Do you believe in God and why

[Neeranam]

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Maybe the fact that you accused me of not being humble enough? Or of pretending to know more than the Dalai Lama and millions of Buddhists?

 

Apologies, I could certainly be more humble! 

 

I agree with much of what you say, don't understand some. 

 

I like what Eckhart Tolle says about time, have you read any of his works?

[Neeranam]

On 4/14/2019 at 9:25 PM, ivor bigun said:

Do you really believe in him or any of the other Gods ?

Jesus is not a God.

 

I see you haven't been here for months, hope you haven't gone somewhere you think doesn't exist.

[Sunmaster]

11 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Apologies, I could certainly be more humble! 

 

I agree with much of what you say, don't understand some. 

 

I like what Eckhart Tolle says about time, have you read any of his works?

I'm familiar with his teachings, yes.

[RamenRaven]

6 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I'm not sure you long you have lived here or if you are a Buddhist or not. 

I am Thai, not a Buddhist, but spent time in Suan Mokh, the temple of a revered monk, Aj Buddhadassa Bikhu, and assure you they are the pure form of Therevadn Buddhism. I've also spent time in McLeoad Ganj, studying Tibetan Buddhism, where I met HH Dalia Lama. 

I suspect you have been exposed to Chinese Thais, or perhaps gold-digging women ????

 

No, I mean regular Thais, including both rural villagers and shopkeepers. I have not been exposed to gold-digging women either.

 

People tell me: "Tham boon" and maintain spirit houses so that good things can come into your present life: peace, prosperity, no family arguments, happiness at home, good income at work.

 

But philosophical Buddhist books by Thich Nhat Hanh and others promote a Stoic view of the world, where you aren't supposed to be attached to the transitory material world because it's all nothingness, emptiness, and illusory. They teach that there is no true ego, since the self is an illusion.

 

I have almost never heard regular Thai Buddhists talk about nothingness, emptiness, non-attachment, and non-ego.

 

[Sunmaster]

35 minutes ago, RamenRaven said:

They teach that there is no true ego, since the self is an illusion.

Ego is a construct, yes. The self is not an illusion. The self is the source of the personality and ego. 

 

Apart from that, I agree with your post. From my experience, Thais in general don't have a very deep understanding of Buddhism (a bit like most Catholics know very little about their own religion), but many do practice meditation. And that I regard as more beneficial than any theoretical knowledge. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Sunmaster

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I apologise if it came across as salty.  Not sure why you think that but...

 

I think he was being polite to call it merely "salty". I would classify it as rude.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/22/2023 at 5:24 PM, Hummin said:

Later in life we had sheep's that indeed had personalities and indeed are intelligent.

I agree that in situations where a sheep can be an individual they have "personalities", apparently even a pig can make a great house pet. However, one should remember that it's in response to getting fed, rather than "intelligence" as we have.

In the psychological pyramid ( I forget the name of it ) getting fed, shelter and reproducing are at the top, using instruments, writing books and inventing religion, philosophy or scientific theories come lower down.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Ego is a construct, yes. The self is not an illusion. The self is the source of the personality and ego. 

 

Apart from that, I agree with your post. From my experience, Thais in general don't have a very deep understanding of Buddhism (a bit like most Catholics know very little about their own religion), but many do practice meditation. And that I regard as more beneficial than any theoretical knowledge. 

My wife was a "Buddhist", but IMO her understanding was more about superstition than the Buddha's teaching.

[Hummin]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree that in situations where a sheep can be an individual they have "personalities", apparently even a pig can make a great house pet. However, one should remember that it's in response to getting fed, rather than "intelligence" as we have.

In the psychological pyramid ( I forget the name of it ) getting fed, shelter and reproducing are at the top, using instruments, writing books and inventing religion, philosophy or scientific theories come lower down.

