Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, sweatalot said:

Have you ever felt that you do not exist?

I often think other people don't think I exist, for all the attention they pay me.

[VincentRJ]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I apologise. I only just realised that I should have said "unknowable in THIS existence". I believe that after this animal body that carries ME around dies, I go back to whence I came before I was born to this world, and then everything will be known. As we are part of God, when we return to God it makes sense to me that we will know everything.

I certainly don't believe that God cares to be handing over the secrets of life the universe and everything to a barbaric species that spends more on killing each other than in developing our spiritual side.

If God ever even considers us I doubt God would think it a good idea to let us escape this solar system given our propensity for destroying our habitat.

 

Thanks for apologising. Apology accepted. I'm very reluctant to 'attack' a person's belief if such a belief benefits that person without doing harm to others, so I will also apologise to anyone whose beneficial belief system, if it does no harm to others, has been undermined by any of my arguments which might have caused any stress or anxiety.

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If the Buddha were teaching today, it is reasonable to presume his arguments and analogies would be different.

Right,  let's also not forget that Buddha intended his speeches to be understood by the masses. 

According to some, he was preaching freedom from organized religion , showing the people a relatively easy path to enlightenment, where organized religions, given time,  tend to become a mix of superstitions and empty rituals, in many cases even hate for those of a different faith.

Unfortunately, even buddhism couldn't escape straying from the original message.

So, it can't be said that Buddha denied the existence of God,  it can only be said that, apparently, he didn't like to talk about it.

[VincentRJ]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just because he refused to give an opinion on certain things does not make them not true.

I have my opinion on women, but while others may disagree, it doesn't invalidate my opinion. Likewise with God. I have my belief and disagreeing with it does not make me wrong.

In a sense, all opinions are true, unless the person is lying about his opinion. If a person is lying, then what is true is the fact he is lying.

 

All individuals are different, to some degree. Even so-called 'identical twins' are not really identical. All personal experiences, and all perceptions of all data, whether scientific or not, have to be interpreted, and those personal interpretations will unavoidable differ to some degree amongst different people.

 

A personal opinion is a personal interpretation of a thought, feeling or perception. Whilst the interpretation is true for the individual, it might not correspond to the external reality.

 

A good analogy is the response of a person with a snake phobia, to a coil of rope discarded on the ground. As soon as she sights the coil of rope, which looks like a snake, she runs away in fear, believing she has seen a snake. The belief that she has seen a snake is real. An fMRI scan would reveal the same activity in the brain, whether it was a real snake or not.

 

Now, supposing the lady's friend, on hearing about the sighting of this snake, enquired about the precise location of the sighting, and went looking for the snake, perhaps thinking it might still be in the vicinity. At the precise location the lady mentioned, he finds the coil of rope. He picks it up and takes it back to show his friend. 'Was this what you saw?'

 

"Oh! my God! Yes. That's what I saw. How could I have been so wrong?' ????

 

Unfortunately, there are so many instances where we cannot check on the external veracity of our personal interpretations. In such circumstances, if you respect and value the true 'methodology of science', you will hold back any belief and instead express an appropriate degree of uncertainty.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Sorry! That's confusing and doesn't clarify anything, unless of course you are defining the term 'arguing' as a heated and angry discussion, in which case, the Buddha would not have recommended that whatever the issue.

 

An argument in the philosophical sense is a peaceful presentation of a reason, or set of reasons, in support of an idea, action or theory. After his enlightenment, the Buddha taught for around 45 years, presenting numerous arguments and analogies to various groups and individuals around the country.

 

However, there were certain issues on which he was relatively silent. Here's a list of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

 

"In Buddhism, unanswered questions or undeclared questions (Sanskrit avyākṛta, Pali: avyākata - "unfathomable, unexpounded" are a set of common philosophical questions that Buddha refused to answer, according to Buddhist texts. The Pali texts give only ten, the Sanskrit texts fourteen questions."

 

Here's another related story where the Buddha presents an 'argument' explaining why he does not have an opinion on the origins of the universe, the existence of a Creator God, and a permanent soul, and so on.
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/Silence_of_the_Buddha

 

"One of the few original sources ever mentioned in discussions on the Buddha's supposed silence is his dialogue with the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta. This man asked the Buddha a series of questions - Is the universe finite, infinite, both or neither? Is the soul the same as the body? Is it different from the body? Does an enlightened person exist after death?...etc. 

