Why seek "God"?

[ToBeLoved]

Why do people seek "God"?

Buddhism explains our search in terms of dukkha (aka suffering, discontentment, displeasure, etc.). That is, because of dukkha, we seek out god(s), saviors, prophets, psychics, doctors, politicians, love, food, money, sex, sleep, entertainment, etc.

Why not address dukkha itself, as the Lord Buddha taught, instead of seeking to treat its symptoms? Dig out the roots (of dukkha), instead of endlessly snipping its offshoots.

Huh?

Our lord tells us that one must not have sin to enter heaven. Our Lord is the Savior who takes away sin and reconciles mankind back to God through forgiven sin.

Personally I think ours makes way more sense then duhkka

 

[TheOldWays]

Personally I think ours makes way more sense then duhkka

It's a good thing there is so many various spiritual paths as it's quite clear people see things differently. I find duhkka a much better way to understand the human condition.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's a good thing there is so many various spiritual paths as it's quite clear people see things differently. I find duhkka a much better way to understand the human condition.

See that's the difference.

I have a personal relationship with the living God. Not a philosophy

Your philosophy after death will send you to hell. Seek Christ who died for all mankind. He wishes none too perish.

God is not a philosophy. But a living God.

 

[TheOldWays]

See that's the difference.

Indeed. Different people require different paths.

I have a personal relationship with the living God. Not a philosophy

I am glad for you. I don't like philosophies either. Waste of time.

Your philosophy after death will send you to hell. Seek Christ who died for all mankind. He wishes none too perish.

Your philosophy after death will send you back into the samsara for another rebirth. Seek Amida, who vowed to save all beings. He wishes none to be stuck in endless rebirth or sent to the hells.

God is not a philosophy. But a living God.

Whatever works for you good sir.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Indeed. Different people require different paths.



I am glad for you. I don't like philosophies either. Waste of time.



Your philosophy after death will send you back into the samsara for another rebirth. Seek Amida, who vowed to save all beings. He wishes none to be stuck in endless rebirth or sent to the hells.



Whatever works for you good sir.

Ok. End of discussion. I'll be moving along.

 

[ananda]

Ah, this is where the quote comes from.

In answer to your question, I was drawn to seek God from an early age. Peace has been a later result.

It was the early knowledge of and experience of God that produced the desire, and that desire has turned out to be greater than any other. Peace, joy, contentment, these things come as a result of relationship with God, gifts through His grace working in us. But it was the relationship I initially wanted. I didn't know in the earliest times to even hope for or expect the rest. They were, as I said, an added bonus. In my case, it would have been wrong if I had desired peace, joy, or contentment, and simply used God as a means to get them.

I hope that makes sense.

Yes, you gained something personally from your experience of God which produced your desire to seek God, is that correct?

 

[ananda]

Huh?

Our lord tells us that one must not have sin to enter heaven. Our Lord is the Savior who takes away sin and reconciles mankind back to God through forgiven sin.

Personally I think ours makes way more sense then duhkka

I understand the Christian dogma you pointed out, but unfortunately I have no way to verify it.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Well, it may not be pretty, but wouldn't you agree that everything we do is motivated by dukkha? It seems obvious to me. Can you point out the error in my analysis?

Dukkha doesn't only mean suffering; it also suggests discontentment, displeasure, pain, dissatisfaction. Discontentment brings motivation to do something, or change something, about it - activity. Contentment brings stillness and peace - inactivity.

However, spiritual exercise is only temporary alleviation of dukkha. As pointed out, suicide is the only effective method to avoid suffering.

The real predicament, the terminal tumour is the non effectiveness of ALL exercises. Only Christianity provides the definitive "cure", provable by a methodology acceptable to all.

 

[ananda]

However, spiritual exercise is only temporary alleviation of dukkha. As pointed out, suicide is the only effective method to avoid suffering.

The Buddha's Path has proven fruitful for me so far; his progressive spiritual exercises provide progressively greater relief from dukkha (and greater sukkha and bliss that goes far beyond anything that ordinary life offers), the further I advance.

The real predicament, the terminal tumour is the non effectiveness of ALL exercises. Only Christianity provides the definitive "cure", provable by a methodology acceptable to all.

What is this proof? and the methodology acceptable to everyone?

 

[FireDragon76]

Buddha is dead, Jesus is alive.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, you gained something personally from your experience of God which produced your desire to seek God, is that correct?

It wasn't so much what I gained, as it was wanting to be close to someone I met.

