Are There Buddhist Accounts Of People Speaking To The Dead?

[camerata]

Can I give you an example of a core teaching that has developed? My answer is simple. Have you read a single book about Buddhist thought other than the Dhamma? Have you listened to a single talk by a Buddhist monk other than a recitation of the Dhamma? If the answer to either of those questions is yes -- and I know it is because you have referenced other sources than Dhamma is some posts -- than you have read or listened to a discussion of Buddhist thought...something beyond Buddha's own words (which are probably not really his own words).

We seem to be just splitting hairs here. Evolve is evolve, interpret is interpret and explain is explain. I read books on dhamma because I don't read Pali. Most of the books agree in all but minor details. I don't see that as indicating that the Buddha's teachings are evolving or that they should evolve.

When I see someone who wants the teachings to be other than they are, it's usually because they can't let go of something. Remember the thread on JuBus a couple of years ago and the guy who turned up with a long-winded explanation of how the ancient Jewish descriptions of God were similar to nibbana? He just couldn't let go of his traditional religion so instead he had to incorporate it into a modified Buddhism.

We all face this temptation to some extent. I was baptized, confirmed, years of Sunday School, sent to a Christian School, implanted with the God virus, etc. But when I got serious about Buddhism I took the Buddhist approach and just let it go. I didn't try to change Buddhism to accommodate my previous beliefs, preferences or sense of identity. I have wondered over the years whether I've let go at a deep enough level and would pass the "foxhole test," i.e. if put in a situation of perceived mortal danger, would I pray to God, pray to the ancestors, or make use of the dhamma? As it turned out, I found out a couple of weeks ago. I passed.

You seem to be saying that "the core of Buddha's teaching in the suttas is mental cultivation", but don't actually cultivate your mind based on Buddhism.

No idea why you would think that. (Buddhist) Cultivation means rewiring your brain the way the Buddha suggested.

[camerata]

The stuff he knew but didn't teach, he didn't teach because it didn't lead to nibbana and would only have been a distraction.

So, are you that he was "all knowing and all seeing"?

No. The episode is an illustration that the Buddha knew more than he taught, but he avoided teaching anything not connected to the elimination of suffering. I think it's also a kind of warning not to get attached to abstract intellectual thought.

[Xangsamhua]

I have wondered over the years whether I've let go at a deep enough level and would pass the "foxhole test," i.e. if put in a situation of perceived mortal danger, would I pray to God, pray to the ancestors, or make use of the dhamma? As it turned out, I found out a couple of weeks ago. I passed.

Good to hear, Camerata. It must have been a most affirming moment for you. (Though I expect you would have preferred not being put to the test.)

And thank you for the note about nirvana/nibbana being outside the conditioned. I guess I was thinking of existence other than the nibbanic state.

[phetaroi]

We seem to be just splitting hairs here. Evolve is evolve, interpret is interpret and explain is explain. I read books on dhamma because I don't read Pali. Most of the books agree in all but minor details. I don't see that as indicating that the Buddha's teachings are evolving or that they should evolve.

When I see someone who wants the teachings to be other than they are, it's usually because they can't let go of something. ... He just couldn't let go of his traditional religion so instead he had to incorporate it into a modified Buddhism.

We all face this temptation to some extent. I was baptized, confirmed, years of Sunday School, sent to a Christian School, implanted with the God virus, etc. But when I got serious about Buddhism I took the Buddhist approach and just let it go. I didn't try to change Buddhism to accommodate my previous beliefs, preferences or sense of identity. I have wondered over the years whether I've let go at a deep enough level and would pass the "foxhole test," i.e. if put in a situation of perceived mortal danger, would I pray to God, pray to the ancestors, or make use of the dhamma? As it turned out, I found out a couple of weeks ago. I passed.

You seem to be saying that "the core of Buddha's teaching in the suttas is mental cultivation", but don't actually cultivate your mind based on Buddhism.

No idea why you would think that. (Buddhist) Cultivation means rewiring your brain the way the Buddha suggested.

I am sure you see my posts as critical, but I enjoy the discussion, and I am trying to understand your viewpoints. Trust me...I never split hairs...I have none to split!