 

To each of these questions the Buddha replied `I am not of that view Vaccha'. Finally Vacchagotta asked the Buddha why he had no opinion on these matters and he replied because such questions, and any answers that could be given to them, are `just opinions, the grasping of opinions, the jungle of opinions, the wriggling of opinions ... They do not lead to giving up, turning away, dispassion, stopping, calming, higher knowledge, to awakening nor to Nirvana."

 

Of course, 2500 years ago there was no 'modern science' with sophisticated tools of detection that are now far more sensitive than our very limited senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and feeling. If the Buddha were teaching today, it is reasonable to presume his arguments and analogies would be different.

The sermons, the talking, the arguments, heated or not, will do very little to make you shed the layers of ignorance/karma accumulated during countless incarnations. They may satisfy our intellectual curiosity up to a point, but they don't have the power to permanently reveal the Self. 

That's why Buddha often refused to answer some questions. Ramana Maharshi did exactly the same. Sometimes he would give a person one answer and to the next person another answer to the same question, depending on the level of understanding of each person. Sometimes he would simply ignore the question, because silence would be a far better teaching tool than useless intellectual wriggling of concepts. In such cases, the questioner is forced to observe where the question comes from and is given the opportunity of realizing that the question is irrelevant when looked at from the point of view of the Self.

You can have endless debates (like we do here) whether your opinion on something is correct or not, but it won't take you any closer to the Truth. Radical and permanent transformation, in my opinion ???? , is only reachable by practice and by the Grace of the Absolute. That's what really matters in the end.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

So, it can't be said that Buddha denied the existence of God,  it can only be said that, apparently, he didn't like to talk about it.

Of course the Buddha didn't deny the existence of God. However, he did mention why he didn't talk about it, as stated in my above quotes. It wasn't relevant to his teachings about how to achieve peace, calm and bliss. In other words, he understood, or believed, or thought, that the existence of a Creator God was an 'unknowable', so don't waste your time on it.

[xylophone]

Is God willing to prevent Evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is God able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

[Sunmaster]

Unknowable through the intellect. Knowable through practice.

 

Man know thyself; then thou shalt know the Universe and God.

Pythagoras

[VincentRJ]

45 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The sermons, the talking, the arguments, heated or not, will do very little to make you shed the layers of ignorance/karma accumulated during countless incarnations. They may satisfy our intellectual curiosity up to a point, but they don't have the power to permanently reveal the Self. 

Talking and presenting arguments on all sorts of issues is fundamental to human progress and development. Without it, we'd still be in the Neanderthal stage of development.

 

In Buddhism there is no permanent 'Self'. A fundamental principle of Buddhism is that nothing is permanent, and this, amazingly, is in accordance with modern science.

 

Have you heard of the Kalama Sutta, sometimes known as the Kesamutti Sutta ? Here are the main principles.

 

"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
 

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."
 

[mauGR1]

51 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course the Buddha didn't deny the existence of God. However, he did mention why he didn't talk about it, as stated in my above quotes. It wasn't relevant to his teachings about how to achieve peace, calm and bliss. In other words, he understood, or believed, or thought, that the existence of a Creator God was an 'unknowable', so don't waste your time on it.

Sorry, i can respect your opinions,  unless you are telling me that you know exactly every word that  Buddha said and not said because you were there at that time, which is unlikely. 

Secondly, you are free to think that I'm wasting my time, but that's an opinion of yours, and not necessarily Buddha's opinion. ????

 

[Sunmaster]

22 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Talking and presenting arguments on all sorts of issues is fundamental to human progress and development. Without it, we'd still be in the Neanderthal stage of development.

 

Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/), attā or attan in Buddhism is the concept of self, and is found in Buddhist literature's discussion of the concept of non-self (Anatta).^[1]

Most Buddhist traditions and texts reject the premise of a permanent, unchanging atman (self, soul).^[2][3] 

 

However, some Buddhist schools, sutras and tantras present the notion of an atman or permanent "Self", although mostly referring to an Absolute and not to a personal self.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)

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

 

That's what I mean by the Self. It's not directly related to you as an individual, not your higher self, not your soul...but more than the sum of everything there is. Nothing can be added or substracted from it, it has no beginning and no end and is the source of everything.

