The Eightfold Path - The Fourth Noble Truth

[Gem]

There is no God theory in Buddhism, and I have no idea why some scholars try to wrangle it in. Then we end up with some saying Buddhism has some version of God and others saying it doesn't, and the people can be appeased because their bias is confirmed with a version for everyone, which is 'nice' (by which I mean lame).

When the other religions have a holy light - why not just say oh Buddhism has that too. Why make a God of it when the holy-light in other religion is not their God? If we just said 'Buddha also spoke of a spiritual light' we wouldn't end up with a contradiction.

We can be much clearer and say, we do not worship God in Buddhist practice.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

There is no God theory in Buddhism, and I have no idea why some scholars try to wrangle it in.

Buddhist Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh would disagree with you as would many others..... A 'Creator' God has no part in Buddhist Teachings.

' I think that God is everything. God is not an idea or a notion. God is very real and you can get in touch with God if you are mindful, concentrated, and insightful.*'

'So, to me, God is not an abstract idea, but something very real that you can encounter in every moment of your daily life. Your body belongs to the kingdom of God, your mind also. That flower, that stream of water, that tree: they all belong to the kingdom of God, and it’s too bad if we are caught in our anger, in our fear, in our jealousy, and cannot get in touch with the kingdom of God. And if we don’t know how to get in touch with the kingdom of God and with God, we will waste our life.'

Master Thich Nhat Hanh....
https://plumvillage.app/thich-nhat-hanh-on-god/

Originally Posted by Gem

Then we end up with some saying Buddhism has some version of God and others saying it doesn't, and the people can be appeased because their bias is confirmed with a version for everyone, which is 'nice' (by which I mean lame).

Nice,LOL, by which I mean cause and effect.

Do Buddhist believe in god?
https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

I get all the points in the above link (which is only a half a page read.)
So I am left with cause and effect, well what is the cause in Buddhism?
It seems familiar like a phrase I've heard before "Cause I said so!" LOL

[Gem]

Originally Posted by ImthatIm

https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm what is the cause in Buddhism?

The last two posts perfectly demonstrate the direct contradiction I mentioned.

The Buddhanet article is concise: The answer is 'no', and this is why. I like that. The Thich blurb is nice.

'What is cause' is a good question which goes pretty deep in Buddhist philosophy. I think this context is probably more along the lines of dependent origin, but cause extends from the 4NT, throughout the dependent origins and discourses on morality, kamma, rebirth etc. It touches just about everything in the philosophy.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

The Thich blurb is nice.

I presume your referring to Thich Nhat Hanh and His Teachings about His personal belief in God, I myself wouldn't call it 'Nice' because then there's other Teachings that are 'Not nice'

'But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.'
~ The Buddha ~

That is exactly what Thich Nhat Hanh did for the 73 years He lived as a Buddhist Monk..... He accepted His belief in God and lived up to it

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 531 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by Gem

There is no God theory in Buddhism

It is my understanding as well that Buddha steadfastly maintained the Noble Silence when asked about God and/or metaphysics. Thus, he never affirmed the existence of God nor did he deny it. He was completely SILENT on that subject.

Buddha was very insightful in avoiding such subjects and pointing followers to a methodology whereby they could discover Truth directly for themselves.

I agree with you that many so-called Buddhist teachers have catered to the masses and created their own version of Buddhism while still presenting it as Buddhism. Catering to the masses increases one's following.

Good post.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

It is my understanding as well that Buddha steadfastly maintained the Noble Silence when asked about God and/or metaphysics.

Yup. All that God theory, soul theory, self theory etc isn't really part of Buddhist philosophy. I think because some satsang format has infiltrated, many monks including Thich Nhat Hanh ended up answering people's God questions and other irrelevant stuff.

I'm more into the noble silence way than the pretending to know everything way, and my teachers only talk about how your meditation is going and how to better navigate the purification experience with equanimity. Of course we go a bit deep into the philosophical-lecture stuff as well, but just as background theory of meditation practice. That's the way I like it. If other people believe in God, doesn't really matter, but I did hear a wicked Jordan Peterson speech about it once https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsf6oSho2lo

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by Gem

What is cause' is a good question which goes pretty deep in Buddhist philosophy...throughout the dependent origins and discourses on morality, kamma, rebirth etc. It touches just about everything in the philosophy.

I was thinking about the Buddhist notion of re-birth and how in Buddhism is the idea one can eventually escape this wheel of karma and re-birth. I think the cause there (of being stuck in the cycle of re-birth) is a lack of seeing, of understanding, of awareness.

It seems like a simple idea. We are stuck in the cycle of karma, rebirth, and a particular type of suffering, and there is a potential to be free of it. The cause of being stuck is we don't know our true nature and not knowing our true nature we are not the kind of entity that naturally has all the attributes of the eight fold path, right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union'; alternatively, equanimous meditative awareness).

