Faith and Belief

For my understanding -

Allah is not a thing,
Allah is not everything,
Allah is not nothing(ness)
 
There is the Irada (Divine Will) - expressed by the Amr (Command or Decree) - which is "Kun (Be) fayakun (And it is)"

Interestingly, the word Kawn (Cosmos) comes from the same root as Kun, as does the word Kaynunah (Existence).

It would / could (and does to me) indicate that Al Kawn (The Cosmos) and even Kaynunah (Existence) is a manifestation of the Amr (Command) rather than a manifestation of "Himself"

The Dhat ul-Allah (Essence of Allah) is not to be equated with the Irada nor the Amr.

Imam Ghazzali spoke about the mystery of the Amr, being neither creation nor Creator - it seems - and Allah knows best !
 
Arif Ghamiq said:
There is the Irada (Divine Will) - expressed by the Amr (Command or Decree) - which is "Kun (Be) fayakun (And it is)"

Interestingly, the word Kawn (Cosmos) comes from the same root as Kun, as does the word Kaynunah (Existence).

It would / could (and does to me) indicate that Al Kawn (The Cosmos) and even Kaynunah (Existence) is a manifestation of the Amr (Command) rather than a manifestation of "Himself"

The Dhat ul-Allah (Essence of Allah) is not to be equated with the Irada nor the Amr.

Imam Ghazzali spoke about the mystery of the Amr, being neither creation nor Creator - it seems - and Allah knows best !
Click to expand...
I totally agree! With this..it is beyond! Thanks you for the understanding
 
Arif Ghamiq said:
It would / could (and does to me) indicate that Al Kawn (The Cosmos) and even Kaynunah (Existence) is a manifestation of the Amr (Command) rather than a manifestation of "Himself"
Click to expand...

Thank you. The above seems to relate to the distinction between "God" and "Godhead". (The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart spoke of praying to God to free him from God)

The distinction (between God and Godhead) is one of the subjects of debate between Thomas Merton and D T Duzuki in "Wisdom in Emptiness" which ends the book "Zen and the Birds of Appetite".

Merton, a good Catholic, seems reluctant to speak of the Godhead, while Suzuki ends by asserting that "when God as Creator came out of the Godhead he did not leave the Godhead behind"

(Suzuki also says - relating to "nothingness/emptiness" - that zen emptiness is not the emptiness of nothingness, but "the emptiness of fullness in which there is no 'gain, no loss, no increase, no decrease' ")

Just to add, and this is important to me, when Merton and Suzuki met in New York (Merton having escaped from the confines of his monastery!) he - Merton - quoted the words of a Portuguese theologian to Suzuki, "Praise be to God that I am not good". Suzuki was struck by the words, and said "that is so important".
 
No_One said:
My definition of God is ‘from’ a no(thing)..this would make every(thing)/any(thing) belonging to no(thing). It’s like numbers...1 cannot start/or be without a zero.
A Nothing or zero gives volume/ or a creative of space...for an (ORDER) to begin. With(out) n(one)..one cannot begin. And just like us humans..we are one..but many say nothing doesn’t exist, which I say it does!..so question is for whom listens, what is nothing?
Click to expand...

Hi, interesting. I flounder a bit, yet the above very much relates - and reminds me of - Buddhist thought, and for me, at this moment, with that of the 13th century zen master Dogen.

Dogen places "time" within the total context of his thought, this (says Hee-Jin Kim) "was done not from any speculative interests, which he vehemently disdained, but out of existential concerns with the impermanence of life and its limits, namely death. Thus his analysis of time......was deeply personal, existential and soteriological"
 
To me 'nothingness' is not the same thing as 'emptiness'. Nothing means there isn't anything there. It doesn't mean 'outside of something, or beyond or before or surrounding something.' Nothing isn't the opposite of something. Anything that exists is something. Spirit is something. Nothing just doesn't exist. Nothing can ever come from it, because it isn't there?
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
To me 'nothingness' is not the same thing as 'emptiness'. Nothing means there isn't anything there. It doesn't mean 'outside of something, or beyond or before or surrounding something.' Nothing isn't the opposite of something. Anything that exists is something. Spirit is something. Nothing just doesn't exist. Nothing can ever come from it, because it isn't there?
Click to expand...

