Is the idea of god innate?

[Paulclem]

But the "testing" could mean a lifetime (or more ) spent doing meditation & the practices. If you, as many do, find thse practices, extremely tedious, are you prepared to face a lifetime of boredom in the slim chance that Buddhism might be right?

What you are trying to do is effect a change within yourself. There are stages, and what seems tedious to the onlooker is not to the practitioner. It's bound up in realising objectives completed. there is a stage - I've heard - where you develop a love for the cushion.

So the teachers capture the students (and their money!) for a lifetime. And even the highest teachers, those giving the highest meditation classes, might be unenlightened, they may even write books praised universally as "the best" and still give up Buddhism (read Paul Williams "The Unexpected Way").

Capturing students does not describe the many Buddhists who are quietly working away teaching students who come to them. There are clearly exploiters in every field, but it is unfair to try to tarnish all with this. I fact a Teacher is not allowed to accept payment for teaching the Dharma. This is common knowledge.

Are you sure Paul Williams is the highest teacher? Let me know by what criteria you judge him? I've not heard of him but I'll look him up. Also, there's nothing to stop people leaving Buddhism. Each has their own path, and it's not a problem.

[Paulclem]

Would that be for Buddhist, now Catholic, Paul Williams' guide to Mahayana Buddhism? Or the works of alcoholic and dangerous driver Chogyam Trungpa? Or Ricard, a former scientist who now belives in reincarnation on hearsay evidence that Randi would laugh out of court? I could go on, the internet is a godsend for finding flaws in these characters who pretend to be Enlightened.

As I said, each to his own path. It's fine to pick out examples for whom Buddhism doesn't work. It's clearly not for everyone, but HH The Dalai Lama says that generally people should follow the religion of their own tradition unless they have a strong pull towards Buddhism.

Again I said there are those who claim to be Enlightened, but who clearly aren't, yet Buddhism works for many millions of Buddhists worldwide. Yes it's easy to find bad examples. the good examples perhaps don't make good reading.

As for evidence of reincarnation - we had another thread on that. I think one of the problems of evidence is a misapprehension about what Buddhism means by reincarnation. When I die - according to the teachings - everything that I consider to be me - body, my sense of I or personality, dissolves. That is not what is reincarnated. The energy of the karma I generate is said to cause the next life - be that human, animal, ghost - whatever. It doesn't leave evidence that can be measured anyway.

I also agree that there is no empirical evidence. A practitioner has to find their own subjective evidence - through meditation practices or perhaps visions. That's not to say that there aren't Buddhist who have not found that evidence yet. I knew a Buddhist Nun who didn't believe/ or hadn't come across her own evidence. the advice was to continue with the practice until there was reason to think it was true. I think that is an honest approach, and the one a person would find in contact with Buddhism.

I liked your comment suggesting the path would take more than one life to complete. An ordinary person can't expect to achieve much in one lifetime. An interesting take on this was related by a Western Monk who worked closely with HH The dalai Lama. After 30 years of meditation practice - and not believing in reincarnation along the way too - he realised that the High Tibetan Monks around him - including The Dalai Lama - were much further on in their development of spontaneous compassion etc. His conclusion was that they had started this life at a different place along the path to where he himself had. It was this observation that led him to be convinced of the truth of reincarnation because he realised that to have developed as much as they had, they needed to have been practising long before this life. No doubt Randi woud laugh that out of court too, but as I said, there's no empirical, measurable evidence - only inference. No evidence at all to others.

[Odysseus93]

yes. end of discussion. period

[mal4mac]

When I die - according to the teachings - everything that I consider to be me - body, my sense of I or personality, dissolves. That is not what is reincarnated. The energy of the karma I generate is said to cause the next life - be that human, animal, ghost - whatever. It doesn't leave evidence that can be measured anyway.

All forms of energy can be measured, if it is any kind of physical energy. If it isn't any kind opf physical energy then how can karma have any affect on the physical domain of, say, baby production?

If I don't reincarnate why would I care hwat my karma gets up to? If my 'sense of I' dissolves then 'I' can't feel the pain of being reincarnated as a rat heading for a trap...

If reincarnation happens then there is physical evidence! 'Something' goes form the dead person to the reincarnation, so the task is to capture that and measure it. If nothing goes ther ei s*no* evidence, subjective or otherwise and reincarnation does not exits. Reincarnation might be a nice story that give syou a warm glow in thinking about, but that isn't 'subjective evidence' , it's just the same as the nice feeling kids get from thinking about Santa.

Some Christian priests also give the advice to "continue with the practice until there is reason to think it is true". It's just one more scam to keep the money coming in.

