Buddha rebuked a Demiurge god, who thought he was, The One True God.

a reply to: nenothtu

So his god can tell another god to go to hell, can put him in his place, but can't beat him?

According to the story, this god was a pretender, not the eternal god. The Buddha had power over this god, he turned invisible and stopped this god from moving so he could teach the souls trapped in his deceptive lower heaven in order to help them get to the true heaven. The story is in the link the OP posted.

originally posted by: nenothtu
So it's a "make yourself above the gods" system? that's about all that can be taken from "transcend".

The way I understand it, Buddhism is some kind of pantheist or panentheist philosophy that refuses to use the word god knowing very well it only leads to misunderstanding. "gods" are sometimes mentioned but simply as lower spiritual entities similar to the angels or demons of Christian faith. Imperfect, reflections of our inner human nature.

Meaning that what you call god is NOT a personal deity, and gods for buddhism are not exactly external characters. The divine, the physical and the mental realms are the same things. God IS the universe, not some characters detached from it. I actually think this is the best way to look at all ancient religions. "God" is such a culturally charged word that Buddhists are very inspired for not using it.

Our modern scientific view of the world, explaining always more how the universe works in terms of cold logical laws, leaves less and less room for the unutterable and the divine. So today, in this XXIst century, we believe that when religious texts talk about gods/god, they are some kind of mythical characters watching humanity from their ivory tower.

It's NOT what religions (christian faith, buddhism, and all other traditions) were about originally. For these religions there was no separation between you, the sacred and the universe. Everything is part of the same reality. Knowing god/the sacred was knowing yourself was knowing the universe.

In such a pantheist / panentheist philosophy, transcendence doesn't really mean making yourself above the gods (or if it does, it doesn't literally mean "being better than gods" but "being better than man's lower nature"). It's about transcending the limited view regarding your personal identity. About who you think you are through the experience of your senses and consciousness (the Maya/"Illusion" from Hinduism), and who you really are from the perspective of an all-encompassing deity, as part of an interconnected reality where nothing and noone is separated but through the experience of the ego.


If you analyze all religions and philosophies (christian faith, buddhism and all the others) through this correct point of view, then all seeming incoherences between religions are dispelled.


There is only one true spirituality and it's the one that can't be explained through books but must be experienced PERSONALLY. All the shamans, the monks, the mystics and the ascets all describe the same divine reality, but this reality is deformed by the limitations of the language and the cultural baggage of the experiencer.

Ascending above the illusion, conquering the "evil" lower nature of man, being one with god, finding enlightenment, it's all the same spiritual process described through different words.


Religions have lost and diluted their empowering message through the countless interpretations and discussions of theologians and priests, and through the nearsightedness of the common follower who can't see these teachings for what they are; a path to the INNER communion with our divine nature, and instead dumb them down to a series of societal laws and liturgical rituals.



The teachings of Buddha and Christ are related in a very simple way. Both were mystics who found inside themselves the glorious truth that spawned all spiritualities, all religions and all moral laws. It's not by chance if the Golden rule is found in all cultures worldwide, it's not by chance the mystics of all religions can talk to each other like loving brothers while the simple people struggling to "get" religions will debate until the end of times over petty details like whether it "pleases god" or not to eat pork, to convert others to your faith or to dance naked while praising the sun.


Until most people will finally get this simple fact, religions and their apparent differences will be a never-ending source of dispute and an obstacle to their own spiritual development.





It never ceases to amaze me how all this is so evident for the people who experienced it personally (following the teachings of their faith or simply through their personal path of life), how they can see behind the veil how all spiritualities are related and connected through this similar experience of connection with the "divine". And yet, the same is completely impossible to understand and accept as possible and real for the vast majority who never had such a life-changing experience.

No matter how hard I try to convey this truth, no matter how clearly I explain the concepts, it's always distorted, misunderstood or ridiculed. Such is the nature of language which cannot convey the notion of infinty and interconnectedness. Our language is finite, our words have separate meanings, no amount of religious texts can ever convey a correct representation of what "god" is and how we should search for it inside ourselves.

