If I may be provocative here, my impression of a lot of Buddhist discourse about God – by whatever name or conceptualization of the transcendental – is that it begins with a kind of bias, or perhaps better said, with a kind of default skepticism about or resistance to the idea of God. But the Buddha did not express that skepticism or resistance in the Pali Canon, at least as I have read it. He was a fierce critic of the presumption of an atman widespread in his day, but he was not Brahmanic version of Richard Dawkins!

If anything, there are numerous instances where he uses language that seems to point to something transcendental, something – or as I prefer to put it in my essay on Eddies, some *nature* of things – that transcends ordinary reality (even the reality that contains dozens of planes of existence): terms like "the unconditioned" or "the deathless." In its emphasis on individual action as the source of karma and either suffering or its end, Buddhism contains an implicit critique of the notion of God as an omniscient and omnipotent being (in some sense of that word, being). But I can't find a critique in Buddhism, either explicit or implicit, of a Vedanta-esque notion of God as a kind of transcendental Ground Or a critique of my proposal here that God in some sense could be woven into the *nature* of things. I am not saying that the Buddha asserted that there is such a transcendental aspect to the nature of things, but I do believe that that notion of God is not inconsistent with Buddhism, at least in its original expressions.

By the way, the sort-of-conversation we are having here about this subject is kind of amazing, and I wish there was more of it in Buddhist circles!

Best wishes to you all,

Rick

Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh reformulates the three marks from the traditional anicca, anatta, dukkha to be anicca, anatta, nibbana instead. I don't have a firm opinion, but it's fascinating to consider the possibility that both perspectives might have practical efficacy.

And from the perspective of practice, if there is some transcendental influence in the world, some Grace, I agree with you that it will be part of the field of experience. In the Christian model, Grace means that there is nothing one can do to attain to salvation; it's a gift. In the Buddhadhamma, the approach seems to be so different: We are the owners of our kamma, heirs to our kamma, and the Buddha enjoins us to work out our salvation for ourselves. Yet I agree that the experience of Grace can be present regardless of which perspective one prefers.

One challenge, I think, is to bring insight to every experience that arises and engage it with non-clinging, even Grace.

Metta,
Jeff

With regard to Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh's rendering of MN 143, I think he may have taken some liberties. Ven. Sariputta gives the dying Anathapindika direct instructions for how to train, but I don't believe his words in the sutta convey an opinion about anything described as "our true nature."

I think one pitfall for some people can be the temptation to pursue "my own true nature," to understand what is really "me." The problem with this is the orientation that presupposes our concept of self-identity must have some underlying validity. But as Ven. Sariputta advises Anathapindika: "You should train thus: I will not cling to what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, sought after, and examined by the mind …"

With metta and gratitude.