Chogyam Trungpa was a Tibetan Monk of the highest order just short of The Dalai Lama. He had the 'spontaneous compassion' of a blind-drunk driver. Such low-lifes are pretty low on the 'spontaneous compassion' scale in my book, far behind 'non-violent' thieves for instance. Where was his 'spontaneous compassion' for the people he might have seriously injured through his driving antics?

You might say he was an exception. But is there any serious evidence for Tibetan Buddhist monks showing more 'spontaneous compassion' than the average Western Joe or Jane?

His conclusion was that they had started this life at a different place along the path to where he himself had. It was this observation that led him to be convinced of the truth of reincarnation because he realised that to have developed as much as they had, they needed to have been practising long before this life. No doubt Randi woud laugh that out of court too, but as I said, there's no empirical, measurable evidence - only inference. No evidence at all to others.

Acts of compassion can be measured. For instance (as a rough start) count the number of times the Red Cross are mentioned in news reports compared to the Buddhist equivalent...

[Kyriakos]

I was also thinking- to stir, perhaps, the discussion somewhere else - that the idea of god might not be innate in the sense that its first conscious appearence was innate or linked to something innate, but that a non-conscious aspect in the psyche bears it.
What i mean is that it is most probable that the child first comes into contact with the idea of a god through his social circle. My parents were religious, and i must have heard something about god when i was very young. But that idea is something entirely linked to external activities, god being seen as a force that prevents actions, or encouradges others.
I know for a fact that my early view of god was that he was a god of hatred an fear. But this was not innate at all, since it had to do with preventions argued by my parents as correct due to some inconsistent and illogical paradigm/belief. So i thought that god gave such false beliefs to people, so that they would be his slaves

But the fact that this idea was very much not innate does not mean that there isnt any innate idea about a "god". This god can be a myriad of things. For example the psyche is so vast that any sort of power that holds it into place could be seen as a deity, in regards to consciousness. (For what it's worth i identify as an atheist, however i am interested in the idea of a god).

So my argument is simple: whereas it is seems highly likely that the first conscious ideas of a god are not at all linked to anything innate about it, there still could be something innate about this idea, which is responsible for its appearence, in some form, to people. Note that even an atheist has one, or more ideas about a god, he just dismisses them as false.

[Paulclem]

All forms of energy can be measured, if it is any kind of physical energy. If it isn't any kind opf physical energy then how can karma have any affect on the physical domain of, say, baby production?

If I don't reincarnate why would I care hwat my karma gets up to? If my 'sense of I' dissolves then 'I' can't feel the pain of being reincarnated as a rat heading for a trap...

If reincarnation happens then there is physical evidence! 'Something' goes form the dead person to the reincarnation, so the task is to capture that and measure it. If nothing goes ther ei s*no* evidence, subjective or otherwise and reincarnation does not exits. Reincarnation might be a nice story that give syou a warm glow in thinking about, but that isn't 'subjective evidence' , it's just the same as the nice feeling kids get from thinking about Santa.

This is difficult to account for - the term subtle energy is used. This is easy to interpret by the sceptic as non-existent. Beyond that I can't comment, having no direct experience or knowledge of it.

Actually there is a claim of subtle physical energy - referred to as the Indestructible drop which is located in one of the chakras. it is this which moves. As for measurement - well I don't know about that. Buddhists claim that on death a person isn't spiritually dead yet, even though the heart has stopped etc. The process is said to take a little longer than the clinically dead pronouncement. We reach an impasse where we don't measure, haven't the tools to check, don't notice or it doesn't happen as claimed.

As for caring what happens after, the Buddha explained this as a middle way - neither annihilation nor eternalism ie in the form of a soul. Perhaps we should look at an infamous example - Mao and Stalin - who denied religion - which was their choice - were responsible for the deaths of millions - which was also their choice. Were their deaths calm and uncaring?

Reincarnation might be a nice story

The romantic view of reincarntion - which many westerners in particular have - may be a nice story, but Buddhism's is not. The chances of being reborn as a human are very slim. Just consider how many beings there are on earth, and how many options for a very unfortunate rebirth there are. What is the prognosis for almost every animals life? birth, ageing, sickness - with no medical care at all for the vast majority, and death. Human life offers an opportunity to improve/ escape this round of suffering.

Chogyam Trungpa - I wasn't trying to dodge the issue by not mentioning him - I just forgot, is an example that anyone can succumb to negative actions. There were accusations of sexual misconduct too. What can i say. there's no defending the indefensible, but bad examples don't necessarily disprove the veracity of the path. There are lots of warnings for teachers and students in the teachings - about appropriate behaviour. The Vinaya - rules for Monks and Nuns, mainly formulated at The Buddha's time contain loads of detailed rules that were made up to address problems as they went along. One was that no Monk/ Nun should have their begging bowls made out of anything but wood. Clearly, some were using elaborate, metal ones. Others include a prohibition on demonstrating miracle powers to impress people.