 

Yes, you're right...for progress and development as a society, but that won't help their inner development. Or we would all be very wise and enlightened beings already.

 

22 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

A fundamental principle of Buddhism is that nothing is permanent, and this, amazingly, is in accordance with modern science.

Why do you think it's amazing? ???? 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Sunmaster

[VincentRJ]

19 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Unknowable through the intellect. Knowable through practice.

Seeing through your bottom. Hearing through your nose. Tasting through your toes. ????

 

The intellect is essential for all knowledge and all interpretations of our experiences. Didn't you know that? ????

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Seeing through your bottom. Hearing through your nose. Tasting through your toes. ????

 

The intellect is essential for all knowledge and all interpretations of our experiences. Didn't you know that? ????

The intellect will analyze and categorize an experience (try to make sense of it), but the intellect doesn't create the experience itself.
The experience comes first.

 

Did you know that?

 

[VincentRJ]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, i can respect your opinions,  unless you are telling me that you know exactly every word that  Buddha said and not said because you were there at that time, which is unlikely. 

Secondly, you are free to think that I'm wasting my time, but that's an opinion of yours, and not necessarily Buddha's opinion. ????

 

In other words, you have no respect for anything the Buddha is claimed to have said because nobody who wrote any of the Buddhist scriptures were there at the time.

 

You do know that, don't you, that the Buddhas teachings were first written down around 400 years after he died?

[VincentRJ]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The intellect will analyze and categorize an experience (try to make sense of it), but the intellect doesn't create the experience itself.
The experience comes first.

 

Did you know that?

 

Not true. The experience doesn't always come first. Sometimes the thought comes first, then an experience of anxiety and worry follows. Didn't you know that? ????

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Not true. The experience doesn't always come first. Sometimes the thought comes first, then an experience of anxiety and worry follows. Didn't you know that? ????

We were talking about spiritual experiences. I don't know anyone who thought about being enlightened and then suddenly became enlightened. 

 

But nice try.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

In other words, you have no respect for anything the Buddha is claimed to have said because nobody who wrote any of the Buddhist scriptures were there at the time.

 

You do know that, don't you, that the Buddhas teachings were first written down around 400 years after he died?

Oh, and now you are twisting my words ?

Very strange of you, I'm surprised. 

Pls try to come back to earth ????

[VincentRJ]

20 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Why do you think it's amazing? ???? 

Because there are very few ancient theories about the nature of our surroundings which have not been debunked by modern science. The hypothesis that the matter we can see and touch consists of a mixture of invisibly small fundamental particles called atoms, which can not be broken into smaller pieces, was certainly inspiring, and it's also amazing that both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Indians, around the times of the Buddha, proposed such theories.

 

However, we now know that the atom can be split into smaller fragments, but so far our scientific investigations have not come across any 'thing or particle or wave' that is permanent.

[VincentRJ]

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

We were talking about spiritual experiences. I don't know anyone who thought about being enlightened and then suddenly became enlightened. 

 

But nice try.

There many stories of meditators suddenly becoming enlightened after practicing a certain routine for a while. However, I've never come across any stories of people who never thought about becoming enlightened but who suddenly became enlightened.

 

The thoughts about becoming enlightened usually come first because the rewards of enlightenment are the motivating factor to engage in a particular practice. Perhaps you can provide an example of someone who sat down regularly to meditate, and when asked if he was doing that to achieve some form of enlightenment, replied, "No. I've never even thought about enlightenment. I'm just tired." ????

[VincentRJ]

35 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Oh, and now you are twisting my words ?

Very strange of you, I'm surprised. 

Pls try to come back to earth ????

 No. I'm only twisting one word. This is what you wrote:

 

"Sorry, i can respect your opinions,  unless you are telling me that you know exactly every word that  Buddha said and not said because you were there at that time, which is unlikely. "

 

I've assumed you meant 'can't respect your opinions'. Am I right? ????