I am an evolutionist in all things. I don't know of anything that doesn't evolve in some way. I can look at a man who begins to think about Buddhism, and as he learns more, his views will evolve. I look at the various (hmmmm...what word do I want here?) classes of people in Thailand -- professed Buddhists; I see the simple farmer in Issan who has one view of Buddhism; I see the more modern resident of Bangkok who has a different view; I see the student who is studying comparative religion who has yet a different view -- to me an evolution dependent on education and environment. In the same light, I try to imagine a person of limited educational background (as compared to today) that was around when Buddha was 2,500 years ago, and try to compare his perspective on Buddhism with someone today who has all sorts of textural resources and the internet to learn about Buddhism. Again, to me, an evolution in Buddhist thought, in this case over time. Have Buddha words (whatever they were) evolved? No. He's dead...well, gone...well, whatever. But the way people are interpreting those words has changed. That doesn't mean for the better or for the worse...but over 2,500 years, the interpretation cannot be exactly the same.

Unlike you, and this is not a criticism, I personally don't think it's wise to simply say, "Okay, now I'm done with Christian principles and wisdom and morals. Time to move on to another flavor." Isn't there something I can take from Christianity (or another other faith) that has value?

In terms of cultivation of the mind, it's like cultivating the soil in order to plant pumpkins. Sometimes something comes up in addition to the pumpkins. May be weeds. May be a tomato plant from last year's garden. No need to throw the tomatoes away.

It has often been written and said that you can be Buddhist and ______.

[camerata]

Good to hear, Camerata. It must have been a most affirming moment for you. (Though I expect you would have preferred not being put to the test.)

It did raise a few questions in retrospect. Suppose I had prayed for the Buddha to save me...

Incidentally, in one of his books Thich Nhat Hanh says that if he were in an aircraft that was about to crash, he would recite the Three Refuges. I don't recall any other authors giving specific advice about this, though.

[phetaroi]

No. The episode is an illustration that the Buddha knew more than he taught, but he avoided teaching anything not connected to the elimination of suffering. I think it's also a kind of warning not to get attached to abstract intellectual thought.

I would agree that the Buddhas almost singular focus seemed to be the elimination of suffering. I'm not sure a full life need only be (or should only be) about one solitary thing.

[rockyysdt]

"We have spoken at length of re birth, & how the essence of a person upon death becomes the spark for rebirth, & is shaped by khamma & ones state at the time of death."

Rocky,

You mentioned re birth. Is it correct to conclude you are trying to calculate the possible existence of ghosts in terms of whether there is reincarnation or rebirth? I was struggling with same concept of how there could be ghosts but not reincarnation.

I was motivated to post due to my interest in Buddhism & by the sudden death of a little boy, very dear to me, who was wrenched from us prematurely.

Just as I believe in your experience where you saw your father & sister, even though they had already passed away, I have no reason to doubt the boy who spoke to his cousin even though his cousin had just died in another continent.

I turned to our forum to see if our life experiences make any sense in terms of Buddhist teaching.

I can only speculate as none of us will ever really know without enlightenment, but I travel with an open mind.

Even though the Buddha said that we are conditioned & impermanent & there is nothing inside which is in control & therefore nothing to reincarnate, I think there is a dimension or reality beyond our comprehension at play.

If our ego is merely a construct & doesn't really exist, & re birth is merely a spark which shapes new life based on past khamma but otherwise unrelated, then why would anyone who is firmly attached to their ego & knows no other reality, sacrifice the positive aspects of their senses & mental desires in order that some future beings are spared suffering by extinction of re birth?

I think there is "something" in common between passed & future lives & that it can inhabit different realms as well as lives.

Perhaps this "something" was not talked about by the Buddha because it would confuse the aim which is extinction of attachment to "ego" or "self" in order to reach our goal.

This "something" is not ego & perhaps not a soul, but there has to be a common "something" associated with us which either becomes enlightened or was always enlightened & awakens.

If there isn't "something" then what is enlightened?

Also why did these visions occur?

Did your father & sister appear to you in order to inspire & shape you?

Did the Khamma of the little boy, prematurely wrenched from his life & not ready to go, cause a spark which caused his essence to momentarily manifest in familiar surroundings? Did it inspire his cousin?

Did I experience losing this boy from my life & be told of his cousins vision in order to reinforce my evolving path?

Does our khamma cause us to experience events in our lives which can shape us?

I don't know the answers but I like to keep an open mind & will re double my practice in order to experience the answers.

Edited May 5, 2010 by rockyysdt

[eggomaniac]

Here is one example, called 'Buddha is proof of Reincarnation'.

Thank you for referencing that article. I found it interesting.

One question that popped up in my mind is...so the Jataka tales are part of the Theravada Buddhist scriptures...correct?

Why is believing that Buddha lived 357 past lives as a human, 66 as a god, and 123 as an animal more logical than believing in 1 God?

