On God and Spirituality

IN terms of the discussion we were having previously, I don't differ with this much. My use of the word God was offhand, and you called me on it legitmately.

I would kind of take issue with the idea that buddhism has no god, though. When I have talked with Buddhists, it is almost like they substitute 'God' with a universal spirit, an "everything". I mean, there has to be a guiding force, a system as it were. True, most don't personify it, but is there a fundamental difference?

There are still rules, something, even if it is a system instead of a mandate, and it still punishes us for our wrongs. I suppose most Buddhists would take issue with "punishment" and prefer it just to be thought of as consequences, but I have heard the same thing come from Christians, in that the rules, "the Word" as it were, is really the scale we are wieghed on and the consequences are really out of God's hands because of free will.

I guess that is why I tend to use the word God so loosely. To me, there is little difference, though to some there is. I wonder if we could really slide into someone else's shoes, how much real, tangible difference there is between a system of Karma and a personified God.

I would kind of take issue with the idea that buddhism has no god, though. When I have talked with Buddhists, it is almost like they substitute 'God' with a universal spirit, an "everything". I mean, there has to be a guiding force, a system as it were. True, most don't personify it, but is there a fundamental difference?

I think there is a fundamental difference, simply because the guiding force, or system, that a Buddhist follows is derived from a person no different than you or I. The way I understand Christianity, the "system" is a set of guidelines handed down by God which tell us how we should live. In Buddhism, the "system" is a set of guidelines written down by a man who, at the time when he wrote them, was no more enlightened than anybody else.

For the most part, I agree with your statement about God and an universal spirit. However, I do not think they are interchangeable. Instead, I think the position that God occupies for Christians is occupied by the universal spirit for Buddhists. The difference, I think, is that no matter how closely a Christian person follows God's system, that person will never be God. The person will be saved, and accepted into Heaven, but will always remain a separate entity from God. In Buddhism, an enlightened person who has managed to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth, effectively becomes a part of that universal spirit. Any one of us, through hard work and dedication, can be part of the universal spirit. That's why I think this is a prime example of spirituality without a God.

There are still rules, something, even if it is a system instead of a mandate, and it still punishes us for our wrongs. I suppose most Buddhists would take issue with "punishment" and prefer it just to be thought of as consequences, but I have heard the same thing come from Christians, in that the rules, "the Word" as it were, is really the scale we are wieghed on and the consequences are really out of God's hands because of free will.

Even if the consequences are out of God's hands, it is still He that established them. I think the difference lies in that the rules, when mandated by God, are not suggestions, they are laws, and laws are, in effect, threats. A mandate from God is the equivalent of a ruler saying "Do x, or y will happen." The rules of Buddhism are, as you pointed out, a system, not a mandate. They are not laws handed down by a superior, they are suggestions offered by people who have gone through what you're going through. Since these people did not establish the consequences, they are not threatening you with them. They are simply telling you what they are.

I wonder if we could really slide into someone else's shoes, how much real, tangible difference there is between a system of Karma and a personified God.

Like I said before, in my opinion, the difference lies in that once you establish a personified God, you are establishing a being whose level cannot be attained. No matter how well we live, we will never be on equal footing with God. With a system of Karma, employing a universal spirit, living a good life ensures a spot on the uppermost rung of the ladder.

I agree with you, but looking at Christianity from within I see a lot of the same "vibe", though the words are different. I don't know many people who really think of God as a big guy with a beard anymore. I think the personification, the anthropomorphism is quickly becoming a thing of the past, held to mostly by apologists.

I dunno, maybe it is a matter of how we view religious authority in our brains. Maybe buddhists see it more as a sense of place, or of event, than entity. No, Christians for the most part don't believe that we can *be* God, and that is a big difference. I think the idea of Heaven is something very few Christians will ever agree on, though, and for some it might not be that much different than the concept of achieving Nirvana. God personified, Heaven as place or non-place, you probably get what I mean.