Edited April 26, 2021 by VincentRJ

[spiekerjozef]

The almighty created the Vatican and the sick people living within those walls.

[Sunmaster]

16 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

There many stories of meditators suddenly becoming enlightened after practicing a certain routine for a while. However, I've never come across any stories of people who never thought about becoming enlightened but who suddenly became enlightened.

 

The thoughts about becoming enlightened usually come first because the rewards of enlightenment are the motivating factor to engage in a particular practice. Perhaps you can provide an example of someone who sat down regularly to meditate, and when asked if he was doing that to achieve some form of enlightenment, replied, "No. I've never even thought about enlightenment. I'm just tired." ????

Wrong again. There are many who lead a normal life without practicing any routines, or who were even spiritual at all (at least in this lifetime), and then had a transformational spiritual experience. I, for example. So, no special routine for me, nor any thought about enlightenment since I was atheist and highly skeptical of anything "religious" (which for me was synonymous with spirituality at that time).
They are called "spontaneous awakenings" and are pretty common occurrences if you care to look.



Try again.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 No. I'm only twisting one word. This is what you wrote:

 

"Sorry, i can respect your opinions,  unless you are telling me that you know exactly every word that  Buddha said and not said because you were there at that time, which is unlikely. "

 

I've assumed you meant 'can't respect your opinions'. Am I right? ????

No, wrong. 

Of course i respect you and your opinions. 

I just meant to say, when talking about Buddha, we cannot take hearsay, or wikipedia as absolute truth. 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

No, wrong. 

Of course i respect you and your opinions. 

I just meant to say, when talking about Buddha, we cannot take hearsay, or wikipedia as absolute truth. 

Well, I admit that I have misinterpreted your post. It's so obvious that I wasn't there at the time of the Buddha, listening to what he said, I don't know why you brought it up.

 

As with much of history, we have to rely upon interpretations of interpretations of interpretations, sometimes going on and on and on, especially with religious matters where the literature is often later embellished with fanciful stories in order to appeal to the masses.

 

As regards absolute truth, what is your definition? Something that is always true at all times, in all places, in all circumstance? If I stick my bare hand in a fire for more than a few seconds, I'm sure my hand will suffer some damage from burning. Is that an example of an 'absolute truth'? ????
 

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

As regards absolute truth, what is your definition? Something that is always true at all times, in all places, in all circumstance? If I stick my bare hand in a fire for more than a few seconds, I'm sure my hand will suffer some damage from burning. Is that an example of an 'absolute truth

Well, i guess that would be the absolute truth for most of us !

But then, we heard of supernatural powers,  and i would not be really surprised to see some accomplished yogi to bend the law of physics. 

An absolute truth could be "eternity " or "infinity", or the fact that everything that has a beginning has an end...

Surely, many things which we consider to be 100% true can change with time,  for a variety of reasons. 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Wrong again. There are many who lead a normal life without practicing any routines, or who were even spiritual at all (at least in this lifetime), and then had a transformational spiritual experience. I, for example. So, no special routine for me, nor any thought about enlightenment since I was atheist and highly skeptical of anything "religious" (which for me was synonymous with spirituality at that time).
They are called "spontaneous awakenings" and are pretty common occurrences if you care to look.
 

I understand there are gradual awakenings and sudden (or spontaneous) awakenings, and also awakenings that can occur after varying periods of thought, meditation practice, and/or just eventually 'letting go'. 

 

However, I'm not aware of any examples of people who have not thought about and considered spiritual or religious issues, suddenly becoming enlightened or awakened, except you. Perhaps you can link to a site which provides some examples.

 

You can't really be an 'atheist' without considering or thinking about religious and spiritual issues, at least to some extent, just as you can't dislike the taste of spinach unless you have first tasted it.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

I understand there are gradual awakenings and sudden (or spontaneous) awakenings, and also awakenings that can occur after varying periods of thought, meditation practice, and/or just eventually 'letting go'. 

 

However, I'm not aware of any examples of people who have not thought about and considered spiritual or religious issues, suddenly becoming enlightened or awakened, except you. Perhaps you can link to a site which provides some examples.