Is this question for me or anyone? There are many articles and posts in other Buddhist Forums professing it's wrong to class Buddhism as an atheist religion, but that would be getting into a New Topic. Title? 'Where is Buddha right now?'

[some say Buddha said there were no gods and others say He conversed with Brahma and Erewan handed over control of the Pantheon to Him. It would take a lot of very big words, beyond my level of vocabulary, and small print to explain how both of these concepts could be true!?]

So if that was a question for me, as you can see, I have no problem in believing there is one God. [all that theist, deist stuff, pantheist even, I don't quite understand]

I REALLY like Buddha's description of uncreatedeness. Here I was all my life thinking I was the only one who had thoughts like that.

[camerata]

I would agree that the Buddhas almost singular focus seemed to be the elimination of suffering. I'm not sure a full life need only be (or should only be) about one solitary thing.

In the "handful of leaves" episode the Buddha was speaking to monks, not laymen. Obviously, he knew that the laity would not spend their whole life trying to attain nibbana.

[camerata]

Unlike you, and this is not a criticism, I personally don't think it's wise to simply say, "Okay, now I'm done with Christian principles and wisdom and morals. Time to move on to another flavor." Isn't there something I can take from Christianity (or another other faith) that has value?

I never thought of Buddhism as something as trivial as another flavour. To me it was a whole new way of looking at things. The whole of Christianity stands on a false premise, one designed to comfort us into believing we are special and immortal, whereas Buddhism is a system of mental development aimed - in the short term - at making life happier and more meaningful. What is there to take from a system resting on a false premise? It seems to me that Buddhism has morality and ethics covered better than Christianity anyway.

It has often been written and said that you can be Buddhist and ______.

Very comforting for those who can't let go, but it's hard to see how one can progress in the acceptance that things are as they are if one thinks God, Brahma, Guan Yin, or some other entity is available to help change them.

And just to bring things back on topic, I've never seen a ghost and don't believe in them in any shape or form other than as nimitta. Plausible answers for the phenomena can be found in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

[phetaroi]

I never thought of Buddhism as something as trivial as another flavour. To me it was a whole new way of looking at things. The whole of Christianity stands on a false premise, one designed to comfort us into believing we are special and immortal, whereas Buddhism is a system of mental development aimed - in the short term - at making life happier and more meaningful. What is there to take from a system resting on a false premise? It seems to me that Buddhism has morality and ethics covered better than Christianity anyway.

A good overall response to that view -- although from a Mahayanan group -- is from the Amitabha Buddhist Centre in Singapore: "Often the interaction among religions is at the highest level, where the people are open and do not have prejudices. It is at lower levels that people become insecure and develop a football team mentality: "This is my football team and the other religions are opposing football teams!" With such an attitude, we compete and fight. This is very sad, whether it occurs among religions or among various Buddhist traditions. Buddha taught many varied methods and they all work harmoniously to help a wide spectrum of different types of people. Therefore, it is important to respect all traditions, both within Buddhism and among the world religions."

What is there to take from Christianity?

Thou shalt not murder.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not covet.

The value of humility.

The principle of doing unto others as you would wish them to do unto you.

That's just off the top of my head.

But, I guess the Dalai Lama has it all wrong.

[camerata]

Buddha taught many varied methods and they all work harmoniously to help a wide spectrum of different types of people. Therefore, it is important to respect all traditions, both within Buddhism and among the world religions."

Well, this is the standard Mahayana line on why there are so many different supposedly authentic "Buddhist" teachings. However, we weren't discussing fighting or disrespect between traditions, but the reason one would want to let go of Christianity after finding Buddhism.

What is there to take from Christianity?

Thou shalt not murder.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not covet.

The value of humility.

The principle of doing unto others as you would wish them to do unto you.

As I said, Buddhism has it covered, and more. You don't need to "take" these from Christianity because Buddhism already has them, and they aren't orders from God.

But, I guess the Dalai Lama has it all wrong.

Isn't he the guy who said: "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct."? That's a rhetorical question, BTW, but his view represents an interesting "evolution" of Buddhist thought, don't you think?

[fabianfred]

Here is one example, called 'Buddha is proof of Reincarnation'.

Thank you for referencing that article. I found it interesting.

One question that popped up in my mind is...so the Jataka tales are part of the Theravada Buddhist scriptures...correct?

Why is believing that Buddha lived 357 past lives as a human, 66 as a god, and 123 as an animal more logical than believing in 1 God?

