Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: God and His Manifestations - Progressive Revelation
Message-ID: <4924@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 14:35:29 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4924
Posted: Mon Jan 14 14:35:29 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 14:35:29 EST
References: <697@hou2h.UUCP>, <727@hou2h.UUCP>, <20980063@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 55

I don't know too much about Baha'i, but if that quote was indicative
of what they believe, then I can assert that they don't know very much
about Buddhism or Tantric Hinduism (the only sort of Hinduism I know
very much about -- I suspect they don't know very much about Hinduism of
any sort, but can't prove it.)

One thing which is going to trouble Westerners which are discovering
Buddhism is that there is remarkably little concern with *why* life works,
compared to *how* life works. The idea is not to get a hold of some set
of ultimate truths, but to get together something which *works*, and
*is useful*.

Whether there is one god, or lots of gods, or no god, is very useful
information if you want to get a real picture of ``the truth of the
universe'' but according to Gautama [the historical Buddha] one should
stop seeking explanations of how things got to be the way they are
and just concentrate on the business at hand.

There is a very good passage in which the Buddha is engaged in a long
discussion with a holy man names Potthapada. [Actually, Potthapada
does most of the talking...]

First Potthapada asks if consciousness is different from the soul.
Gautama has no answer. He then asks ``Is the word eternal? Is this
alone the truth and any other view mere folly?'' He goes on 
and on with more and more detailed questions on the nature of the
soul, and the nature of the world. To each one of these questions
Gautama replies ``That too, Potthapada, is a matter upon which I
have expressed no opinion.'' Asked why, the Buddha responded ``this
question is not calculated to profit; it is not concerned with the
Dharma; it does not concern itself even with the elements of right
conduct, nor to detachment, nor to purification from lusts, nor
to quietude, nor to tranquilisation of the heart, nor to the insight of
the higher stages of the Path, nor to Nirvana. Therefore I express no
opinion about it.''

When asked what he does express an opinion upon, he goes back to
the basics: dukkha, samudaya, nirodha, marga.

So, if you find a room full of Buddhists, you will be sure to
find some who think that there is no god (and the whole concept a
trap and attatchment), some who think there are lots of gods, and
a whole lot more who express no opinion on the subject. it is just
not very useful -- if it helps you to think there is only one god,
fine, if it helps you to think there are a lot of gods, fine, and
if it helps you to think there is no god, also fine.

The notion of ``one god, the creator'' is also not likely to go
down very well among people who have already experienced the mystic
understanding that everything *is* god, and that there is no
separateness between ``him/her/it/them'' and ``the world''. Did you
create your arm? The question is hard to think about...

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura