Hey, Bandit, reading between the lines of your response to me illustrates the point I think devadatta was trying to make: without defining what we're talking about, how do you know that "my God" looks like "your God?" If "my God" doesn't resemble yours does it mean that I don't believe and am wrong? See, that's where I think the apophatic thesists and the Buddhists in a sense come together. What does "God" look like? Where does "God live?" Once you start thinking of "God" as an entity, you start encountering these questions that make no sense. Actually both Buddhists and Christians tend to think of spiritual entities, (devas and angels if you will), yet neither group claims that those entities represent their "ultimate" reality. In fact, both camps would say that "ultimate" reality in not describable in conventional language since that language is dualitic-things being either-or. In some schools of Buddhism, they speak of "Buddha Mind" as that ultimate reality and as the reality underlying all phenomena. So, in a sense when 1 is acting from "Buddha Mind," one, to use more theisitic thinking, is doing the bidding of the Ultimate, not doing the bidding of oneself, (meaning acting from "self-"ish motives). From the "God" side of my multiple theology disordered mind, that sounds no different than when Christians speak of doing "God's" will.
To continue from the God-side of the discussion, perhaps 1 can have a Moses & the burning bush kind of encounter with "God" but if you think about it, one never sees the "face of God," one can only "see" the effects of God; like ripples in a pond caused by the unseen stone thrown into it. What's interesting is to consider whether "God" does exhibit aspects we associate with "personhood," such as sentience, purpose, ability to relate in a personally loving manner. All of the literature of near-death experiences that speak of common occurrences of one experiencing universal love/compassion upon leaving the body, purposeful review of one's life past and possible "sentient" indications for the future are all tantalizingly suggestive of such divine sentience-though again at least semantically those experiences can be called by many things other than "God." (frankly, what's in a name?) Buddhists don't tend to speak of a Creator or purpose, yet they speak of karma and the indeterminant cycles of change (growth?) that lead to enlightenment-which they consider a good thing. That can imply "direction," "purpose" and a process implying "intelligence-"they simply don't try to put a face on Buddha Nature.
In Zen they speak of trying to see your "original face" before your parents were born, meaning a koan to jar someone out of their concrete view of a "self" to an open, more intuitive understanding. Similarly, for theists, I guess the ultimate is to see the face of God-a lovely koan-"what is the face of God?" We can strive to be the "effect" of God, to look for the effect of God, but I doubt we can anymore see the face of God than we can find our original face before our parents were born. So, Bandit, do i believe? Yes. But what do i believe? This. If when you & I both figure this out, please let me know
Take care, Earl
To continue from the God-side of the discussion, perhaps 1 can have a Moses & the burning bush kind of encounter with "God" but if you think about it, one never sees the "face of God," one can only "see" the effects of God; like ripples in a pond caused by the unseen stone thrown into it. What's interesting is to consider whether "God" does exhibit aspects we associate with "personhood," such as sentience, purpose, ability to relate in a personally loving manner. All of the literature of near-death experiences that speak of common occurrences of one experiencing universal love/compassion upon leaving the body, purposeful review of one's life past and possible "sentient" indications for the future are all tantalizingly suggestive of such divine sentience-though again at least semantically those experiences can be called by many things other than "God." (frankly, what's in a name?) Buddhists don't tend to speak of a Creator or purpose, yet they speak of karma and the indeterminant cycles of change (growth?) that lead to enlightenment-which they consider a good thing. That can imply "direction," "purpose" and a process implying "intelligence-"they simply don't try to put a face on Buddha Nature.
In Zen they speak of trying to see your "original face" before your parents were born, meaning a koan to jar someone out of their concrete view of a "self" to an open, more intuitive understanding. Similarly, for theists, I guess the ultimate is to see the face of God-a lovely koan-"what is the face of God?" We can strive to be the "effect" of God, to look for the effect of God, but I doubt we can anymore see the face of God than we can find our original face before our parents were born. So, Bandit, do i believe? Yes. But what do i believe? This. If when you & I both figure this out, please let me know
Take care, Earl
