We can only ever be here and we can only ever be now. If we cannot find the unconditioned here and now then we will not be able to find it anywhere because we can never be anywhere else than here and now.I will trust Life and Light…I’m not overly concerned about the “hereafter”…it will take care of itself…I am interested in the Eternal Now…the Eternal Here and Now.
God does not change. He is outside of time. He is infinitely simple in that sense, not compound. God does not change. Our perception of God has changed because He has revealed Himself to us over time … a structure in which *we *live and move and change. God is not bound by time, as evidenced by his name “I Am.” Consider Christ’s statement in John: [58] Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (Jn 8:58)
No, there are not, because God has never been bound by time and space. God is not present “in the computer” or the rock or the tree. That is not what Christianity teaches.
No, God sustains the computer as He sustains you and me. He does not devote “part” of Himself to a rock, a squirrel, a tree, a computer, etc. God creates and continues to create. The error you are thinking of, I think, is pantheism. God is not “in” the creation. He is the separate Creator ex nihilo.
Five years ago, everything that is now the computer existed in different forms. God’s act of creation caused (“danced”) it into its present form. This is simplistic, but essential to an understanding of why your analogy is false. God is not changing just because His creation is subject to change. God is not subject to creation, just as a dancer is not controlled by a dance.
Not so. God is unchanging. His “dance” of creation is ongoing, but God is always the same. He is not controlled by His act.
You said earlier that Buddhism does not rely on the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. If this is so, then why would you say that God *must *be a being with an origin in time and a destination in common with all other created beings? Is this not inconsistent with your earlier assumption that Buddhism and Christianity are compatible?
I suspect that Buddhist Scripture being “enlightened” but not “inspired” may be mistaking God for a hypothetical esoteric “enlightened” being. (i.e. see Mormonism) In any event, it seems to me that Buddhism, if it is truly not dependent upon the existence or non-existence of a supreme being, is not in the position to definitively define the “limits” of a Supreme Being.
I think you need to define what you mean when you say “tending toward” … “peace, happiness and nirvana.” Peace in the sense of equilibrium? Political stability? Sense of purpose? Happiness should not necessarily be seen as a goal, but the result of a life lived in accordance with God’s will. And “nirvana” seems to have several different meanings, depending upon which dictionary is consulted, etc. See here.
The existence of God is an absolute rquirement whether you believe in Him or not.
This statement seems inconsistent with your assertion that Buddhism defines God as created, changing, and limited? If no belief in God is required, why seek to understand the nature of God?
But see:
It seems that in one sense there is a loss of personhood. Do you understand that the cocept of “person” is theological and uniquely Christian?
Fair enough. It is a loss of person and a return to the universal “a blowing out” of the person, as opposed to the perfection of one’s unique person created by a loving and personal God. I think this is the nature of the distinction between Buddhism and Christianity… the dignity of the person. It transcends acts of charity and peacefull coexistence. It is an acknowledgement that we are made by a loving Creator to be unique persons, and not simply to be returned to the universal one-ness.
I disagree. I think that superficially, there are many similarities to the two paths… but in the end Christianity is the one that recognizes and cherishes the uniqueness of the person as evidence of a loving and personal God, and does not reject creation as something to escape.
I agree that there are parts of Buddhism that are good and that reflect the Truth that your signature line (and perhaps your philosophy) seems to deny. That does not mean Buddhism, as a religious system, is compatible with Christianity.
God is also inside time, and the part that is inside time must change. Consider an unchanging God: On the first day God said “Let there be light” and on the second day God said “Let there be light” and on the third day God said “Let there be light” etc. God is seen as acting inside time, and hence that part of God that is inside time must be changing. If part of God is changing then God is changing.
Apart from mere omnipresence, I see the Christian position being as God sustaining the entire universe, including my computer.
You cannot separate creator from creation. If there were no creation then there could be no creator. How can there be a creator who has created nothing? That does not make any sense.
Not a good analogy, the dancer moves and so is changing. If God is performing only outside time and space then His performance can have no effect inside time and space. Since the performance does have an effect inside time and space, then change is a requirement. An unchanging performance would run into the everlasting “let there be light” problem. See World’s longest music performance starts for a similar example.
And those different forms were sustained by God, otherwise they could not have existed. Those different forms do not exist now so God is no longer sustaining them. God has changed from sustaining to non-sustaining with respect to those forms.
In Buddhism all things are changing. God is not an exception. If God exists then He is changing, there is nothing that exists that does not change. Even nirvana changes.
No. An omnipotent and omnipresent God - by definition - cannot exist within time.