The five hundred or so Jataka tales are only a tiny fraction of his past existences since first becoming a Boddhisattva at the feet of the Buddha Dipankara. Comparing one grain of sand to all the sand on Earth.

[Xangsamhua]

Buddha taught many varied methods and they all work harmoniously to help a wide spectrum of different types of people. Therefore, it is important to respect all traditions, both within Buddhism and among the world religions."

Well, this is the standard Mahayana line on why there are so many different supposedly authentic "Buddhist" teachings. However, we weren't discussing fighting or disrespect between traditions, but the reason one would want to let go of Christianity after finding Buddhism.

What is there to take from Christianity?

Thou shalt not murder.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not covet.

The value of humility.

The principle of doing unto others as you would wish them to do unto you.

As I said, Buddhism has it covered, and more. You don't need to "take" these from Christianity because Buddhism already has them, and they aren't orders from God.

But, I guess the Dalai Lama has it all wrong.

Isn't he the guy who said: "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct."? That's a rhetorical question, BTW, but his view represents an interesting "evolution" of Buddhist thought, don't you think?

If I can be pedantic ... The five "Thou shalt nots" are Mosaic principles from about 1400 BCE.

I don't think humility was taught as an ethical requirement in biblical times, though the 8th century BCE prophet Micah is recorded as saying "This and only this is what the Lord God asks of you: to act justly, to love tenderly, and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). It's humility before God, though, not one's fellow man.

The "Golden Rule" is usually attributed to Hillel the Elder (110-10 BCE), who said that "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn". He considered "love of man" the kernel of Jewish teaching. (Wikipedia: Hillel the Elder) Hillel and Shammai, a stricter interpreter of Torah, were major influences on first century Jewish thought and would have been familiar to Jesus and the other Galilean sages.

With this in mind, I would argue that the distinctive ethical doctrines taught by Jesus are based on (1) a radical egalitarianism ("The last shall be first and the first shall be last" - Matt. 20:16), (2) counter-intuitive empathy, denial of duality, pacifism - summarized in the Sermon on the Mount, but found throughout the Gospels (especially the Synoptics); and, especially in his parable about the separation of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:35-40), where God's kingdom is inherited by those who feed the hungry, give drink to those who thirst, welcome the stranger, visit the sick and imprisoned, etc., (3) a radical outreach to others, a breaking down of the notion that we are all different and separate.

You can make up your own minds as to whether Buddhist (Theravada or Mahayana), or Christian or Jewish ethical platforms can be placed on a scale of moral superiority. My view is that, as phenomena, the great world religions have different strengths - Buddhism and Hinduism are very rich psychological systems and practices; Islam is strong on community maintenance, social responsibility and personal discipline; Christianity has a powerful social ethic and outreach and, if you can find it under the dross of bad teaching and bad practice, a strong sense of the essential (God-given) dignity of each man and woman.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[Xangsamhua]

The whole of Christianity stands on a false premise, one designed to comfort us into believing we are special and immortal, whereas Buddhism is a system of mental development aimed - in the short term - at making life happier and more meaningful. What is there to take from a system resting on a false premise? It seems to me that Buddhism has morality and ethics covered better than Christianity anyway.

I am uncertain just which is the first (possibly false) premise that Christianity and the related Abrahamic religions rest upon. I suspect you see it as the idea of a personal heavenly father - an Abba, as Jesus called him, who is loving and generous even to those individuals who don't deserve it (Matt. 7:9-11). That is probably more Christian than Abrahamic (Judaic or Islamic), though there were certainly some Jewish sages who had the same idea, and I’m not sure about Islam – probably the ecstatic sects had/have a similar notion, but I think they are seen as heterodox by the mainstream ulama.

If, however, the basic premise (P1) of these religions is that there is something and not nothing, and (P2) that “something” suggests a source or cause beyond itself, then there is nothing particularly comforting in that suggestion until one ascribes attributes to the hypothetical source and builds theological systems around it, the next premise (P3) being that, if in the world of creation one finds personal attributes (affection, hope, pride, attraction, courage, loyalty etc.), then it can be inferred that they in some way reflect the personal attributes of the creator. Hence, theism began to evolve from simple tribal gods, whose affections were confined to the tribe, to the universal God of the diaspora Christians, influenced by the Hellenes, especially Plato and the Neo-Platonists. I suggest that this universal god/abba/father was also that of Jesus, who seems to have been non-conformist and eclectic (like other Galilean sages, influenced by Galilee's position on the trade routes and the presence of sophisticated Roman cities, such as Sepphoris and Caesarea Maritima).