That reminds me - on the question of faith. The practices used by Buddhists come with warnings about their misuse due to the karmic repercussins that can come from a misuse of power. Actually anyone - they don't have to be Buddhist - can use the practices. One such notorious practice is in the form of Tantric sex. It can be learnt and used by anyone who is willing to train themselves.

On evidence -I have met two people who knew other people's minds - a miracle power. This wasn't demonstrated for it's sake but was a teaching tool used by a Sri Lankan Monk. He would get us to meditate upon his instructions and then tell us afterwards how our meditation had gone and dispense advice. He didn't ask us how it went. He clearly knew. I'm only an internet voice, and it's no proof to anyone but those of us who were there.

The thing about powers is that they can be developed by anyone with the will to do so. the consequences will be damaging without a strong moral code and a virtuous aim. Buddhism is very clear about this for teachers and students.

Sorry Kyriakos - i don't mean to abduct your thread. But we have! Sorry.

[Kyriakos]

Sorry Kyriakos - i don't mean to abduct your thread. But we have! Sorry.

It's ok Each one contributes in his own way.

[mal4mac]

This is difficult to account for - the term subtle energy is used. This is easy to interpret by the sceptic as non-existent.

To try and get back on thread - how can you know there is a innate God? No experience you have could reveal a being who is eternal, omnipoent, etc. Any "feeling"of such a being would be denied by Buddhists, who might explain it away as 'subtle energy', or Freudians might explain it as an unconscious feeling 'swelling up'. How could you know who was right?

What is the prognosis for almost every animals life? birth, ageing, sickness - with no medical care at all for the vast majority, and death. Human life offers an opportunity to improve/ escape this round of suffering.

Maybe death itself is the solution! Maybe Epicurus is correct. When we are dead we do not suffer because we can only feel suffering through our external and internal senses. When we die the body dissolves, so do our senses, and indeed our consciousness (which needs a brain to support it.) If pressed, I would say that this is what I believe - and it's very comforting! (Epicurus was right about that as well...) If pressed even harder I would say I simply don't know what happens after death, that's also quite comforting...

[Paulclem]

To try and get back on thread - how can you know there is a innate God? No experience you have could reveal a being who is eternal, omnipoent, etc. Any "feeling"of such a being would be denied by Buddhists, who might explain it away as 'subtle energy', or Freudians might explain it as an unconscious feeling 'swelling up'. How could you know who was right?



Maybe death itself is the solution! Maybe Epicurus is correct. When we are dead we do not suffer because we can only feel suffering through our external and internal senses. When we die the body dissolves, so do our senses, and indeed our consciousness (which needs a brain to support it.) If pressed, I would say that this is what I believe - and it's very comforting! (Epicurus was right about that as well...) If pressed even harder I would say I simply don't know what happens after death, that's also quite comforting...

It's a good question. This is propounded by ecumenicals who claim that "we're all on the same path really". Depite the wish to make religions accessibe to each, and to develop good relations with the religions, which I can see the point of, I thnk a better form of tolerance is the acceptance and respect of difference. The closest Christian description of God to the Buddhist view of ultimate reality that I have heard is God being the Ground of Being. I think there is an intense scrutiny through meditation that is part of the path. If a creator God existed, then he is not found, nor is the associated soul or any eternal image or part.

As for the argument for annihilation or eternalism with a soul, this has been going on since the Buddha's time. I agree that the idea that annihilation follows death is comforting. It is certainly easier to cope with than the possibility of rebirth in a hell, or as an insect.

I also have to say that I don't know what happens after death for sure - though I've read about the process. An important Buddhist practice is to meditate on death in order to convince oneself that it is going to happen. This seems strange at first; we all know intellectually that we will die. The problem is that the intellectual knowledge is not a full realisation of the reality. This is why nearly dying can be a life changing experience for some people. Theyreally know they are mortal. These death meditations can then deepen to the actual process - the point being to familiarise oneself with it so as to be able to generate a positive state of mind when it comes - for the next positive rebirth.

I'll just add that it is not intended to be depressing but to really motivate one in this life.

[mal4mac]

An important Buddhist practice is to meditate on death in order to convince oneself that it is going to happen. This seems strange at first; we all know intellectually that we will die. The problem is that the intellectual knowledge is not a full realisation of the reality. This is why nearly dying can be a life changing experience for some people. Theyreally know they are mortal. These death meditations can then deepen to the actual process - the point being to familiarise oneself with it so as to be able to generate a positive state of mind when it comes - for the next positive rebirth..

Why do you have to pursue such a difficult, esoteric practice to give full consideration to death? The Ancient Greek philosophers viewed the philosophical life as being, in large part, a preparation for death. For instance, Epicurus had a very clear and simple practice for contemplating & defusing the fear of death. Having spent, probably, the same amount of time reading and "meditating on" Buddhist and Epicurean philosophies of death, the philosophy of Epicurus seems far more simple & effective.