We who are in time perceived God as saying “Let there be Light” on the first day. We then perceived God, on the Second Day to create the land and the sea. But from God’s perspective, He is present in both days, and the third, and the fourth, and the fifth, and on the day of the incarnation, and the resurrection, and today, and the Last Day, and every day falling inbetween… and every moment of every day and every moment between each second… there God IS. That is why He is the GREAT I AM. He is not moving through time. He is present at every moment, in every place because he transcends time and space. That is, by definition, the nature of an omnipresent God. Not that He existed then and He exists now… He IS now and He IS then. I know it’s a lot to wrap your head around… but that must be the nature of an omnipresent God.
Not “mere” omnipresence. (I don’t think you’ve really grasped the magnitude of omnipresence.) But not even mere “sustaining” either. God is presently, was a billion years ago, and will be until the end of time, engaging in the act of creating the very matter of which your computer is formed.
One does not follow from the other. I agree that you cannot have a creation without having a creator first. But the very concept suggests that the Creator MUST be in existence APART from the creation, else He could not pre-exist His creation.
I did not say that the Creator created nothing. I meant to say, thought I said, that God created everything FROM nothing. Everything came to be because God created it, and nothing that came to be did so apart from God. Only God can create from nothing.
No. He is moving outside of creation. The dance is what changes, depending upon the movement (Act) of the Creator. I agree it is not a perfect analogy - sadly, that is the nature of an analogy.
How so? I think you again misunderstand the nature of creation. God’s “performance” IS time and space.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of God and creation. The “dance” IS time and space, and without the “dance” time and space and matter are NOT.
No. the matter that formed into the atoms and molecules and compounds and complex structures and then plants, animals, and minerals which were used to create the structure of your computer will always exist as matter in the universe because they are part of creation. They have not ceased to exist because God the Creator is still omnipresent and still engaged in that act of creation.
God is not a thing. God is not an exception to creation. God is outside of creation, and not subject to change. He simply IS… everywhere and everywhen, omnipresent and omnipotent. He does not change because that is by definition the nature of an omnipotent and omnipresent God. Your philosophy is limited to things of matter and creation. You said it yourself, you do not require the existence of an omnipotent God to be a Buddhist. So this issue should not be troubling you. You should simply acknowledge, as your tagline suggests, that this may or may not be the Truth - it is not relevant to Nirvana.
If other religions give the same results, but teach different things, what gives? Which should we believe?
That’s like saying that two computers intiating a file transfer is love.
The only places where Christianity and Buddhism are similar is the belief that true happiness cannot be gained from earthly things. Almost everything else is different. Christianity seeks to purify our desire so that we can give ourselves totally to God and to our fellow man (as God selflessly gives of Himself to us). Buddhism seeks to destroy all desire, for both “good” and “bad” things, so that we fade away into practical nothingness.
If we have no desire for anything, whether we have that thing is irrelevant.
And why should we desire to be happy?
My main point was that Buddhism strives to reach a state of nothingness. If our purpose is to reach nothingness, why were we brought out of nothingness in the first place? What is the point?
And why do mistakes cause desire?
Like Hinduism?
Why does she give them?
Then allow me to rephrase. If an awakened person acheives Nirvana, does his consciousness remain intact? Or, in becoming enlightened, does he lose his “self” to the rest of dharma?
Kay Cee,
These are the absolutes of Buddhism as I see them. As for knowing whether I am on the right path, I know by my experience. I hope this answers your questions.
In Buddhism there are three catagories of acts and thoughts. They are wholeome, unwholsome and neurtral acts and thoughts.
Then we have different definitions of “omnipresent”. To me if a God is not present within time then that God cannot be omnipresent and vice versa.
But change is defined as change within time; something changes if it is different at two different times. If God does different things at different times then that is change; how can it be otherwise? If you are talking about higher dimensions (“outside time”) then do not use words like change. God may not ‘change’ in the fifth dimension but He does change in time.
That is exactly my point, a creator cannot be a creator unless there is a creation. Imagine that you are at a party, there is this interesting looking old guy with a white beard. You go and talk to him:“What do you do?”
Minor correction, he died from electrocution from some faulty wiring in his hotel bathroom in Thailand on the trip to Asia where he wrote his Asian Journal. I am aware that some of his opinions are controversial.
While still alive his consciousness remains intact. After death your question is one of the fourteen unanswerable questions that the Buddha has declared not relevant to the path. Your question is equivalent to asking if the Tathagata (Buddha) exists or not after death. If you want to know the answer then become enlightened and find out for yourself.
To quote Nostra Aetate:The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.
Meditation works. By meditation I could in principle remember my previous lives (Visuddhimagga, chapter 13, para 22). Others have done this and confirmed it. By meditation I can reach nirvana, others have done this and confirmed it. Those who have reached nirvana have confirmed that it is desire, hatred and delusion which drive our ongoing rebirths, and that stopping desire, hatred and delusion stops the round of rebirths.
You have a strange idea of love. Some people are angry. In any situation they tend to react with anger, it does not really matter who they are with or who they are talking to, they are just angry. Some people are loving. In any situation they tend to react with love, it does not really matter who they are with or who they are talking to, they are just loving. Saint Francis is a very good example. Bodhisattvas are the same, they are not reacting differently to different people, they react to everyone in the same way, with love.
