Why seek "God"?

[FireDragon76]

Evidence isn't proof, as I'm sure you know.

Since Buddhism isn't based on faith in its founder, it matters little if the Buddha is dead or alive. The foundation of Buddhism is on the Dhamma - its teachings (to be experienced & known personally by each disciple in the here-and-now) - not faith in a personality (somewhere in the past which we cannot know).

OK, in your experience, Buddhism is not based on faith in its founder but I know from studying Buddhist epistemology that isn't entirely true for most Buddhists. Trust in the Buddha's realization is central to most Mahayana epistemologies. And I suspect it's behind Theravadan's implicit epistemology as well. I mean, you are basically doing that, by assuming that the Buddhist presuppositions about the world are true, that there really is such a thing as suffering (a Vedantist would deny this, and say it's an illusion, after all), because Siddartha Gauthama really did experience Nirvana. That bit is really taken on faith among Buddhists.

Experience is the source of your knowledge. I can't argue with that. But it also seems your experience is closed off to the possibility that the Gospel is true, that Jesus really did rise from the grave, because you are unwilling to look at historical evidence, and you seem to embrace an irrational skepticism towards human knowledge.

One thing is for sure, that methodology doesn't work in science, why do you assume it is useful for understanding the rest of the world, including spiritual truths?

 

[ananda]

This puts me in mind of my training in psychology. Everything for the Buddhist is based on negative reinforcement, apparently, with no possibility of positive reinforcement?

Not that I consider western psychology as the bottom line of everything. But some of the theories do work well in practice.

I'm not looking to argue though.

I would not say that "everything for the Buddhist is based on negative reinforcement". What I would say is that everything mankind does is always in relation to the continuum of dukkha-sukkha. We are always working to move away from the negative polarity (dukkha), towards the positive polarity (sukkha). The sukkha polarity is ultimately dissatisfying, in the sense that even experiences which bring us sukkha eventually ends.

 

[FireDragon76]

What if there is a positive experience that cannot end? That right there is the appeal of God, the beatific vision.

If you grew up in a fundamentalist Christian church or that's all you're familiar with, you might not get this point as obvious.

 

[ananda]

OK, in your experience, Buddhism is not based on faith in its founder but I know from studying Buddhist epistemology that isn't entirely true for most Buddhists. Trust in the Buddha's realization is central to most Mahayana epistemologies. And I suspect it's behind Theravadan's implicit epistemology as well.

I practice neither Mahayana, Theravada, nor Tibetan Buddhisms, so I cannot speak for their disciples. The assertions I read from the earliest Buddhist texts, and also as reflected in my personal experience with Reality, deviates what these three branches teach (as I personally understand them).

I mean, you are basically doing that, by assuming that the Buddhist presuppositions about the world are true, that there really is such a thing as suffering (a Vedantist would deny this, and say it's an illusion, after all), because Siddartha Gauthama really did experience Nirvana. That bit is really taken on faith among Buddhists

IMO the genius of Gotama's Dhamma is that it is progressive and graduated - it is a map with multiple waymarkers. With the map (Dhamma) in hand, the Path (Eightfold) is to be traveled (practiced). The waymarkers, personally experienced, confirms for the disciple that he is indeed progressively unbinding & decreasing his own dukkha. By extrapolation, I can conceive how it leads to and ends in the ultimate unbinding (nibbana), like a man who can see that the road he's on indeed leads to the top of a mountain, even though he has not reached it yet.

Experience is the source of your knowledge. I can't argue with that. But it also seems your experience is closed off to the possibility that the Gospel is true, that Jesus really did rise from the grave, because you are unwilling to look at historical evidence, and you seem to embrace an irrational skepticism towards human knowledge.

I'm not closed off to the claims of the Gospels. I am merely stating that I cannot know those claims for myself, whereas I can know (and have known) the Dhamma for myself. I am agnostic to the Christian message.

One thing is for sure, that methodology doesn't work in science, why do you assume it is useful for understanding the rest of the world, including spiritual truths?

