Did Lord Buddha Say God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important?

[canuckamuck]

Christians seek out confirmation through other means.

The moment one starts trying to confirm knowledge of God, one turns their back on faith it seems. Or it proves that it was an insecure type of faith.

But faith confirmed becomes knowledge and it is my knowledge of God that strengthens my relationship.

Once faith is confirmed and becomes knowledge, it simultaneously becomes redundant.

Do you really believe that once you try to confirm the existence of God that faith becomes irrelevant? Is faith only worthwhile when you have nothing to base it on? That seems a bit mad doesn't it? I can see where the mocking comes from. Jesus was confounded and disappointed by the disbelief of those around Him even with an abundance of evidence. What value is blind faith? It is no more than an opinion.

As far as when faith is confirmed it then becomes redundant, that is hard to imagine. If you tell a kid you will buy him an ice cream, does his faith in the reality of the ice cream disappear when he holds it in his hand? I would think his faith would be magnified as you could no longer say the ice cream is imaginary or a trick.

[Grover]

Do you really believe that once you try to confirm the existence of God that faith becomes irrelevant? Is faith only worthwhile when you have nothing to base it on? That seems a bit mad doesn't it? I can see where the mocking comes from. Jesus was confounded and disappointed by the disbelief of those around Him even with an abundance of evidence. What value is blind faith? It is no more than an opinion.

As far as when faith is confirmed it then becomes redundant, that is hard to imagine. If you tell a kid you will buy him an ice cream, does his faith in the reality of the ice cream disappear when he holds it in his hand? I would think his faith would be magnified as you could no longer say the ice cream is imaginary or a trick.

Ok, i've just read this recent topic http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=147403

If you can relate this post back to Buddhism somehow then ill be able to respond.

The short answer is no, no, yes and "there is probably a better analogy".

[Grover]

I bet once you clearly define God most of the questions will disappear.

One definition of God, but not sure if this was the accepted definition of God in the Buddhas time:

The (supposed) existence of a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us

Dawkins, The God Delusion p31.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Grover

[Brucenkhamen]

I realize this is the Buddhism forum and I might be pushing the intention of this forum by providing non Buddhist responses so if you want me to stop I will, but for now I would like to respectfully answer a couple of the comments directed to me, I will remember that I am a guest here.

It's funny how when I give my own thoughts you referred to it as a sermon but when others describe their deep held beliefs they are simply having a discussion.

I do not see faith as a negative thing, it is the key actually. What I was avoiding was the blanket statement that it is all based on faith alone and therefore imaginary as you were intonating. We all have faith in something; even atheism is a kind of faith. The question is how you arrive upon that faith.

Thanks for toning it down a little. I wouldn't want this forum to be a place where people of other faiths couldn't compare and contrast their beliefs with Buddhism, neither would I want it to be a place where people of other faiths can troll for converts, I don't think we've hit either extreme.

My original statement was intended to compare and contrast Nirvana with the Christian experience at a level of detail appropriate to this topic. It was never meant to say Christianity is X and nothing else, it was enough to answer the question and move on.

You reacted to it in a subjective manner, "Hey hey MY Christianity is not just X it's much more". Well so what, we weren’t talking about YOUR Christianity, we were just comparing and contrasting Nirvana with the Christian experience in very general terms.

I’m sure we both know that if we had this discussion on an evangelical Christian forum I would have been in for a lot more flak than you experienced here.

I’m curious what you are referring to when you say “others describe their deep held beliefs”, certainly if I was expressing deep held beliefs I’d want someone to challenge them in relation to the Buddha’s teaching as beliefs should be “lightly held” when practicing the Buddhist path.

So returning back to the topic “Did Lord Buddha Say God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important?” there is nothing to stop someone with a theistic belief system from practicing Buddha’s teaching, because Buddhism in it’s purist form does not attempt to fill the role that a theistic religion does. Now 2500 years of Asian religious superstition has made it into a religion but I don’t think the Buddha ever intended it. Also people and missionaries of other religions have been defining Buddhism as a religion for years and getting confused about why there is no God or creation myth.

I’ve been on meditation retreats where Christian’s seemed to be in the majority, including some clergy and social workers. Buddhist practices can add something to a theist’s spiritual life, and doesn’t attempt to take anything away from it.