It's hard to describe, but there is something deeper, and a lot more alien, about the Christian concept of God than comes across in the translation. We make sense of the abstract by likening it to what we know. I think Buddhists left it more abstract, and Christians have centuries of people who wanted to foist authoritarianism in the name of "King" to thank for most of our modern anthropomorphism.

I think to many people, myself included, though, we aren't that much different. I can't see God as a person, or even as an 'entity' as we would define Him. The omnipresent, omniscient, omnipowerful aspects of God fly in the face of such, and our apparently boundless amounts of free will bruise the idea of regal authority.

This is a lot of talk for no disagreement, but I am just trying to get across that while one guy may see a forest as a system, and someone else names it and talks to it while they walk in it, it is still a forest, nonetheless. I think it is different ways of getting our heads around the same thing.

I dunno, maybe it is a matter of how we view religious authority in our brains

I think this is very true. Insightful, even.

.

By the way, are we agreeing on something? Great Ezekiel's Ghost!!! Maybe the Cubs will win the World Series after all...

In Buddhism, the "system" is a set of guidelines written down by a man who, at the time when he wrote them, was no more enlightened than anybody else.

If you're referring to the Buddha's "system," he never wrote it down, but at the time he passed it on verbally, he WAS "enlightened." After he died, a great many got together and rehearsed what they considered "acceptable" copy of his teachings (which he taught while fully enlightened.) This teaching was passed on verbally for some 400 years before being written down, so if you were not referring to the Buddha himself, then you are correct. The man that ultimately did the first writing was likely not enlightened at the time.

As a Buddhist, my understanding is that Buddhism, as a religion, has no deity figure nor anything that abstract or otherwise could be described as a deity.

The closest thing to it would be the Buddha himself, but since that same Buddha was pretty adamant about making sure everyone knew he was just a man like any other, this makes it tough to call him a deity-like being.

In my experience it isn't that Buddhists have an abstract concept of deity, it's that a deity is not required to validate their beliefs. All that is required for Buddhist doctrine to make sense is thought, so it isn't that they don't have one, or that they do have one, it's that the existence of a deity is unnecessary and serves no purpose.

Perhaps Chak will show up and say that better than I have. I hope so

Excellent, and very thought provoking.  Your spirit is what Freud called the Id.  And I have no problem with that.  But yes, I am one of those button-holed christians (and in this case, I do not mind the stereotype as it is exactly true), so I see it as a part of God that is in me.

By the way, are we agreeing on something? Great Ezekiel's Ghost!!! Maybe the Cubs will win the World Series after all...

But while you and Baker had a very interesting dialogue (and you were agreeing), there aint a snowball's chance in hell of he Cubs winning!  We have already had the miracle of the 21st century last year when the Bosox won!

I enjoyed your perspective. My own concept of spirituality is that, contrary to religion, it is a personal rather than a shared experience. I see a need for both in my life. My spirituality is the result of my need for direction and strength in my life. In my case I get that strength and direction from God. Prayer and/or meditation seem to be necessary requirements.

To me, my spirit is that part of me that seeks God, that yearning for reunification, for wholeness, for completion.

A definition of spirit I believe I overlooked. Thanks for pointing it out.

The closest thing to it would be the Buddha himself, but since that same Buddha was pretty adamant about making sure everyone knew he was just a man like any other, this makes it tough to call him a deity-like being.

I think this is the main point that I was trying to make, but you made it a lot better than I.

Your spirit is what Freud called the Id.

Finally! I have a name for it!

My spirituality is the result of my need for direction and strength in my life. In my case I get that strength and direction from God.

I think this is what LW said too, and a possibility that I overlooked. As I understand it, you're saying that you need God for strength and direction, and that need is what begets your spirituality, so in essence, your spirituality is the medium you use in order to get strenght and direction from God. Is that right?

As I understand it, you're saying that you need God for strength and direction, and that need is what begets your spirituality, so in essence, your spirituality is the medium you use in order to get strenght and direction from God. Is that right?

I am not answering for the poster, just for myself.  But my Spirit is not the medium, but the essence.  I can deny it, and live a life of evil. Or I can embrace it (while falling off the wagon on occassion) and live a good life.

But that is another interesting insight.