At best, the ones who the most correctly manage to give us a glimpse of the divine perfection are the artists. Painters, poets, musicians, they can give birth to powerful emotions in us and sometimes, when hit by genius, can convey a feeling of divine perfection in their work. Not really surprising then to know the etymology of "genius":

In ancient Rome, the genius (plural in Latin genii) was the guiding spirit or tutelary deity of a person, family (gens), or place (genius loci). The noun is related to the Latin verb genui, genitus, "to bring into being, create, produce". Because the achievements of exceptional individuals seemed to indicate the presence of a particularly powerful genius, by the time of Augustus the word began to acquire its secondary meaning of "inspiration, talent". The term genius acquired its modern sense in the eighteenth century, and is a conflation of two Latin terms: genius, as above, and ingenium, a related noun referring to our innate dispositions and talents.

Unless one can rise above its limited perceptions of what god/gods are, of what religions are about, unless he can accept to reserve any judgement and to PERSONALLY, GENUINELY and HUMBLY TRY to apply the spiritual teachings of the masters of all faiths, he will never be able to understand the full extent of the truths conveyed in religious and philosophical texts.


IMHO

originally posted by: randyvs
But when people called Christ God, he did not deny it.

People did not called Christ God. They called him the messiah.

originally posted by: dominicus
I want you, everyone on ATS, the whole globe to join me in becoming non-returners.....minus all ego of course

Thanks but I wouldn't mind coming back Boddhisattva-style. I love this little blue jewel of a planet.

Maybe when the time will come I'll be ready to dissolve back into eternity but so far I'm enjoying the ride way too much

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: randyvs
But when people called Christ God, he did not deny it.

People did not called Christ God. They called him the messiah.

come on man.....do some research. How can you comment on this subject with such a weak knowledge base?

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: randyvs
But when people called Christ God, he did not deny it.

People did not called Christ God. They called him the messiah.

come on man.....do some research. How can you comment on this subject with such a weak knowledge base?

I think you mistake what the Christian religion is calling Jesus (a member of the Holy Trinity), and how he was called, or calling himself in the text of the Bible.

But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father

Like I explained it many times earlier, this is the paradox that is easy to understand to a mystic, and difficult to get for others. Jesus is not saying he is God. He's saying he is in God, and that God is in him.

Very important nuance.

His actual teaching is also that the same is true for everyone. When Jesus explains he's the way to God, it of course means he is setting up an example for us on how to find God in us.


For Jesus, as for Buddha and many other spiritual teachers, God was an experiential reality. He was one of those people for whom the sacred was, a firsthand religious experience rather than a secondhand belief.

Mystical experience not only changes the way mystics see. It also empowers, for mystics have experienced a reality, a ground, greater than themselves and the world. Empowerment begets courage and often leads to passionate protest against the way things are and advocacy of another vision of how things can be. For these mystics, the world has a positive value; it is the good creation of God, and not simply to be escaped. Rather, it is filled with the glory of God. It is where we live--but it needs to be changed.

It is in this sense of the word "mystic" that I see Jesus as a Jewish mystic. What the gospels report about about him fits this profile very well. He not only experienced God, but it was the ground of his vocation, activity, and teaching. He spoke and taught from the Spirit, he healed from the Spirit, and he became a passionate advocate of God's passion for justice. Jesus as a Jewish mystic also stood in the tradition of the Jewish Bible with its passion for justice. The God whom he experienced was not a "generic" sacred, but the God of Israel, the God of the law and the prophets.

Or maybe you could deny ignorance and refer me to a quote from the Bible where people are literally calling Jesus God. That would be kind.