So from that point of view whether there is a God or not it doesn’t matter in the context of the Buddhist path because the Buddhist path doesn’t attempt to do or define anything in relation to God.

[sabaijai]

Going around in circles here. Everyone has expressed their opinions from both the Christian and Buddhist perspectives, now we're quibbling about what constitutes 'faith'. We'll let this run awhile longer, but if the posts continue to show diminishing relevance to Buddhism, we'll have to close it.

[thaicurious]

this morning i watched the sun rise. i believe it was not an illusion. i have faith that i will see it rise again tomorrow. watching sunrise neither diminishes my faith nor prevents me from questioning even when i bear witness.

[jumnien]

Speaking as a buddhist with no necessary belief in "God", I must say that I've found Buddhism as it is practised to be very similar to Catholicism, another religion I have tremendous respect for. Service work, prayer, meditation, counting prayer beads, sermons, emphasis on moral integrity, spiritual community, confirmation and ordination rites of passage, etc. are very similar in both religions. Its no wonder that the more open-minded of both religions have enjoyed the benefit of much inter-faith dialogue over the years. No need to start a debating society over the subtle differences; just enjoy the commonalities and explore your spiritual universe knowing that you have spiritual friends in many, many places!

[Plus]

The (supposed) existence of a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us

There are holes in this definition that would have made in flawed even in Buddha's time.

Superhuman - there are thousands of life forms that are considered superhuman.

Supernatural intelligence - all those superhumans have supernatural intelligence.

Designed and created - the universe is not static, evolution is still going on (according to Darwin). When God created the universe, it certainly didn't look like anything we see now. Most importantly, I don't think the God created it as a house for himself and so it's pointless to search for him "inside" (a mere strawman that Dawkings dedicated himself to attack), and we don't have the means to peak "outside".

>>>

I believe there are references to the ultimate God in some Mahayana texts, I've seen them on Wiki. The concept has little practical value in our daily lives, and it is often used to justify horrendous acts, so I see Buddha's wisdom with concentrating on doing the "right" thing instead of using "knowledge" of God as an excuse to do as we please.

But then people use Buddha's teaching for exactly the same purpose.

Human nature.

[camerata]

The nearest I've seen to the concept of God in Buddhism is Mahavairocana of the Mahayana tradition. Sometimes called the "Cosmic Buddha," Mahavairocana is a personification of the "eternal principle of Dhamma." And Amitabah is the nearest Mahayana has to Jesus Christ. He receives devotees' "souls" when they die and escorts them to the Tusita Heaven.

[Grover]

Let's put it another way.

1. There's God.

Buddha must have been aware of his existence and so all his teaching must ulimately lead to establishing connection with God. Ultimately is the key word. For the vast majority of people it has no practical value and never will, for many many lifetimes.

2. There's no God.

Buddha was sharing his own realisations, not much different from authors of self-help books. Issues to which he had no answers, like the origin of universe, are irrelevant.

3. There's God but Buddha wasn't aware of his existence.

Fair enough with these three possibilities.

Perhaps nirvarna is beyond concepts of god, the origin of the universe and when reached this speculation become irrelevant ? I dont know.

But i think if the God concept was important to the cessation of suffering leading to nirvarna, then the Buddha would have mentioned it.

My view is that man made God not God made man.

Nirvana is not the end of all. We are all in for a pleasant surprise.

Are you referring to heaven ?

[Plus]

This is not exactly what I've seen before but somewhat close:

Samantabhadra: " ... everything is Me, the All-Creating Sovereign, mind of perfect purity ... I am the cause of all things. I am the stem of all things. I am the ground of all things. I am the root of all things ... There is no other Buddha besides Me, the All-Creating One."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunjed_Gyalpo_Tantra

There's whole "Tathagatagarbha doctrine" to consider, too:

"In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha further explains how he only gives out his secret teachings on the Tathagatagarbha when his disciples are no longer like "small children" of limited capacity and of paltry assimilative power, but have "grown up" and can no longer be satisfied with the simple spiritual food they had initially been fed. While his disciples were still immature, they were only able to "digest" the simple and basic spiritual fare of "suffering, impermanence and non-Self", whereas once they have reached spiritual adulthood they require more spiritual nutriment and are now ready to assimilate the culminational teachings of the Tathagatagarbha."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha

[Plus]

Nirvana is not the end of all. We are all in for a pleasant surprise.

