Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

There is no Creator God in Buddhism

cazcaz VeteranUnited Kingdom Veteran
See the Brahmajala Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html



There is a being that proclaims to be the creator and is as such worshipped by many cultures however even such a being according to Buddha arises due to the force of Karma, This beings belief that it creates others and that below it arises due to its own prideful Ignorance. The Buddha taught that Samsara is cyclic with no beginning and as such universes and the beings that dwell within them have arisen time and time again due to the force of Karma.
...
39. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world.[7] There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

40. "But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.

41. "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

42. "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'

"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.'

43. "Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who re-arose there after him.

44. "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'
...
Silouan
«1

Comments

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    DaftChris said:

    Yes, God is considered neutral/not important in Buddhism, but that doesn't mean Buddha explicitly said "There is no God".

    There are plenty of theistic Buddhists. As long as they are good, compassionate people, does it really matter of they believe in God or not?

    And I just might add that some of us accept varying degrees of Buddhist thought. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Even in the Catholic Church the Pope doesn't prevent people from freedom of thought.

    KundoSilouan
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    DaftChris said:

    Yes, God is considered neutral/not important in Buddhism, but that doesn't mean Buddha explicitly said "There is no God".

    There are plenty of theistic Buddhists. As long as they are good, compassionate people, does it really matter of they believe in God or not?

    He spoke of various gods but they are caught in Samsara as everyone else is as such Samsaric Gods are not worthy refuge.


  • Thank you @caz

    Any god described in that manner the Christian mystic can likewise dispense with, so for me it is a great reference and very validating information you have provided.
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    caz said:

    DaftChris said:

    Yes, God is considered neutral/not important in Buddhism, but that doesn't mean Buddha explicitly said "There is no God".

    There are plenty of theistic Buddhists. As long as they are good, compassionate people, does it really matter of they believe in God or not?

    He spoke of various gods but they are caught in Samsara as everyone else is as such Samsaric Gods are not worthy refuge.


    But are they really Gods if they are mortal and powerless to help themselves or others against samsara? Aren't they then just beings with a higher place in samsara?
    vinlyn
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran

    caz said:

    DaftChris said:

    Yes, God is considered neutral/not important in Buddhism, but that doesn't mean Buddha explicitly said "There is no God".

    There are plenty of theistic Buddhists. As long as they are good, compassionate people, does it really matter of they believe in God or not?

    He spoke of various gods but they are caught in Samsara as everyone else is as such Samsaric Gods are not worthy refuge.


    But are they really Gods if they are mortal and powerless to help themselves or others against samsara? Aren't they then just beings with a higher place in samsara?
    So the Buddha is in reality a God?

    /Victor

    :-/
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran



    So the Buddha is in reality a God?

    /Victor

    :-/

    I'm not clear how you got that from TheEccentric's post.
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    vinlyn said:



    So the Buddha is in reality a God?

    /Victor

    :-/

    I'm not clear how you got that from TheEccentric's post.
    The Buddha is not "mortal" since he cannot die and can help both himself and others "against" samsara...

    So in a purely dualistic system that would imply that Buddha is a God.



  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    vinlyn said:



    So the Buddha is in reality a God?

    /Victor

    :-/

    I'm not clear how you got that from TheEccentric's post.
    The Buddha is not "mortal" since he cannot die and can help both himself and others "against" samsara...

    So in a purely dualistic system that would imply that Buddha is a God.



    I see what you're saying, but I don't see that in the posts of The Eccentric.

    Even so, I don't think that implies Buddha is a God. In Buddhist lore there are many beings in the heavens that can help people, but they are not considered gods.

  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited August 2013
    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:



    So the Buddha is in reality a God?

    /Victor

    :-/

    I'm not clear how you got that from TheEccentric's post.
    The Buddha is not "mortal" since he cannot die and can help both himself and others "against" samsara...

    So in a purely dualistic system that would imply that Buddha is a God.



    I see what you're saying, but I don't see that in the posts of The Eccentric.

    Even so, I don't think that implies Buddha is a God. In Buddhist lore there are many beings in the heavens that can help people, but they are not considered gods.

    First of all, in my own indirect way, I am actually questioning the presented definition of a God.

    Second of all I am not imlying that Buddha is a God.

    Third of all helping people is one thing helping people against samsara is an entirely different ballgame.

    Fourth of all that was TheEccentircs definition not mine...

    /Victor

  • Belief in this story is just as ridiculous as the belief in a creator god.
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    @TheEccentric and @vinlyn.

    I just meant that being in a higher place in Samsara (on that scale) entitles those being the name God among common people.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited August 2013
    @Victorious,

    In the mahayana Buddha Shakyamuni exists because we need him. He is a nirmanaka Buddha which means that we can see him. We cannot see the other two parts of the bodies of Buddha: samboghakaya and nirmanakaya. So nirmanakaya IS helping us. That's part of the true meaning of refuge. It's not just a call to devote your practice, rather it is also acknowledging how the actual universe will meet you and aid you. We cannot get off the hook. We need it! The features of this universe are: changing, having a heart to meet our heart, finely structured ie not an amorphous blob of emptiness, and having things non-manifest and manifest.