Within Buddhist thought the word "nothingness" is a technical term, ('sunyata')

Alas, for the unwary, it can indicate nihilism.
 
With a fruit cake in the oven, I dipped into a book of zen poems, found this and will share:-

Self evident, truth mistakes no thing.
But my heart's a long way from there
and nothing's very clear.
Yellow gold is almost burnt up
by my desire.
White hair grows beside the fire.
Bitter indecision: choose, This, or maybe That.
Even the spirit speaks in riddles
and makes it hard to harvest
the essence of a single day.
Catch the wind while you tether shadows.
Faith, or a man who'll stand by his word, is
all there is. There is no disputing.

(Kuan Hsiu 832-912)
 
CobblersApprentice said:
Within Buddhist thought the word "nothingness" is a technical term, ('sunyata')

Alas, for the unwary, it can indicate nihilism.
Click to expand...
Well, nihilism is part of it, I think. To deny that would deny the universality of emptiness.

Nihilism is just as empty as any other construct. Maybe, for some, Nihilism can be a "Dharma gate", precisely because of this insight.
 
Cino said:
Well, nihilism is part of it, I think. To deny that would deny the universality of emptiness.

Nihilism is just as empty as any other construct. Maybe, for some, Nihilism can be a "Dharma gate", precisely because of this insight.
Click to expand...

The fundamental Buddhist texts are unequivocal in rejecting the two alternatives of "eternalism" and "anihilationism". The Buddha taught the "middle way", not a way/position lying between two extremes but a "no position" that supercedes both.

A lot of mischief (to use a pleasant euphemism) is indulged in by many Christians - and others - seeking to denigrate Buddhist thought and practice in favour of their own over this very point. I think it has been touched upon in the other thread in the Philosophy section.
 
StevePame said:
I’m really enjoying this thread!
Click to expand...

Very happy to hear this. I've always loved threads that meander about. I'm afraid to say that is how my mind works despite some past efforts to keep it more "on track". I suppose it could be why I find the Pure Land way of "no calculation", of things being "made to become so of themselves" so attractive. As the Good Book says, in one of the little parables of the kingdom, "for the earth brings forth fruits of itself."

One of my all time favorites was a thread on a Buddhist Forum, "Why are you not a Christian?" . Within just a few posts it had drifted onto kamikazi pilots, then onto the difference between South American frogs and the common English garden variety.
 
CobblersApprentice said:
The fundamental Buddhist texts are unequivocal in rejecting the two alternatives of "eternalism" and "anihilationism". The Buddha taught the "middle way", not a way/position lying between two extremes but a "no position" that supercedes both.

A lot of mischief (to use a pleasant euphemism) is indulged in by many Christians - and others - seeking to denigrate Buddhist thought and practice in favour of their own over this very point. I think it has been touched upon in the other thread in the Philosophy section.
Click to expand...

Certainly, and I'm not saying nihilism is a particularly buddhist thing - it isn't - just mentioning that the Buddhist teaching on emptiness works fine when applied to non-buddhist views like nihilism.

You know, a bit like that hard-working nihilist from the Big Lebowsky. No hostage, no money...
 
Cino said:
Certainly, and I'm not saying nihilism is a particularly buddhist thing - it isn't - just mentioning that the Buddhist teaching on emptiness works fine when applied to non-buddhist views like nihilism.

You know, a bit like that hard-working nihilist from the Big Lebowsky. No hostage, no money...
Click to expand...

I'm not much of a film buff, the last feature film I saw was "Titanic". The Big Lebowsky? But, yes, I read through your post a second time and got a second take on it. Maybe I'm a bit over sensitive to such assertions aimed at Buddhist thought. It even runs to translation, where for instance with Nagarjuna his words that mean " is not seen" or "is not found" or "do not occur" are given as "do not exist". The Sanskrit for "does not exist" is na asti, and Nagarjuna used this when he meant it.

Thus the experiential/existential nature of Nagarjuna's exposition is lost, replaced by a conclusion of thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CobblersApprentice said:
I'm not much of a film buff, the last feature film I saw was "Titanic". The Big Lebowsky? But, yes, I read through your post a second time and got a second take on it. Maybe I'm a bit over sensitive to such assertions aimed at Buddhist thought. It even runs to translation, where for instance with Nagarjuna his words that mean " is not seen" or "is not found" or "do not occur" are given as "do not exist". The Sanskrit for "does not exist" is na asti, and Nagarjuna used this when he meant it.