By definition the God must the source of Nirvana, too.

Nirvana beats "heaven". God beats Nirvana.

I'm confident it will be pleasant.

[Oleg_Rus]

___________

Great posts, very insightful and clear. I didn't copy it to safe some space, please keep posting, very very clear for me indeed.

[Neeranam]

So returning back to the topic “Did Lord Buddha Say God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important?” there is nothing to stop someone with a theistic belief system from practicing Buddha’s teaching, because Buddhism in it’s purist form does not attempt to fill the role that a theistic religion does. Now 2500 years of Asian religious superstition has made it into a religion but I don’t think the Buddha ever intended it. Also people and missionaries of other religions have been defining Buddhism as a religion for years and getting confused about why there is no God or creation myth.

I’ve been on meditation retreats where Christian’s seemed to be in the majority, including some clergy and social workers. Buddhist practices can add something to a theist’s spiritual life, and doesn’t attempt to take anything away from it.

So from that point of view whether there is a God or not it doesn’t matter in the context of the Buddhist path because the Buddhist path doesn’t attempt to do or define anything in relation to God.

I always find it strange when people speak of 'God', they think of Christians. What about Muslims, Hindus?

The main reason I asked the original question was that I'm interested in learning more about Buddhism. However, I'm not interested if other know-it-all practitioners mock my belief in God, go on about Santa Claus existing etc.

Most Western converts to Buddhism seem to be athiests. If it's posible to benefit from Buddhism, being an atheist, it it possible being a believer in God(not Christian)?

[sabaijai]

this morning i watched the sun rise. i believe it was not an illusion. i have faith that i will see it rise again tomorrow. watching sunrise neither diminishes my faith nor prevents me from questioning even when i bear witness.

You know the sun will rise tomorrow not because you saw it rise this morning but because you have seen it rise many, many times over your lifetime. That's not faith, it's empiricism. Faith alone has no predictive power, empirical analysis (including much of what we call intuition), even as collected through repeated experience (rather than direct recording of statistics) does. Empiricism doesn't have 100% predictive power but it has more observable/testable predictive power than faith.

Non-theistic Buddhism (eg, Zen and Theravada) at their core are relatively empirical, while theisms (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, some schools of Mahayana Buddhism) mix Buddhism's original quasi-empirical approach with mysticism.

Not to deny religious faith or mysticism, but these play relatively small roles in most schools of Buddhism, and hence the question of faith in God or gods isn't so important.

In fact in Theravada Buddhism it's clear that God as defined by most theisms is subject to rebirth and suffering like every other being. Only nibbana is unconditioned.

[sabaijai]

Most Western converts to Buddhism seem to be athiests. If it's posible to benefit from Buddhism, being an atheist, it it possible being a believer in God(not Christian)?

I think so, but it depends on what you mean by 'benefit'. Certainly the various Buddhist practices of meditation can be useful and practical for a theist. In meditation courses and retreats over the years I've met many Christians and other folks who believe in God who actively seek out instruction and practice regularly.

Buddhist teachings in other areas, I'm sure, can also be of benefit to God-believers, including the four noble truths, noble eightfold path, loving kindness and so on.

Although I realise you're not specifically asking about Christian believers, there are plenty of groups around that engage in Buddhist-Christian dialogue. One of the most famous initiators in the last century was Trappist monk Thomas Merton, who died in Bangkok while researching Buddhism. For those of this orientation, belief in God poses no obstacle to their understanding and practice (albeit limited) of Buddhism.

[Brucenkhamen]

I always find it strange when people speak of 'God', they think of Christians. What about Muslims, Hindus?

The main reason I asked the original question was that I'm interested in learning more about Buddhism. However, I'm not interested if other know-it-all practitioners mock my belief in God, go on about Santa Claus existing etc.

Most Western converts to Buddhism seem to be athiests. If it's posible to benefit from Buddhism, being an atheist, it it possible being a believer in God(not Christian)?

