Buddha kept silent about God

Buddha kept silent about God

Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words, mind and logic as said in the Veda. Buddha means the Buddhi or Jnana yoga that speaks about the absolute God. Thus He is the greatest incarnation of God. If one thinks Him as atheist, there can be no better fool. Mohammed showed the formless medium in which God exists, which is energy and this is presented by Shankara, because basically energy and awareness are one and the same. The prophet itself means human incarnation. Prophet is carrying on the message of God. The divine knowledge is in Him. Is He not greater than other human beings? Message of divine knowledge is the characteristic of God (Satyam Jnanam – the Veda) and so we say God is in Him. Why do you deny it, when God is omnipresent? Then every human being should give the same message of God, since God is omnipresent. But why Mohammed alone gave it? Because the power of God or knowledge of God is in him only. Then the power of God, in the form of knowledge is not omnipresent.

In any case, you have to accept that either God or His Power is only in Prophet Mohammed. That is what human incarnation is. You are fighting with us, without analysing the concept of human incarnation. Thus Buddha, Mohammed and Shankara have made the single phase, which was essential to the level of the followers at that time. The concept of human incarnation was well established by Krishna and Jesus. You can find all three branches of Hinduism (Advaita, Visishta Advaita, Dvaita) in Christianity because Jesus told that He and God are one and the same (Advaita), that He is the son of God (Visishta Advaita) and that He is the messenger of God (Dvaita). The stage of philosophy was expressed according to the required stage of the people of that time.

 

It means nothing more than your perception of what you think the Buddha meant, and not what he meant at all. The Buddha said exactly what he meant to say with no hidden meanings left open for interpretation and in the simplest language available at the time.

When we interpret what we "think" he was saying, we are saying he didn't mean to say what he meant to say, but rather what we "would have" said. Buddha kept silent about God because it is not God or gods that control any destiny of men, rather humans control their own destiny through their own actions.

HTML:

 

But when we are at reference to having been silent about God, must we now be the masters of deception, or the thoroughly honest man, to conclude that the atheism was not a self-deception?

 

darrellkitchen;

There is a reason for Bhudha to keep silent about God
Whenever you think about God, the thinking itself is a form made of awareness or mind, even though you claim that you are thinking about formless God. You can never think any thing, which is formless because your thinking itself is a form. The form may have some specific boundaries like a statue. The form may not have specific boundaries like air or water. But the air or water also has some regular or irregular boundaries since the air or water has certain limits. You call the space as formless object. But the space has some limitations somewhere and you do not perceive those limits. Such limits may not be perceived but certainly exist. Therefore, the concept of your formless object has some boundaries, which are either irregular or not perceived. When you think God as awareness (Chit), the awareness is mind, which is nervous energy. Energy is in the form of waves and thus cannot be formless. According to the special theory of relativity of Einstein, the space is also a form of energy because space exhibits the property of bending. In that case, the space also cannot be formless. Even if you consider the space as infinite vacuum, you are aware of the space. Such awareness itself means that space has become a form of awareness or mental energy. Therefore, strictly speaking there is no formless object in the creation. You are calling the object, which has either irregular or infinite boundaries, which are imagined, as formless. Since, such formless object also is a form in strict sense. Formless concept is impossible.

Therefore, whether you say that God created the space or God created the energy in the beginning, both statements mean the same because space is also a form of energy only. Veda said that Para Brahman created the space in the beginning (Atmana Akasah..). The Veda says again that Para Brahman created energy in the beginning (Tat Tejo..). Both the Vedic statements mean the same in terms of the latest concept of Science. However, let such space or energy be called as formless God in your language. Even to think such formless God, it becomes very very difficult for any ordinary human being. Even a scholar cannot maintain such concept in his mind for a long time. Even if you maintain such concept, such God is not the absolute God because absolute God is completely unimaginable as per Veda and Gita (Yasyaa matam…., Mamtu Veda Na…). God imagined as space or awareness (mental energy) is not the absolute the God, who is beyond space and awareness. Veda says that God created space. Veda says that God is beyond awareness. The creator is always beyond the creation. Even in the absence of the creation, the creator must exist. According to Brahma Sutras, God is the cause of this Universe as creator and is the material cause also. The pot maker is the creator of the pot. The mud is the material cause of the pot. Even in the absence of pot, the pot maker and the mud exist. Therefore, God existed even before the creation of the Universe.

