Blaming God or Religion or is it Both?

[TaraMaiden2]

He abandoned Hinduism this I understand. What I do not know is why he would search among other religions? I also don't understand how it is not shown that he wasn't influenced by Hinduism in framing his own view on things? maybe you can send me a private message explaining if you so desire, or explain here if you so desire.

 

 

 

 

In order to practice something wouldn't you have to believe? Such as Buddha became enlightened. Oh I thought there might be differences in some teachings between Theravada Buddhists and Mahayana Buddhists. There is no belief in an eternal Buddha or devas which I read is in the Pali Canon. I don't know and would like to know if its ok with you!

 

 

No I didn't read your post before I read and replied to post#61

 

Most Buddhists really don't care one way or the other. Coinjecture is a waste of time, as there is no an swer... But yes, generally speaking, they don't 'believe' in God. They don't need to.

 

 

 

 

So then I am not sure how a body dies at still has the achieved enlightenment obtained while on earth. what happens when enlightenment is not achieved? How can a person be outside of self without a spirit? If your outside of self how would you know?

 

 

Jainism, and monotheism. enlightenment is a state of change right/wrong? These religions believe in a state of change. enlightenment is gaining wisdom/knowledge right/wrong. These religions believe in gaining knowledge and wisdom. enlightenment is the relief of suffering right/wrong? Don't these religions desire the same relief of suffering through knowledge/wisdom? I know that is my belief. Don't these things need to take action to apply what is learned?

 

 

 

 

How is it pointless and futile?

 

 

 

 

Ok.

 

 

 

ok then what is actual enlightenment. I must have been greatly misinformed. correct me!

 

 

I must go to work now, but I will return to this thread later and respond to your points, more fully.

Some of the questions you ask, would take a month of sundays to respond to so expect two things: very simplistic answers, and answers from just one source of knowledge - mine. Other Buddhists may respond using different means at their disposal to clarify the questions you have raised.

 

See you later!

[digdug75]

I must go to work now, but I will return to this thread later and respond to your points, more fully.

Some of the questions you ask, would take a month of sundays to respond to so expect two things: very simplistic answers, and answers from just one source of knowledge - mine. Other Buddhists may respond using different means at their disposal to clarify the questions you have raised.

 

See you later!

 

If you have the time I would be grateful for your response! Thank you! If you prefer sending me a private message I have no problem with that either. I tend to go on tangents when discussing a subject. In my mind everything seems to relate in one way or another.

[Weezy1973]

If you have the time I would be grateful for your response! Thank you! If you prefer sending me a private message I have no problem with that either. I tend to go on tangents when discussing a subject. In my mind everything seems to relate in one way or another.

 

I love tangents! I like to tell myself they're a sign of intelligence...

[TaraMaiden2]

He abandoned Hinduism this I understand. What I do not know is why he would search among other religions?

He believed, before enlightenment, that the answer to Life's ordeals lay somewhere, within the Mind. Eastern Religions focus on mental attitude rather more than Christianity does, in the sense that much of the learnt Wisdom comes by being developed within, whereas in Christianity and other God-Based religions, we have a Deity 'out there' to whom we surrender all....

Siddharta Gautama was a nobleman, a prince, a High-born wealthy young man, who abandoned a life of luxury and privilege to seek a way to transcend the vagaries of Life's unfolding.

So he studied other callings to gain a bigger picture.

 

Remember, the Buddha wasn't Buddhist.

In fact, he wasn't 'anything'....

 

I also don't understand how it is not shown that he wasn't influenced by Hinduism in framing his own view on things? maybe you can send me a private message explaining if you so desire, or explain here if you so desire.

It is highly likely his early years were certainly influenced by Hinduism. However, he gradually found that Hinduism did not address some matters in a satisfactory way; Karma, for example, in Hinduism, was looked upon as a very fatalistic process, whereas the Buddha explains that -

 

'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...

 

 

 

 

In order to practice something wouldn't you have to believe?

'Believe' what?

 

if you're talking about 'Faith' then yes, in Buddhism we develop Faith - but not as defined by a Chritian Mind-set.

