Yes, and if he said that, would they not lose the will to discover the truth? Of course they would! — Agustino

I would not. In fact, it would encourage me to seek an answer. I think that's true for others too.

You continually just presuppose that it's either God, or not God, as if this concept itself is true or false. My suggestion was that no concept is like that at all. They're all expressions of experience, and life. The concepts are neither true nor false, so that nothing is gained in affirming or denying them. Though powerfully enchanting ideas may best be askewed. .

I would not. In fact, it would encourage me to seek an answer. I think that's true for others too. — TheMadFool

No it's absolutely not true for others. On the contrary, if you know that knowing an answer would deflate your will to find out, you will postpone knowing, since you'll know, that in principle, it's possible.

You're sidestepping the obvious fact that my statement asserts. — TheMadFool

I'm not, Fool. I'm answering the question, but you're seeing the answer through your preconceived notion of what constitutes 'religion', so you're unable to understand what is being said. You really should reflect a some more before launching a string of characters, but then you might have to change your moniker ;-)

The things that he explains losing are the causes of suffering. — Wosret

I kind of get what you're saying Woz, but it's a very idiosyncratic take on the subject. It is useful in these discussions to try and relate what is being said to some examples.

I did... what we're discussing is an example I gave... wayz

“Nothing.” “However”, Buddha said, “let me tell you what I lost : Anger, Anxiety, Depression, Insecurity, Fear of Old, Age and Death.”

That's the example. It can be dismissed, disagreed with, translations called into question and all that... but that I'm not giving examples is not one of them...

I concede that's the meaning, but I don't think it's the style.....

I don't care... how do you expect me to when you condescend, while claiming that I'm not giving examples in the midst of disputing one?

I guess it's time to do other things.

I don't care.. — Wosret

Apparently.

The concepts are neither true nor false, so that nothing is gained in affirming or denying them. — Wosret

''God exists'' is not a concept. It's a proposition and therefore, has to be either true or false. Buddha refused to assign a truth value to that proposition. Why?

You really should reflect a some more before launching a string of characters, but then you might have to change your moniker ;-) — Wayfarer

:D

You've been beating around the bush. Thanks for the energy used/abused on my account.

Anyway...can you see it through my eyes, just for a moment.

1. Buddha knows God exists
2. Buddha knows God doesn't exist
3. Buddha doesn't know

These are the only options I can think of.

AND

Buddha was a good man

So, it follows that knowledge of God's ontology is harmful in some way.

Where's the problem?

Is my assumption that Buddha was good wrong?

Is knowledge of God bad?

Have I missed out any possibility here?

''God exists'' is not a concept. It's a proposition and therefore, has to be either true or false. Buddha refused to assign a truth value to that proposition. Why? — TheMadFool

"God exists" is a proposition, but both "God" and "exists" are concepts, and not propositions. I personally like to try to figure out what's being talked about before I move on to propositions about them.

Buddha knows God exists
2. Buddha knows God doesn't exist
3. Buddha doesn't know — TheMadFool

What I'm trying to explain to you, is that the Buddha lived and taught in a place where the Hebrew bible was unknown, and that he didn't address his audiences in terms of 'God' at all. You're fixated on this question, which frames the whole subject in terms that were outside to the Buddhist framework. If you're interested in trying to understand why that is so, then it is something to discuss, but if you keep repeating the same thing over and over, there's really no point.

There are some philosophical convergences between Buddhist and Christian teaching, but until you understand the above, it would not be fruitful to discuss it.

I personally like to try to figure out what's being talked about before I move on to propositions about them — Wosret

Ok.

''God'' is an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being

''Exist'' means to have effects in our world and the afterlife (if that's true).

@Wosret- I'm not trying to 'condescend', merely to introduce a bit of clarity to a discussion about a subject that is near and dear to me.

But it wasn't that the Buddha was unaware of a creator-god: Brahma

Also, surely, a great mind as his must've considered an all powerful divinity.

You're not mocking people's names? Shouldn't be too attached then...

In all fairness, I disputed it myself when it was thrown in my face a few days ago, but I spent some time thinking about it, and decided that I was mistaken. I disputed it for different reasons, suggesting that it was an ironic statement, that he meant only that the "I" hand't gained anything, his ego (a way better objection than any of yours *sticks out tongue*).

And don't half-assed address me, so that you try not to give me a notification... do or do not bro.

Again, concepts are not something that can be understood, or apprehended a priori, besides for logical form only, coherency and consistency. Facts are logically contingent, and neither necessary, nor contradictory, but all could be true. If it were that easy, then there would be no question.

It can be dismissed, disagreed with, translations called into question and all that... but that I'm not giving examples is not one of them... — Wosret

This is NOT about translations being called into question. This simply cannot be found in the sutras.

You're not mocking people's names? — Wosret

Well, if you're going to call yourself 'Mad Fool'.... :-|

But it wasn't that the Buddha was unaware of a creator-god: Brahma — TheMadFool

Do you think Brahma is the same god as Jehovah, or a different God? And do you think that Hindus and Christians would agree that they are the same? In Hindu mythology, Brahma is sometimes supreme, other times the offspring of Shiva. It doesn't sound to me that this could be the same God as the Biblical One. And, how would you tell?

In any case, it's immaterial to the Buddha's teaching. He didn't say 'believe in me and you will be saved', or 'believe in God'.

So, you're saying Buddha was ignorant of God (omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being). I find that highly implausible.

Hinduism has the holy trinity of Shiva (destroyer), Vishnu (protector) and Brahma (creator).

You mean to say that the Buddha didn't/couldn't start off from that to conceive of a God?

This is clearly unreasonable.

It appears that the central ideas of Buddhism have much more to do with this life than next life. Here seemed to be concerned with happiness of others and himself and probably found the Hindu caste system distasteful. From this he suggests two main ideas:

1) Desire for more and more leads to a tumble to less and less. The higher you climb the bigger the fall (he most probably wasn't looking for great notoriety if he embraced his own ideas).

2) A method to moderate the ups and downs in life is to follow a Middle Path.

I think that is the gist of Buddhism and the rest was developed over time (including the Karma thing) for different purposes with different motivations. When it came to the nature of God and life and death he might have shrugged it off or he might have the thought it is cyclical as we keep learning.

There may be something to be gained from pondering emptiness, what is not physically there, or words not said. I hopefully would not presume to speak for the Buddha, little to be gained by doing that. But to look at the donut, instead of the hole for just a moment... Some good stuff here.

Buddha Quotes:

All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is transformed can wrong-doing remain?

The mind is everything. What you think you become.

It is a man’s own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.

There is nothing so disobedient as an undisciplined mind, and there is nothing so obedient as a disciplined mind.

Nothing can harm you as much as your own thoughts unguarded.

To conquer oneself is a greater task than conquering others.

You cannot travel the path until you have become the path itself.

The only real failure in life is not to be true to the best one knows.

No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.

Purity or impurity depends on oneself. No one can purify another.

However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?

Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.

Three things can not hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the Truth.

If we could see the miracle of a single flower clearly, our whole life would change.

Those who have failed to work toward the truth have missed the purpose of living.

There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.

In separateness lies the world’s greatest misery; in compassion lies the world’s true strength.

When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky.

If you light a lamp for somebody, it will also brighten your path.

If you find no one to support you on the spiritual path, walk alone. There is no companionship with the immature.

Learn this from water: loud splashes the brook but the oceans depth are calm.

I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done.

If you knew what I know about the power of giving you would not let a single meal pass without sharing it in some way.

It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you.

Look within, thou art the Buddha.

The whole secret of existence is to have no fear.

You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.

If the problem can be solved why worry? If the problem cannot be solved worrying will do you no good.

There is no path to happiness: happiness is the path.

Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.

Even death is not to be feared by one who has lived wisely.

A man is not called wise because he talks and talks again; but if he is peaceful, loving and fearless.

You only lose what you cling to.

Pain is certain, suffering is optional.

As you walk and eat and travel, be where you are. Otherwise you will miss most of your life.

The past is already gone, the future is not yet here. There’s only one moment for you to live.

Even as a solid rock is unshaken by the wind, so are the wise unshaken by praise or blame.

Wear your ego like a loose fitting garment.

The trouble is, you think you have time.

A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker.

People with opinions just go around bothering one another.

Remembering a wrong is like carrying a burden on the mind.

There isn’t enough darkness in all the world to snuff out the light of one little candle.

One moment can change a day, one day can change a life and one life can change the world.

Imagine that every person in the world is enlightened but you. They are all your teachers, each doing just the right things to help you.

Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill.

True love is born from understanding.

Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.

Every morning we are born again. What we do today is what matters most.

Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.

Every human being is the author of his own health or disease.

If you are facing in the right direction, all you need to do is keep on walking.

(From here. Hopefully these are all accurate quotes.)

I don't think Buddha can be quoted since he didn't write anything down, and even if he did, it would be subject to translation of a very old language which has different meaning than it has today.

Such quotes from different modern sources simply have to be taken as quotes from a modern source that are somewhat influenced by numerous other historical sources.

For sure, quotes that old that have been translated and retranslated will probably not be exactly what was originally said, assuming it was said at all. But i will have to disagree that he cannot be quoted at all since he apparently wrote nothing- if that is what you are saying. Someone can be quoted at a press conference, for instance FWIW. :)

Yes, even a once removed quote in the same language presents problems (as we are observing in real-time). Context matters.

However, in the case of Buddha, hundreds of years transpired before anything was written down and then there is distortion after that.

I just take quotes and ideas for what they are.

@Agustino, @Wosret

There is one thing I know that is inexpressible - CHAOS.

Is God = chaos?

Is God = chaos? — TheMadFool

God is beyond order and beyond chaos.

To repeat the ignostic "Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" point that hopefully is not a cliche, and is definitely not meant to stop discussion or comment, and not to label it futile. Simply to frame such as limited but potentially useful, like directions drawn onto a napkin. (Or like describing the size of something with your hands. How about describing the size of the Pacific Ocean with your hands?) This goes for most metaphysical statements, and especially any "God is..." statements, i do believe framing them as relative, limited, and conditional is helpful despite seeming initially restrictive. For example, consider these statements:

God is. God is not. God both is and is not.
God is here. God is not here. God in some ways is here, and in some ways is not here.
God is love. God is more than love.
God is more than God. God cannot be more than God. God is more than humans' idea of God.
God can be somewhat known. God can be known, but not described.
God can be described, but not known.
The meaning of life is love. Or choice. Or the quest for knowledge and wisdom.
There is no meaning of life. The meaning of life is in the living of it... etc...

I am not necessarily endorsing nor denying any of these sentences, of course. Not saying here that words are ultimately meaningless. I guess the point is to consider paradox, expand upon logic (build upon logic, transcend and include it), and let go of literalness when it may be beneficial. This may be obvious or foolish, but it helps me deal with concepts, ymmv.

"Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" — 0 thru 9

Oh wow, sounds exactly like Christian theology!

I imagine to know what you might mean, but if you wish to elaborate it would be appreciated. Joking, not joking, half-serious, other? Thanks.