The pot maker and mud exists even after the destruction of the pot. Similarly, after the destruction of the world also God must exist. Similarly God must exist before the creation of the space and after the dissolution of the space. You can never imagine the situation, which is before the creation or after dissolution of space. Your intelligence cannot cross the special dimensions and therefore cannot cross the concept of space. That means you can never imagine the God. Veda says that God alone knows God (Brahma vit Brahmaiva…).

Therefore, when you imagine God as the all-pervading space, such imagination itself is an item of creation only. Such imagination is only the incarnation of the God. When you imagine Him as space, God has entered the space and God is in the space. Similarly, if you imagine God as all pervading energy, you have imagined the energy only in which God is present. Therefore, you perceive God as space or inert energy or mental energy (awareness) and such form of God is only the incarnation of God in the form of space or inert energy or awareness. This means you can perceive only the incarnation of God and never the absolute God.

 

Meagain;

There is only one God as per Veda (Ekameva Advitiyam Brahma) but the awareness is in multiple bits called as living beings. There is only one Ajay but the red shirts are several. If there is only one red shirt like one Ajay, the constant association is valid in both directions. It means wherever there is Ajay there is red shirt and wherever there is red shirt Ajay exists there. Similarly, if there is only one bit of awareness like one God, we can draw the logic of saying wherever there is God there is awareness and wherever there is awareness there is God. In such case we can say that God is awareness and awareness is God. But in practical experience (Anubhava Pramana) the awareness is discontinuous existing in the form of several living beings in the world. If the awareness is continuous and homogenous, there should be no inert item in the creation. In such case the air and earth should talk. When you put the leg on the earth the earth should file a case in the court for insulting the earth with leg. Similarly, the air should react when you spit in the air. The Advaita philosophers bring a simile of conversion of mind (awareness) into imaginary world or dream.

Based on the simile they say that the inert world is also a modification of the awareness. In the imaginary world or dream the inert items like a hill, a tree, etc., are also modifications of awareness. Similarly, they maintain that the inert items in the world are also modifications of the awareness. This is meaningless because there is a direct proof (Pratyaksha Pramana) for the conversion of mind into imaginary world or dream. As you create the imaginary world more and more, which is a process of thinking, the awareness or mind gets exhausted. Your mind becomes weak and you get tired. You will take some food to supply the energy. If your total mind is ten calories of nervous energy, you feel energetic. But after spending some time in imagination (creating the imaginary world), let us say eight calories are spent. You become tired with the remaining two calories of energy. A point will come when you cannot think further with headache.

The nervous system which converts inert energy into awareness gets exhausted resulting in headache. If you say that such awareness is God, God must have been reduced in quantity by creating this world. God remains constant even after the process of creation. This is not the case with mental awareness. Therefore, the awareness and dream cannot stand even as a simile in this aspect!! You say that the awareness is totally God!! You can take this as a simile for God and creation as the mind is completely free to create, maintain and dissolve the dream, God is free to create, maintain and dissolve the world. In this aspect the above example can stand as a simile. A simile stands in a particular aspect only and not in all aspects. If the simile is similar in all aspects, there is no difference between the simile and the object compared.

You can compare the awareness in one human being to the awareness in another human being in all aspects and say that the awareness in both human beings is one and the same. Here also the similarity is qualitative. The awareness in two human beings is divided in two quantities by the boundaries of their bodies. The awareness in one human being may be more (twenty calories) and the awareness in another human being may be less (ten calories) in a particular time. Even in a single human being the awareness may vary in quantity from time to time. In deep sleep the quantity of awareness becomes zero.

 

Meagain;

The spiritual knowledge should come directly from the Lord. If He sends His messenger, the messenger is not capable of delivering all the points as told by the Lord and is also incapable of explaining in excellent manner as explained by the Lord. Therefore, the knowledge delivered by the messenger is not as excellent as delivered by the Lord directly. This is the main reason for the Lord to enter the human body to preach the divine knowledge. But if the Lord in human body declares that He is the Lord directly speaking, people become jealous because they think the human incarnation as human being only, since they always see the external body only. They misunderstand that the human being is claiming himself as God.

They cannot tolerate this due to their inherent jealousy and egoism towards the co-human beings. To solve this problem of majority of the people, the human incarnation has to say that He is only the messenger of God. Prophet Mohammad was really the human incarnation. But he never claimed himself as God due to this problem of majority. He said that He was only the messenger of God and that Q'ran was massage of God. Therefore, this Holy Scripture belongs to the angle of majority. The devotees who can realise the human incarnation are always very few only. To this minority the prophet can personally say that he is God or at least he is son of God. The message to minority need not be recorded, which can be orally delivered in person. Thus, Q'ran is a scripture for the majority. On the other hand Gita was the scripture of extreme minority, since Gita was told to Arjuna only.