 

Faith, insofar as a God-led religion is concerned, involves a fair degree of Hope; a hope in the unseen, unfathomable, a belief that a Deity who is omnipotent and all-powerful is basically running the show.

 

Faith - in Buddhism - is more one of confidence; Confidence in researched and examined teachings that have stood both the test of time, and have been a solid foundation upon which to build one's practice.

 

Buddhists are exhorted to examine and verify everything they are taught, no matter who teaches it, for sound, logical, and undeniable Wisdom.

 

Such as Buddha became enlightened.

We accept that the Buddha (which merely means 'awakened One') did achieve Enlightenment, because his teachings are logical, infallible and True. In fact, his first teaching at Deer Park, consisting of the Four Noble Truths, hinges upon an

unarguable premise. hence the description 'Noble' which means 'True, incontestable and supreme.

 

 

Oh I thought there might be differences in some teachings between Theravada Buddhists and Mahayana Buddhists.

There are variations in practices and dedications, yes. In fact, I would say that the Four Noble Truths and the first 5 Precepts are the main commonalities. Certainly there are major differences between the schools....

 

There is no belief in an eternal Buddha or devas which I read is in the Pali Canon. I don't know and would like to know if its ok with you!

A mortal man cannot be eternal, but his teachings are perpetual.

 

So then I am not sure how a body dies at still has the achieved enlightenment obtained while on earth.

Enlightenment does not equal immortality.

Enlightenment is seeing Things as they Really are, which is temporary, impermanent, evanescent, fleeting and ephemeral.

 

what happens when enlightenment is not achieved?

 

Many Buddhists hold the premise that one is re-born. But not as a duplicate entity.

This is where it gets complicated...

Buddhists hold the premise that what continues is an energy, a stream of Consciousness. We are not recognisable as the beings we are at present, but it is hoped that with study and adhering to the Buddha's teachings, the next birth will be favourable and conducive towards approaching closer to a state of Enlightenment, through following the Eightfold Path.

 

How can a person be outside of self without a spirit? If your outside of self how would you know?

Forget 'spirit'. It's not a premise followed by Buddhists. The question is therefore irrelevant and unimportant. I'm not slighting it; it's just not a part of a Buddhist Mind-set.

 

 

Jainism, and monotheism. enlightenment is a state of change right/wrong?

It's a state of Mental elevation.

These religions believe in a state of change. enlightenment is gaining wisdom/knowledge right/wrong.

It's gaining Insight and Understanding.

 

These religions believe in gaining knowledge and wisdom. enlightenment is the relief of suffering right/wrong?

Enlightenment is the END of suffering. (And 'suffering' really is the wrong word. More and more, Buddhists are using the original Pali term, 'Dukkha' which was translated as 'suffering' by early translators and literarists reading the texts, because they aligned Life's experiences with the burdens supposedly carried by Christians (See 'Pilgrim's progress, Dante's Trilogy.)

 

Don't these religions desire the same relief of suffering through knowledge/wisdom?

Yes, but they do not place their suffering and ordeals at the foot of the cross.

They deal with it themselves. 'Sug=ffering' is not something we ask a Deity to relieve us from. Suffering is something we recofgnise WE create. And as its creators, we can also demolish it.

 

I know that is my belief. Don't these things need to take action to apply what is learned?

Yes, but by 'you', not by depending on a perceived external Source.

 

How is it pointless and futile?

Time pondering such things is wasted, pointless and futile, because there are other more urgent, pressing conditions which need to be pondered first.

 

When a man is struck by an arrow, he does not waste time pondering how wonderful the craftsmanship is, how straight the shaft, how elegant the plumes of the flights, how tempered the steel, how sharp the point.

All he wants to do is get the arrow out.

 

ok then what is actual enlightenment. I must have been greatly misinformed. correct me!

Enlightenment is seeing things as they really are. Dropping the veils of Illusion and Delusion, ridding one's self of Attachment, Clinging, Aversion, Hatred Desire and Greed.

Enlightenment is Understanding Suffering and its source, and ending Suffering theough recognition of why we create it in the first place.

