Jul 10, 2012 -- 5:43PM, Aka_me wrote:

Jul 6, 2012 -- 12:22PM, gangajal wrote:

(1)  Buddha said,"There is an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, an uncompounded; were there not, O mendicants, there would be no escape from the world of the born, the unoriginated, the made and the compounded" (Udana 8.3)

and how do the various different denominations explain this?

Theravada Buddhism explains it as a description of Nibbana:

www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/mtinmon7.h...

The Noble Liberation and the Noble Truths
Dr. Mehm Tin Mon
(Mahasaddhammajotikadaja)

Professor of Chemistry (Retired)
Adviser to the Ministry of Religious Affairs
Visiting Professor in Abhidhamma and Meditation
International Theravada Buddhist Missionary University, Yangon.

THE THIRD NOBLE TRUTH
THE NOBLE TRUTH OF THE EXTINCTION OF SUFFERING

Various Descriptions of Nibbana

[...]

In Udana Pali the Buddha describes Nibbana as follows:

      "There is, O bhikkhus, Nibbana, the unborn (ajata), unoriginated (abhuta), unmade (akata) and unconditioned (asankhata). If, O bhikkhus, there were not this Nibbana, the unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unconditioned, an emancipation from the five aggregates, the born, originated, made and conditioned, would not be possible. As there is Nibbana, the unborn, unoriginated, unmade, and unconditioned, an emancipation from the five aggregates, the born, originated, made and conditioned, is possible. (Third Nibbana Patisamyutta Sutta)

[...]

The being that is known as God in other religions is known as the MahaBrahma in Theravada Buddhism. Brahma is considered to be entrapped in Samsara, subject to Eternal Rebirth in the Wheel of Suffering.

www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/trigem2a.h...

WHAT IS THE DHAMMA

4. Inviting Investigation (Ehipassiko)


Then the two Brahmans asked the Buddha, "Do you know the way which leads to the state of union with Brahma

    "Yes, I know the way. Just as a man, who is born and brought up in a village and who has only just left that village, undoubtedly knows every road that leads to that village. Brahmas always stay with the four noble states of mind; loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic-joy and equanimity. So, if a person wants to associate with Brahma, he must possess right behaviour and conduct, must adopt and train himself in precepts, must fill himself with virtue in speech, deed and thought, must guard the doors of his senses and he must develop the four noble states of mind towards all beings and in all directions." The two young Brahmans were very pleased with the Buddha's explanation. (Tevijja Sutta; D. i. p 300, ch 13)

The methodology noted for achieving union with Brahma is a bona fide Samatha Meditation Subject. As such, it is a methodology taught to people of a Faithful Temperament. But, Faith in Buddhism does not refer to mental blindness. It refers to one who has entered the Stream which leads to Arahantship, one who has totally destroyed sceptical doubt about the Buddha the Dhamma and the Sangha, and believes in the Enlightenment of the Buddha.

This methodology is called the Four Brahma Viharas, and is used for the Development of Concentration. The name for this Meditation is Samatha Meditation, Tranquillity Meditation. The Buddha imported it into His Dhamma for a very pertinent reason.

Concentration is Samadhi. and Buddhist Mindfulness is a Component of Samadhi, imported from Brahmanism.

One has to realise Samadhi before carrying out Vipassana Meditation. The realisation of NIbbana is a fruition of Supramundane Vipassana, aka Insight.

Thus, the difference between God and the Buddha, is that whilst the Buddha is Supramundane and Deathless. Brahma [God] is Mundane and only thinks that he is Enlightened.

Therefore, in Theravada Buddhism, union with Brahma [God] is considered to be a lesser realisation than Nibbana.

However, the Buddha never expected that all of his disciples would realise Nibbana in a single lifetime. He taught everyone uniquely, according to one's spiritual needs. The Brahma worlds are realms where the Devas live. He taught people how to realise Nibbana or attain Rebirth in a Deva world.

 Thus, there is a difference between the Buddha and God. According to the Theravada, The Buddha has realised NIbbana, Brahma, God has not realised NIbbana.

Jul 11, 2012 -- 3:45PM, Aka_me wrote:

Jul 11, 2012 -- 1:55AM, Ferretling wrote:

I don't know how many times we have to repeat that theistic belief or non-belief simply does not matter.

One should not need to use Buddhism to justify theism or justify atheism. Buddhism is Buddhism. You can be atheist, theist, agnostic, whatever. If you feel these theistic beliefs need to be justified, that is an attachment to needing to justify your beliefs.

You seem, aka, to have a problem with atheist Buddhists. That is, quite frankly, YOUR attachment, not an issue within Buddhism itself.

Again, it does not matter in Buddhism whether you are theistic or not. Buddhism itself is non-theistic.

you have attachment, no you have attachment, you have attachment and no attachment backs.

that's sarcasm!

I have attachment

not with atheist Buddhists, because I've already said there is no issue in believing without experience.

I have attachment with "using Buddhism to justify atheism"

non-theism can NOT be used to prove atheism... it just doesn't work that way.

Non-theistic doesn't mean atheistic. It means it simply doesn't address the issue.

Buddhism and theism are indeed quite relevant to each other for the following reason:

If Buddhism is true, then a god would be pointless and unemployed.  As I always assert, they are clearly mutually exclusive.  So mutually exclusive.... indeed, theism had no reason to even be addressed.  It replaces theism.  

To try to add theism to Buddhism would be like adding a stone wheel to a rocketship.  

I go with the idea that with Buddhism it doesn't matter if there is God or not.

I'm going to take a stab at this, even though it may not be a particularly good stab, Still, I felt it welling up to add to the discussion.  I will say upfront that I'm not any kind of expert on Buddhism though I have spent a good deal of my life incorperating aspects of Buddhist faith and scriptures into my own path.

If we are to presume that Buddhism is used as a means or a system by which it's adherant may be illuminated, or recognize that which is eternally truth through a process, the affirmation or denial of God would be entirely for the express purpose of clarifying an interpretation on the part of the person/group who present God as part of an inquiry.  The word God confuses things a lot because each person brings their own ideas, attachments, concepts, etc. to the table on what they consider God to be (or not to be).   

As long as there is no object to point to and say "this is God" or "that is God" God may be presumed to simply be, or may be presumed as absent.  A fullness which is empty of qualities.  I get the idea that the denial or acceptance of God is 2 sides of the same coin though. 

Anyways, this was my first post (had to jump in somewhere).

Respectfully,

Jeff