I also invite you to read this article to clear out your misconceptions about Jesus being called God in the Bible.

www.biblicalunitarian.com...

a reply to: JUhrman

They're talking about the quote from Thomas In John 20

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: JUhrman

They're talking about the quote from Thomas In John 20

From the link I posted above

Does the Bible ever refer to Jesus Christ as “God”?

Considering the fact that the majority of Christians have been taught that Jesus is God, that is a very good question. “And the answer is…”—Yes, and No. Huh?
The answer is Yes only because most versions of the Bible wrongly capitalize the word “God” in Hebrews 1:8 and elsewhere. In a sense, the answer is also Yes because Jesus is called “god” in the Bible. The answer is No because Jesus is never called “God” in the same way as is the Father, who Jesus himself referred to as “the only true God” (John 17:3). There is only one “capital-G” God, and that is the Father (1 Cor. 8:6). And, as we will see, Jesus is far and away the best of all the “small-g” gods.
Jesus is called “god” in the Bible? Yes, and so are Satan, Moses, the spiritual leaders of Israel, and pagan deities. A study of the word “god” in Scripture will show that there are quite a number of different ways that word is used, and that whether or not it is capitalized makes a big difference in its meaning.

[...]

Another pertinent verse is John 20:28, where Thomas cried out upon first seeing the resurrected Christ: “My Lord and my God.” Many people use that verse to prove that Jesus is God, but it does not, for two reasons. The first is that the Bible is not stating that Jesus is God, the Bible is stating that Thomas called Jesus “God.” And the second reason is that “God” should be “god.” As a Jew, Thomas was familiar with that usage of the word “god.”
So, the Bible does refer to Jesus as “god,” but only in the sense of his being the perfect representative of the only true God, his Father and his God. Neither God nor Jesus ever said that he is God. Both call him the Son of God.

a reply to: JUhrman

Im not saying I disagree with you... Most of the Christian world is Trinitarian... and that article is from a Unitarian site

SO it will automatically be dismissed by most of the Christian world...

the fact is Jesus was not God... he was the son of God, exactly as he said...

And if one actually reads the gospels, its almost impossible to come to the conclusion that he was God unless there is an outside influence such as a pastor or church telling you what it really means...

Read john 10... he specifically denies being God....

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

a reply to: Akragon

Thanks for the informative posts.

It's true most Christians will disagree and call Christ "God".

And in a sense they are both right and wrong. The nature of Christ is certainly divine. Yet he is not the One God. Since the One God is experienced personally, Jesus can't be experiencing himself. But I understand why worshipping Jesus and following his steps gives a human figure to an infinite reality, and that is something people can relate to.

I just wish more religious people would get that the God they are after is experienced within, and that it doesnt require to be bound by a specific tradition or definition, that it's not really a personal god (Jesus is closer to that). God just is, and Jesus like others is showing the way to find It.

a reply to: JUhrman

Luke 22:70
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You say that I am."

King James Bible
Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

During Christ's trial, the chief priests asked Him point blank, "Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." And He said,

"I am." (Mark 14:60-62)
"Yes, it is as you say." (Matt. 26: 63-65)
"You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:67-70)

originally posted by: Logarock
originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: randyvs
But when people called Christ God, he did not deny it.

JUhrman: People did not called Christ God. They called him the messiah.

Logarock: come on man.....do some research. How can you comment on this subject with such a weak knowledge base?

I am still having a problem with the concept of a "DEMIURGE" existing and NO ONE will explain this concept/what it is and why or IF it actually manifested into human consciousness (or is just a FAD- the current fashionable explanation to a complex problem-that being BY NAMING are solving the problem of the human doubting their own faith based belief systems). Whatever people call Jesus it still resonates 2000 years later, (I prefer to be thought of PROCLAIM myself as one of Gods misfit toys).

A lot of words thrown around here like God, Christ and divine.

Can anyone even define intelligently any of these terms?

What is divine?

Please don’t say God like

Messiah (Christ) means anointed. So what? What does anointed mean?