[truncated]

Personally, part of the issue i have with Christianity is the notion that such a kind, loving and caring god who sees "each swallow fall" can allow such suffering in the world, and ignore some of the very commandments he expects others to live by.(e.g.- thou shalt not kill)

 

If he exists in the way the bible presents, he would fit the criteria of someone with anti social personality disorder...and I'm not trying to be rude or funny when I say that.

 

The only way|I could ever reconcile any sort of belief in christianity would be that the bible was written by humans, and therefore as full of foibles as any other human construct. We are, after all, not perfect, but we are expected to accept a human written document as being so?

 

If, as some say, it is a document that is not meant to be taken literally, but rather it is allegorical, then again, how am I to accept any human interpretation of its words? How do I know that interpretation is correct?

 

It's been interpreted to mean so many horrible things, from catholics justifying things like the actions of "bloody Mary", residential schools in Canada, tacitly accepting the rise of the Nazis in germany, etc. The protestants have got things like the salem which trials, residential schools, burning and beheading catholics, etc.

 

those who interpret the bible in other ways have Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Jim Jones, David Koresh, a variety of cults, the Ku Klux Klan , etc.

 

All use the bible to justify their actions, and if asked, all would say god approved of what they were doing.

[autumnnight]

Actually, just because something is in the Bible does not mean God approved of it. People use the whole Solomon had numerous wives thing to justify polygamy. NO.....that is just a retelling of history. Believe it or not, since humans have free will, even people in the Bible were capable of making bad choices.

 

Once sin entered the world, everything went wonky. It is sin that is to blame for suffering, not God. Unless we are God's puppets and he just makes everything like He wants....which people wouldn't like either because they don't want any "god: running their lives.

 

God is basically darned if He does and darned if He doesn't.

[truncated]

Actually, just because something is in the Bible does not mean God approved of it. People use the whole Solomon had numerous wives thing to justify polygamy. NO.....that is just a retelling of history. Believe it or not, since humans have free will, even people in the Bible were capable of making bad choices.

 

Once sin entered the world, everything went wonky. It is sin that is to blame for suffering, not God. Unless we are God's puppets and he just makes everything like He wants....which people wouldn't like either because they don't want any "god: running their lives.

 

God is basically darned if He does and darned if He doesn't.

 

the concept of "bad things happen to people because of free will" seems like a cop out. A newborn who suffers great pain form a health condition, a child abused by a parent, a person killed by a drunk driver, a senior who loses their life savings to a con artist swindler who steals their identity and cleans out their bank account, a guy killed by lightning while working in his field...how are any of these caused by "free will", yet they suffer and are punished for the sins someone supposedly committed thousands of years ago? If this is true, then god is not following his own words and forgiving. In fact, it could be said that he is holding one heck of a grudge.

 

As for the bible being a historical document, I don't believe that much either. It's been interpreted and charged too many times. It could have been something as innocent as a monk being tired, sick, or cold while working in poor lighting conditions who misread a word while transcribing it, to someone who purposely changed it when translating it from latin because they wanted to shift the balance of power, how can I accept that any of it is accurate?

 

to my way of thinking, it's more like Aesops Fables. It does have some good words of wisdom, but to accept that it's the word of god or a true historical account taken at a time when very few could read or write is really hard to accept.

 

This isn't based on hatred but rather logic. As I have said before, if someone uses their religion, whatever it may be, to do good in the world, then that's fine. The problem is that too many use it for an excuse to do horrible things.

[jay1983]

the concept of "bad things happen to people because of free will" seems like a cop out. A newborn who suffers great pain form a health condition, a child abused by a parent, a person killed by a drunk driver, a senior who loses their life savings to a con artist swindler who steals their identity and cleans out their bank account, a guy killed by lightning while working in his field...how are any of these caused by "free will", yet they suffer and are punished for the sins someone supposedly committed thousands of years ago? If this is true, then god is not following his own words and forgiving. In fact, it could be said that he is holding one heck of a grudge.

.

