No God

Read from post 81. I don’t have interest in these games you play.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Is a Buddha caught up in mundane or things that make him mentally uncomfortable? Is a Buddha upset or angry? Does he desire for things or experiences?

Just a reminder that I said "
I know the current experience is mundane and maybe even uncomfortable, but it actually IS. That is the place to stay.
"
There has been a lot of tag on's since I said that including anger upset desire and so on which I never mentioned.


I was just saying that discomfort and frustrations are endemic to physical life, but generating miserable states can be minimised via what they call 'right effort'.

What "is", is much deeper than what most people understand. If you are still clearing things away, digging deeper you still haven't realized what 'is".

If you have truly realized what 'is" you would be beyond your ego self.

Until then yes, keep digging out the dirt/obstructions, do your best to stay present and let all the junk flow through as best you can but you can't really say you have realized what "is" or the present moment as it truly "is".

I just like to say I wasn't talking about digging dirt and obstructions, but I was talking about generating negative mind states or positivity.



When generating negativity, it's true that's what one is doing. When generating positivity, that's true. I'm just saying it's a good idea to be aware of what's true.

[sentient]

I trust Buddhism in the East arose from “Eastern Reality Orientation”.
This “Eastern Reality Orientation” is not readily understood in the West, because Westerners think - take it for granted that there is only one way to relate to Reality.

These Youtube videos give a general idea of the differences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoDtoB9Abck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=709jjq8qk0k

The Eurasian Shamanic Reality Orientation and indigenous Reality Orientation are not the same, but more akin to the Eastern one.

When Eastern practices are taken on by a Westerner, they are often still seen through the “Western cultural prism” – so to speak.

Imo. it is also worth one’s while to understand one’s own cultural conditioning ‘What Is’.

*

On the subject matter of God.

The Western thing is that there is the Self and God.

But the Buddhist meaning is more like “No Self – No God”.

When I heard the sound of
the bell ringing, there was no I,
and no bell, just the ringing.
– Zen saying

Because ….
When in the silence and stillness the tuneless tune of the Universe is playing.
There is no Shiva nor I.
There is only the dancing.

"The Dancing" is already happening .... but it is easier to grasp from the "Eastern Reality Orientation" perspective.

*

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sentient

I trust Buddhism in the East arose from “Eastern Reality Orientation”.
This “Eastern Reality Orientation” is not readily understood in the West, because Westerners think - take it for granted that there is only one way to relate to Reality.

These Youtube videos give a general idea of the differences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoDtoB9Abck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=709jjq8qk0k

The Eurasian Shamanic Reality Orientation and indigenous Reality Orientation are not the same, but more akin to the Eastern one.

When Eastern practices are taken on by a Westerner, they are often still seen through the “Western cultural prism” – so to speak.

Imo. it is also worth one’s while to understand one’s own cultural conditioning ‘What Is’.

*

On the subject matter of God.

The Western thing is that there is the Self and God.

But the Buddhist meaning is more like “No Self – No God”.


Because ….
When in the silence and stillness the tuneless tune of the Universe is playing.
There is no Shiva nor I.
There is only the dancing.

"The Dancing" is already happening .... but it is easier to grasp from the "Eastern Reality Orientation" perspective.

*

I have used "what is" to mean 'this experience' as it is in the way it is experienced by you. That is pretty clear in the context of what I have said. I have not attached a deeper hidden variable to it - I only mean the reality of the experience 'as it is'.


In that case, cultural condititioning is not relevant. You are aware of the experience as you experience it. Thus I use 'what is' in an entirely subjective sense. Not at all in any objective sense. It is somewhat ironic that reducing the subject to individual experience is how the topic remains universal, but because I don't declare what the experience is or should be or define it at all, I only mention the universality of conscious experience itself.


If the discourse does become culture dependent, religion specific etc, then it is no longer universal and therefore can't be regarded as 'dhamma'.



It would be inaccurate to suppose the comprehension of dhamma teachings depends on cultural paradigms. Yes I agree the interpretations differ across cultures and various sects arise from these, but these are related to schools of knowledge rather than direct apprehension. Again, I don't speak of the apprehension of a deep or ultimate truth. I merely reference the conscious awareness of ones subjective experience as any individual experiences it.


I have to stress that there is no deeper meaning to what I say. It really is only about 'this' as it is experienced by you.


Thanks for the videos. I'll certainly have a look.

[sky]

Originally Posted by sentient

I trust Buddhism in the East arose from “Eastern Reality Orientation”.
This “Eastern Reality Orientation” is not readily understood in the West, because Westerners think - take it for granted that there is only one way to relate to Reality.

These Youtube videos give a general idea of the differences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoDtoB9Abck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=709jjq8qk0k

The Eurasian Shamanic Reality Orientation and indigenous Reality Orientation are not the same, but more akin to the Eastern one.

When Eastern practices are taken on by a Westerner, they are often still seen through the “Western cultural prism” – so to speak.

Imo. it is also worth one’s while to understand one’s own cultural conditioning ‘What Is’.

*

On the subject matter of God.

The Western thing is that there is the Self and God.

But the Buddhist meaning is more like “No Self – No God”.


Because ….
When in the silence and stillness the tuneless tune of the Universe is playing.
There is no Shiva nor I.
There is only the dancing.

"The Dancing" is already happening .... but it is easier to grasp from the "Eastern Reality Orientation" perspective.