So if there is a transcendent, noumenal source for the incidence of human attributes in the phenomenal world, then it is not unreasonable, though not necessarily valid, for the people of Jesus' time and subsequent followers of his example and teachings, to propose a relationship between themselves as individuals and collectively and the Noumenon (i.e. God). This, indeed, may be comforting. It could also be rather disturbing, especially if you come to believe in a harsh, legalistic and non-compassionate God, or one who prefers men to women, straights to gays, whites to non-whites, and who quite happily consigns people to the fires of hel_l, knowing from the beginning that that is their destiny (Calvin's God). Generally speaking, people find consolation in a belief in a benign future after death. That is the stock-in-trade of religion, whether it be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever.

I wonder how many sincere Buddhists, especially "practising" Buddhists, believe they are destined to years and years of torment in the hells. I expect most believing and practising Buddhists believe their next life will be an improvement on this one if they've done all the right things - observed the precepts, donated to the temple, supported the Sangha, been responsible citizens, and so on. And why shouldn't they? Living a worthy life isn't always that easy. There are lots of temptations on the path. Buddhism, as much as any religion, is a source of consolation, regardless of what its first premise might be. Life involves suffering? Is that a first premise or simply an observation: a truism? Or is universal impermanence the first premise? If so, it has not been fully established as a valid one. There are many who would disagree - every other religion in fact, and probably most atheists and agnostics as well. Most people posit some kind of underpinning and irreducible base, even though it may not be material or measurable (it could be mental).

This is the Buddhism forum, not the anti-Christian one, or the anti-Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or whatever. I would think the only "anti-" position appropriate to this forum would be "anti-ignorance", as according to Buddhist teaching, our problems start with ignorance.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[camerata]

This is the Buddhism forum, not the anti-Christian one, or the anti-Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or whatever. I would think the only "anti-" position appropriate to this forum would be "anti-ignorance", as according to Buddhist teaching, our problems start with ignorance.

All very interesting but going off on a bit of a tangent. If you look back a few posts you'll see the question posed was in effect: "Why would a Buddhist convert who was raised a Christian not want to retain some Christian beliefs?" And the answer, from my personal experience, is that Christianity rests on a false - or perhaps more accurately an unprovable - premise, doesn't have a demonstrably superior moral system, and the ultimate goal of Buddhism can be attained in this life. This isn't anti anything. It's just my experience. The general ideas about God are shared by other Buddhists, though:

"Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

- Ven Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught

[Brucenkhamen]

"Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

- Ven Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught

To bring it back on topic, isn't the belief that one can communicate with loved ones who have passed away coming from a similar motivation?

[Xangsamhua]

This is the Buddhism forum, not the anti-Christian one, or the anti-Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or whatever. I would think the only "anti-" position appropriate to this forum would be "anti-ignorance", as according to Buddhist teaching, our problems start with ignorance.

All very interesting but going off on a bit of a tangent. If you look back a few posts you'll see the question posed was in effect: "Why would a Buddhist convert who was raised a Christian not want to retain some Christian beliefs?" And the answer, from my personal experience, is that Christianity rests on a false - or perhaps more accurately an unprovable - premise, doesn't have a demonstrably superior moral system, and the ultimate goal of Buddhism can be attained in this life. This isn't anti anything. It's just my experience. The general ideas about God are shared by other Buddhists, though:

Fair enough, but I lost sight of Phetaroi's original question: "Isn't there something I can take from Christianity (or another faith) that has value?" in the comprehensiveness of your response ("The whole of Christianity stands on a false premise.") A pretty big claim, suggesting that, for example, compassion for the poor and vulnerable, a hallmark of Jesus' teaching, is based on a "false premise".

I guess it could be said that, if this compassion (and every other deduced belief) arises directly from a belief in accountability to God with a view to reward, and this belief is based on a false premise (that there is a God to whom we are accountable), then the claim might stand, but I think religious believers and practitioners are influenced by other premises as well, and by intuition. Now I really am going off on a tangent.

But never mind, this is a discussion and information forum; we're not defending doctoral theses, so we shouldn't get too pedantic (and I'm possibly the chief culprit). I hope my tangential ranting, when it occurs, will be given some tolerance also (though only up to a point) .

[Xangsamhua]

"Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

- Ven Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught

To bring it back on topic, isn't the belief that one can communicate with loved ones who have passed away coming from a similar motivation?

Good question, Brucenkhamen.