 

Well if the new born had healthy parents, then I inderstand, you've gotta point. But the rest of that is free will will. Someone chose to drink and drive, steal a senior citizens identity, guy didn't need to work that job during a lighting storm (I sure as hell wouldn't lol)

[bluegreen]

I believe in God

But I also believe that in my lifetime not even as many as 5 people like

5 fingers on my ✋ I have met

Have been true followers of Jesus. Muhammad's or Buddhas.

And that's huge difference between preaching thumping your chest and waving holly ? and FOLLOWING living God's word like any of above Would and Did including

Laws and Values to...

[digdug75]

He believed, before enlightenment, that the answer to Life's ordeals lay somewhere, within the Mind. Eastern Religions focus on mental attitude rather more than Christianity does, in the sense that much of the learnt Wisdom comes by being developed within, whereas in Christianity and other God-Based religions, we have a Deity 'out there' to whom we surrender all....

Siddharta Gautama was a nobleman, a prince, a High-born wealthy young man, who abandoned a life of luxury and privilege to seek a way to transcend the vagaries of Life's unfolding.

So he studied other callings to gain a bigger picture.

 

Remember, the Buddha wasn't Buddhist.

In fact, he wasn't 'anything'....

 

 

Thank you for clarifying. Not sure what you mean by God-based religions having the though of "we surrender all". Still I cannot help but notice the amount of similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism. I do see that all thoughts and beliefs pertaining to a deity are stripped from the Hindus religion. I mean the motivation for doing what you do differs one is the motivation supported by a deity. The other is because that is just what life is! correct me if I am wrong in this new understanding.

 

It is highly likely his early years were certainly influenced by Hinduism. However, he gradually found that Hinduism did not address some matters in a satisfactory way; Karma, for example, in Hinduism, was looked upon as a very fatalistic process, whereas the Buddha explains that -

'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...

 

What I find interesting is what you stated "I am the owner of my actions". I too believe the same thing. I guess the difference being I also believe I will be judged according to my actions amongst other things.

 

 

 

 

'Believe' what?

if you're talking about 'Faith' then yes, in Buddhism we develop Faith - but not as defined by a Chritian Mind-set.

 

Faith, insofar as a God-led religion is concerned, involves a fair degree of Hope; a hope in the unseen, unfathomable, a belief that a Deity who is omnipotent and all-powerful is basically running the show.

 

Faith - in Buddhism - is more one of confidence; Confidence in researched and examined teachings that have stood both the test of time, and have been a solid foundation upon which to build one's practice.

 

Buddhists are exhorted to examine and verify everything they are taught, no matter who teaches it, for sound, logical, and undeniable Wisdom.

 

 

You asked "believe what"? well first when first presented with the thought of Buddha I would have to believe that he existed. Then I would have to believe that his teachings were valid or true. As far as faith in my belief as a Christian it is a process more than anything else. Basically thinking, believing and doing.

 

 

The sentence that has bold lettering is also interesting to me. My belief teaches the same thing. Granted all people may not apply this teaching, but non the less it is taught.

 

[QOUTE]We accept that the Buddha (which merely means 'awakened One') did achieve Enlightenment, because his teachings are logical, infallible and True. In fact, his first teaching at Deer Park, consisting of the Four Noble Truths, hinges upon an

unarguable premise. hence the description 'Noble' which means 'True, incontestable and supreme.

 

 

Curious! would it be fair for me to simplify the for noble truths in this manner?Step one — diagnose the ‘illnes': suffering

Step two — determine the cause: attachment, wrong views, etc.

Step three — can anything be done?: yes, suffering can be overcome

Step four — how can we overcome suffering?: the Holy Eightfold Path

If this is a fair simplification! would it then be fair to show the similarity in some Christian beliefs in this manner?

Step one — what is the human condition? We are subject to spiritual and physical death.

Two — how did we get that way? Through the Fall of Adam and Eve.(resulting in forms of worldly attachment, wrong views, ect..)

Three — Is it possible to overcome physical and spiritual death? Yes — Christ’s atonement makes it possible.

Four — How? Following the principles of the gospel.

 

A mortal man cannot be eternal, but his teachings are perpetual.

Enlightenment does not equal immortality.

Enlightenment is seeing Things as they Really are, which is temporary, impermanent, evanescent, fleeting and ephemeral.

 

 

Again interesting! According to my belief a mortal man cannot be eternal also, and even the thought of seeing things as they really are. Though my interpretation would just involve the mortal existence on this world. (being temporary, impermanent, and the worldly things accumulated on this world) I guess though my belief does differ when it comes to the spirit.

 

Many Buddhists hold the premise that one is re-born. But not as a duplicate entity.

This is where it gets complicated...

Buddhists hold the premise that what continues is an energy, a stream of Consciousness. We are not recognisable as the beings we are at present, but it is hoped that with study and adhering to the Buddha's teachings, the next birth will be favourable and conducive towards approaching closer to a state of Enlightenment, through following the Eightfold Path.

 

 

I wonder how " Buddhists are exhorted to examine and verify everything they are taught, no matter who teaches it, for sound, logical, and undeniable Wisdom" in this aspect or your religion. It really doesn't matter I guess. still makes me curious.

 

 

As you said you had made things simple. To give me a basic understanding. Thank you! The rest is should be up to me.

 

 

Forget 'spirit'. It's not a premise followed by Buddhists. The question is therefore irrelevant and unimportant. I'm not slighting it; it's just not a part of a Buddhist Mind-set.

 

Ok

 

 

It's a state of Mental elevation.

It's gaining Insight and Understanding.

 

 

Huh! this is what I am taught also. This happens as gospel principles are practiced and continually trying to perfect those principles. From what I understand of what is taught to me.

 

 

(See 'Pilgrim's progress, Dante's Trilogy.)

 

 

Thank you! I will check that out.

 

 

Yes, but they do not place their suffering and ordeals at the foot of the cross.

They deal with it themselves. 'Sug=ffering' is not something we ask a Deity to relieve us from. Suffering is something we recofgnise WE create. And as its creators, we can also demolish it.

 

 

I guess your right suffering is not a good word to explain enlightenment. well wait a minute. unless you use suffering as the thought process. I mean a person can see a broken leg as having to suffer, or the person can see a broken leg as a time to reflect, read, learn, ect...

 

Enlightenment is seeing things as they really are. Dropping the veils of Illusion and Delusion, ridding one's self of Attachment, Clinging, Aversion, Hatred Desire and Greed.

Enlightenment is Understanding Suffering and its source, and ending Suffering theough recognition of why we create it in the first place.

 

 

I see! I know where the source of suffering comes from. This is I guess were we also differ. Suffering in my belief is not created by man, but causes of suffering can be gained by actions of man. I belief we consciously entered into this world with the knowledge that suffering would take place. when I think/remember to apply gospel principles, for me changes the view of suffering.

 

 

Thanks for your time and for responding. You reply has shown me new ways to look at things.

[TaraMaiden2]

I don't understand:

 

How is this -

 

....Suffering in my belief is not created by man ...

 

 

Different to this...?

 

but causes of suffering can be gained by actions of man.

[digdug75]

Personally, part of the issue i have with Christianity is the notion that such a kind, loving and caring god who sees "each swallow fall" can allow such suffering in the world, and ignore some of the very commandments he expects others to live by.(e.g.- thou shalt not kill)

 

 

I do not understand this view you have. I am not sure you understand my belief of God. If you are quoting one of the ten commandments then this should be corrected according to my belief. The Commandment should state "thou shalt not commit murder". It is my belief that murder and kill have different meanings.

 

If he exists in the way the bible presents, he would fit the criteria of someone with anti social personality disorder...and I'm not trying to be rude or funny when I say that.

 

The only way|I could ever reconcile any sort of belief in christianity would be that the bible was written by humans, and therefore as full of foibles as any other human construct. We are, after all, not perfect, but we are expected to accept a human written document as being so?

 

If, as some say, it is a document that is not meant to be taken literally, but rather it is allegorical, then again, how am I to accept any human interpretation of its words? How do I know that interpretation is correct?

 

 

I would not suggest you accept a persons understanding of the scriptures to be the truth. I would suggest to take the time to pray about such things if you were so inclined to know or understand if what was taught in scriptures were the truth. True there are many points where symbolism is used. A great example would be the book of Revelations. I also agree that due to the many translations there are some discrepancies. Archeology and Theology helps solve those discrepancies(finding of scripts such as dead sea scrolls and better translation of earliest recorded text)

 

It's been interpreted to mean so many horrible things, from catholics justifying things like the actions of "bloody Mary", residential schools in Canada, tacitly accepting the rise of the Nazis in germany, etc. The protestants have got things like the salem which trials, residential schools, burning and beheading catholics, etc.

 

those who interpret the bible in other ways have Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Jim Jones, David Koresh, a variety of cults, the Ku Klux Klan , etc.

 

All use the bible to justify their actions, and if asked, all would say god approved of what they were doing.

 

Buddha has teachings that promote non-violence. If non violence is a practice then why develop armies to protect belief? Why fight against other religions? Is this an accurate quote by the Dali Lama "“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” Doesn't the Dali Lama represent Buddhism? Doesn't some Buddhist misinterpret the original teachings? If a Buddhist commits some act of violence and claims it to be ok according to Buddhist text. Would this be accurate? should the whole basis of Buddhism be faulted by the act of one or 1000 who may or may not fully understand the concept of Buddhism teachings or practice original teachings? How many different schools of Buddhism are there? I think their are about 3 different main schools from original! Correct me if I am wrong please. Even from those main branches there are a several others. (Example: Zen, Kadam, Tendai) Even Japan has formed there own version of Buddhism.

 

 

If a Christian/Christians claims an act to be accepted of God and the act doesn't line up with God's teachings. How can that be the fault of God? If one Christian due to misinterpretation teaches a false doctrine and many others believe without consulting God through prayer and receiving answer through Holy Ghost. How is this Gods fault? Scriptures must be read, pondering, fasting, and prayer are essential. (even meditation) All gospel principles must be taken into consideration.

 

 

Thank you for sharing your points of view. I just wanted to share mine, so you can see how I see things from an individual who believes in God.

[digdug75]

I don't understand:

 

How is this -

 

 

 

 

Different to this...?

 

Well I believe suffering is a truth and exists. Sometimes it is the choice of man/women that allows the effects of suffering to occur. Even if no choice is made suffering can occur. Man did not create emotions, man did not create sickness, main did not create pain. The existence of suffering is an ultimate truth in my opinion. Though it might be better to use the word negative. I am not sure how else to explain, if you still do not understand. I will think of a better way to explain if you want.

[TaraMaiden2]

Suffering is based upon perception.

I think also it would help to define just what you mean by 'suffering'....

 

There is a lesson in Buddhism about the Twin Arrows:

 

You can be beset by a specific problem, but there's no need to burden yourself with additional angst.

 

There is the story (true and researchable) of Palden Gyatso, who was imprisoned by the Chinese during the uprising and subsequent occupation of TIbet. He was in Prison for a very long time. Decades.

And every single day of those years, he would be subjected to some kind of humiliation, torture and ordeal at the hands of his captors.

The documented account makes harrowing reading.

One of the questions he was asked after his eventual release and escape from Tibet, (when he then made his way to Dharamsala,) was to recount the one thing that had scared him more than anything else.

 

He replied:

"The one thing I feared the most, was that I would lose my Compassion for the Chinese."

 

Now that - is not permitting the second arrow to hit home.

[truncated]

Well if the new born had healthy parents, then I inderstand, you've gotta point. But the rest of that is free will will. Someone chose to drink and drive, steal a senior citizens identity, guy didn't need to work that job during a lighting storm (I sure as hell wouldn't lol)

 

So the child is being punished for the free will act of his/her parents?

 

how can any kind and loving god, especially one who is supposed to feel each sparrow fall, tolerate that?

[bluegreen]

Suffering is based upon perception.

I think also it would help to define just what you mean by 'suffering'....

 

There is a lesson in Buddhism about the Twin Arrows:

 

You can be beset by a specific problem, but there's no need to burden yourself with additional angst.

 

There is the story (true and researchable) of Palden Gyatso, who was imprisoned by the Chinese during the uprising and subsequent occupation of TIbet. He was in Prison for a very long time. Decades.SC

And every single day of those years, he would be subjected to some kind of humiliation, torture and ordeal at the hands of his captors.

The documented account makes harrowing reading.

One of the questions he was asked after his eventual release and escape from Tibet, (when he then made his way to Dharamsala,) was to recount the one thing that had scared him more than anything else.

 

He replied:

"The one thing I feared the most, was that I would lose my Compassion for the Chinese."

 

Now that - is not permitting the second arrow to hit home.

 

Now This is what also Jesus the Lord Mohammed the Prophet would say

This is living and following true religion values not just ? your mouth for your own comfort and benefits.

 

You Go Girl

[jay1983]

So the child is being punished for the free will act of his/her parents?

 

how can any kind and loving god, especially one who is supposed to feel each sparrow fall, tolerate that?

 

That I question myself, I mentioned it on page 2. I believe God is real, but I have doubts about the presentation of the whole thing.

[TheFinalWord]

So the child is being punished for the free will act of his/her parents?

 

how can any kind and loving god, especially one who is supposed to feel each sparrow fall, tolerate that?

 

Hey Truncated,

 

I do not know if anyone can address these questions for you adequately on this discussion board. The concept is called theodicy, and is a philosophical attempt to reconcile the manifestation of evil with the existence of God.

 

A book I recommend is the "Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis.

 

Actually, quite a few audio versions are available online.

 

It is a good book to read in conjunction with Lewis' other book "A Grief Observed"...in which Lewis confronts the anguish over the death of his wife.

[TaraMaiden2]

Originally Posted by TaraMaiden2

......Eastern Religions focus on mental attitude rather more than Christianity does, in the sense that much of the learnt Wisdom comes by being developed within, whereas in Christianity and other God-Based religions, we have a Deity 'out there' to whom we surrender all....

 

Originally Posted by digdug75

Thank you for clarifying. Not sure what you mean by God-based religions having the though of "we surrender all".

 

This is quite a good example of what I mean...

 

Originally Posted by truncated

So the child is being punished for the free will act of his/her parents?

 

how can any kind and loving god, especially one who is supposed to feel each sparrow fall, tolerate that?

 

.....The concept is called theodicy, and is a philosophical attempt to reconcile the manifestation of evil with the existence of God.

 

First of all I would like to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that there is NO implied or veiled criticism of this concept. I am merely citing the above dialogue as an explanation and clarification of the point I made, and the subsequent comment by the OP.

digdug75,

 

Theodicy maintains that there are some aspects of Faith in God which bear questioning and examination, but which have apparently no logical responses, until you take the concept of Evil into consideration.

 

My argument would be that God created Satan, who spawned the evil of this world, and if God were so omnipotent, why then would he not simply put a speedy end to the Devil's evil works, and the Devil himself, for that matter.

But I am almost certain Theodicy answers that point too; however, I cannot comment further, being ignorant of the concept and its arguments.....

 

My main point is that with regard to Buddhist thought, we don't NEED God.

We already have the answers we seek with regard to why bad things happen to good people, and why good things happen to bad people.

It's something we know has an answer within ourselves; we do not question the whys and wherefores, because there is no need to do so.

It's a question of self-examination and finding sound and logical conclusions within the framework and teachings of Buddhism, which point us always in the direction of the Buck stopping *here* instead of at the feet of a Deity.

[TheFinalWord]

First of all I would like to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that there is NO implied or veiled criticism of this concept. I am merely citing the above dialogue as an explanation and clarification of the point I made, and the subsequent comment by the OP.

digdug75,

 

Thanks TM, just to clarify, I was not responding to anything you said

 

I was responding to truncated's post #90.

 

I was giving some external resources to explore the issue further. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited June 7, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[TaraMaiden2]

Thanks TM, just to clarify, I was not responding to anything you said

 

I was responding to truncated's post #90.

 

I was giving some external resources to explore the issue further. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

No, thanks, FW, I appreciate that. I had to copy and paste several different comments from different posts to ensure my clarification could refer to something specific and thus make more sense.