    In the sutras it is always said that the Buddhas (yes plural) and bodhisattvas rejoice whenever someone has a realization. My lama enjoys the thought that there are these beings saying "oh look I think he has gotten it... be praised!" I like it too.
    VictorioustaiyakiFullCirclecvalue
  • karmablueskarmablues Veteran
    edited August 2013
    In the Pali Canon, I think the Buddha recognized his role as being merely a teacher/guide, and it would be for his disciples to end suffering through their own efforts. From the Dhammapada:
    You yourselves must strive;
    the Buddhas only point the way.
    Those meditative ones who tread the path
    are released from the bonds of Mara.
    I think the most important point the Buddha wanted to get across is that ultimately we cannot truly depend on something external (whether it be him, a God or anyone else) for our happiness/peace. We alone must do the hard work of walking the path.
    Victorious
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran

    Hmm. I guess I was pretty unclear as to what I said and why.

    Using the criteria of not mortal and help against samsara the only beings that qualify as a God are Buddhas.

    I think that is not the case. God is just a name on a being (a lot) furthur up the karma scale.

    @Jeffrey
    What you said makes a lot of sense. I know the Universe has a heart to meet my heart. In fact I think I have relied on it many many times! Thanks for putting that into words!


    /Victor
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran

    caz said:

    DaftChris said:

    Yes, God is considered neutral/not important in Buddhism, but that doesn't mean Buddha explicitly said "There is no God".

    There are plenty of theistic Buddhists. As long as they are good, compassionate people, does it really matter of they believe in God or not?

    He spoke of various gods but they are caught in Samsara as everyone else is as such Samsaric Gods are not worthy refuge.


    But are they really Gods if they are mortal and powerless to help themselves or others against samsara? Aren't they then just beings with a higher place in samsara?
    Yes they are higher beings enjoying the fruits of their Karma but they to must pass away, Usually after many Millions-Billions or Aeons of time has past. They are traditionally Known as the Gods and there are many different type of Gods.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran

    caz said:

    DaftChris said:

    Yes, God is considered neutral/not important in Buddhism, but that doesn't mean Buddha explicitly said "There is no God".

    There are plenty of theistic Buddhists. As long as they are good, compassionate people, does it really matter of they believe in God or not?

    He spoke of various gods but they are caught in Samsara as everyone else is as such Samsaric Gods are not worthy refuge.


    But are they really Gods if they are mortal and powerless to help themselves or others against samsara? Aren't they then just beings with a higher place in samsara?
    Think it depends on how you define the word "god". In Buddhism, beings born in a higher place in samsara, are by definition, gods. Because they are in a higher place, the god realms, they are called gods. However, not all Buddhist gods are powerless to help themselves or others. Some of them are purported to be very powerful. Some are said to be significantly enlightened beings who are almost fully enlightened. But of course you can't leave samsara until you become fully enlightened.

  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    What if god is nothing more and nothing less than the universe becoming aware of itself, one perspective at a time?

    Not all god concepts involve a first cause much less an original name, especially if said god isn't even fully awakened yet.

    Evolution could be just a process of self discovery.

  • Whether there is a creator or not should not be the issue for a person searching for peace in life. You are already here and straddled with the worldly problems. Kung Fu Tze said, " One has not even solved the worldly problems yet, why worry about the afterlife?" or something to that effect.
  • Shunryu Suzuki has an interesting perspective on how having the idea of a creator God could actually be employed as a skillful means. Excerpt from Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind:
    According to Christianity, every existence in nature is something which was created for or given to us by God. That is the perfect idea of giving. But if you think that God created man, and that you are somehow separate from God, you are liable to think you have the ability to create something separate, something not given by Him. For instance, we create airplanes, and highways. And when we repeat, “ I create, I create, I create,” soon we forget who is actually the “I” which creates the various things; we soon forget about God. This is the danger of human culture. Actually, to create with the “big I” is to give; we cannot create and own what we create for ourselves since everything was created by God. This point should not be forgotten. But because we do forget who is doing the creating and the reason for the creation, we become attached to the material or exchange value. This has no value in comparison to the absolute value of something as God’s creation. Even though something has no material or relative value to any “small I,” it has absolute value in itself. Not to be attached to something is to be aware of its absolute value. Everything you do should be based on such an awareness, and not on material or self-centered ideas of value. Then whatever you do is true giving, is “dana prajna paramita.”

    When we sit in the cross-legged posture, we resume our fundamental activity of creation. There are perhaps three kinds of creation. The first is to be aware of ourselves after we finish zazen. When we sit we are nothing, we do not even realize what we are; we just sit. But when we stand up, we are there! That is the first step in creation. When you are there, everything else is there; everything is created all at once. When we emerge from nothing, when everything emerges from nothing, we see it all as a fresh new creation. This is non-attachment. The second kind of creation is when you act, or produce or prepare something like food or tea. The third kind is to create something within yourself, such as education, or culture, or art, or some system for our society. So there are three kinds of creation. But if you forget the first, the most important one, the other two will be like children who have lost their parents; their creation will mean nothing.

