Dependent origination and impermanence make logical sense to me, but a part of me really wants to believe in God. I'm trying to figure out if this is the truth or just another form of clinging.
>>42562503In the buddhist theology Gods do exist they just aren't creators of the universe. Still powerful and live millions or billion+years but ultimately still die. Apparently gods like Brahma have converted to buddhism and Shiva in buddhist tantras after being defeated by vajrapani, was converted.
>>42562503All is one is infinite anon. You, me, we, the rocks on the ground, all God, all participating in and co-creating the totality of phenomenon and experience. Advaita Vedanta holds that only Nirguna Brahman, attributeless, unchanging consciousness, is ultimately real. The world is Maya: not absolutely unreal, but a superimposition arising from avidyā (ignorance). The practical risk is subtle dualism, treating liberation as escape to something hidden behind experience, which can entrench the seeker/sought structure it's trying to dissolve.Madhyamaka Buddhism holds that all phenomena are empty of intrinsic existence (Śūnyatā) and arise dependently (pratītyasamutpāda). These are not two things but one truth from two angles. The practical risk is nihilism, mistaking the negation of intrinsic existence for the assertion of nothing.Neo-Vedanta (Vivekananda, Radhakrishnan) resolves the Advaita tension by making Saguna Brahman, the world as active expression of Brahman, genuinely real. Maya becomes not illusion but misperception of the world as independent from Brahman. This brings it structurally closer to Madhyamaka and process philosophy.The resolution: Nirguna Brahman and Śūnyatā are both pointing at the same ineffable suchness (tathātā) from opposite directions, one affirmative, one negative. Neither is wrong; both are pedagogical tools whose opposition dissolves at the limit. The "ninth view" of the catuskoti, the viewless view, is where they converge. Calling it a Self goes too far; calling it no-self isn't far enough. What it is, is the freedom required for the possibility of anything. It's God anon.
>>42562628Thank you for the reply. I think you said it very well. I'd be interested to know what you think of Dvaita Vedanta (Madhvacharya)
>>42562711Where Advaita sees ultimate identity and Neo-Vedanta sees qualified expression, Dvaita maintains eternal ontological distinctions (pañca-bheda) between Brahman, souls, and matter. The world is genuinely real, not māyā in the illusory sense, and liberation comes through devotional communion rather than non-dual realization. It avoids the subtle dualism risk in Advaita by never collapsing the seeker into the sought, while preserving a clear devotional structure.
>yet another buddhist preaching thread
>>42562503You don't get to God trough logic and argumentation, because logic is empty. It's only a tool to rearrange experience. It cannot create something out of nothing, nor put into its conclusions something that was not inherent in the premises to begin with, unless you use fallacies. You get to God trough participation in the Church, trough striving, trough prayer and ascetic practice (hesychasm). https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/can-theology-be-combined-with-philosophy/https://web.archive.org/web/20230703030704/https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/a-noetic-life/
>>42563584>argumentationarguingTwo less syllables.Actually a real word in a dictionary.Win win.
>>42562503If there is a powerful being that created this world it is a kind of demiurge. In hinduist terms this would be Brahma (who is seen as an imperfect deity that made mistakes like creating demons). And such a being would be bound to karma and impermanence as well and not able to liberate us. If "God" is something like a cosmic force or source of creation it's not a being with a plan for the world and it wouldn't make sense to worship it.
>>42563646I'll let the clanker answer this one, since it's not worth arguing about.
>>42563846>it's not a being with a plan for the worldCorrect. No plan. This is the endgame and final equilibrium.>wouldn't make sense to worship it.Yep. If you have any plans or any desire to advance your self, you should stay far far away from God. One day you'll be able to be Brahma again and run your own universe.
>>42563584Prime brainwashing material you got here.
>>42563846The Monad isn't responsible for the demiurge because they don't have a typical linear causal relationship. I think it's a bit beyond our understanding but I do want to believe in an innocent and omnibenevolent source.
>>42564244>no argumentsHere is monk with bear.