I wouldn't mind getting some sign from my deceased parents and sister that they're OK and that the possibility of communication, however restricted, is there. That would be very consoling, but I don't think it will happen. And I don't know if the consolation serves a desire for self-preservation or self-protection, but, rather, the desire for community, and communion, to extend beyond this life, almost regardless of self.

[camerata]

To bring it back on topic, isn't the belief that one can communicate with loved ones who have passed away coming from a similar motivation?

Very likely, I would think. On a related note, I have asked Thais what they say to kids whose parent(s) have died and they answered, "Kheun sawan." When I asked if this was a specific Buddhist heaven/realm, they said, "No, just a nice place up in the sky."

[camerata]

I guess it could be said that, if this compassion (and every other deduced belief) arises directly from a belief in accountability to God with a view to reward, and this belief is based on a false premise (that there is a God to whom we are accountable), then the claim might stand,

That's what I meant, yes.

[phetaroi]

If you look back a few posts you'll see the question posed was in effect: "Why would a Buddhist convert who was raised a Christian not want to retain some Christian beliefs?" And the answer, from my personal experience, is that Christianity rests on a false - or perhaps more accurately an unprovable - premise, doesn't have a demonstrably superior moral system, and the ultimate goal of Buddhism can be attained in this life. This isn't anti anything. It's just my experience. The general ideas about God are shared by other Buddhists, though:

"Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

- Ven Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught

I don't see this discussion as rightfully being a pro-any-religion topic, as much as it is about being open to wisdom, and if you are truly open to wisdom, it really doesn't matter where the wisdom comes from...and this goes back to my post about religions not needing to be competitive. I don't need to condemn Christianity (for example) to validate my own preference to believe in Buddhist principles. My adopted son in Muslim; there is a lot in Islam that I find offensive; there are parts of the Koran (much of which I have read) that contain wisdom; I can admire the wisdom, be critical of what is offensive, and still not condemn the overall faith of millions of people.

It is more than mere semantics when you change "rests on a false...premise" to "rests on an unprovable premise". The former is inherently insulting to the religious beliefs of someone else, and I am personally not aware that Buddha insulted other religions or taught others to do so. Yes, there is much that is unprovable in the Christian religion. But to a truly objective scholar, there is much that is unprovable in Buddhist beliefs. Buddha is an historical figure. His hundreds of past lives are not. That's not saying his past lives did not occur; it is saying there is no historical evidence for them. Saying that the Dhamma is true because the Dhamma says it is true, is no different than the born-again Christian who frustrates others when he says that the Bible is the true word of God because the Bible says it is the true word of God. We have no evidence to believe that Buddha lied. Therefore, some in this forum choose to believe everything in the Dhamma without question. And for me, it's that "without question" that is problematic; and the reason I find it problematic is that it taints Buddhism with the same impure logic and lack of documentation that taints all other religions. That is "deeply and fanatically" clinging to personal beliefs.

The difference I see in various posters here is the range between, "Hey, I may be wrong. This is just my opinion or belief" and "I am blessed in that I know the one highest and absolute truth and most of the rest of the world lives in delusion." I find the latter to be supremely arrogant.

I'm sorry, but I am unaware of any place in the Dhamma where Buddha says, "Agree with everything I say or be banished from Buddhism." And yet, that is an attitude I see among some Buddhists, and perhaps more so among converts to Buddhism. And I find it just as offensive as the old Christian hymn of "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war..."

[camerata]

It is more than mere semantics when you change "rests on a false...premise" to "rests on an unprovable premise". The former is inherently insulting to the religious beliefs of someone else, and I am personally not aware that Buddha insulted other religions or taught others to do so.

Well, I really don't see how making a statement about a philosophical or religious system is inherently insulting. If criticizing belief systems is insulting then rational discussion about them is impossible. The majority of people who adopt atheism, secular humanism or Buddhism come to a point where they apply logic to their implanted beliefs and find that not only are they without logical foundation, but there are powerful reasons why the mind has previously refused to examine them. So for me it's unusual that someone would become a Buddhist and yet choose to retain a belief in God. I still haven't had an answer as to why this would be an advantage rather than a hindrance.

But to a truly objective scholar, there is much that is unprovable in Buddhist beliefs.

Yes, of course, but again you ignore the fact that the core principles and primary goal of Buddhism can all be tested by us in our lifetime. The fundamental proposition that an end can be found to suffering doesn't rest on an unprovable premise. This is a key aspect of Buddhism that is lacking in other religions.