Have you ever met a person and really, really, REALLY liked them, wanted to be in their company? Not because of something you gained from it, but just because you love them. I suppose yes, there is pleasure in that, but it comes from the identity of the person you love.

But not because they give you some gifts, or favors. You just love who they are.

 

[Rajni]

I'm beginning to wonder if that's the case since I've read some of the Old Testament that I'd hardly call beautiful, loving, or wise. In fact I'd call it very much the opposite.

Many have written things about God, and not all that's written is very
flattering, that's for sure. I guess it depends on one's perception of
God going into it.

-

 

[Wordkeeper]

The Buddha's Path has proven fruitful for me so far; his progressive spiritual exercises provide progressively greater relief from dukkha (and greater sukkha and bliss that goes far beyond anything that ordinary life offers), the further I advance.


What is this proof? and the methodology acceptable to everyone?

Everything depends on how one understands the situation.

When Xerxes I was stopped by the Spartans at Thermopylae, it was because he had misunderstood the problem. He had always believed victory to be of winning by outnumbering. The real problem was that the valley would only allow limited numbers of his soldiers to enter, this allowing them to be taken on by the Greeks in manageable chunks. To overcome the unconventional strategy of the Greeks he had to understand it and use lateral thinking of his own. Knee jerk responses of throwing mass force at the seeming invincibility of the enemy does not always result in resolution. The enemy is not invincible. The situation is.

Similarly it's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking the human predicament is the presence of suffering. The problem is not suffering. The problem is futility.

Your solution rests on reducing the impact of suffering. However it does not address the problem of aimlessness. You say that the progressive reduction of suffering leads to a state of absence of suffering and increase in joyful experiences. However, sickness and death nullify all your achievements, reduce them to nil.

Quote
Animals live from day to day doing what their instincts tell them to do, enjoying whatever pleasures they can, giving no thought to the future, totally unaware of the pain, suffering and death that await them.

But man is acutely aware of the potential suffering he faces and of the inevitability of death, except to the extent that he can distract or deceive himself.

Moreover, this endless game of birth, growth, reproduction, suffering and death goes on and on, and as is true for all life on earth, the game is totally meaningless . It's not really going anywhere, and there are no real winners.

In the long run you're dead. Life is absurd.

It's a cruel joke of nature, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Man is the only creature that can appreciate the joke and realize that he has been thrown into a situation that is absurd, without meaning or purpose.

This is the human predicament.


whatisthehuman predicament - Google Search

 

[ananda]

Buddha is dead

What is the significance of that?

Jesus is alive.

What is your proof?

 

[ananda]

It wasn't so much what I gained, as it was wanting to be close to someone I met.

Have you ever met a person and really, really, REALLY liked them, wanted to be in their company? Not because of something you gained from it, but just because you love them. I suppose yes, there is pleasure in that, but it comes from the identity of the person you love.

But not because they give you some gifts, or favors. You just love who they are.

I agree; however, feelings of love towards another is a form of sukkha, and a type of relief from dukkha.

 

[ananda]

Everything depends on how one understands the situation.

Agreed.

...Similarly it's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking the human predicament is the presence of suffering. The problem is not suffering. The problem is futility ... Your solution rests on reducing the impact of suffering. However it does not address the problem of aimlessness. You say that the progressive reduction of suffering leads to a state of absence of suffering and increase in joyful experiences. However, sickness and death nullify all your achievements, reduce them to nil .... the game is totally meaningless . It's not really going anywhere, and there are no real winners ...

Is this your proof regarding the Christian "cure", with your methodology which is accepted by all?

Your suggestion regarding aimlessness involves various speculations about the future, things we cannot know for sure. The early Buddhist approach of dukkha is that it involves the here-and-now (current space, current time - the present moment), things we can know for sure. However, the latter is not aimless, in that it aims to resolve things we are aware of - in the present moment.

 

[FireDragon76]

What is your proof?

I think you are familiar with the evidence already. However, you seem confused about how much evidence is sufficient to justify belief. Even if there is only a small but reasonable possibility that Jesus is alive, that is better than the certainty that Buddha is dead.

 

[FireDragon76]

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/

 

[ananda]

I think you are familiar with the evidence already. However, you seem confused about how much evidence is sufficient to justify belief. Even if there is only a small but reasonable possibility that Jesus is alive, that is better than the certainty that Buddha is dead.

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).

 

[~Anastasia~]

I agree; however, feelings of love towards another is a form of sukkha, and a type of relief from dukkha.

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.