 

You can't really be an 'atheist' without considering or thinking about religious and spiritual issues, at least to some extent, just as you can't dislike the taste of spinach unless you have first tasted it.

Yes, I did think about religion and spirituality and thought it was all <deleted>. I never thought about awakenings or enlightenment as something real and had no interest whatsoever in learning about it. So you can imagine my surprise when the awakening did happen.
The point is, it's not necessary to believe in or think about religion/spirituality to have such an awakening. Like I said a few posts ago...they happen in part due to your own merit (in this or your previous incarnations), but mainly due to the Grace of the Supreme.

 

Do you really think it's logical to assume that I could be the only person in history for this to happen to? Actually, I had the same doubt in the beginning, but by doing a little research I found out that lots of other people had the same or very similar experiences. You're right though, there are various stages or degrees of awakening. Enlightenment on the other hand, is the full and permanent realization of that state. You either are or you are not. 
[Here I have to say that, from the point of cosmic consciousness, we are all already enlightened because that's our natural state. What makes us think otherwise, is ignorance and it's what keeps the sense of separateness alive.]

 

I just googled "spontaneous awakening" and on the first page I found this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331000475_SPONTANEOUS_AWAKENING_EXPERIENCES_BEYOND_RELIGION_AND_SPIRITUAL_PRACTICE

 

I haven't read the full article, but from the abstract it seems relevant and might help you to understand. 
(EDIT: I have now read most of it and think it's a very good article)

There is also a large number of groups and forums online where people share their experiences. I'm sure you can do your own research.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Sunmaster

[upu2]

There have throughout the ages been the concept of Gods. It is mostly so people can lay the blame on a God entity so they don't have to take responsibility for events that are out of their control.

[Elad]

15 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Yep, as stated countless times, our perception is limited,  even some animals can see, hear, or jump,say, better than humans... go figure what is out there among countless stars and planets.... the whole universe and beyond must be bustling with life way beyond the imaginable. 

I can imagine an alien visiting Earth for a few days and then reports back to his alien friends on what he saw, and says "OMG you wouldn't believe what I saw on that Planet, a creature 8 metres long, it had no arms, no legs, and was eating other creatures five times bigger than its head" (Python) ???? 

[VincentRJ]

14 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Yes, I did think about religion and spirituality and thought it was all <deleted>. I never thought about awakenings or enlightenment as something real and had no interest whatsoever in learning about it. So you can imagine my surprise when the awakening did happen.
The point is, it's not necessary to believe in or think about religion/spirituality to have such an awakening. Like I said a few posts ago...they happen in part due to your own merit (in this or your previous incarnations), but mainly due to the Grace of the Supreme.

 

Do you really think it's logical to assume that I could be the only person in history for this to happen to? Actually, I had the same doubt in the beginning, but by doing a little research I found out that lots of other people had the same or very similar experiences. You're right though, there are various stages or degrees of awakening. Enlightenment on the other hand, is the full and permanent realization of that state. You either are or you are not. 
[Here I have to say that, from the point of cosmic consciousness, we are all already enlightened because that's our natural state. What makes us think otherwise, is ignorance and it's what keeps the sense of separateness alive.]

 

I just googled "spontaneous awakening" and on the first page I found this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331000475_SPONTANEOUS_AWAKENING_EXPERIENCES_BEYOND_RELIGION_AND_SPIRITUAL_PRACTICE

 

I haven't read the full article, but from the abstract it seems relevant and might help you to understand. 
(EDIT: I have now read most of it and think it's a very good article)

There is also a large number of groups and forums online where people share their experiences. I'm sure you can do your own research.

Thanks for the link to the article. That's an excellent read. I've learned something new. ????

 

What's particularly interesting is the finding that the most frequent trigger of the spontaneous 'awakening' experiences is psychological turmoil, or depression and despair.

 

The explanation for this trigger is also interesting and appears to be consistent with Buddhist teachings about 'stilling' the mind. The mind is usually very active with constant concerns about possessions, reputation, plans for the future, status, achievements, and so on. During a deep state of depression or despair, such concerns might dissolve, allowing a new 'Self' to arise.

 

The study also found that Sex is a major trigger for this 'spontaneous wakening'. It also suggested that this is under-reported, due to the embarrassment factor. ????