[rockyysdt]

All very interesting but going off on a bit of a tangent. If you look back a few posts you'll see the question posed was in effect: "Why would a Buddhist convert who was raised a Christian not want to retain some Christian beliefs?" And the answer, from my personal experience, is that Christianity rests on a false - or perhaps more accurately an unprovable - premise, doesn't have a demonstrably superior moral system, and the ultimate goal of Buddhism can be attained in this life. This isn't anti anything. It's just my experience.

Don't get me wrong Camerata.

I haven't jumped ship but don't mind a good debate.

You indicate that Christian claims are unprovable but the ultimate goal of Buddhism can be attained in this life.

Hasn't it been said that almost uncountable re births will occur before anyone comes close to enlightenment?

For most of us doesn't this make it virtually unattainable, especially if you consider that each of us is "impermanent & conditioned"?

The general ideas about God are shared by other Buddhists, though:

"Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

- Ven Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught

Doesn't this apply to both Christians & Buddhists?

In the case of Buddhism, believing that there is something more to existence than what we see allays our fear, with the possibility of enlightenment sustaining desire.

Edited May 7, 2010 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Hasn't it been said that almost uncountable re births will occur before anyone comes close to enlightenment?

I guess if you accept that we have all been in samsara for an infinity before hearing the dhamma, then you might say no one can attain enlightenment in one lifetime. But I am thinking of "proof" in the modern, secular sense. For example, I know exactly when I became a Buddhist some years ago, so if I attain nibbana before I die I've done it in one lifetime. And I'm contrasting this with the theist position that you'll get to your ultimate goal after you die - which makes it purely speculative. Of course, if you think of nibbana as something you can only attain after another gazillion lives, then it becomes speculative too. The important point for me is that you can finish the journey in your current life.

For most of us doesn't this make it virtually unattainable, especially if you consider that each of us is "impermanent & conditioned"?

How do you know you haven't already spent uncountable rebirths on the path and this is your final one? If Angulimala can become an arahant after killing 999 people in one life, I'm sure we can too.

Doesn't this apply to both Christians & Buddhists?

In the case of Buddhism, believing that there is something more to existence than what we see allays our fear, with the possibility of enlightenment sustaining desire.

I think it's such a powerful psychological and genetic imperative that it results in Buddhists thinking of rebirth more as reincarnation, it results in Buddhists praying to the Buddha for help, and it resulted in the rise of Mahayana (excepting perhaps Chan/Zen) with its bodhisattva path and all its deities. Personally, I like the idea of rebirth, but wanting it seems to be going in the wrong direction.

[rockyysdt]

I guess if you accept that we have all been in samsara for an infinity before hearing the dhamma, then you might say no one can attain enlightenment in one lifetime. But I am thinking of "proof" in the modern, secular sense. For example, I know exactly when I became a Buddhist some years ago, so if I attain nibbana before I die I've done it in one lifetime. And I'm contrasting this with the theist position that you'll get to your ultimate goal after you die - which makes it purely speculative. Of course, if you think of nibbana as something you can only attain after another gazillion lives, then it becomes speculative too. The important point for me is that you can finish the journey in your current life.

I can continue my path of practice & study, but ultimately it may still take me another gazillion lives. I have very limited control.

I regard you as a dedicated adherent but even this is not enough. You yourself have indicated that your realistic aim is stream entry.

To top this, if we (Rocky, Camerata, & the others) are impermanent & conditioned, we really only have one shot at it.

Any re birthed entity can't be us.

How do you know you haven't already spent uncountable rebirths on the path and this is your final one? If Angulimala can become an arahant after killing 999 people in one life, I'm sure we can too.

I refrain from lotteries & gambling as I don't like the odds.

A gazillion to one with the bait that my bases are might be loaded is almost as long, in betting terms, as non existence of enlightenment.

I don't know what got Angulimala over the line, but doesn't the carrot of enlightenment use up your opportunities by restricting you (227 precepts) to a very limited life?

Given the odds, isn't this as unprovable as what Christians purport?

[camerata]

I regard you as a dedicated adherent but even this is not enough. You yourself have indicated that your realistic aim is stream entry.

To top this, if we (Rocky, Camerata, & the others) are impermanent & conditioned, we really only have one shot at it.

Any re birthed entity can't be us.

I think it was Fred who mentioned stream-entry. I'll take anything I can get. As the conventional "you" you only have one shot at it, but as the "you" inferred in the scriptures your "stream of existence" has an infinity to do it. Just because you don't remember the former yous doesn't mean you have no connection to them.

I don't know what got Angulimala over the line, but doesn't the carrot of enlightenment use up your opportunities by restricting you (227 precepts) to a very limited life?