Maslows Hierarki

 

However it is hard to measure animal intelligence, but if we compare to humans, genes, parents involvement and resources, social environment, nutrition, self awareness, personality, talent and confidence pretty much sums up how we will be and act as intelligent humans. There will always be exceptions to all those, but all those factors is important to evolve from a young kid to an intelligent human being, not only be measured as one, but also act as one. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Maslows Hierarki

 

However it is hard to measure animal intelligence, but if we compare to humans, genes, parents involvement and resources, social environment, nutrition, self awareness, personality, talent and confidence pretty much sums up how we will be and act as intelligent humans. There will always be exceptions to all those, but all those factors is important to evolve from a young kid to an intelligent human being, not only be measured as one, but also act as one. 

 

Yes indeed- Maslow. Thanks for that.

 

When talking about humans we, IMO, need to separate the biological transport mechanism- the body- from the mind of a human.

The body is an animal, and is governed by genes. To use sex as an example, a sexually attractive woman will bring about a genetic reaction in a man, just as a bitch in heat will bring about a genetic reaction in a dog. The difference between man and dog is that man can over rule the genetic imperative and decide not to mount the woman, while the dog has no choice and either mounts or is prevented.

 

That, IMO is what makes humans superior to animals- while we still have genetic imperatives from our animal body, our God given mind is in control ( in most, but not all humans ).

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes indeed- Maslow. Thanks for that.

 

When talking about humans we, IMO, need to separate the biological transport mechanism- the body- from the mind of a human.

The body is an animal, and is governed by genes. To use sex as an example, a sexually attractive woman will bring about a genetic reaction in a man, just as a bitch in heat will bring about a genetic reaction in a dog. The difference between man and dog is that man can over rule the genetic imperative and decide not to mount the woman, while the dog has no choice and either mounts or is prevented.

 

That, IMO is what makes humans superior to animals- while we still have genetic imperatives from our animal body, our God given mind is in control ( in most, but not all humans ).

I do not think there is no difference there, because both animals and humans reacts to codes and stimulus where woman is open and ready or not. 

 

However alpha male monkeys, seems to do what they want, when they want, and the females seems to do little about preventing it. However to other boys have not the same possibilities. Sounds familiar even we have evolved a bit further, there is similarities to monkeys where people with power still manage to get their will but now with more risks involved for consequences 

[save the frogs]

12 hours ago, RamenRaven said:

But philosophical Buddhist books by Thich Nhat Hanh and others promote a Stoic view of the world, where you aren't supposed to be attached to the transitory material world because it's all nothingness, emptiness, and illusory. They teach that there is no true ego, since the self is an illusion.

 

I have almost never heard regular Thai Buddhists talk about nothingness, emptiness, non-attachment, and non-ego.

i haven't read buddhism in many many years, but i remember getting some useful practical information from it.

what you're quoting seems like abstract useless nonsense.

 

managing our material lives is important. 

it's not nothingness or emptiness or illusory. 

 

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

i haven't read buddhism in many many years, but i remember getting some useful practical information from it.

what you're quoting seems like abstract useless nonsense.

 

managing our material lives is important. 

it's not nothingness or emptiness or illusory. 

 

Yes, Buddhism is at its core extremely practical. That's why I'm attracted to it.
Buddhism also stresses the fact that the world we live in is Maya, an illusion so convincing that we rarely doubt its reality.
So, while there is Maya (material manifestation of energy patterns coming from the source), there is also Brahman, true reality. Not as opposites though. Maya is a result of Brahman's creative force. 

For many, Maya is the only reality there is. And from that fact, countless problems arise that make our lives miserable. 

[Neeranam]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

My wife was a "Buddhist", but IMO her understanding was more about superstition than the Buddha's teaching.

What is she now?

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

So, while there is Maya (material manifestation of energy patterns coming from the source), there is also Brahman, true reality. Not as opposites though. Maya is a result of Brahman's creative force. 

Do any Buddhists believe in Brahman?

[Neeranam]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think he was being polite to call it merely "salty". I would classify it as rude.

Hmm. 

[Neeranam]

16 hours ago, RamenRaven said:

I have almost never heard regular Thai Buddhists talk about nothingness, emptiness, non-attachment, and non-ego.

