indeed!
the answers are few because you only accept those few as answers! but it is not absolute that those answers that you accept are the only answers/right answers.
As per usual, you are only interested in proving your own right. A closed mind, has no room for anything outside their own "right"
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
the answers are few because you only accept those few as answers! but it is not absolute that those answers that you accept are the only answers/right answers.
As per usual, you are only interested in proving your own right. A closed mind, has no room for anything outside their own "right"
Pray tell what other answers to the question of God's existence do you have besides these three?
Yes
No
Don't Know
Actually the answer is just either Yes or No, the third answer is actually an admission of ignorance, which is IMO a better and more humble answer than the arrogant stance of apathy displayed by some here.
-
you are not catching the gist of what im trying to say... and at the same time what many have been trying to say.
Oh i rmb you once said im a non thinker ;) i believe you arent that great a thinker anyway :)