If the cause is a lack of seeing, of understanding, of awareness, the "cure" is re-birth itself. Through many lives we discover truth, our true nature, and gain in experience and understanding. If we do not know our true nature, re-birth is where we belong. A circumstance that leads to discovering our true nature.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Buddha was very insightful in avoiding such subjects and pointing followers to a methodology whereby they could discover Truth directly for themselves.

Living as being aware of what is as it really is as opposed to living while thinking about what is. Reality or this present moment can include what we are thinking, but it doesn't have to. Awareness and understanding and thinking are three different things. I think I would say Buddha was pointing followers to a way to be or live.

It's a complex thing because of this bodies memory and our knowledge of culture. Like even if a banana is not in my house, I have had past experiences with bananas and so know they exist and know what they are. If I am living in the present moment, the present moment can include my memories which are presented to me as images and thoughts and feelings.

So Buddha asked about God would have an answer of course. Buddha was raised in a Hindu culture. Buddha would have known about all the Gods in Hinduism. Buddha would have seen statues and paintings and drawings of all the Hindu Gods like the elephant God Ganesha.

But Buddha asked what is "this" or tell me about "this" is being asked about mental reality. Buddha knowing his true nature and being singly focused on living in the actual or "truth" in my opinion would be putting the emphasis on clarity or the now as it is as experiential reality. As it is without influence from thought or thinking or a type of memory. So while Buddha's memory included all the various God concepts from Hinduism, his perception was wholly focused on the reality and experience that is actual, or his true nature, that had chosen to make the actual not affected by the past or any thought or idea.

It's like being asked your opinion about banana's when none are physically present. "What is" refers to the actual, what is here now as perception and experience. I think being or living or staying in the now as it is, without any mental idea intruding, takes a great deal of awareness and concentration. It's a type of obsession few have a huge interest in. But I would assume enlightened persons do to a high level. So asking Buddha about any mental type of reality, based on words and memory and not the actual, not on what is present and being physically perceived in the now, he cannot answer. It's not a part of the realty or perception he carried moment to moment.

The "noble silence" was just a consciousness or perception fully present in reality as it is, before our minds add the layer of mental constructions and creations.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Maisy

I was thinking ('meditative absorption or union'; alternatively, equanimous meditative awareness) If the cause is a lack of seeing, of understanding.

Yup. Ignorance, delusion, false view is at the core of rebirth, but the philosophy of cause in Buddhism doesn't really come down a single definitive thing. In non-dualism they simplify and cite the 'false self' as opposed to the truth: 'there is no you'. Buddhism has similar themes of anata with respect to a self being assumed based on an interdependent aggregate of thoughts and feelings which themselves have no unitary existence.

My view is everyone is trying to get something, like, from the perspective of bondage I want liberation, but I'd say, 'this is bondage' in the real and directly aware sense. Nothing like want, hope, yearning and so on. Just the recognition. We tend to have a pesky tendency of desire, hope etc. When is MY enlightenment? When will I be free? If that is the way I'm doing it, I just know, 'this is desire, yearning, hope'. I can see it is an expression of discontent and how it manifests as a feeling in the body, like maybe a heavy heart or a bit of tension in the brow or something... whatever it might be.

Then we get to a practical level, where the mind and matter merge in manifest feeling, which is directly aware of the cause - mental reaction to actual feeling. That reaction perpetuates a new feeling, which is reacted to, and thus perpetuates, react, perpetuate, react, perpetuate... in the cycle of kamma.

The cycle is broken by ceasing to react. Reaction aka 'craving' incites the volition that generates sankara and perpetuates rebirth. Meditation is awareness without reaction. When you cease to give ego the reactions in needs, it gets antsy and will do anything to get you reacting again to keep you distracted. Generating discomfort is the main one. Discomfort has always worked in the past to elicit strong aversions, but you can stop that, and instead, be uncomfortable and not react, and actually be happy with 'this feeling'. If discomfort makes you react, then you know 'this is bondage', 'this is suffering', 'this is how I generate my own suffering', 'this suffering could end', and 'the way to end it is stop reacting and be at peace and equanimity with this experience as it is'.

Not in that simple discursive sense... but it the implied sense of the intricate myriads of all it entails in real lived experience.

In the background the peace is there, so we always have the reference point to 'come back to ourselves' or 'come back to reality' so to speak, and when we do, our reactivity automatically subsides. As a musician I always knew the silence under the sound, and when the song is over, everything goes away except the silent background. There can be concerto, a silly pop song, some heavy metal, an outright din... but nothing disturbs the silence underneath.

Easier said than done, and there is a lot of noise, like SW will say 'sit through the pain' as if pain is no good and comfort is desirable, but everyone has pain in their lives and everyone has comfort. The only difference is the degree to which people are adverse to the former and crave the latter, i.e. how stable or unstable they are in equanimity. We all go so far, but at some point the experience becomes too intense, starts to overwhelm us, we start to become compelled by reactivity and distracted from the quiet of our presence.