Proof of the unconditional love of God (or Buddha)

 It occurred to me recently that there is tangible proof right around us of God’s unconditional love, so I decided to write about it here.


When we make offerings to God (or to the Buddha), has God ever actually accepted them?


We might say, "Let's make an offering to God today out of gratitude," and present food or drink, but when we look the next day, it’s still sitting there.


"God hasn't eaten any of it! It’s going to spoil if left like this."


Exactly. God has never once accepted our tribute—and neither has the Buddha. In other words, isn't God essentially saying this?


"I don't want or need such things; you should share them among yourselves, or give them to the poor who truly need them."


That is why the offerings are returned to us as gifts *from* God—blessings to be shared.


"Well then, why not just share them among everyone from the start?"


Exactly. And if that circle of sharing expands wider and wider until it encompasses all of humanity, God is satisfied. God doesn't mind at all if He is forgotten in the process.


This reminds me of a story from Confucianism.


An ancient sage-king of China (was it Yao or Shun?) once went out into the city in disguise to see if the realm was well-governed. He heard the common people singing:


"We till our own fields and feed ourselves; we are content. Where is the Emperor's benevolence to be found?"


They were singing something to that effect. Upon hearing this, the Emperor returned home satisfied, thinking, "My reign is excellent."


Confucianism understood it, too—the concept of unconditional love. If you replace the Emperor with God in that story:


"We earn our own living and feed ourselves; we are content. We haven't received any divine favor—in fact, there is no such thing as God."


Hearing people say this, God would be pleased. That’s how it is, isn't it? Whether people believe in God or not, God is satisfied as long as they are happy. In fact, wouldn't the ideal scenario be a world where everyone is an atheist—yet everyone is happy?


That is precisely the kind of "unconditional love" God embodies, after all.


However, since we aren't likely to reach that ideal state overnight, I do think religion remains necessary for the time being. I believe religion offers a faster, easier, and more steady path toward that ideal.


Guided by love and compassion


←

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bodhisattva Never Disparaging

 "All will be saved." I've even gone so far as to think that this is the same as what Bodhisattva Never Disparaging, who appears in the Lotus Sutra, already proclaimed: "I do not despise you. You will all become Buddhas." Isn't it the same thing when I say "All will be saved" and when Bodhisattva Never Disparaging says "All will become Buddhas"? So what I'm doing is just copying Bodhisattva Never Disparaging. It's an honor. This bodhisattva was always spreading the word, "I do not despise you. You will all become Buddhas," so everyone found him annoying, and he ended up being persecuted by people throwing stones at him and hitting him with sticks. So what did this bodhisattva do? "He ran away to avoid them and shouted from afar, 'I do not despise you. You will all become Buddhas!'" Not cool. Instead of facing them with dignity, he cowardly runs away, turning his back on the enemy and howling from afar l...
Read more

Two Theorems of Religion

 To summarize all the scriptures, I believe they can be summed up in two theorems: 1. God (Buddha) loves all of us. 2. The God (Buddha) who loves us all is the only one who is omniscient and omnipotent. First, if God (Buddha) does not love us, then we are finished. We would be hopeless. No matter how omniscient and omnipotent God may be, if He does not love us, He has no meaning to us. It is precisely because He loves us that He has meaning to us. Next, second, no matter how much God loves us, if He is not omniscient and omnipotent, then He is meaningless. If God is not omniscient and omnipotent, then we can imagine situations where "even God cannot save this person." And the exception clause "this person is impossible" is always over-interpreted, weakening God's love, leading to "this person, this person, too, cannot be saved," and ultimately to "no one can be saved." "This person is the only one He can't save." When we say thi...
Read more

What can be derived from the two theorems of religion?

 I've gone through Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Ramakrishna (Hinduism?), reading each of their sacred texts. But for some reason, God (Buddha) sealed them away, and I haven't been able to open them for the past 15 or 20 years. They're still on the bookshelf on the left, though. Naturally, I gradually forgot the words of the scriptures, and only two things remained. 1. God(Buddha) loves us. 2. God (Buddha) is  the only one who is omniscient and omnipotent  . And from these two theorems, we can deduce: "All people will be saved." Perhaps we should call people sentient beings. In other words, all life. It's a natural conclusion. It's as self-evident as saying that 1 + 1 = 2. If we are loved by God (Buddha) and that God (Buddha) is omnipotent and omniscient, then of course we will be saved. That's what I'm here to say, but I'm not the first person to say it. Shinran said it, Nichiren reluctantly acknowledged it, Origen also said it in Christi...
Read more