What do Buddhists believe about God and the afterlife?

Agreed on afterlife and mythical parts, not about reincarnation.

Another consideration is that we lose our individual identity upon death, becoming a part of the greater whole. To become one with God. If so, like a raindrop in the ocean, although the raindrop becomes part of the ocean, it isn't lost. It's also not a lone raindrop anymore. It's part of a greater whole. Although heating of the ocean will cause the cycle of evaporation, condensation and precipitation to continue, none will ever be the same raindrops even if they are ever so slightly related to each other.

 

That is very attractive and appeals to me. As purpose always has. My mind has an affinity for purpose.

 

Don't get me wrong, even as a Christian there are many things I like about this teaching but having studied this guy its obvious what he was up to. He traveled all over, studied all types of things "looking" for that thing.

He couldn't find it so created what he wanted.

Overall I'd say it was a positive thing he did although its hardly a replacement for a belief in God.

Nice supplemental however.

 

At the most fundamental level, every atom in our bodies is a "raindrop" in the universe's "ocean". You know the ol' "we are star stuff" stuff.

That is about the closest to thing immortality I can think of. Too bad it lacks the intellectual and emotional "comfort" required for sapient enlightenment.

 

I don't know about that. There are times, when I'm relaxed and free from stress, that I find more comfort in that than in any thought of a "traditional" afterlife.

 

At the risk of sounding like the ex hippie I am, I call that plugged into the vibe, man.

 

Agreed we're all star stuff, but that's only the physical.

Negative vibes man.

 

Unless the whole physical/spiritual divide is an illusion, which is what a lot of Buddhists believe.

 

That is part of the illusion. Bill Hicks talked about that at the end of his act towards the end of his life.

 

I do not know if he created what he wanted, and neither do you. If he did discover something, within consciousness, which is supposed to have happened, this is not much different from the kingdom that christ spoke of that is within consciousness. The similarity here is just too great to dismiss. The language would vary, given the great difference in cultures.

In fact, if you listen to people like thomas merton and eckhardt, there may be more affinity to buddha and christ than we might want to admit. And in a way even with the philosophy of Lao Tzu. Huxley called it the perennial philosophy.

Buddha sought the truth by exploring his own consciousness, and that is basically what christ personally taught, to seek within the kingdom of god. To knock upon metaphorical inner doors. To seek and you will find. But this requires motivation and an energy and intent in that seeking. And it is difficult. And so much easier to just follow orthodox christian beliefs which does not emphasize this inner seeking, but gives one another path that does not demand such inner seeking.

 

Agreed. Siddhartha Gautama died over four centuries before Jesus. Nothing is known of Jesus between age 12 and 33. It's realistic that he may have traveled East and learned Buddhist philosophies and tied them to his Judaism. The difference between the OT and NT is night and day. The difference between the preaching of Jesus and Buddhist principles is very close as both Merton and Eckhardt point out.

Differences between Zen and Christianity can be traced to differences between Eastern and Western philosophies. Western philosophy is more rigid and linear. Eastern philosophy is more flexible and holistic. Alan Watts points out these differences quite often in his lectures. In one example he noted how a Western boy would ask his parents "How was I made?" whereas an Eastern boy would ask "How did I grow?"

https://erowid.org/culture/characters/watts_alan/watts_alan_article1.shtml

 

Yeah, I like Watt's take on this issue. I think I have read all of his books. Long ago.

 

Obviously you don't know what a Christian is. Jesus said "I Am the Way the Truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except thru Me." The words "I AM" in Jewish tradition referred to and was reserved for only deity.

 

IMHO Christianity is not a philosophy.

 

Not just a philosophy. It's a religion. Still, there is Christian philosophy.

Example: https://www.allaboutworldview.org/christian-philosophy.htm

 

What is called jesus in one religion may be called something else in another. But same thing. Probably is the case.

 

Yes, I guess you are correct. But if one believes and is a "Follower of the Way"....it is so much more than either.

 

Christians do not even agree on what a Christian is. Not only are there many different sects (denominations) there are hundreds of variations and many Christians do not consider other Christians to be Christian. A Buddhist is Buddhist if he/she says they are an no one really cares.

 

Well, I certainly don't know what you consider a Christian to be. I reckon the vast majority of Christians in any common understanding are quite happy to use the words "I am" for things other than deities.

 

However. when we seek the Truth revealed in the Word.....we take it in the context of the culture at the time.

 

Agreed words, be they from a religious or secular texts like our Constitution, should be taken into historical context.

Do you take the Bible literally? That the world is only 6000 years old? The God created Adam wholly formed then Eve from his rib? That Jonah spent 3 days inside a whale?

 

I do....that is until God shows me otherwise. I have seen scientific evidence both ways and am not totally convinced of either quite honestly. I trust God. As far as Adam's rib.... that could have been figuratively spoken. We do know that the rib contains DNA, the design and instructions for life. Until recent decades, no one could understand that. You are right, Max. Words are a tool and we need to strive to find the intentions behind them. Somewhere in there lies Truth. There is so much power behind the spoken word. We humans have never yet learned to master that. Yet God, peing perfect is the originator of all things. He "spoke" them into existance.

 

How do you decide what in the Bible is literally true and what is "figuratively spoken"? Why do you agree that God created man out of dust but not the rib story?

 

The old traditional Asian ways are for everyone in the western world a challenge.

Buddhism itself says nothing about god. The problem of Buddhism is the theme "to suffer". It starts with the so called four noble truths. The first of the noble truths is 'The noble truth about suffering' ...

Both. Buddhists are able to be polytheists and also able to be atheists, but 'militant' or extreme atheists are not able to be Buddhists, what's another problem. When you would ask Buddha, then I think Shakyamuni would say to you: "I say nothing about this. What I say is: It exists suffering …" Nevertheless the belief in reincarnation for example is typical for Buddhists.

Reincarnation is comparable with hell. Nirvana is comparable with heaven. A buddha is someone who ends the own circles of reincarnations and is able to reach the nirvana. A bodhisattva is someone who is able to reach the nirvana - but stays in the circle of reincarnations and helps all other living entities until all living entities will be able to reach the nirvana.

I hope this answer was helpful although I am not a Buddhist but a Catholic.

 

Congratulations Sam. You've managed to find a subject that generates civil discourse.
Hardly a troll in the whole bunch.