Why seek "God"?

[ananda]

bliss implies intelligence.

Why, and how?

 

[ananda]

we seek god because we seek our perfection and you cannot reach perfection until we believe in the true god...well who makes you think that god of Buddhists don't believe in the true god as Christians muslims and jews??? there is one god for all people....even Buddhist believe in god so what cant this god be ours??
god is the image of mercy beauty and compassion ..the god whom you worship maybe same as ours

The gods are subject to the round of rebirth (samsara) in early Buddhism. Yes, gods are seen as possessing exceeding long lives, lasting into the aeons, but they are not eternal - although it is said that some (delusionally) believe that they are.

The Arahants, Pacceka-Buddhas, and Buddhas, who purportedly transcended samsara, are considered superior to the gods.

 

[Noxot]

Why, and how?

name one thing that has bliss that is not an intelligence

 

[ananda]

name one thing that has bliss that is not an intelligence

Buddhas & the Arahats, supposedly.

Intelligence involves reasoning, choice, and volition. With the absence of volition necessary for choice, there is no need for intelligence. Reaching nibbana requires abandonment of even intelligence; those experiencing the bliss of nibbana is said to possess no volition or choice at all.

 

[Noxot]

Buddhas & the Arahats, supposedly.

Intelligence involves reasoning, choice, and volition.Without choice or the need to choose, there is no need for intelligence. Reaching nibbana requires abandonment of even intelligence; those experiencing the bliss of nibbana is said to possess no volition or choice at all.

arahats and buddhas are people. how did other people learn what they experienced if they had "no reasoning, choice, and volition"? imo they are describing spiritual states that are true but people stumble over what they say.

 

[ananda]

arahats and buddhas are people. how did other people learn what they experienced if they had "no reasoning, choice, and volition"? imo they are describing spiritual states that are true but people stumble over what they say.

Intelligence, reasoning, choice, and volition are simply tools used to transcend attachment. They are gradually abandoned once higher spiritual states are achieved.

I think Thanisarro Bhikkhu explained it nicely in his book The Wings to Awakening:

"... skillfulness leads ultimately to a dimension where skillfulness is transcended, accounts for a paradoxical dynamic ... the meditator must intentionally make use of qualities from which he/she wants to escape, gaining familiarity with them in the course of mastering them to the point where they are naturally stilled. There the transcendent paths and their fruitions take over. This is the sense in which even the path of right practice must eventually be abandoned, but only after it has been brought to the culmination of its development."​

 

[Noxot]

the idea that intelligence came about like scum comes about on a rock is a modern atheistic view whos ultimate conclusion is "annihilation of the self" which I think is one reason why atheist often adopt Buddhism (seeing that they are so similar). the only real difference is that in Buddhism you have to go through a long and drawn out process of "what you don't want to be to be what you are". I prefer the simple atheistic idea of "destruction upon death" because it is a much quicker way to be "enlightened" aka "not existing" which apparently is what ultimate enlightenment is to Buddhist.

unless you are saying "not this" or "come up higher" forever which still implies that reality is reality and that humans don't seem to get what reality is. but it is that otherwise it would not be in the first place.

 

[ananda]

the idea that intelligence came about like scum comes about on a rock is a modern atheistic view whos ultimate conclusion is "annihilation of the self"

This does not sound like anything early Buddhism teaches. A tenet of early Buddhism is that we do not speculate on what cannot be known. We seek neither annihilation of the self, nor the continuance of it:

"he attends inappropriately in this way ... The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self" (MN 2, Sabbasava Sutta).​

which I think is one reason why atheist often adopt Buddhism (seeing that they are so similar).

Atheism is not at all similar to early Buddhism, IMO. Agnosticism may be called similar, perhaps, in many ways.

IMO atheism is more similar to later redevelopments: neo-Buddhisms like sanitized, westernized Zen.

the only real difference is that in Buddhism you have to go through a long and drawn out process of "what you don't want to be to be what you are". I prefer the simple atheistic idea of "destruction upon death" because it is a much quicker way to be "enlightened" aka "not existing" which apparently is what ultimate enlightenment is to Buddhist.

Not at all. It's not about "not existing". It's about dukkha/discontentment/displeasure/suffering.

We perceive that we experience dukkha in the here-and-now. We also perceive the Law of Kamma in operation (cause & effect), so we do not assume that physical death resolves all dukkha. Therefore we work to resolve dukkha, in the here-and-now, and to prevent future dukkha from arising.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am reminded of the Zen saying, "If you truly seek understanding, then first, empty your cup". Unless a person is willing to let go of rehashed dogmas about reality and engage with other peoples perspectives seriously, then I'm afraid this goes nowhere and we have a debate rather than a real discussion.