Thus the experiential/existential nature of Nagarjuna's exposition is lost, replaced by a conclusion of thought.
Click to expand...

Nagarjuna left behind a grab-bag of tricks to win philosophical arguments. Good stuff, reallu useful toolbox to deconstruct any view (hello nihilism), but not a coherent teaching, as far as I can tell. That was the work of later commentators.

A bit on my background, then, to defuse things:

I like Buddhism, but as with all the other traditions, which I also like, I keep an irreverent attitude, because there is so much that I don't like, and I got burnt really badly with the "the things I dislike must have an ultimately good purpose, I'm just not advanced/wise/humble/purified/... enough for them yet, so I'm gonna swallow it anyhow". Because of this I sometimes overstep or use an inappropriate tone.

Please excuse. I'll be better than that.

Please carry on, you're posting good stuff!
 
Cino said:
Nagarjuna left behind a grab-bag of tricks to win philosophical arguments. Good stuff, reallu useful toolbox to deconstruct any view (hello nihilism), but not a coherent teaching, as far as I can tell. That was the work of later commentators.

A bit on my background, then, to defuse things:

I like Buddhism, but as with all the other traditions, which I also like, I keep an irreverent attitude, because there is so much that I don't like, and I got burnt really badly with the "the things I dislike must have an ultimately good purpose, I'm just not advanced/wise/humble/purified/... enough for them yet, so I'm gonna swallow it anyhow". Because of this I sometimes overstep or use an inappropriate tone.

Please excuse. I'll be better than that.

Please carry on, you're posting good stuff!
Click to expand...

There isn't much to defuse. As you explain it, you are much the same as myself. "Just take what you need and leave the rest" as is sung on "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down". Possibly the only reason I have stayed with Pure Land so long is because I'm a long long way from any other practictioners! My favourite Buddhist writer is Stephen Batchelor, who comes in for a lot of stick from the "orthodox/fundamentalists" because of his agnostic attitude towards rebirth and other goodies advocated by the control freaks.

I was "stung" at a very early age by some "born again Christians" who would make the JW's appear liberal. Since then I have "worked out my salvation in fear and trembling", I seek no knowledge in order to accumulate a war chest.

Honestly, you have overstepped nothing in my eyes.

Just to add, in saying the Nembutsu (thank you, thank you, thank you) it really is the heart of my life.

Well, enough for now. Bed time. All the best.
 
The topic of something and nothing is a topic I spend most my days conversing about. I hear voices and they speak of both nothing and something and is how all came to be. They say nothing found something in the beginning of time and tried to figure it out. Something allowed nothing into it's mind until there was only something that now remained. Nothing, then went into something many many more times until they started to become something and then went into themselves five more times until they found time. Nothing is not nothing it is just not here or nothing here and can become something again if it can figure itself out. We are trillions of cells become nothing here through out our lifetime all of these minds can become ourselves again once we are not finding time here, and if you can figure yourself out.

As for faith, I take this to have more of a religious or spiritual undertone, verses belief that can be more personal or backed by science. I have the belief the world is round but I do not have faith the world is round.

powessy
 
powessy said:
The topic of something and nothing is a topic I spend most my days conversing about. I hear voices and they speak of both nothing and something and is how all came to be. They say nothing found something in the beginning of time and tried to figure it out. Something allowed nothing into it's mind until there was only something that now remained. Nothing, then went into something many many more times until they started to become something and then went into themselves five more times until they found time. Nothing is not nothing it is just not here or nothing here and can become something again if it can figure itself out. We are trillions of cells become nothing here through out our lifetime all of these minds can become ourselves again once we are not finding time here, and if you can figure yourself out.
Click to expand...

I'm not absolutely sure, but I think I saw the original Monty Python sketch.

"powessy said:
As for faith, I take this to have more of a religious or spiritual undertone, verses belief that can be more personal or backed by science. I have the belief the world is round but I do not have faith the world is round.

powessy
Click to expand...

The earth is actually an oblate spheroid. Who needs belief when we have Google?

EDIT:- My apologies powessy if I have taken your post in the wrong way. Sorry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top