In Gita, Krishna told that He is the Lord. Here you must realize that the Lord is speaking through the human body of Krishna. In between the Q'ran and Gita lies Bible. Jesus told that He is the messenger of the God, which is the message for the majority. He also told that He is God, which is the message for extreme minority. In between lies the minority for which He said that He is Son of God. Thus, Bible is the message covering all the three phases of public, which are majority, minority and extreme minority. As we pass from one end to the other end in the above order, the egoism and jealousy reduce from 100 to 50 to 0.

For majority dualism (Dvaita), for minority (Visista Advaita) and for extreme minority monism (Advaita) are preached by the human incarnation. Thus, in Christianity and Hinduism you can find all the three concepts. But in Islam you can find only Dvaita. You should not mistake that Islam is incomplete due to absence of the other two concepts. The merit in Islam is that no human being can claim himself as God and thus there is no danger of false human incarnation. But in Hinduism and Christianity there is always danger of fraud human incarnations. Again you should not criticize Hinduism and Christianity due to this danger. Assuming the possibility of danger of accident, will you avoid journey by bus or train or aeroplane? Thus, the positive and negative angles must be understood according to the context. However, in Christianity also, the danger is avoided because the Christians do not accept any other human incarnation as God except Jesus. Hinduism accepts every human incarnation as God. Thus, you can pass from Islam to Christianity to Hinduism.

There is no danger in Islam and Christianity. In Islam no human incarnation is accepted. This is extremity to avoid the danger. In Christianity Jesus was accepted as human incarnation but no other human incarnation was accepted to avoid the danger of exploitation of fraud human incarnations. Thus, in Islam the concept was not admitted. In Christianity the concept was admitted but was limited to Jesus only to avoid the danger. In Christianity the statement ?Jesus will come again? completes the concept because it indicates that the human incarnation is again possible. Thus, the concept is completed in Bible. But by believing that Jesus comes only at the end of this creation, all the other human incarnations till the end are rejected.

Thus, the concept is completed in theory but not completed in practical. In Hinduism the concept is completed in theory as well as in practical. Gita says that Krishna will come again and again whenever it is necessary (Yadayadahi..). This means that the human incarnation will come again and again in several places and in several religions in even one human generation, because there is necessity for such facility. Thus, in Hinduism the concept is completed in theory and practical, but the danger is always full.

Thus, Hinduism recognises several human incarnations of Lord Datta (Krishna) as in the case of Sri Pada Vallabha, Sri Narasimha Saraswati, Sri Akkalkota Maharaj, Sri Sai Baba, etc. Hinduism recognises Buddha also as the human incarnation. Broad minded Hinduism recognises even Jesus, Mohammad, Mahaveer etc., also as human incarnations born in different religions. The universal spirituality is such broad minded Hinduism which is the broad minded Christianity, the broad minded Islam, the broad minded Buddhism and broad minded science. The Universal Spirituality contradicts and is prepared to argue with all religions limited with conservatism, provided these religions are prepared to accept the truth with open mind. The science with conservatism is atheism. When you realize all the three religions, namely Hinduism, Christianity and Islam, you will achieve the total concept, which is the universal spirituality. All the religions are different angles of the same central concept. You must observe the centre through all the angles from all the sides. Then only you can realise the total comprehensive central concept. Now you must see through the angles of Buddhism and science also.

Buddhism speaks about the God present in the human incarnation by keeping silent about God. Silence means that God is beyond words and imagination. It does not indicate the absence of God. Buddhism is misunderstood as atheism. The time wheel (Kala Chakra) and the revolving bright wheel (Sudarsana Chakra) indicate that the time is constantly moving and that you will meet the death certainly one day or other. It indicates that you should hurry in detaching yourself from the world and that you should attach to the Lord as early possible.

 

Thank you; thank you. I will be positive quite aware of liars on the computer till Sunday. I was detached in imagination yesterday. Today, I can only react. Again thank you.

