Is God A Thing?
-
You are close, if I do not sound too arrogant for saying that. You are missing something though. What is it that you are missing?Originally posted by Thusness:This is an interesting topic and since it is allowed to discuss more about God in a Buddhism forum, I would like to talk a little more about the experience of 'AMness" in all things.
Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?
Being free individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is “God”.
-
Dont think he missed anything. Why dont you say what YOU think he missed?Originally posted by casino_king:You are close, if I do not sound too arrogant for saying that. You are missing something though. What is it that you are missing?
-
It is pointless to always cut and paste. To get answers from other people. The best tradition of Buddhism is that everyone works it out for themselves. Everyone "realised" it for themselves.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Dont think he missed anything. Why dont you say what YOU think he missed? -
Originally posted by casino_king:It is pointless to always cut and paste. To get answers from other people. The best tradition of Buddhism is that everyone works it out for themselves. Everyone "realised" it for themselves.
Wat cut and paste. He wrote it himself what.
U dunnu how to write then dun 'anyhow' 'anyhow' say la.
-
Yes casino_king,Originally posted by casino_king:You are close, if I do not sound too arrogant for saying that. You are missing something though. What is it that you are missing?
Unless you tell me what is the doctrine of anatta about and how does emptiness step in -
Only for Longchen.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Wat cut and paste. He wrote it himself what.
U dunnu how to write then dun 'anyhow' 'anyhow' say la. -
Oh I don't know about the doctrine of anatta... wil find out about it and get back to you. I come from "the other side" if you know what I mean. I like to think of myself as having crossed over to the other side, am now looking back at the people trying to cross over, without sounding too arrogant, using different methods like Buddhism or Hinduism or Christianity... and so on.Originally posted by Thusness:Yes casino_king,
Unless you tell me what is the doctrine of anatta about and how does emptiness step in -
o okOriginally posted by Thusness:Only for Longchen. -
If u 'come from the other side' it means u are enlightened? care to share what you realised about the ultimate reality?Originally posted by casino_king:Oh I don't know about the doctrine of anatta... wil find out about it and get back to you. I come from "the other side" if you know what I mean. I like to think of myself as having crossed over to the other side, am now looking back at the people trying to cross over, without sounding too arrogant, using different methods like Buddhism or Hinduism or Christianity. -
Anatta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit) or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective that specifies the absence of a supposedly permanent and unchanging self or soul in any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) constituents of empirical existence; eg. "none of these skandhas are my Soul, are anatta (non-Self)". What is normally thought of as the "Self" is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("skandhas" ) which give rise to unhappiness if clung to as though this temporary assemblage formed some kind of immutable and enduring Soul ("atman" ). -
Not yet. "I am who I am" is still not enough.Originally posted by casino_king:Oh I don't know about the doctrine of anatta... wil find out about it and get back to you. I come from "the other side" if you know what I mean. I like to think of myself as having crossed over to the other side, am now looking back at the people trying to cross over, without sounding too arrogant, using different methods like Buddhism or Hinduism or Christianity... and so on. -
Anatta or soul-lessness
This Buddhist doctrine of rebirth should be distinguished from the theory of reincarnation which implies the transmigration of a soul and its invariable material rebirth. Buddhism denies the existence of an unchanging or eternal soul created by a God or emanating from a Divine Essence (Paramatma).
If the immortal soul, which is supposed to be the essence of man, is eternal, there cannot be either a rise or a fall. Besides one cannot understand why "different souls are so variously constituted at the outset."
"It should be said," writes Bertrand Russell, "that the old distinction between soul and body has evaporated quite as much because 'matter' has lost its solidity as mind has lost its spirituality. Psychology is just beginning to be scientific. In the present state of psychology belief in immortality can at any rate claim no support from science."
from: http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm -
Anatta - The Teaching on Not-Self
Who am I?