Get your feet rubbed with alligator grease by Mary Magdalene?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I am still having a problem with the concept of a "DEMIURGE" existing and NO ONE will explain this concept

Wiki Demiurge

There are all sorts of beings yes? Bugs, animals, humans, possibly aliens, and even higher intelligence/beings. Now, if I build a wood cabin by myself, from reading a DIY manual which I actually own, and an ape came across this building, he would think that some sort of higher intelligence created this building, if he even has the capacity to think in those terms, which science says they don't, but humans do.

So in this case, we see the created world, human existence, mythological and possibly some first hand accounts in a variety of cultures of how this all came to be, and people deduce that some sort of god is the one who made all this.

Its really not hard to conclude that there can be some extremely large and super-intelligent beings who have the capabilities to create life from scratch, like scientists are starting to learn to do in labs here on Earth, but I'm talking grand scale stuff like starting big bangs, universes, black holes, worm holes, etc. So if a human saw a being doing something like this, they would think its god.

Also there are gnostic books that reference traps in the afterlife, beings pretending to be god, the link I provided showing that Buddha debated a being who thought he was god, etc. This demiurge theme runs deep through a variety of cultures.

I don't think it manifested into human consciousness, but instead found a way to trap consciousness into human bodies with ego as the virus that leads to limitations/divisions/separation, etc. Its kind of like stealing sparks of fire to animate pieces of clay.

I remember pre-existing, and in that state as pure consciousness, I had zero of the issues, limits, tendencies, inner wars that I have here because of a body/ego complex, which has taken quite some time and work (that still continues) to see these aspects as not me, in turn freeing things up a bit.

(or is just a FAD- the current fashionable explanation to a complex problem-that being BY NAMING are solving the problem of the human doubting their own faith based belief systems).

I don't think its a fad. The theme goes back as far as history. Take the OT and start to break it up and you can automatically start questioning god's decision in that book where he takes sides, is jealous, regrets, orders one side to kill another side while also taking their women and killing their children, requires smoke and blood of animal sacrifices, is wrathful and destructive. I know some people who are like this, historical dictators come to mind.

Then another side says this "Source" we all come from is impersonal, all love, all truth, the very foundational omnipresence in which all things exist, and is transcendent in a way where it does not get jealous, or regret, or is wrathful.....simply Is, Being itself with no boundaries.

So there are two stories to a similar coin. Personally I had been wrestling with this for years and just recently found this Buddhist sutra that describes this interaction with Mara, and it just clicked with all the other gnostic sayings. I've also heard personally from people who gained access to the Spirit realm, that there is no one true god, but beings who survive on the love, offerings, killings in the name of, the people here on earth. And that there is a Source, but it is universal and always accessible.

Christians also say that Christ stands before God, for their sake, so that in judgement they are covered by him. I think that's another cool idea, cause if this demiurge uses your mistakes/sins in this life to blame you into hell, or into returning to incarnate, then Christ is sort of covering your back and saying, "I got this one covered, I died in his place and its on me." Though to me that's still theoretical.

Anyway, to sum it all up, demiurge is a being who might just really have the power and ability to create, but is not himself the absolute supreme source, and yet acts like he is because he also forgot his origins. Because of this, quite possibly, billions are being deceived (Xtians/Catholics/Jews/Muslims/Etc)

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Demiurge is a concept that may be called God’s chief of staff.

Look at it this way:

According to the myth everything was okie dokie before the Fall of man

Whatever happened afterward started another form of reality for humans that entailed mild to extreme suffering; extreme for most.

Something besides the wonderful God that ruled during the time everything was okay took over when the suffering, after the fall, kicked in,
That’s the Demiurge

The Demiurge therefore can be defined as God plus suffering

When the suffering ends after the Apocalypse then the demiurge dies and God takes over again.

originally posted by: dominicus
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

VHB:
I am still having a problem with the concept of a "DEMIURGE" existing and NO ONE will explain this concept

dominicus: There are all sorts of beings yes? Bugs, animals, humans, possibly aliens, and even higher intelligence/beings. Now, if I build a wood cabin by myself, from reading a DIY manual which I actually own, and an ape came across this building, he would think that some sort of higher intelligence created this building, if he even has the capacity to think in those terms, which science says they don't, but humans do.