 

[FireDragon76]

I didn't mean that to be amusing. I genuinely feel I am talking to a closed mind here. You speak of direct experience, well, I've had it enough to convince me . And hence the impasse. If we disregard the existence of an objective world, as Buddhism often does, there is simply no way for either of us to have anything to refer to as a common experience of reality and ultimately nothing to discuss. Because after all, our experiences are only our own unless we are willing to be open to the experience of others. So why be disingenuous and ask "Why seek God?" if you only seek to defeat our perspectives?

 

[ananda]

I didn't mean that to be amusing. I genuinely feel I am talking to a closed mind here. You speak of direct experience, well, I've had it enough to convince me . And hence the impasse. If we disregard the existence of an objective world, as Buddhism often does, there is simply no way for either of us to have anything to refer to as a common experience of reality and ultimately nothing to discuss.

The objective world is largely irrelevant, because all of it is ultimately experienced subjectively; it is the subjective which experiences dukkha.

In other words, everything in the objective world are simply various iterations of the root problem - dukkha. It's more fruitful to address the root of the weed, instead of constantly snipping away at its leaves and offshoots.

Because after all, our experiences are only our own unless we are willing to be open to the experience of others. So why be disingenuous and ask "Why seek God?" if you only seek to defeat our perspectives?

I constantly seek verifiable answers. I haven't many in this thread, besides the answer regarding mystical paths (and Buddhism can be called a mystical path).

 

[All_In]

We sek him because he made us. Evey search we seek is him drawing us to him. The truth is there.

 

[TheOldWays]

I genuinely feel I am talking to a closed mind here.

wow

 

[FireDragon76]

The objective world is largely irrelevant, because all of it is ultimately experienced subjectively; it is the subjective which experiences dukkha.

This bolded statement is the essence of a closed mind. You've just said you care little about the real world made of other people, you care more about individual experience and your own focus on suffering. You ask questions and then automatically shoot down the answers with religious platitudes that function as a priori assumptions that you are unwilling to challenge. You're just an inwardly focus person fascinated by your own feeling of inner peace, in the end. This is not truth-seeking. Truth seeking is challenging ourselves to grow beyond our present experiences, to even face uncomfortable truths about ourselves.

And that right there is why I find Christianity appealing. I believe reality fundamentally is an I-Thou relationship. It makes sense of my own experience and the experience of another, taking both seriously.

No, the Buddha was quite wrong. Life is not merely suffering. Life also is happiness, boredom, excitement, and dozens of other things, depending on your own perspective. Until you are willing to acknowledge that maybe the Buddha didn't have the last word on everything, I am afraid we may be talking in circles.

 

[ananda]

This bolded statement is the essence of a closed mind. You've just said you care little about the real world made of other people, you care more about individual experience and your own focus on suffering. You ask questions and then automatically shoot down the answers with religious platitudes that function as a priori assumptions that you are unwilling to challenge. You're just an inwardly focus person fascinated by your own feeling of inner peace, in the end. This is not truth-seeking. Truth seeking is challenging ourselves to grow beyond our present experiences, to even face uncomfortable truths about ourselves.

What is the purpose in "truth-seeking" and facing "uncomfortable truths about ourselves"?

And that right there is why I find Christianity appealing. I believe reality fundamentally is an I-Thou relationship. It makes sense of my own experience and the experience of another, taking both seriously.

What, do you suppose, is the end-purpose of that "I-Thou" relationship?

No, the Buddha was quite wrong. Life is not merely suffering. Life also is happiness, boredom, excitement, and dozens of other things, depending on your own perspective.

The Buddha, to my understanding, did not teach that life is merely suffering. He acknowledged that there were great pleasures to be had in this universe. He taught that those sufferings and pleasures in the universe are all incapable of permanently satisfying us (pleasures too, since they are not permanent), and that is the truth in my personal experience.

Until you are willing to acknowledge that maybe the Buddha didn't have the last word on everything, I am afraid we may be talking in circles.

I don't claim that the Buddha has the last word on everything. It's just that I personally know that his claims regarding the path as far as I've taken it are true. I haven't personally experienced the claims regarding the path ahead of me, so I am agnostic about that - for now.

 

[FireDragon76]

What is the purpose in facing "uncomfortable truths about ourselves"?

What, do you suppose, is the end-purpose of that "I-Thou" relationship?

Participation in the divine life as finite creatures. What that means exactly is something that ultimately must be experienced. That's one reason traditional Christians have a sacramental understanding of the faith, the sacraments point to this reality. This should mean we are growing in wisdom, holiness, and compassion as a result. Of course God is infinite in these attributes, so we can never be said to have arrived completely in this life. Every believer is a work in progress.