As I understand it, you're saying that you need God for strength and direction, and that need is what begets your spirituality, so in essence, your spirituality is the medium you use in order to get strenght and direction from God. Is that right?

Yes, and more. Spirituality shows me not only how I am connected to God, but also with others. I become more willing to identify with others and less apt to compare.

For example, when I am disturbed most by a weakness or character defect in someone, it is often because I recognize that problem unconsciously in myself. When I recognize the need to change that problem in myself, I begin a process of positive change.

By the same token, if someone's behaviour is harmful to themselves or to others, if I truly identify with and love them, I should not protect them from the natural consequences of their behaviour, merely to selfishly obtain their approval.

not the medium, but the essence

Yes, I'd have to agree. Sorry, I can't resist: maybe the "medium is the message" - Marshal McLuhan

Yes, I'd have to agree. Sorry, I can't resist: maybe the "medium is the message" - Marshal McLuhan

Do not appologize!  Your response was very thought prevoking.  And of course the quote is very ironic too.

Perhaps Chak will show up and say that better than I have. I hope so

No, I certainly couldn't put it more simply clearly and concisely than you did.

One thing though that I would like to share. I live in South Korea, a traditionally Buddhist country where christian missionaries have been spectacularly successful - so much so that christians now outnumber buddhists in the country. For many Koreans Christianity has become synonymous with progress and modernity, and Buddhism with a poor and primitive rural past.

Koreans are therefore very interested in finding a westerner so interested in Buddhism and will often ask me, "How long have you believed in Buddha?"

This question cuts to the heart of (my perception) of a huge difference in the two religions, because I don't believe in Buddha at all! As westerners with a christian heritage, we tend to understand religion in terms of belief - an intuitive assent to the logically unprovable. A key part of worship in many christian denominations is a collective recital of a 'creed'. I am of a fairly sceptical turn of mind and I do not feel that I can assent to something that I do not know, even though I can understand intellectually the existential benefit of doing so.

For me, Buddhism is more akin to mathematics, thermal dynamics, social studies, music or the Chinese language - it is a field of study. Particularly in the Zen tradition, followers of the way are often referred to as 'zen students' rather than zen believers or zen devotees. And yet it is also more than that, because it is a generalised study (the 'great question of life and death'). As the great Zen teacher Dogen put it:

To study the Way is to study the self.
To study the self is to forget the self.
To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things.
To be enlightened by all things is to remove the barriers between one's self and others.

Older cultures were very good at distinguishing between 'knowledge' and 'wisdom'. Wisdom is more than an a collection of facts or data that we have picked up along the way, it is the hard-won 'attainment' of a truth. The distinction helps to explain why even when we have 'learnt' some moral teaching or philosophical truth we continue to fall over and make the same old mistakes. We've increased our knowledge, but not yet increased our wisdom. That's why books, concepts and words have a place in this study, but the heart of the practice is meditation.

Buddhism's unique perspective is that each of us has to attain wisdom for ourselves. No one can do it for us - not even a Buddha, although he can point out the path. Attainment is not helped by assenting to what we do not yet understand. At one point, according to the Buddhist writings, the Buddha was teaching and he turned to one of his listeners and asked him, "Sariputta, do you believe this teaching?" Sariputta replied, "No, I don't believe it yet". The Buddha replied, "Good, good, Sariputta. A wise person doesn't readily believe, he should consider first before believing".

I don't doubt that I have misunderstood much of what I have learnt, but I have misunderstood it in my own way. Of course, other wiser people can act as teachers or helpers on the way, especially by showing me any obvious folly, but in the end I am simply left with the last advice of the dying Sakyamuni: "work out your own salvation with diligence".

No, I certainly couldn't put it more simply clearly and concisely than you did.

This time I happily disagree with you. You certainly did come along and put it all very clearly indeed. Thanks

Nicely written. I create my own beliefs, but I usually find out someone else came up with the idea a long time ago first. This doesn't bother me, I prefer to come up with the ideas myself.

I create my own beliefs... I prefer to come up with the ideas myself.