Have you read anything by Aj Buddatassa Bikhu? 

Interesting, he used to refer to himself as 'goo', a rather vulgar pronoun. 

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

What is she now?

No idea. Divorced her years ago. Perhaps she's sorry because she was horrid to me till I had enough of it.

[Neeranam]

17 hours ago, RamenRaven said:

I have almost never heard regular Thai Buddhists talk about nothingness, emptiness, non-attachment, and non-ego.

Do you speak Thai? Maybe you are not sure of the words they use, or possibly they don't know the words in English.

[Sunmaster]

18 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Do any Buddhists believe in Brahman?

 

I can't speak for what others believe, but if they are Buddhists, I would think yes, in some way or another.

The reality though, is that the more esoteric teachings (of any religion) are often misunderstood or ignored by those that don't practice. 

So I guess it depends on the individual if and how much they believe in them.

[Neeranam]

10 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

 

I can't speak for what others believe, but if they are Buddhists, I would think yes, in some way or another.

The reality though, is that the more esoteric teachings (of any religion) are often misunderstood or ignored by those that don't practice. 

So I guess it depends on the individual if and how much they believe in them.

Interesting, I am confused by a lot of Buddhist beliefs. 

I know there is Phra Prom in Thailand, 'Thai Buddhism' is a mix of Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism and Fetishism.

In my limited knowledge, the concept of a creator is more abundant in Mahayana

Edited February 24, 2023 by Neeranam

[Purdey]

How thoughtful of God to arrange matters so that, wherever you happen to be born, the local religion always turns out to be the true one.

- Richard Dawkins

[h90]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:28 PM, marcusarelus said:

How about those who deny medical treatment to their children in the name of god?  How about those who stone women in the name of god?  How about those who commit mass suicide in the name of god?  Is that OK?

Those who do mass suicide is there business no harm done.
The others: it is very rare. Historically there were as well many cruel things that were not in the name of god (Nazis, Communists, medical treatment that should have been better denied (Lobotomy)) So I would not blame religion as concept for that

[Sunmaster]

21 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Interesting, I am confused by a lot of Buddhist beliefs. 

I know there is Phra Prom in Thailand, 'Thai Buddhism' is a mix of Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism and Fetishism.

In my limited knowledge, the concept of a creator is more abundant in Mahayana

I don't think they are mutually exclusive, they just focus on different aspects of AllThereIs. The same goes for any other religion. 

The notion of the One God or Creator coexists with that of Nothingness or impersonal ultimate reality.

They are all correct and valuable.

[VincentRJ]

Once again, we need to precise with our definitions. There's a distinction between Brahma and Brahman. Brahma is the Hindu (or Vedic) creator of the universe, that is, a Creator God.

 

'Brahman' is a metaphysical concept that connotes the highest universal principle, and/or the 'ultimate reality' in the universe, and/or the 'binding unity behind all diversity'.

 

Buddhism initially evolved in this Vedic environment, and the teachings of the Buddha were opposed to some of the Vedic beliefs, in particular, the concept of a Creator god and a permanent soul, which obviously would create problems.

 

In order to surmount such problems, a story was created about the Buddha's thoughts soon after he achieved enlightenment,

 

He wondered if there would be any point in teaching his insights, because most people would be incapable of understanding such profound insights because they were so attached to material possessions, emotional pleasures, vanity, ego, greed, and power. He thought, perhaps he should spend the rest of his life in peaceful calm in the forest.

 

However, according to the story, the Buddha changed his opinion when the Creator God, Brahma, descended into his consciousness, and implored him to teach his great wisdom, because at least a few people would understand his message, which Brahma accepted as true.

 

Can you see the propaganda in this story? If the Buddha were to attempt to teach his enlightened views to a population who believed in a Creator God and a permanent soul, he probably wouldn't achieve much success.
However, if that Creator God, Brahma, were to bow to the Buddha and encourage him to teach, then his success would be greater. And it was greater, because a new religion was created.
 