The Buddha, to my understanding, did not teach that life is merely suffering. He acknowledged that there were great pleasures to be had in this universe. He taught that all those sufferings and pleasures in the universe are all incapable of permanently satisfying us, and that is the truth in my personal experience.

Augustine said something similar about God. We were created by God and ultimately we are restless until we are re-united with him. Sin is what separates us from God and blinds us, and all of us are born into this state. Then, being blind spiritually, we devote ourselves to the things of the world rather than properly ordering our lives towards God.

This video is helpful at clarifying some things about the Christian life, from a perspective of a former Episcopalian monk who spent 20 years in a life dedicated to prayer :

It really is true we are holding some things in a dynamic tension or dialogue, particularly suffering. This is different than the static view of Nirvana in Buddhism. Love is dynamic.

 

[ananda]

Participation in the divine life as finite creatures. What that means exactly is something that ultimately must be experienced. That's one reason traditional Christians have a sacramental understanding of the faith, the sacraments point to this reality. This should mean we are growing in wisdom, holiness, and compassion. Of course God is infinite in these attributes, so we can never be said to have arrived completely in this life. Every believer is a work in progress.

Augustine said something similar about God. We were created by God and ultimately we are restless until we are re-united with him. Sin is what separates us from God and blinds us, and all of us are born into this state. Then, being blind spiritually, we devote ourselves to the things of the world rather than properly ordering our lives towards God.

This video is helpful at clarifying some things about the Christian life, from a perspective of a former Episcopalian monk who spent 20 years in a life dedicated to prayer :

It really is true we are holding some things in a dynamic tension or dialogue, particularly suffering. This is different than the static view of Nirvana in Buddhism. Love is dynamic.

You stated "ultimately we are restless" - so you are also seeking an eternal rest ... which is seemingly the end-purpose of your "I-Thou" relationship, and the reason to face uncomfortable truths.

I also seek that eternal rest, as a Buddhist.

I think our main difference is that I see the merit in systematically working towards that rest using observably efficacious methods employed in the here-and-now, instead of speculating about an unseen intelligence that is supposed to grant that to us.

P.S. Love is not the highest virtue, in Buddhism (as love involves attachment, and attachment involves dukkha). I'll put that video on my to-watch list.

 

[FireDragon76]

You stated "ultimately we are restless" - so you are also seeking an eternal rest ... which is seemingly the end-purpose of your "I-Thou" relationship, and the reason to face uncomfortable truths.

I also seek that eternal rest, as a Buddhist.

I see our destiny as potentially more than just eternal rest. In fact, having practiced Buddhism, including done a lot of meditation and experience a certain degree of peace through that, I don't think the experiences are necessarily the same, particularly in Theravada Buddhism, which has a static view of enlightenment and a "thin" worldview.

I think our main difference is that I see the merit in systematically working towards that rest using observably efficacious methods employed in the here-and-now, instead of speculating about an unseen intelligence that is supposed to grant that to us.

I don't see it as empty speculation. Up until recently there was a great deal of consensus in the western world that this was the truth about the human condition. It seems to me very arrogant to assume that now in the modern age we are free to just sweep that under the rug because we find it inconvenient or we are so in love with the idea of human progress. Humanistic Buddhism fits nicely with this paradigm, but it potentially indicates a lack of an appropriate amount of intellectual humility in the face of a past century of unprecedented violence, to make an idol of our own human abilities to find truth.

To be blunt, your approach seems like self-dosing with morphine, even though you don't a firm grasp on what the "disease", the human condition, ultimately is. My approach is more like putting my trust in a physician to ultimately cure the disease. And that trust is not unearned, it is not "blind faith" or fideism as far as I'm concerned. This is more about intersubjectivity than the subjectivity you are describing. It seems to me there is more wisdom actually in this approach, because it is willing to be open to the experience of other persons.

 

[habibii zahra]

most Buddhists don't worship gods as they don't see them as eternal.

well I am not familiar with the god of Buddhists but my doctrine as a muslim is that God is the god of all people...there is one god in the universe whom we should worship ..why can't this god be for everyone for Christians jews muslims and even Buddhists??

 

[toLiJC]

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.

i'm sorry to say, but the doctrine of dukkha is dumb, though it verges on the truth, because the real situation is that there is a struggle between the "Light" and the "darkness", good and evil, not (just) between having willingness/unwillingness and not having willingness/unwillingness, for if e.g. Jesus had no willingness to save people, He would hardly save anybody...

Blessings