All animate beings (and some not) have sentience that differ in degrees of "awareness". An ape would look at your structure as something to take apart and play with. A bear would consider it a possible winter 'den site' (bears are practical and take advantage of an opportunity). Neither animal would/could conceive this place you built as one created by a higher intelligence because it has no capacity for discernment on a human level (nice geodesic dome).

D: So in this case, we see the created world, human existence, mythological and possibly some first hand accounts in a variety of cultures of how this all came to be, and people deduce that some sort of god is the one who made all this.
Its really not hard to conclude that there can be some extremely large and super-intelligent beings who have the capabilities to create life from scratch, like scientists are starting to learn to do in labs here on Earth, but I'm talking grand scale stuff like starting big bangs, universes, black holes, worm holes, etc. So if a human saw a being doing something like this, they would think its god.

We see the created world as one we created. We miss what was established long before humankind walked this Earth (NATURAL occurances); that which was an environment uncontaminated by the humans creator and was "just fine thank you" in the absence of. Why does the truth have to be 'mythologicalized'; myth is truth one way or another no matter what belief system it originates from. They all mimic the same story lines (oddly). It is not hard at all to conclude this planet is a petri dish, experimental lab for all forms of potential to spring from by "others" (and they have many names throughout many cultures). I agree with "if a human observed a being doing/would think its god"; however they missed the part of the engineering process that caused them/made them cognizant or aware (enlightened as to their immediate circumstances).

D: Also there are gnostic books that reference traps in the afterlife, beings pretending to be god, the link I provided showing that Buddha debated a being who thought he was god, etc. This demiurge theme runs deep through a variety of cultures.
I don't think it manifested into human consciousness, but instead found a way to trap consciousness into human bodies with ego as the virus that leads to limitations/divisions/separation, etc. Its kind of like stealing sparks of fire to animate pieces of clay.

I see what you are describing as DOUBT and what would most easily trap a human soul into indecision and stasis; and what leads from there; limitation/no forward movement. There is a robbing of energy taking place.

D: I remember pre-existing, and in that state as pure consciousness, I had zero of the issues, limits, tendencies, inner wars that I have here because of a body/ego complex, which has taken quite some time and work (that still continues) to see these aspects as not me, in turn freeing things up a bit.

You are a brave one to exclaim (path of fire and light) not easy. You incarnated here to observe relinquish surrender. Absolute dedication: Gnosis.

VHB

or is just a FAD- the current fashionable explanation to a complex problem-that being BY NAMING are solving the problem of the human doubting their own faith based belief systems).

D: I don't think its a fad. The theme goes back as far as history. Take the OT and start to break it up and you can automatically start questioning god's decision in that book where he takes sides, is jealous, regrets, orders one side to kill another side while also taking their women and killing their children, requires smoke and blood of animal sacrifices, is wrathful and destructive.

I am of the opinion we are God Particles it divided from itself to KNOW ITSELF better and ITS potential (as was lonely) and all behavior (human/animal) is allowed as it OWNS all failings or triumphs/living as/through us, its minions to express itself. There is no foul.

D: Then another side says this "Source" we all come from is impersonal, all love, all truth, the very foundational omnipresence in which all things exist, and is transcendent in a way where it does not get jealous, or regret, or is wrathful.....simply Is, Being itself with no boundaries.

Oh no, not impersonal at all; there is a true vested interest in the perfect idea 'human'. Being ITSELF (GOD) in a playground here on earth via/as the human experience is itself a no boundaries allowed environment (who's in charge).