The Buddhist message deals strictly with that which is positively known, in the here-and-now. We know dukkha, and the cessation of dukkha. Is there any spiritual search besides the question regarding the cessation of dukkha?

 

[ananda]

What if there is a positive experience that cannot end? That right there is the appeal of God, the beatific vision.

The unending bliss would be nibbana (total unbinding). This assertion is based on my experience of lower levels of unbinding, as I wrote in my prior post.

I have no experience of an almighty, intelligent, personal Creator.

If you grew up in a fundamentalist Christian church or that's all you're familiar with, you might not get this point as obvious.

I've had experience in mainstream, conservative, and evangelical Christian churches.

 

[dlamberth]

Why do people seek "God"?

To find myself.

 

[ananda]

To find myself.

Why do you wish to find yourself?

 

[TheOldWays]

What if there is a positive experience that cannot end? That right there is the appeal of God, the beatific vision.

Sounds like an extremely common religious idea.

 

[dlamberth]

Why do you wish to find yourself?

A question that I ask constantly is: What does it mean to be a more fully human, Human Being? That in a nutshell is the heart of my spiritual path. I'm hoping that my answer to your question makes sense.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would not say that "everything for the Buddhist is based on negative reinforcement". What I would say is that everything mankind does is always in relation to the continuum of dukkha-sukkha. We are always working to move away from the negative polarity (dukkha), towards the positive polarity (sukkha). The sukkha polarity is ultimately dissatisfying, in the sense that even experiences which bring us sukkha eventually ends.

Not to be argumentative, and I may not have made my point well, but in a way, you just proved it.

What I mean is that what you describe (everything motivated by negative reinforcement - which means the ceasing of something experienced as negative becomes the motive for behavior) is essentially viewing all of human behavior in terms of negative reinforcement?

When I offered the statement that I was being drawn TO God, and increasing something in the positive sense, you replied with the view that it was still removal of negative.

And actually, from a Christian perspective, I would agree with much of what you say. Outside of Christ (and even for some believers), people are often moving from one thing to another, trying to fill a void of sorts, disatisfaction. They try one thing, then another, only to find that sooner or later, they all become unsatisfying. That is the nature of trying to fulfill our desires/needs apart from God.

I think people are made for something better though - a filling of the good, not just a constant emptying of the bad.

Forgive me please if anything I have said sounds argumentative or critical. I'm enjoying the discussion and the chance to think about things from a different perspective.

 

[ananda]

A question that I ask constantly is: What does it mean to be a more fully human, Human Being? That in a nutshell is the heart of my spiritual path. I'm hoping that my answer to your question makes sense.

Why do you wish to answer that question?

 

[ananda]

This article might be illuminating, particularly because Newman, like you, starts off with experience as his epistemology. It shows how it is reasonable to believe in something without proof:
http://strangenotions.com/real-rational-religion/

With his argument, belief in Islam and Allah would just be as reasonable.

He interprets conscience in terms of a "Supreme Law-Giver". I do not interpret it; I see conscience as conscience. Questions as to "where it comes from", "how", etc. are ultimately unanswerable.

From another perspective: some interpret and explain "love" in terms of "God" or "Jesus" too. Others interpret "love" in terms of Krishna, or of Aphrodite, etc. I say "love" should be perceived simply and straightforwardly as "love", without trying to answer unanswerable questions about it.

 

[ananda]

Not to be argumentative, and I may not have made my point well, but in a way, you just proved it.

What I mean is that what you describe (everything motivated by negative reinforcement - which means the ceasing of something experienced as negative becomes the motive for behavior) is essentially viewing all of human behavior in terms of negative reinforcement?

When I offered the statement that I was being drawn TO God, and increasing something in the positive sense, you replied with the view that it was still removal of negative.

And actually, from a Christian perspective, I would agree with much of what you say. Outside of Christ (and even for some believers), people are often moving from one thing to another, trying to fill a void of sorts, disatisfaction. They try one thing, then another, only to find that sooner or later, they all become unsatisfying. That is the nature of trying to fulfill our desires/needs apart from God.

