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