I find a large number Western converts to Buddhism to be more the new agey types. They seem to have an eclectic-theistic- wholistic view to life and the spiritual path. Then there are those like me who are more skeptical agnostics. I'm not sure true athiests are that common at all.

As a couple of us have mentioned you get quite a few practicing Christians also, Hindus as well especially in the Goenka movement. No Muslims though, the penalties for them dabbling in other religions is severe.

[thaicurious]

You know the sun will rise tomorrow not because you saw it rise this morning but because you have seen it rise many, many times over your lifetime. That's not faith, it's empiricism.

the chronically delusional might disagree. good to have faith that your experience is not just an illusion however often it might repeat.

Non-theistic Buddhism (eg, Zen and Theravada) at their core are relatively empirical, while theisms (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, some schools of Mahayana Buddhism) mix Buddhism's original quasi-empirical approach with mysticism.

i would be just as careful with what i label empirical as with what is supposedly objective or so-called subjective or mystical. if two or more people have the same or similar so-called mystical experience, is the experience still mystical; are they even just subjective or are they simply esoteric i.e. not shared with the general population?

if only monks ate rice, and rice was not provided to the general population, would rice then be considered mystical?

[Gary A]

If Buddhists don't believe in God then what causes reincarnation? Who judges what you come back as? Buddhists believe that nothing comes from nothing and every living thing has existed before. Where did those living things come from?

[jamesc2000]

If Buddhists don't believe in God then what causes reincarnation? Who judges what you come back as? Buddhists believe that nothing comes from nothing and every living thing has existed before. Where did those living things come from?

I know nothing about Buddhism but I know that 0 = +1 -1

[chownah]

If Buddhists don't believe in God then what causes reincarnation? Who judges what you come back as? Buddhists believe that nothing comes from nothing and every living thing has existed before. Where did those living things come from?

My understanding is that Buddhism is a results oriented concept....the idea is that we can end the unsatisfactoriness which pervades our lives. Things which will not further that goal are not taught. The Buddha is reported to have said that the ONLY thing he taught is the end of suffering and if it doesn't further that end he doesn't teach it. Kamma is seen as simply how the world works and not explanation is needed...in fact it is taught that humans can not comprehend the exact workings of kamma and to try to do so leads to instability of the mind. As to the beginning of life or the universe, this too is considered an imponderable and is a waste of time to consider as the answer in unknowable and has nothing to do with the end of suffering.

I want to be clear the when I say that the Buddha taught the end of "suffering" you must realize that the actual word he used was "dukkha" which is Pali language and suffering is a word often used but is really not a very accurate translation for dukkha....dukkha is more like a combination of suffering, inadequacy, discomfort, struggle, pain, unease, disquiet, stress, unsatisfactoriness, etc.

Chownah

[jamesc2000]

I found the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism, if we are allowed to discuss it, I'd hope that Buddhism is not cult-like in refusing to discuss certain matters.

I don't know much about Buddhism but I know since it is not faith based and based on direct experience then anything can be discussed and nothing refused.

Buddhism is usually regarded as a religion (or a spiritual philosophy) without an Absolute Creator God who created the universe ex nihilo and to whom worship and adoration are due. Even though an Absolute Creator God is absent in most forms of Buddhism, veneration and worship of Gautama Buddha (and other Buddhas) do play a major role in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. In Mahayana Buddhism there is the notion of the Buddhas as generators of vast "Buddha lands", in which beings will unfailingly attain Nirvana.

People might label Buddhism as a religion or a spiritual philosophy but I don't think it was ever meant to be. I think it's more a path. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think Buddha might have said if I pointed the way, people will worship my finger. So I think Buddha never wanted people to worship him and I don't think he needs adoration. I think only insecure people need adoration.

Huston Smith in his popular comparative religions book, "The World Religions", describes Buddhism as being psychological and not metaphysical like theistic religions. Unlike theistic religions which begin with notions of God and the creation of the universe, Buddhism begins with the human condition as enumerated in the Four Noble Truths. Buddhists do not normally speak in terms of an Absolute Creator God.

In Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism, however, there is far less reticence on the part of the Buddha (or Buddhas) to discourse upon metaphysical matters than is found in the Pali scriptures. A distinction therefore needs to be drawn between the teachings ascribed to the Buddha in the Pāli Canon or the Āgamas, which do not speak affirmatively of a Creator God or an indestructible universal Essence in all beings, and the more explicit affrimation of mystical notions attributed to the Buddha in some Mahayana sutras and Tantras, where expression is given to an apparent Ultimate Ground of all things (see, e.g. the Srimala Sutra) - the immanent, omniscient, and transcendent Reality of the Awakened Mind or the boundless sphere of the "Buddha Nature" (buddha-dhatu or Tathagatagarbha - see Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, tr. Kosho Yamamoto, ed. Dr. Tony Page, Nirvana Publications, London, 1999-2000, passim). Some Mahayana sutras envision the Buddha as the "god above the gods" (see, for example, the Lalita-Vistara Sutra), as a primal, eternal, sustaining essence within all beings and phenomena (see, for instance, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, tr. Kosho Yamamoto, ed. Dr. Tony Page, Nirvana Publications, London, 1999-2000, passim, and the Mahayana Angulimaliya Sutra), while some tantras paint a portrait of the Buddha on a cosmological scale and in cosmogonic terms as the emanator of all beings and all universes (see, for instance, the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra). This primordial Buddha is viewed by the Jonangpa school of Tibetan Buddhism as absolute, eternal, omnipresent, supreme Knowingness/Awareness (jnana) beyond the limitations of ordinary consciousness. The Tibetan adept, Dolpopa, writes: "It is absolute, never relative. It is the true nature ... It is gnosis, never consciousness. It is pure, never impure. It is a sublime Self, never a nothingness ... It is Buddha, never a sentient being." (The Buddha from Dolpo, Cyrus Stearns, SUNY, New York, 1999, pp. 149-150). The Tibetan Sangpa Kagyu school of Buddhism speaks of the Ultimate Reality as pure, spotless, changeless Mind that is present in all things, all times and in all beings and which can never die. Kalu Rinpoche elucidates: " ... pure mind cannot be located, but it is omnipresent and all-penetrating; it embraces and pervades all things. Moreover, it is beyond change, and its open nature is indestructible and atemporal." (Luminous Mind, Kalu Rinpoche, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 1997, pp.20-21). Other Mahayana Buddhists, however, are averse to the idea of an Absolute and speak only of a chain of ongoing causes and conditions as the ultimate Truth (this is especially true of the Gelukpa School of Tibetan Buddhism).

I don't understand all the different schools of Buddhism. If Buddha was here I wonder which school he would ascribe to! I also say the same thing about the different Christian churches. I always ask which church has the most truth and all the members of different churches tell me all Christian churches have truth but theirs have the most! That certainly cannot be true by logic!

In Buddhism, one venerates Buddhas and sages for their virtues, sacrifices and struggles for perfect enlightenment (one can see this in the Jatakas) and as teachers who are embodiments of the "Dhamma" or "Law". In Buddhism, this supreme victory of the human spirit and humanity's ability for jnana or perfect gnosis is celebrated in the concept of human saints known as Arahants which literally means "worthy of offerings" or "worthy of worship" because this sage overcomes all defilements and obtains perfect gnosis to obtain Nirvana.[1]

I don't think Arahants also want to be worshipped! Thats really for the insecure! I think they just want to show people how they can experience nirvana if those people want to experience it for themselves.

Buddhism is a way of life which does not hinge upon the concept of a Creator God but depends upon the practice of the Eightfold Path which includes contemplation. In Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, however, veneration and worship of all Buddhas, as the transmitters and embodiments of Dharma and its blessings, is highly significant and is seen as extremely important for spiritual development. While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture, and indeed the Buddhas themselves, whose powers are of a supernatural calibre), it does not ascribe power, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgment to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All unenlightened supernatural beings are caught in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth.

Edited October 11, 2007 by jamesc2000

[thaicurious]

If Buddhists don't believe in God then what causes reincarnation? Who judges what you come back as? Buddhists believe that nothing comes from nothing and every living thing has existed before. Where did those living things come from?

is this the same question as asking from where or when or how did god arrive? questioned either way, it is difficult, is it not, to grasp infinity.

creator is seen as mere clarity & awareness. just as the judeo/xtian/muslim/etc god creates out of darkness (out of the non-lighted) because without darkness the light of creation would overwelm & thereby obliterate the created, buddhist creation also arises out of unenlightenment. one creates out of love and the other creates for compassion.

reincarnation or the wondering within samsara is caused by not realizing absolute, ultimate nature.

[Brucenkhamen]

If Buddhists don't believe in God then what causes reincarnation? Who judges what you come back as? Buddhists believe that nothing comes from nothing and every living thing has existed before. Where did those living things come from?

Buddhism teaches us to neither believe nor disbelieve in God.

Buddhism doesn't teach reincarnation, that's a Hindu concept, though a lot of traditional Buddhists probably believe it in that way I don't think that's the way it was taught.

You can't have reinmcarnation if there is no distinct and seperate self, what you have is re-becoming which is simply put when something passes away something new arises. This is a principle in nature, "When a seed falls to the ground and dies..." is how the Bible puts it.

As to who created the universe, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created tha, and so on...

Would the answer to that question reduce the suffering experienced in day to day life?

I'd be willing consider discussing how the world comes from nothing if you can present evidence on how God comes from nothing.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Brucenkhamen

[Neeranam]

As to who created the universe, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created tha, and so on...

Would the answer to that question reduce the suffering experienced in day to day life?

I think so.

[Grover]

As to who created the universe, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created tha, and so on...

Would the answer to that question reduce the suffering experienced in day to day life?

I think so.

Would not having the answer but wanting to know it generate a subtle form of suffering ?

[Brucenkhamen]

Would not having the answer but wanting to know it generate a subtle form of suffering ?

Sure it probably does. The same of the subtle form of suffering produced by any unknown in life.

Where will I be next year? Should i take that job? When will I die? What's for dinner?

But like every other uncertainty wouldn't knowing the answer be followed by a sense of anticlimax? therefore just another round of suffering.

Also wouldn't knowing the answer to that question reduce the sense of openmindedness, wonder, mystery, and adventure you can get by accepting the uncertainties in life?

[Gary A]

My personal opinion is that organized religion is the worst threat mankind has ever faced. Christianity and Islam being the main culprits. Blind belief in a couple of books that were written many years ago then interpretted to fit whatever circumstances the (re) writer intended.

Buddhism got my interest after I had come over here to work. One of the bosses (owners son) made terrible decisions and treated his workers like they were machines with no feelings. At first I was vocal voicing my opinion. I quickly learned that being vocal was not a effective way to change things. During a meeting with several of the Thai engineers, I was upset that one of my recommendations was ignored. I then made the statement that if the boss had not been born rich, he would have starved to death by now. The meeting room became deathly still. The best engineer of the group sat beside me and explained that I had insulted their boss and their religion. I was told that the boss was a VERY good man in his previous life/lives and being born wealthy was his just reward. I then asked if that meant that the boss could do no wrong and that was greeted with nods and smiles. That group of guys are highly educated and very Buddhist. They will shape the future of Thailand. I found that quite alarming. I was forced to change my methods and did become more effective because of it. It certainly wasn't easy because I was very prone to yell and scream when someone did something stupid. Maybe they are correct. My pulse rate slowed and my high blood pressure dropped considerably.

[sabaijai]

You know the sun will rise tomorrow not because you saw it rise this morning but because you have seen it rise many, many times over your lifetime. That's not faith, it's empiricism.

the chronically delusional might disagree. good to have faith that your experience is not just an illusion however often it might repeat.

Non-theistic Buddhism (eg, Zen and Theravada) at their core are relatively empirical, while theisms (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, some schools of Mahayana Buddhism) mix Buddhism's original quasi-empirical approach with mysticism.

i would be just as careful with what i label empirical as with what is supposedly objective or so-called subjective or mystical. if two or more people have the same or similar so-called mystical experience, is the experience still mystical; are they even just subjective or are they simply esoteric i.e. not shared with the general population?

if only monks ate rice, and rice was not provided to the general population, would rice then be considered mystical?

You're confused about the meanings of mystical and empirical. Try a dictionary.

[Neeranam]

My personal opinion is that organized religion is the worst threat mankind has ever faced

Strange off topic remark to make on an organised religion forum.