I think people are made for something better though - a filling of the good, not just a constant emptying of the bad.

Forgive me please if anything I have said sounds argumentative or critical. I'm enjoying the discussion and the chance to think about things from a different perspective.

I've enjoyed your posts, I have seen none of them as argumentative or critical. My personal reasons for this thread is to expand my own understanding; I hope I haven't been (too) argumentative or critical either.

I agree that we were meant for something better - it's just that we perceive that "ultimate good" differently. You perceive that ultimate good as "God", whereas I perceive it as "nibbana".

The core issue for me is that, since Christianity is based on blind faith, it appears to be diametrically opposed to the idea of a graduated Path through which one can progressively gain greater, direct perceptions/experience/knowledge of God. On the other hand, the Buddhist Path promises (and delivers, for me) such a graduated Path towards cessation of dukkha & realization of nibbana.

 

[dlamberth]

Why do you wish to answer that question?

"To find myself."

Sorry, I'm really not intentionally trying to be circular. But the more I look for God, the more I awaken...the more I find myself. But also in another way of looking at it, in my experiences with Buddhism one tends to find one's self there as well as they also become more human, Human Beings. I think the Eight-Fold path clearly leads in that direction.

 

[ananda]

"To find myself."

Sorry, I'm really not intentionally trying to be circular. But the more I look for God, the more I awaken...the more I find myself. But also in another way of looking at it, in my experiences with Buddhism one tends to find one's self there as well as they also become more human, Human Beings. I think the Eight-Fold path clearly leads in that direction.

Would you say you would suffer, or experience discontentment, if you do not walk the path to find yourself?

 

[ToBeLoved]

The unending bliss would be nibbana (total unbinding). This assertion is based on my experience of lower levels of unbinding, as I wrote in my prior post.

I have no experience of an almighty, intelligent, personal Creator.

I've had experience in mainstream, conservative, and evangelical Christian churches.

Why must the feeling you think described be bliss? It could just being that enveloped in love as to give one comfort and peace.

The real God offers love and peace.

 

[ananda]

Why must the feeling you think described be bliss? It could just being that enveloped in love as to give one comfort and peace.

To me, the word "bliss" describes a state of unattachment, being unconditioned, and integral to the idea of unbinding, with nibbana being the ultimate unbinding. By being less attached to things, I've already experienced progressively higher levels of bliss.

The word "love", IMO, has connotations of attachment and condition: e.g. one being loving (attached to) another being or thing.

Love is surely a high attainment in early Buddhism (associated with the first jhanic plane), but it is not considered the highest attainment. There is a measure of dukkha when love isn't reciprocated (attachment fulfilled). I see no such issue with bliss.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Sounds like an extremely common religious idea.

Maybe it looks that way on the surface, that it is common. But Christianity is anything but a common religion.

 

[ToBeLoved]

To me, the word "bliss" describes a state of unattachment, being unconditioned, and integral to the idea of unbinding, with nibbana being the ultimate unbinding. By being less attached to things, I've already experienced progressively higher levels of bliss.

In Christianity we do our Father's will. God's will, which is not exactly tied to the person but in God's overall plan coming to fruition.

This bliss is in who we are in Jesus Christ and God in general.

We are children of the King. Adopted, but Children. We are co-pertakers now of the will of the living God being done on this earth as we speak. We are part of a family and we are heirs of Christ and co-heirs to the Father. We participate, not just watch.

We participate in and are part of God's plan for all mankind.

 

[Rajni]

Actually, I can see how some Buddhist approaches could facilitate one's
walk with the Lord through techniques for getting negative mental "noise"
out of the way so that one can focus more fully on communing with God.
If that makes sense. Like that whole "taking every thought captive" thing I
mentioned earlier. Again, though, I'm getting that more from modern
teachers on the subject who seem to draw from Eastern influences.

-