 

famewalk;

I once again tell you to realize the main aim of this human life and forget the insult in the side activity. For a student the education is the main activity and he should be upset if he fails in the unit tests. But, he should not be worried, if he fails in a game conducted as an extra-curricular activity in the college. All this worldly life is only a game of extra-curricular activity only. If you fail in your efforts to achieve the grace of the Lord, you shall get tension because the spiritual effort is the main activity and aim of this human life. Othello killed Desidimona and ended his life also doubting her character and his doubt was actually unreal. But I assuredly tell you that this entire worldly life made of these unreal dramatic bonds is really unreal and even if Desdimona is wrong, if Othello is a realized soul, he will neglect the total issue as an extra-curricular activity.

Love in free atmosphere alone is worthy and in a compelled atmosphere the hypocritic love is useless. Before matter, energy is negligible because energy condensed is matter. Before energy, awareness (soul) is negligible, which is the weakest form of energy. Before awareness the feeling is negligible, which is only the wave of awareness. Qualitatively matter and energy are one and the same energy. But quantitative difference brings the negligence to be treated as almost unreal (Mithya). These bonds are feelings only and you can laugh at these bonds as said in the Gita (karmabandham prahasyasi).


At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

 

That was because there was[/is] nothing to speak about.

According to the teachings of Buddha (those things he DID speak about), Awareness (consciousness) is a result of mind and thinking associated with mind being a result of perceptions which are a result of feelings, which in turn are a result of forms. So that when forms arise and continuous contact with forms associated with the six senses, feelings arise. With continuous feelings results perceptions. With continuous perceptions results mental formations/volition (thoughts associated with thinking, ideation, fabrications). And with continuous thinking [/ideation/fabrication] results in the appearance of consciousness (awareness).

One can think anything regarding forms and the formless. Ideas in the guise of perceptions and mental volition can conceive and perceive anything associated with the various states of Sankhara, those states associates with form and those states associated with formless, as it is mind which fabricates both states of awareness.

Only where one CONSIDERS it impossible to conceive what it is meaning formless. Telling people, or any rationally thinking sentient being capable of understanding, that "it is impossible to think this or that," is trying to project ones own ideas and perceptions onto others in an attempt to convince them that this is how they SHOULD think.

In this case, God as being an absolute term can never be perceived or conceived in order to bear as a means for direct analysis. So the term God does not apply as using a term to signify what is either absolute or non-absolute (conventional) is a form of conventional thinking. To indicate there is an Absolute anything is not possible with conventional mind as mind itself cannot do anything but describe using conventional abstracts and ideation. God as an idea, whether form or formless is a conventional idea, a word to describe ones perception of conventional reality.

As such words like God, idea, reality, perceive, conceive, conventional, or absolute, etc., do not apply to non-conventional (absolute) reality. Nothing applies to non-conventional thinking as such thinking would only be conventional. In the "Absolute" sense God does not exist, as the idea of existence itself, as well as the idea of God or the word or thought used to describe this idea is conventional (non-absolute).

Whatever we can conceive, think, perceive, become aware of or not become aware of is all conventional mentation, ideation, perception and awareness as any description at all is only conventional and as such incapable of describing the non(un)-conventional. As such any "absolute" [ANY THING] is incapable of being described conventionally, therefore conventional descriptions do not apply ... including the description of God.

HTML:

 

Here we go again ...

Projecting ones own ideas and perceptions onto others in an attempt to convince them that this is how they SHOULD think.

You (or anyone for that matter) cannot TELL anyone how to think, know, understand or realize. Doing so only creates resistance on the one being TOLD, and creates your own suffering because it creates within you disappointment which is result for impatience :toetap05:, which is result for anger , which is result for hatred, which is result for harm :boxing_smiley:, or worse, killing. Here's to hoping it doesn't go beyond disappointment.

HTML:

 

As far as I know there are two religious truths stemming from the increased enlightened knowledge for Buddhist meditation, Mahayanic Buddhism, and Himalayanic Buddhism. Either knows so little about the expressed state of the absolute in light of the Nirvhana which is personal and independent of social communication. There are many sects of the latter state of lessons for knowing the Buddhism. But as the absolute knowledge goes that allows the philosophical thinker or teacher lea-way for presence and absence for the Beliefs each one of us has.

Hey, as for the political correctness, we're not all right wing here. Are we? Some Buddhist really may prefer the issue of how History decides our final beliefs.

