Pray tell what other answers to the question of God's existence
do you have besides these three?
Yes
No
Don't Know
Actually the answer is just either Yes or No, the third answer
is actually an admission of ignorance, which is IMO a better and
more humble answer than the arrogant stance of apathy displayed by
some here.
to me this is a simple question. but funny if u keep don't get
it, our stance is.
Re context depend on the "god" u are refering and one's
understanding. if deva god(s)(including the fake Brahma/"creator"
god, then the answer is YES. if refering to a real creator god with
a unique autonomous entity as Xtian
understood, then NO. the True Mind we are talking about have to be
understood instead. Posted before but never get into the brain,
Dalai Lama's answer:-
A: I understand
the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be
the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of
emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved.
This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However,
in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only
one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light,
the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all
phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous
source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion
that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great
Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a
stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light
has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in
this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of
veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great
bliss.
We can say, therefore, that this
ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator,
since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana,
originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this
source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there
exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light,
analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We
must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must
understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light,
we are speaking on an individual level.
Likewise, when we speak of karma
as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique
entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather,
collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the
origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we
say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize
this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of
each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence,
understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the
stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the
intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the
various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both
the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light
loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take
shape.
In this way, death and the
intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations
emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to
that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state
emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the
stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical
incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The
ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial
Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of
the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different
realms of samsaric existence.
This is how I understand the
concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to
conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from
beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent
creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the
"Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the
ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes
the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in
turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The
Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations
which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes
the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to
interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this
type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html
/\