*

' But the Buddhist meaning is more like “No Self – No God”. '


The Buddha never explicitly said "There is no God," but a Personal God-belief is not supported by his teachings.

Neither did he teach that there is ' No self '. the idea of there being ' No self ' wouldn't fit with other Buddhist teachings like the doctrine of Kamma and Rebirth. If there's no self what experiences the results of Kamma and takes Rebirth....

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

' But the Buddhist meaning is more like “No Self – No God”. '


The Buddha never explicitly said "There is no God," but a Personal God-belief is not supported by his teachings.

Neither did he teach that there is ' No self '. the idea of there being ' No self ' wouldn't fit with other Buddhist teachings like the doctrine of Kamma and Rebirth. If there's no self what experiences the results of Kamma and takes Rebirth....

Where 'no self' is used it generally means the is no continuously enduring entity or identity. The philosophy on kamma and rebirth is quite enphatic about there being no-self.


it is tricky to reconcile rebirth with no-self, but essentially, it is said one moment's characteristics are carried forward into the next moment, but no substance endures from one moment to the next.


This is different to saying that Buddhist dhamma taught no-self as some sort of objective truth. The expression is only used to convey meaning in given contexts. There are other contexts in which no-self is used. For example, where phenomena is 'empty', it is implied that there is no enduring substance or entity to phenomena, and 'no-self' is used meaningfully in that context.


Overally, there is nothing definitively said about being a personal self or not, but the teachings surrounding the 5 skandhas reflect deeper nuances of that subject.

[Gem]

I really get those videos, Sentient, because I have a significant perspective shift from undergoing extensive meditation training. Before training I had a highly visual perspective, so if someone said 'you experience' I framed that into my sense of sight. During meditation I spend most of my time observing the felt sensations throughout my body and that changed my perspective from visual to tactile. Now when someone says 'your experience' I frame that as feelings - what we call 'vedana'.


Wnen it comes to what I see smell hear think etc, I associate those senses with the feelings that they invoke. Hence I'm aware at the level of feeling, which is at the nervous system or neurological level. As the teachings of the dependent origins put it, from vedana craving arises.


Anyway. I found it interesting how the videos related to perceptive difference in relation to the perceptive shift I have gone through.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Gem

I really get those videos, Sentient, because I have a significant perspective shift from undergoing extensive meditation training. Before training I had a highly visual perspective, so if someone said 'you experience' I framed that into my sense of sight. During meditation I spend most of my time observing the felt sensations throughout my body and that changed my perspective from visual to tactile. Now when someone says 'your experience' I frame that as feelings - what we call 'vedana'.


Wnen it comes to what I see smell hear think etc, I associate those senses with the feelings that they invoke. Hence I'm aware at the level of feeling, which is at the nervous system or neurological level. As the teachings of the dependent origins put it, from vedana craving arises.


Anyway. I found it interesting how the videos related to perceptive difference in relation to the perceptive shift I have gone through.

That is interesting Gem

Well, back to "God" and something to consider perhaps, and since I got my ‘Buddhism’ from Trungpa ….. sky123:

Padmasambhava's function in Tibet was to bring forth the teachings of the Buddha by relating with the Tibetan barbarians.

The Tibetans of those times believed in a self and a higher authority outside the self, which is known as God.
Padmasambhava's function was to destroy those beliefs. His approach was: if there is no belief in the self, then there is no belief in God- a purely nontheistic approach, I am afraid.

*

According to the Buddhist outlook, ego, or self, is nonexistent.
It is not founded on any definite, real factors at all. It is based purely on the belief or assumption that since I call myself so-and-so, therefore I exist. And if I do nor know what I am called, what my name is, then there is no structure there on which the whole thing is based.

The way this primitive belief works is that believing in "that," the other, brings "this," the self.

If "that" exists, then "this" must also exist. I believe in "that" because I need a reference point for my own existence, for "this."

*

Rather than regarding existing situations of nonduality as they are, you try to interpret them a bit so that they help to maintain your existence. For example, believing in God is a way of making sure that you exist.
Singing a song of praise to God makes you happier, because you are singing the song about him. Since there is a good audience, a good recipient, therefore God exists. That kind of approach is heretical from the Buddhist point of view.

*

The Padmasambhava principle was able to bring the buddhadharma to Tibet. In a sense, the theistic beliefs that existed in Tibet - the belief in self and God as separate and the notion of trying to reach higher realms - did have be destroyed.
Those primitive beliefs had to be destroyed, just as we are doing here. Those primitive beliefs in the separate reality of me and my object of worship have to be destroyed.
Unless these dualistic notions are destroyed, there is no starting point for giving birth to tantra. The birth of tantra takes place from the nonexistence of belief in "this" and "that."

“Crazy Wisdom” - by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche

Originally Posted by Gem

No one accepts the breath because it is not a made up thing. It's simply true, and instead of believing you are breathing, you simply look and see for yourself.

The same is said of God/Great Mystery.

[sky]

Originally Posted by sentient

That is interesting Gem

Well, back to "God" and something to consider perhaps, and since I got my ‘Buddhism’ from Trungpa ….. sky123:

I know very little about Tibetan Buddhism and Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche wouldn't be my choice of Teacher if I was researching.

As I said before Buddha never taught a ' No self ' doctrine, rather a ' Not self '. A personal God is not part of his Teachings either but saying that I do know Buddhists who believe in God