Why seek "God"?

[Robban]

I'm not sure I understand your statement.

It is He who sustains His Creation, hardly some old bearded guy in the clouds, pulling levers.

Have you ever considered that He has placed a part of Himself into each one of us?

 

[ananda]

Do you believe in logic or reason? Don't you think it is logical that there was a first cause to existence?

I believe in logic and reason. A "first cause" is not inherently logical to me, because there would be a question regarding the cause of the first cause.

So, rather than speculating on what cannot be known with certainty, I (with the early Buddhist approach) merely work with what I certainly do know - in the here and now - dukkha, and the practical steps towards dukkha's resolution.

 

[FireDragon76]

I definitely do not agree everything people do is to avoid suffering. I know that's not true in my own life. I've made costly decisions in the past when it would have been easier to just avoid trouble. Because I cared about things like truth.

 

[FireDragon76]

I believe in logic and reason. A "first cause" is not inherently logical to me, because there would be a question regarding the cause of the first cause.

The very definition of a first cause has no cause. There must be an uncaused cause, as an actual infinite regreess existing is not possible.

 

[ananda]

No, I don't agree that this is my only motive.

Sometimes - often in fact - I NEED to do a thing I would rather avoid, or someone else needs me to do it, or it is the right or loving thing to do. I might selfishly WANT to do something quite different, but I don't do what I want to do.

In the Buddhist sense, you are seen as doing what is necessary to avoid a greater mass of long-term or future dukkha, even though it might be easier to do other things which helps you avoid a smaller amount of short-term dukkha. Or, you work to achieve greater, and longer-lasting sukkha (pleasure, ease, bliss), even though short-term sukkha is more readily available.

Overall I have a very great peace and contentment. But it isn't brought about by my daily choices sometimes. And I would submit that if I DID try to find peace and contentment through those means, I would constantly changing means, as you describe. A thing feels good, but only for a while, then a new or even opposite thing is needed.

No, I have peace and contentment in whatever situation I face. And believe me, that has been brought home to me very much this last year, as I was diagnosed with cancer and have been undergoing surgeries and treatments. There is no easy eat/don't eat/sleep/get up/entertain oneself away from that situation. Yet I do not exaggerate to say it has been a very blessed year st the same time.

I am sorry to hear about your suffering. May much metta abound to you in your journey towards healing.

 

[ananda]

It is He who sustains His Creation, hardly some old bearded guy in the clouds, pulling levers.

Have you ever considered that He has placed a part of Himself into each one of us?

No, I see no evidence or proof of that.

 

[ananda]

I definitely do not agree everything people do is to avoid suffering. I know that's not true in my own life. I've made costly decisions in the past when it would have been easier to just avoid trouble. Because I cared about things like truth.

As I mentioned in a prior post to @~Anastasia~ : "In the Buddhist sense, you are seen as doing what is necessary to avoid a greater mass of long-term or future dukkha, even though it might be easier to do other things which helps you avoid a smaller amount of short-term dukkha. Or, you work to achieve greater, and longer-lasting sukkha (pleasure, ease, bliss), even though short-term sukkha is more readily available."

 

[ananda]

The very definition of a first cause has no cause. There must be an uncaused cause, as an actual infinite regreess existing is not possible.

Queries regarding a "first cause" is irrelevant to my daily life, and I have no way to verifying the nature of the "first cause" anyways.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In the Buddhist sense, you are seen as doing what is necessary to avoid a greater mass of long-term or future dukkha, even though it might be easier to do other things which helps you avoid a smaller amount of short-term dukkha. Or, you work to achieve greater, and longer-lasting sukkha (pleasure, ease, bliss), even though short-term sukkha is more readily available.

I am sorry to hear about your suffering. May much metta abound to you in your journey towards healing.

I was sure you would have a way of looking at it. But truly, I find my peace comes from God.

I do thank you for you kind wishes.

 

[FireDragon76]

Queries regarding a "first cause" is irrelevant to my daily life, and I have no way to verifying the nature of the "first cause" anyways.

You do realize what you are advocating is anti-intellectual? That's like saying a seatbelt has no relevance to your daily life, because you've never crashed your car.

 

[Robban]

No, I see no evidence or proof of that.

Maybe understandable, it is not always apparent, often one has to dig deep,
Gems and Diamonds are often covered in dirt.

 

[ananda]

I was sure you would have a way of looking at it. But truly, I find my peace comes from God.

Aha! Ultimately, you are seeking peace, no? And you believe that peace comes from God?

I do thank you for you kind wishes.

You're welcome

 

[ananda]

You do realize what you are advocating is anti-intellectual? That's like saying a seatbelt has no relevance to your daily life, because you've never crashed your car.

I realize I am not addressing the intellectual angle; my concern is the inability to verify any intellectual speculations for myself.

 

[ananda]

Maybe understandable, it is not always apparent, often one has to dig deep,
Gems and Diamonds are often covered in dirt.

Perhaps so. I spent 3 decades digging for that, with no result.

We have a limited span of life on this earth - should we not focus on what is known?

 

[Silmarien]

The same could be said about Buddhism's claims about rebirth and samsara.

I don't really think so. I think rebirth and samsara is as irrelevant to the here and now as heaven and hell. The Incarnation in Christianity radically redefines the relationship between humanity and the divine in a way that doesn't show up in other religions. If it's true, that's pretty big.

Buddhism says that the root of suffering is dukkha, and seeking God is just snipping offshoots. Christianity says that the root of suffering is separation from God, which means that a path like Buddhism would just be treating the symptoms. I'm not in a position to know who's right, but since I do agree with the others here that there's something awfully bleak about the Buddhist outlook, I know which side I'm going to give a chance first.

 

[FireDragon76]

I realize I am not addressing the intellectual angle; my concern is the inability to verify any intellectual speculations for myself.

But you think the stuff about reincarnation is something you can verify? Again, Williams addresses that in his book also. The Buddhist explanation for reincarnation contains fundamental incoherence since they cannot explain what exactly goes between lives, except karma. If there is no person that is real, what is there to be enlightened? Again, it's anti-intellectual.

 

[Robban]

Perhaps so. I spent 3 decades digging for that, with no result.

We have a limited span of life on this earth - should we not focus on what is known?

Were you searching within yourself or others?

 

[ananda]

I don't really think so. I think rebirth and samsara is as irrelevant to the here and now as heaven and hell. The Incarnation in Christianity radically redefines the relationship between humanity and the divine in a way that doesn't show up in other religions. If it's true, that's pretty big.

The difference being, IMO rebirth and samsara can be known in the here-and-now by the ordinary person, but not so with the heavens and hells.

Buddhism says that the root of suffering is dukkha, and seeking God is just snipping offshoots. Christianity says that the root of suffering is separation from God, which means that a path like Buddhism would just be treating the symptoms. I'm not in a position to know who's right, but since I do agree with the others here that there's something awfully bleak about the Buddhist outlook, I know which side I'm going to give a chance first.

What do you find bleak about the Buddhist outlook? I find it realistic, grounded in reality that can be known in the here-and-now, without speculations involved.

 

[ananda]

But you think the stuff about reincarnation is something you can verify? Again, Williams addresses that in his book also. The Buddhist explanation for reincarnation contains fundamental incoherence since they cannot explain what exactly goes between lives, except karma. If there is no person that is real, what is there to be enlightened? Again, it's anti-intellectual.

It seems you are referring to Tibetan dogmas, which I do not practice.

Early Buddhism teaches rebirth, not reincarnation. I know rebirth for myself, and can observe it in action, in the here-and-now.

 

[ananda]

Were you searching within yourself or others?

Both.