But I never took your comment to be a provocative one, or any intention of that nature.

[TheFinalWord]

No, thanks, FW, I appreciate that. I had to copy and paste several different comments from different posts to ensure my clarification could refer to something specific and thus make more sense.

But I never took your comment to be a provocative one, or any intention of that nature.

 

Welcome!

 

I would pay for lessons from you on how to organize discussions on forums. You are a pro.

[TaraMaiden2]

(You'll be glad to know I'm taking that in the way it was meant...! )

 

I've had a bit of experience in frequenting this forum and others.... I'm a Moderator on a Buddhist forum, and I've been around on this one come-and-go, for longer than my posting number would suggest...

 

You live and learn, and hopefully implement things acceptably, after a while....

[digdug75]

Suffering is based upon perception.

I think also it would help to define just what you mean by 'suffering'....

 

 

The easiest way for me to define suffering is anything that apposes non-suffering. I guess I am kind of in the same way of thinking as far as suffering and perception. How a person reacts to suffering, by how they see suffering (perception) results in the outcome of the effect suffering would have on a person. Whether a person perceives suffering or not whether seeing it in another individual or in themselves still doesn't take away the fact that suffering exists. I mean if a person is born with a limp is that person suffering? would that person know he/she is suffering? Is difficulty in accomplishing tasks suffering? That person with the limp would know they were suffering. Until they had either realized from others that don't limp have little less difficulty or had the limp fixed. huh! maybe this would better explain my view. A child does something that result in getting a thorn/sliver what does the child do? Maybe physical cries, and emotionally gets scared. Then what? Child goes to parent to fix what is causing this distraught(suffering). What might be the outcome if a child didn't go to parent? Maybe child fixes this by his/her self. Maybe it is left in after initial pain goes away. Possibly resulting in an infection, and possible leading to death. How would a parent know what to do if never having a sliver/thorn? Perception doesn't change suffering just the reaction to suffering. In my opinion.

 

 

When I was younger I knew a kid that didn't physically feel pain. I could break his finger and the sensation of pain would not be their. On the other hand if I did break is finger he would still have suffered the lack of function of the finger.

 

 

Without suffering would learning and understanding be accomplished? Do you believe that perception can void suffering? Without recognition of suffering what part does perception play? How does a person use perception in personal life without first knowing he/she is fallen prey to suffering?

 

There is a lesson in Buddhism about the Twin Arrows:

Great story and way to teach a lesson! This is something I would relate to as a parable! I would see this as being the difference between carnally minded vs. spiritually minded. This lesson of the arrows also points out opposition.

 

There is the story (true and researchable) of Palden Gyatso, who was imprisoned by the Chinese during the uprising and subsequent occupation of TIbet. He was in Prison for a very long time. Decades.

And every single day of those years, he would be subjected to some kind of humiliation, torture and ordeal at the hands of his captors.

The documented account makes harrowing reading.

One of the questions he was asked after his eventual release and escape from Tibet, (when he then made his way to Dharamsala,) was to recount the one thing that had scared him more than anything else.

 

He replied:

"The one thing I feared the most, was that I would lose my Compassion for the Chinese."

 

Now that - is not permitting the second arrow to hit home.

I only read your description of lesson that is taught to you. I relate this to long-suffering. Long-suffering and compassion is what I consider to be righteous. I would also relate long-suffering to patience. Many lessons taught of compassion in scriptures. Many verses emphasizing long-suffering. I read your description of story and I think of Job(pronounced as if spelt Jobe)and of Jesus Christ. Thanks for your reply and reconfirming to me that other religions have truths also!

[TaraMaiden2]

...Thanks for your reply and reconfirming to me that other religions have truths also!

 

Other religions have truths based on faith/hope.... Buddhism is the only Religion that bases its truth on researchable, verifiable facts in which one can have total confidence.

 

I would add that this isn't supposed to be provocative or a pi$$ing contest.

It's simply that Buddhism achieves Truth without the presence of an Eternal Deity/Creator-God.

 

The statement is simply fact.