"If death is bad, for whom is it bad? Not for the living, since they’re not dead, and not for the dead, since they don’t exist."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH5g

[Paulclem]

Why do you have to pursue such a difficult, esoteric practice to give full consideration to death? The Ancient Greek philosophers viewed the philosophical life as being, in large part, a preparation for death. For instance, Epicurus had a very clear and simple practice for contemplating & defusing the fear of death. Having spent, probably, the same amount of time reading and "meditating on" Buddhist and Epicurean philosophies of death, the philosophy of Epicurus seems far more simple & effective.

"If death is bad, for whom is it bad? Not for the living, since they’re not dead, and not for the dead, since they don’t exist."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH5g

The pursuit of enlightenment is a lives-long activity. Other practices can be completed in this life, such as the death meditations. Death is one of a round of 21 Lam Rim practices in Tibetan Buddhsm. These are standard practices for any Buddhist, but include meditations on ultimate reality. There are said to be three levels of practitioner in Tibetan Buddhism. The new practitioner's aim is to secure a fortunate rebirth with the ability to pursue and deepen spiritual practice. The second level is to develop Bodhicitta - spontaneous compassion for all beings. The third level of practitioner is working towards Enlightenment.

The Epcurean approach to death is interesting. I see the argument, but it only works for annihilation, not reincarnation.

The point in Buddhism about death is not that it is necessarily bad, but it undoubtedly causes suffering in the anticipation of it and in the fear and pain in the process. Anyone who has been witha dying person can see that it is a release in some cases. The suffering is still there though. Meditations on death can mitigate the suffering and give a person a focus and understanding in order to do a virtuous practice that will encourage a fortunate rebirth. Dying in fear and regret, or with resentment or a violent negative mind results in an unfortunate outcome.

[Taliesin]

Well, in the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Practical_atheism there is a following passage:

Practical atheism can take various forms:
Absence of religious motivation—belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
Indifference—the absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
Unawareness of the concept of a deity.[54]
[edit]

If this is correct, I think that this would be evidence against the idea. If you wish, you might look at the sources to validate whether the information is right or not. As for myself, I just can't be bothered, since it seems to me that the existence of all those Buddhists already constitutes of enough evidence.

[LMK]

God is simply a word, the concept is much larger; the natural flow of the universe, that which is cannot always be explained. Man does not seem to like it when things can't be explained; sometimes man works diligently to find answers, sometimes convenient stories are told or inspired by something deep and heartfelt shares with others.

However one looks at it, throughout the ages and across the many cultural differences, man (and wo-man) have sought something larger than themselves. Reasons for being, reasons for seasons, creation, happiness, sadness, sunset and sunrise, catching fish, health, whatever it may be and those reasons often include an explanation including a word like God (of some type) to indicate that it is a farther reaching sometimes abstract or esoteric idea.

Does that make it innate human nature when these cultures are divided in time and space without any contact with one another? Perhaps.

Does it make it true if science can repeat the answer? Perhaps.
Does it make it less true if science and scientific laws are created by God, or simply exist in the flow of the universe? I don’t think so.

[El Viejo]

There are 1.2-1.6 Billion Buddhists, (Googled), who do not hold the idea of a creator God in a supreme ultimate sense. This challenges the idea that it is innate.

Agreed. What's innate is that we think about these things. We can't imagine our own consciousness ending, so we wonder where babies are before they're babies, and where people go when they die.

To a limited extent the rudiments of the scientific process are innate--when we have little or no information we form hypotheses. In the past we often couldn't test our hypotheses so we embroidered on them, and there is the germ of religion.

[LMK]

Agreed. What's innate is that we think about these things. We can't imagine our own consciousness ending, so we wonder where babies are before they're babies, and where people go when they die.

To a limited extent the rudiments of the scientific process are innate--when we have little or no information we form hypotheses. In the past we often couldn't test our hypotheses so we embroidered on them, and there is the germ of religion.

First there is a difference between innate belief in God and the existence of religion. Religion is entirely man made institutions about what people should and/or should not do, how they should live.

Second, God is a word that is a word for that thought about what is beyond us, like where babies are before they are conceived.

Thirdly, the OP did not ask for forum members to discuss the concept of an innate creator God, but rather innate God…something bigger than oneself. Buddhists believe that sentient beings can achieve nirvana (a higher plane, out of the succession of life and death) – something bigger than oneself.

And finally, in the discussions I have had with the few Buddhists I have had the pleasure to know (both of ‘the vehicle’ and ‘the elders’) I have found that neither tradition have beliefs or teachings that preclude a creator element (or creator God).