Interesting. I find a lot of people nowadays think this way about spiritual matters. I suppose it depends on whether you see human spirituality as akin to science or art. If you think of it as being like 'science', then it seems to me to be a waste of effort to try to re-invent the wheel, when we already have a host of religious Einsteins who have been there before us. On the other hand, if you think of it more as a kind of 'art', then, yes, your own personal creativity is what really matters.

This idea of 'coming up with the ideas myself' is a very western, individualistic notion, fed by a fierce suspicion of 'authority' and a democratic belief that my ideas are just as good as anyone else's. That's not a bad thing: there are plenty of good reasons (and some bad ones) to be suspicious of authority. And aren't we all entitled to an opinion?

This is also my cultural background, but, living in Korea, I am also inevitably being influenced by the Asian ideas around me. At first I dismissed Asian notions of authority as coming from a 'less-advanced' patriarchal culture, and the 'group mentality' as springing from a lack of healthy individualism. While I still partially subscribe to this critique, I also see it as an incomplete understanding, and therefore incompletely true. I have also learned that there are actually good reasons to submit to genuine authorities and to see a harmonisation of viewpoints as being just as useful as individual assertiveness.

My suspicion is that people choose their own spiritual beliefs because ultimately they don't really believe in them anyway. Very few people choose their own beliefs about brain surgery or flying a 747; they are more than happy to rely on experts.

Anyway, what is not in doubt is that, whatever 'beliefs' you have, self-selected or from a 'religious authority', the path itself is something you have to walk yourself, no-one can do it for you.

This idea of 'coming up with the ideas myself' is a very western, individualistic notion, fed by a fierce suspicion of 'authority' and a democratic belief that my ideas are just as good as anyone else's.

I think what Champas was saying is that right thinking should produce right answers and that he/she has been validated by the "spiritual experts" post facto on occasion. Champas prefers to do the work instead of riding on the coattails of others' spiritual work.

Do I have the right of that, Champas?

I applaud anyone that endeavors to "work out the spiritual math" on their own. Some might argue there isn't another genuine way to do it.

My suspicion is that people choose their own spiritual beliefs because ultimately they don't really believe in them anyway.

I'd disagree here. I think someone who searches for their own spiritual path believes in spirituality as much as, if not more than, people who take someone else's word for it. To me, searching for your own spirtitual belief says that spirituality is so important to you, that you want so desperately to get it right, that you won't accept what anyone else says. It's something that you have to do, because you can't allow yourself to be wrong because you've trusted someone else about it. We trust the experts about brain surger and the 747 because they are trained in those areas and we are not. Everyone can think, however, and there is no excuse not to.

This is not to say that people who base their spiritual beliefs on religion are less spiritual. I think that, regardless of wether your spirituality is based on religion or individual thought, everyone searches for their own spiritual belief. The important part of spirituality, in my opinion, is not the starting point, but the journey. Someone who decides on their own individual spirituality, and follows it without thought, is just as bad as someone who accepts a religion's spirituality and follows it without thought. I'd argue that neither the former nor the latter really "believes" in it. I think regardless of the basis of your spirituality, you must spend time thinking about it, and about what it means to you, and through this process everyone finds their own way.

I applaud anyone that endeavors to "work out the spiritual math" on their own

Someone who decides on their own individual spirituality, and follows it without thought, is just as bad as someone who accepts a religion's spirituality and follows it without thought.

Yes, this is all good and I may have to think again about what I have said. However, I still think that there is an important 'collective' aspect to the path that westerners are more inclined to ignore than others because of our more individualistic culture.

The phrase 'organised religion' can make some people shudder. It's usually the thing people have in mind when blaming 'religion' for all the ills of the world: those vast spiritual conglomerates of the good, the bad and the indifferent, lorded over by authoritarian (rather than authoritative) figures. And that's without getting into the whole area of 'cults'. Nevertheless, I think it can be very difficult to follow a path and have a spiritual practice without the help, advice and support of others.

Still, I guess there are all kinds of 'collectives' nowadays and why shouldn't the religion forum on JoeUser be just as helpful as any church or sangha?