D: So there are two stories to a similar coin. Personally I had been wrestling with this for years and just recently found this Buddhist sutra that describes this interaction with Mara, and it just clicked with all the other gnostic sayings. I've also heard personally from people who gained access to the Spirit realm, that there is no one true god, but beings who survive on the love, offerings, killings in the name of, the people here on earth. And that there is a Source, but it is universal and always accessible.

I understand it this way. There is a field of energy or the Absolute Unbounded Oneness. One thinker sees it as a binary system of 1s and 0s organizing itself to make long strings of something that would resemble communication. Another would see it as Chaos organizing itself into small visual fractal compartments (coast line of England is the same visually from observed above at 4 inches as it is from 4 miles). I would not give "Source" the time of day; as IT is an egotistical narcissist blowhard.

D: Christians also say that Christ stands before God, for their sake, so that in judgement they are covered by him. I think that's another cool idea, cause if this demiurge uses your mistakes/sins in this life to blame you into hell, or into returning to incarnate, then Christ is sort of covering your back and saying, "I got this one covered, I died in his place and its on me." Though to me that's still theoretical.

Right. Christ becomes the sacrificial lamb for all sins before committed and all after. Everyone gets a Pass Go FREE card to heaven (do not think that was the plan; not sure he's that happy about his unfortunate physical demise or his (unintended spiritual birth of an organized belief system).

D: Anyway, to sum it all up, demiurge is a being who might just really have the power and ability to create, but is not himself the absolute supreme source, and yet acts like he is because he also forgot his origins. Because of this, quite possibly, billions are being deceived.

So; Demiurge can be any belief system (faith): .gov, Hollywood studio or traveling carnival you have doubts or suspicions about.

a reply to: dodol
I don't remember if I have posted this one for you - just in case I didn't I will share this....

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

Demiurge is a concept that may be called God’s chief of staff.

Look at it this way:
According to the myth everything was okie dokie before the Fall of man
Whatever happened afterward started another form of reality for humans that entailed mild to extreme suffering; extreme for most.
Something besides the wonderful God that ruled during the time everything was okay took over when the suffering, after the fall, kicked in,
That’s the DemiurgeThe Demiurge therefore can be defined as God plus suffering
When the suffering ends after the Apocalypse then the demiurge dies and God takes over again.

Interesting; so, as God created all things, including the idea of a Demiurge just to confuse and further baffle the Human. Why? There was no 'Fall" just a failure to communicate how this would play out as history is recorded in THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. God suffers (via the human creation) because it want to FEEL SOMETHING; its not a material being. God does not suffer; it rejoices in both human suffering/defeat and despite of; the outstanding capacity of humans to continue to love have generosity in their hearts their/genius/inventiveness/resourcefulness/ingenuity leading to awesome TRIUMPHS (miracles) you agree Demiurge has no part of as an underling paper pushing administrator?

a reply to: randyvs

You must have serious comprehension issues to think "God" and "the son of God" means the same thing, even after all my attempts to show the difference.

Are you your father?


For the last time: saying you are the son of god is perfectly nomal for a mystic to say (we all are children of god). It only makes no sense if you haven't experienced god yourself (god is an inner experience), which is likely your case, and keep believing god is some kind of dude who decides who lives or die.

originally posted by: Willtell
Can anyone even define intelligently any of these terms?

What is divine?

It entirely depends on your theological views. Which is the heart of the problem when people (like Jesus, or like this thread) talk about god. Because when I say god it means something for me and something else for others.


That's why people should precise their faith when talking about this. That's why I said I'm basically a pantheist/panentheist, so god and the divine are a LOT of things.

For me god is the greatest reality and the highest level of consciousness that exists, and that human can sometimes experience, giving them a strong feeling of non-duality.


It's almost impossible to convey through words so any attempts by me to do so are vain. I already explained that last page. Each time I will try, only those who experienced it themselves will get it.

Like I can't describe the color purple to a blind person, I can't explain god to someone who never experience it himself.

It's entirely experienced and subjective.