 

darrellkitchen;

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The beginning and the end of the cosmic energy or space or the creation are also unimaginable. Therefore, the beginning and the end are unimaginable for the unimaginable item like God and also for the imaginable item like space. Therefore, the two points, which are the beginning-less and end-less characteristics cannot help you in understanding the real nature of God. If you start recognizing the God by simply these two points (beginning-less and end-less), you may think that God is an imaginable item like the space or energy or the creation. In fact based on these two characteristics people have imagined God as an imaginable item like space or energy or creation. This concept has misled people to such a low level that people think that God is the very infinite space or infinite energy or infinite creation. Therefore, one should filter the concept of God at this juncture itself. One should think that God has no beginning and no end because the beginning and the end of an unimaginable item are also unimaginable.

Such God desired to create this Universe for entertainment. The very desire itself is the Creation. In view of God this present materialized universe in only an idea or imagination or the very desire itself. Therefore, the desire to create the world is itself the desire and also the created world itself is a desire. Thus the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the imaginary world are also imaginations or desires. A part of this infinite creation is the individual soul. The soul is like a drop of the infinite ocean of imagination or desire of God. Thus, quantitatively the entire ocean of imagination of God is very huge compared to the tiny soul. Remember that both the Universe and the tiny soul are made of the same substance called as imagination or desire. Thus the force of the Universe is far greater than the force of the soul. Due to such huge quantitative difference of the same phase, the Universe, which is far stronger than the soul appears as a materialized entity for the soul. But this infinite ocean of desire, which is the infinite Universe is a tiny drop compared to the infinite force of God. Therefore, again due to the same quantitative difference of force the entire universe is just the very weak imagination from the view of God. Thus imagination and materialization exist simultaneously true from the point of God and soul.

For the sake of entertainment, God desired to create the Universe. This statement is in Veda (Sa dviteeya Maicchat). In this statement there is a very subtle intermediate stage, which is the essence of the desire to create the Universe. The desire to create the world is like the golden ornament but the essence of such desire is like the raw gold in which the ornament is not yet expressed. Such raw essence of the desire is pure awareness. The pure awareness is a special subtle form of energy, which is not qualified by any form. Such pure awareness is called as the spirit, which is not qualified and does not have any attribute. This is called as “Nirguna Brahman”, which means the pure awareness, which has no reference to the creation of the universe. It is a very critical and subtle point to recognize the pure awareness. Veda says that only very very sharp intelligence can grasp that critical state (Drushyate Tvagraya bhuddhya). Sankara, the topmost genius among the spiritual preachers could grasp that state and proposed the concept of Nirguna Brahman or non-qualified pure awareness. Such pure awareness is the first creation of God (Parabrahman). This first creation is almost as critical and unimaginable as the very Parabrahman itself. The only difference is that Parabrahman is absolutely unimaginable for any sharp intelligence, but this pure awareness is imaginable only for a very sharp intelligence. This pure awareness is called as Mula Prakriti or Suddha Sattvam or Mula Avidya or Mula Maya or the Spirit in general. The Parabrahman maintains such spirit and it is only an associated item and is the first created item. The word Mula means the first. This spirit is in the form of knowledge. It is aware of itself, which means that it is knowledge. Knowledge requires both subjective and objective characteristics. It is subject as well as the object. Therefore, it is called as knowledge or Sattvam. This knowledge is the first form of energy.

 

We ask a question and we are answered eventually. But is the question a formal value for asking, having the expected result of dissapointment? Why else is it that we must believe in the God creation of the world?

 

Uh, Buddhism teaches to rest the mind beyond extremes and their antithesis, which means that one isn't God centered, unfortunate for deists, whilst at the same time a great boon for those who favor direct perception and not preventing deists from accepting Buddhahood free from even deist examination.

 

All I can say here is ... Frell ... I mean, word for word: http://forums.zoomshare.com/viewtopic.php?pid=214826

Thank you for opening my eyes, and thank Google for helping.

HTML:

 

param, since you've been given a PM warning regarding spamming the forums already, and you still insist on spamming with other forum posts ... nothing original there ... you have a 14 day time-out.

See you on the 7th.

HTML:

 

Of course Buddha didn't talk about God. He didn't preach in English and God is an English word which developed in a Christian area of the world and has numerous Christian influenced connotations. Of course there are plenty of teachings attributed to the Buddha concerning such things as the Dharmakaya, Amitabha and the various heavenly Deva including Shakra, the so-called King of the Deva.

When it comes down to looking at God as First Cause I like the conversation between a skeptic and a Zen master:
Skeptic: "So who made this universe and everything in it."
Zen Master: "You did."

 

Buddha, didn't remain silent on the topic of God.

Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that...
'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,'
I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"'
Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.'
Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.'
When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should and shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered and unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests and contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views.

Tittha Sutta AN 3.61