matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 31, 2013 3:49:32 GMT 1
Actually that is in some ways his "normal" response. I don't think you should take it personally at all. Brian ranted in the most hateful way about other religions for months, if not years on the other forum. While, that may be true, I didn't have that reaction from reading Brian's post. It made perfect sense to me and I agree with it. He was simply pointing out in this particular post that many religions have used a lot of "creativity" when showing God as the all compassionate creator. He seems to be correctly citing numerous instances when facts asserted by these religions indicate God has acted in very angry, spiteful and jealous ways. You can debate whether a Buddhist would call this "skillful". I wouldn't. This seems like a very legitimate point made in a perfectly acceptable way. Jeff Well, you can certainly find a lot of problematic passages in the Old Testament. I have wondered if the God of the old Testament was an Asura, because he said "I am a jealous God." and I believe people and entities eventualy reveal things about themselves unintentionally. I am sorry my post had a drastic result, especially if I misunderstood his. I have just gotten in the habit of skimming his posts about religion and trying to measure the tone and temperature of them. I can tell you, that what I just wrote about Old Testament God, is something I would never have said while he was here for fear he would take to an extreme, that I would regret. |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 31, 2013 18:06:00 GMT 1
I am not an expert by any means in Gnostic theology, but I worked closely for years with a man who was somewhat. He thought of himself as Gnostic, and was always reading ancient texts. You can imagine that he and I had some interesting discussions while we were remodeling tenant spaces or overhauling the steam system or rebuilding a swamp cooler...
His name was Dan, but not the Dan who writes here... that guy wouldn't know a Gnostic gospel if it bit him...LOL just kidding, Danny.
Anyway, I learned from Gnostic Dan and some reading that there were a lot of ancient groups and sects that we refer to as Gnostics. They were by no means a cohesive or monolithic group. Some were christians, some were Jews and some later Gnostics were muslims. There was a belief by many that the God of the Old Testament, the creator of earth, was not what Jesus meant by God. In one Gnostic Gospel, Jesus giggles when his followers talk about God as the creator of earth, and many of these old texts call the God of the Old Testament the Demigod, or the Demi-Urge, or just the Urge. Apparently they felt that God they aspired to be close to was much less like a personality and much more of an all encompassing presence.
Of course I believe in Buddha's teachings, that is a different belief system, but what most people now days who believe in God think he is like, that is a lot closer to what the Gnostics believed than the personality we see at times in the Old Testament.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 31, 2013 18:42:56 GMT 1
So where does the concept of God come from? Well, that is a very good question to ponder. Obviously no one is going to be able to answer it definitively except maybe for themselves. My very limited understanding of Gods from the Tibetan Buddhist point of view is that there are a lot of Gods and Demigods. They exist, as much as any of us exist, (and of course that is the most important point, all beings and forms of existence are empty of inherent existence) in realms that are precisely as real as this one. They arise, as humans do, out of interdependent causes and conditions. They do have self reference, a feeling of I exist. All sentient beings do. Buddhists describe Gods and their attributes using Hindu names and terms. Buddhists describe world systems, and world systems are inter-dependent and vast dreamscapes that arise because of the karma of the sentient beings, including Gods and Demigods, humans and animals, ghosts and hell beings, that live in them. Gods live the longest and there are fewest of them. As you work your way down the system there are more individuals of each class of being. Hell beings are the most populous in any world system. According to the Kalachakra, one of the Gods is the first to arise, I can't remember if it is Vishnu or Brahma who rises first, I am thinking Vishnu. Anyway, he thinks he creates the whole world system, because he is the first to arise. But Buddhists believe that is one of his confusions. So world systems have many realms within them. You can think of them as realm systems. In the center of our realm system is Mount Mehru, this is what Buddhists believe our world is really like, it is looks to them like a giant cube, with beings of various kinds living on its surfaces. We are in the southernmost portion of this cube, whatever that means, and Gods arise in the Northern or higher areas, and some are so high they arise without form above the mountain all together. But a lot of Gods have the experience of being present everywhere, at least in the world system. We call this omnipresence. They can have bodies, big shiny bodies, but they also feel omnipresent. Gods without form are said to exist in the formless realms, but even that has a kind of address or place in the world system. It is very high up. There are hell realms around and below the mountain/cube and I think animals coexist in the various human areas. (?) So reading about Gods in the Kalachakra, or the Abidharma, that can sound as weird and crazy to modern people as any world view. I have my own way of using all that information, to me it is a valid world view and the important point is that it is all empty.  |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 31, 2013 18:58:47 GMT 1
So if hell beings are the most populous, does that mean we are all stuck in a bad system? Well, not necessarily. My teacher once said, beings in the lower realms can be enlightened, their consciousness is just a little heavier than ours. That kind of info is actually helpful to me, believe it or not. I think for most practitioners, all this Kalachakra and Abidharma stuff is too deep and kind of irrelevant, though.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 31, 2013 19:54:07 GMT 1
Now if you practice the esoteric forms of Abidharma or Kalachakra, then the whole world system is also your body. And you can relate different places and directions to chakras, energy channels and features in your body. This actually makes sense if you think of your body and its energy as being interdependent. One can use the wisdom of interdependence and emptiness, and the visualizations that accompany these and other Tantras, to use your life to resolve issues that come up, and let that at the same time, help guide all sentient beings in the world system to enlightenment. So Gods have a role in all that, but just as an interdependent part of an interdependent system. Most Buddhists don't aspire to be reborn in God realms, because you want a human life to become enlightened, and that is the way to be a Bodhisatva, and bring the whole deluded gang along for the ride. So deep Buddhist practice happens here, but at the same time everywhere. It happens now, but at the same time through the whole of time. What happens, exactly? Well, ultimately nothing. But from my point of view, suffering or dissatisfaction inspires introspection, and out of that I get a sense that there is an issue, both karmic and interdependent, I think about its interdependence, and then concentrate on its emptiness, while remembering my own vast and empty nature, and have the experience that the momentums within the issue are dissolving in emptiness, which is a good feeling. And afterward, I feel a little lighter and less troubled, and that sense is progressive in that gradually it all gets better with practice. An important part of my practice, is I pray for rebirth in hell realms. So one gets less fearful through practice. Time, experience and understanding erode our fearful and grasping attitudes. |
|