One of the most challenging teachings of Buddhism is that relating to the idea of 'not-self' or anatta. Whereas both Christianity and Islam have the notion of an individual soul, and whereas Hinduism has the idea of atman, Buddhism offers a different perspective altogether. Buddhism argues that there is no such thing as a permanent self or soul, a very difficult notion to grasp, even on a conceptual level, let alone realizing it experientially. But if there is no such thing as a permanent self or soul, then the obvious question is - who is this person that eats, drinks, breathes, thinks, forms relationships and has a career? Who am I?
from: buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa070702a.htm -
Correct, not enough. I am not in existence is also not enough. Who is Buddha? The Buddha who is passed away from earth?Originally posted by Thusness:Not yet. "I am who I am" is still not enough. -
if one is a student and a teacher..
then where does God resides?
before askin what is God..
what does one expects from a God in the first place?
anytakers care to shed some light? -
If the teacher is of God then God resides with the teacher.Originally posted by simplified:if one is a student and a teacher..
then where does God resides?Originally posted by simplified:before askin what is God..
Nothing. One is provided. One does not expect.
what does one expects from a God in the first place?
anytakers care to shed some light? -
If God is a thing, then it is under conventional laws, meaning it can be calculated by mass, shape, etc. In this case then I am the god of my work. So such a god is not the one who creates this conventional world, but rather, the true God must be the source of all conventional things and himself not an entity that can be calculated and perceived in terms of form/shape/etc.Originally posted by longchen:Is God a thing?
If God is a thing, then who is the creator of this Being call God?
So can God be a thing? If God can be an object, then it is not the ultimate. Because if it is an object/thing/Being, then who is the creator of this object/thing/Being?
It is the "space"/pure awareness which allows the conventional phenomena to arise and cease..
"There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." [Udana VIII.3] (Buddha) -
God cannot be even defined as having existed for how long. As God is beyond the boundaries of time and space.
-
Yes, being not bound by time and space, it also cannot be comprehended as being an entity in space; subject to conventional laws. We cannot perceive such Being through personality but rather it is the source of all conventional.Originally posted by NotFromVenus:God cannot be even defined as having existed for how long. As God is beyond the boundaries of time and space. -
Originally posted by longchen:Emmm... am not so sure about describing it as a person. The function of existence is impersonal and without self.
Uncreated and no beginning, yes. No beginning because Nowness has no past and no future. Past and future are our memory...manifested realm. But, i think, we may not be able to categorise them as manifested or uncreated. Because the categorisation/labeling itself is a thought manifestation. -
As such , we do not question as to why we get to Know that there is God ? Coz we were taught ? or God taught us ?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes, being not bound by time and space, it also cannot be comprehended as being an entity in space; subject to conventional laws. We cannot perceive such Being through personality but rather it is the source of all conventional.
Or we feel to have a need to find such an explanation for God? Or do all of us come from the existence spirituality that we feel.
I do not question even as to why I am still alive. So why question God for such transient things when it is already Dinner Time !??!??! -
I do not quite get what you mean.Originally posted by NotFromVenus:As such , we do not question as to why we get to Know that there is God ? Coz we were taught ? or God taught us ?
Or we feel to have a need to find such an explanation for God? Or do all of us come from the existence spirituality that we feel.
I do not question even as to why I am still alive. So why question God for such transient things when it is already Dinner Time !??!??! -
Once you know that God is beyond what our existance can comprehend, you know that our humane existance is also without question.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I do not quite get what you mean.
You don't question why you were taught you had a soul. Coz your soul knows you have a soul.
So if it is dinner time , you go and eat and stop questioning. -
Hi Thusness,
Thanks for the sharing. It is most interesting.
Hi Casino King,
Your level of delusion has reached comical proportion.
Thanks for the entertainment. -
Originally posted by NotFromVenus:
God is beyond comprehension because comprehending is also conventional reality, true. God has no characteristics that we can define in terms of conventional reality. As to 'our human existence is withuot question', why? Questioning is good.
Once you know that God is beyond what our existance can comprehend, you know that our humane existance is also without question.
You don't question why you were taught you had a soul. Coz your soul knows you have a soul.
And as to having a soul, what is your definition of soul? Soul as in some kind of gaseous formless entity residing in your body?So if it is dinner time , you go and eat and stop questioning.
I eat liao quite long liao. Happy dinner-ing.