There is also a great deal of similarity in the morality of the two religions, and what there is of meditation in Christianity (the Jesus Prayer for example, or the Rosary) is compatible with the early stages of Buddhist meditation.
From the Buddhist point of view, both Jesus and Francis of Assisi were probably Bodhisattvas. I do not see either of them as fading away into practical nothingness.
It is our natural state.
You seem to be misunderstanding the Buddhist view of the world. The world is not what it appears to be, but neither is it nothingness. It is in the middle between the two. A mirage is not what it appears to be - there is no real water. A mirage is not nothingness - nothingness does not look like water, while a mirage does. A mirage is deceptive but it is not nothingness. The world is deceptive, but it is not nothingness. Enlightenment is seeing the world as it really is, not as its deceptive surface appearance and not as nothingness.
I make the mistake of seeking happiness in alcohol. I have a drink and I feel happy for a short time. Afterwards I want to be happy again so I desire another drink. The short-term temporary reward feeds back to increase my desire for a drink.
God is present not just everywhere, but everywhen as well. Because He is present in every moment, he does not move through it like we move through time. Similarly, because God is omnipresent, he is everywhere. He does not move through space like we move through a room. He is simply present at every point in the room. That makes Him unchanging with respect to both time and space. That does not make Him subject to time and space.
God does not move through time. I don’t know how I can say it a better way. God was, is, and at the same time will be. He is not changing. He is present to all of time.
Dimensions beyong the 3 we perceive are also part of God’s creation. He is not simply in a different dimension. He is present in every dimension; again it can be said that He transcends dimension.
It is only our perception of God that changes as we move through time. God is not changing through time. He is present at all points in time, and as such He does not change. (Another analogy - You are walking along a path and on your left is a wall with a long mural painted on it. It is a historical mural that portrays the founding of the country, the settling of the west, the wars, the good times, and up to the present. As you walk along you see the different parts of the painting. Your perception of the mural changes as you move along the path. But the mural does not change. It is present at all points along the path you are walking. It is not moving or changing. God’s presence at all points in time is like that mural.
You really need to change your perception to grasp the reality of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God. God has no beginning or end in time. He does not move through time like we do. He transcends both space and time, as I discussed above. So to discuss what must come first, in-between, and last is meaningless as far as God is concerned. God transcends time. that is His nature - He is present at the beginning, while also being present now, and is present at the end of creation. Thus, God could never answer the question as your elderly partygoer did. God’s answer to your question… how many universes have you created could be something like, “I will create, am now creating, and will until the end of time be creating all that is a universe.”
Again, you are imposing the restriction of time on a being that is omnipresent. Think of the fact that to be omnipresent is to be present not just at every place in the universe, but at every point in time as well (past, present, and future). Thus, God is BOTH creator-to-be and creator. Not an inconsistency at all when one is not a creature - like man who moves through time.
In the beginning was God, but at the moment of creation God is, and at the end of creation… God is. And at every point in between… God IS. God is the creator of “cause and effect”
I cannot accept a creator who has not created anything. Either the claimed creator is lying or is mistaken. If there is no creation then there cannot be a creator.
A creator-to-be has not created anything. A creator has created at least one thing. Since 0 does not equal 1 the two must be different, unless you are saying that a non-existent creation is the same as an existent creation - which I do not think you are doing. Since 0 =/= 1 there must be some sort of difference between creator-to-be and creator and hence if there is a difference there must be a change.
So you are saying that God is the cause of “cause and effect”. How can “cause and effect” be caused if “cause and effect” is not already in existence? If “cause and effect” is not present then there can be no causation; if “cause and effect” is already present then there is no need to cause it anew because it already exists.
My perception of your idea of God is limited to by my refusal to accept illogic. That which is eternal cannot change. That which changes cannot be eternal. If an effect changes then the cause must also change. An eternal unchanging cause results in an eternal unchanging effect because there is never a time whan the cause is not both present and active - my example of ‘Let there be light.’ endlessly repeated is an example.
I did not say that God did not create anything. I said that God is not bound by time and space, hence past and present and future tense do not apply.
You keep trying to apply the rules of time to an omnipresent God that transcends time. Although God is present before the creation, and present after the creation - he is no less the Creator.
I’m saying that God created the law of cause and effect. It’s His creation. He is not subject to it. God has no cause. Nothing has an effect on God’s nature.
My position is not illogical. I’m starting with the assertion that there is an omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent God. From these rules, it follows that God is present in every moment of time and at every point in space. Thus, it is illogical to impose upon such a being the limitations of moving (in a finite way) through space and time. That is what you are doing. And that is why we are speaking past each other. You presume that God is a higher being, but not omnipresent.
Your instincts serve you well on this point.