Given the odds, isn't this as unprovable as what Christians purport?

The odds of what - enlightenment? Ajahn Chah said if you have 20 years of defilements it'll probably take you 20 years to get rid of them. I think half a lifetime should be enough if one is totally dedicated. I myself am not. Incidentally, at least one historian thinks that Angulimala was a devotee of Shiva rather than a mass murderer with a garland of human fingers round his neck.

[Xangsamhua]

The majority of people who adopt atheism, secular humanism or Buddhism come to a point where they apply logic to their implanted beliefs and find that not only are they without logical foundation, but there are powerful reasons why the mind has previously refused to examine them. So for me it's unusual that someone would become a Buddhist and yet choose to retain a belief in God. I still haven't had an answer as to why this would be an advantage rather than a hindrance.

I’m not sure what a belief in God is, or whether it makes any difference if a Buddhist believes that the phenomenal dimension is the manifestation of a noumenal dimension, and that dimension (or "ground of being") he or she thinks of as “God”. Even Richard Dawkins can accept that, as implied in his acceptance of an ultimate possibility: “There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.”

(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-6,00.html#ixzz0nDycyHmc)

To propose that all phenomena are caused, in keeping with the principle of sufficient reason, and that there can be no uncaused phenomenon, no First Cause, is not a denial of the possibility that phenomena and causation emerge simultaneously and interdependently as a consequence of the existence of a Noumenon, itself uncaused and not governed by the principle of sufficient reason, but given to generation and sustenance of phenomena which, though qualitatively different from it, nevertheless derive from it. Ancient people caught a glimpse of this noumenal possibility and, gave it super-human, but nevertheless phenomenal attributes, an understandable error that has dogged theism ever since. Buddhists see it in non-anthropomorphic terms as the transcendent and ultimate (noumenal) dimension, hence uncaused, and call it Nirvana/Nibbana, a state of unconditioned being expressed in more abstract terms than the anthropomorphic ones we associate with theistic religions.

I’m not sure that, philosophically, the God question is all that important. What is important is existence/being – what it is and what are the consequences of our answer to that question. The current Theism vs "New Atheism" debate is really just an entertaining, but unproductive diversion for middlebrow people in the West. (The real issues now seem to be focused on the constitutional rights of atheists, especially in some of the US states.)

I think I'll shut up now.

[rockyysdt]

I think it was Fred who mentioned stream-entry. I'll take anything I can get. As the conventional "you" you only have one shot at it, but as the "you" inferred in the scriptures your "stream of existence" has an infinity to do it. Just because you don't remember the former yous doesn't mean you have no connection to them.

I've always valued you as an authority on the subject & regard you as one of my unofficial teachers.

I take in much of what you write.

That's why I remember it was definitely you who confided stream entry achievement in this lifetime. It was about a year ago. I'd have to do an extensive search to locate the post.

I don't know what got Angulimala over the line, but doesn't the carrot of enlightenment use up your opportunities by restricting you (227 precepts) to a very limited life?

Given the odds, isn't this as unprovable as what Christians purport?

The odds of what - enlightenment? Ajahn Chah said if you have 20 years of defilements it'll probably take you 20 years to get rid of them. I think half a lifetime should be enough if one is totally dedicated. I myself am not. Incidentally, at least one historian thinks that Angulimala was a devotee of Shiva rather than a mass murderer with a garland of human fingers round his neck.

In light of what you say, our conventional "I" has large odds against it succeeding. Therefore, in terms of becoming enlightened, it's on a par with the Christian promise. The chances of an individual conventional "l" becoming enlightened in its lifetime approaches infinity.

For this promise our conventional "I", which has no consciousness of its "stream l", & only the word of the Pali Canon (until self experience occurs), must forgo pleasures (227 precepts) for a crack at the big one.

Doesn't belief in a "stream you" pander to the ego?

Isn't it a roundabout way of of describing a spirit or immortal entity which never dies but attaches itself to one of many conventional "I's".

As you indicated:

"Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

- Ven Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught.

Just as these deep rooted ideas probably conceived God, & an immortal soul, can't they have also conceived the "stream you" (unconditioned & permanent entity) as a consequence of mans fears?

Edited May 7, 2010 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I’m not sure that, philosophically, the God question is all that important.

It's important if one thinks God had a personal interest in you the individual, you the tribe or you the species, and has put in place some system that enables you to live on after death. This makes letting go of self-view impossible, IMO. Personally, I don't buy the idea that God and/or heaven are substantially the same as nibbana. According to the Canon, nibbana is extinguishment.