[Sunmaster]

26 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Once again, we need to precise with our definitions. There's a distinction between Brahma and Brahman. Brahma is the Hindu (or Vedic) creator of the universe, that is, a Creator God.

 

'Brahman' is a metaphysical concept that connotes the highest universal principle, and/or the 'ultimate reality' in the universe, and/or the 'binding unity behind all diversity'.

 

Buddhism initially evolved in this Vedic environment, and the teachings of the Buddha were opposed to some of the Vedic beliefs, in particular, the concept of a Creator god and a permanent soul, which obviously would create problems.

 

In order to surmount such problems, a story was created about the Buddha's thoughts soon after he achieved enlightenment,

 

He wondered if there would be any point in teaching his insights, because most people would be incapable of understanding such profound insights because they were so attached to material possessions, emotional pleasures, vanity, ego, greed, and power. He thought, perhaps he should spend the rest of his life in peaceful calm in the forest.

 

However, according to the story, the Buddha changed his opinion when the Creator God, Brahma, descended into his consciousness, and implored him to teach his great wisdom, because at least a few people would understand his message, which Brahma accepted as true.

 

Can you see the propaganda in this story? If the Buddha were to attempt to teach his enlightened views to a population who believed in a Creator God and a permanent soul, he probably wouldn't achieve much success.
However, if that Creator God, Brahma, were to bow to the Buddha and encourage him to teach, then his success would be greater. And it was greater, because a new religion was created.
 

Thank you for the clarification. 

According to this I used the term Brahman correctly then.

 

But again, I don't think it's an either-or situation. You can have some sort of individual cosmic consciousness (sometimes called God), and at the same time an impersonal force. 

 

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Can you see the propaganda in this story? If the Buddha were to attempt to teach his enlightened views to a population who believed in a Creator God and a permanent soul, he probably wouldn't achieve much success.
However, if that Creator God, Brahma, were to bow to the Buddha and encourage him to teach, then his success would be greater. And it was greater, because a new religion was created 

It's funny that you call that  "propaganda" without any evidence of what Buddha truly experienced in his meditation. 

I guess that in the modern world, where almost everything is propaganda, it's easy to accuse the ancient folks of being liars or manipulators.

Perhaps they didn't have great technology in Buddha's times, yet my overall impression is that there were less lies and deceptions in comparison to modern times.

As you probably know, Buddha is regarded as an avatar of Vishnu in the Hindu tradition, and like Jesus in the west, was promoting freedom from the bigotry of organized religion. 

[mikebike]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

yet my overall impression is that there were less lies and deceptions in comparison to modern times.

Human nature has not changed. The lies and deceptions have always been the same. What has changed significantly is the dissemination of information and our perception of the "bad" parts because they are so ubiquitously available. 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Human nature has not changed. The lies and deceptions have always been the same. What has changed significantly is the dissemination of information and our perception of the "bad" parts because they are so ubiquitously available. 

Perhaps the increased quantity of informations available in modern times is actually proving my point, but let's agree to disagree again ????

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

It's funny that you call that  "propaganda" without any evidence of what Buddha truly experienced in his meditation. 

I think it's rational to presume that nobody has any real and precise evidence of what the Buddha experienced in his meditation. In order to get such evidence, you would not only need to have some miraculous ability to get inside someone's mind and experience exactly what they are experiencing, but also to get inside the mind of a person who died around 2,500 years ago.

 

Are you aware that there are no written records dating to the time of the Buddha's life? Everything we know about the Buddha has been passed down by memory over several generations. After about 400 years, those memories were first recorded in the Pali script, in Sri Lanka, during the first century BCE.

 

The story about the Creator God, Brahma, persuading the Buddha to teach what he'd learned during his ascetic wanderings and meditation, seems very puzzling when one considers that a major point in the Buddha's teachings is that the existence of a Creator God is an 'unknowable', and therefore it's a waste of time speculating on its existence and characteristics.

 

That the story is propaganda, to assist the Buddha to teach and integrate into a Vedic environment where most people believed in a Creator God, is the best explanation I can think of. Perhaps you have a better explanation. ????