    Usually everyone forgets about zazen. Everyone forgets about God. They work very hard at the second and third kinds of creation, but God does not help the activity. How is it possible for Him to help when He does not realize who He is? That is why we have so many problems in this world. When we forget the fundamental source of our creating, we are like children who do not know what to do when they lose their parents.
    SilouanFullCircle
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    DaftChris said:


    There are plenty of theistic Buddhists.

    I haven't come across many.
    sean
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited August 2013
    Neither have I.
    But Buddhistic Theists are frequently encountered , particularly in contemplative circles.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Yes, we theistic Buddhists are out here.

    When I hear people think that theism and Buddhism are incompatible, I want to ask the question, "What percentage of Buddhist principles could not exist if there is a God?" Frankly, most Buddhist wisdom could exist very nicely either way.
    JeffreyKundo
  • The trouble with God comes if you think you don't have to cultivate anything. God shouldn't be a big 'babysitter'. I imagine most theistic Buddhists also cultivate, I am just saying.
    oceancaldera207
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    The trouble with God comes if you think you don't have to cultivate anything. God shouldn't be a big 'babysitter'. I imagine most theistic Buddhists also cultivate, I am just saying.

    Oh, I think that's a very valid comment.

    I have long assumed that God is not a micro-manager of man (in general) or of a man's life.

    MaryAnne
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    Yes, we theistic Buddhists are out here.

    When I hear people think that theism and Buddhism are incompatible, I want to ask the question, "What percentage of Buddhist principles could not exist if there is a God?" Frankly, most Buddhist wisdom could exist very nicely either way.

    Dependent Origination. Emptiness.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Caz, I know you'll be rigid on this. But I didn't say there's 100% compatibility. But I see nothing in the 4 Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, or the 5 basic Precepts that don't work pretty much just well in a theistic or non-theistic setting. In fact, I see just as much incompatibility in various schools of Buddhism as I do in Buddhism versus a theistic religion. And in fact, there is no need for a "versus" attitude about it. Each person may decide for themselves where the truth is.
    KundoMaryAnneDaiva
  • There is a bodhisattva vow not to take refuge in God. But that is the only place I'm aware of.
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    There is a bodhisattva vow not to take refuge in God. But that is the only place I'm aware of.

    Jeffrey thats a standard part of the Refuge Vows of Buddhism.

  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited August 2013
    Jeffrey said:

    The trouble with God comes if you think you don't have to cultivate anything. God shouldn't be a big 'babysitter'. I imagine most theistic Buddhists also cultivate, I am just saying.

    Yes, that's one obstacle to the practice according to AN 3.61, since the belief in a supreme being can be lead to the belief that everything a person experiences is due to such a supreme being, a denial of the efficacy of kamma (literally 'action'), and a life of inaction:
    Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

    In relation to the four noble truths and the practice of the noble eightfold path, the matter of the existence of God is, soteriologically speaking, unnecessary. The impetus of the practice is a strong conviction in the efficacy of actions and the intentions underlying them, not the existence of a supreme being (e.g., see MN 61).

    Of course, this doesn't mean that people can't believe in God and still practice the Dhamma, especially some of its more contemplative aspects; but it does mean that, at the very least, such views can negatively impact the practice when held inappropriately.
    karmablueslobster
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran

    DaftChris said:


    There are plenty of theistic Buddhists.

    I haven't come across many.
    I think Most Asian Buddhists are Theistic. I know more or less all Sri Lankan Buddhists are.

    Often the Shrines for the Gods are side by side with the shrine to the Buddha.

    /Victor

  • oceancaldera207oceancaldera207 Veteran
    edited August 2013
    Jeffrey said:

    The trouble with God comes if you think you don't have to cultivate anything. God shouldn't be a big 'babysitter'. I imagine most theistic Buddhists also cultivate, I am just saying.

    This
    and also that any crude, limited, compartmental, or humanized, conceptualization of god becomes a massive impediment to wisdom.

    Maturing past cultural imagery as god and belief of the ridiculous human pettiness of god... This is rare and intelligent.
  • KundoKundo Sydney, Australia Veteran

    I haven't come across many.

    Hi there

    :clap:
  • KundoKundo Sydney, Australia Veteran
    edited August 2013

    This
    and also that any crude, limited, compartmental, or humanized, conceptualization of god becomes a massive impediment to wisdom.

    Maturing past cultural imagery as god and belief of the ridiculous human pettiness of god... This is rare and intelligent.

    So, am I correct in interpreting your statement to mean you believe theistic Buddhists to be of lower intelligence than non-theistic Buddhists?
  • oceancaldera207oceancaldera207 Veteran
    edited August 2013
    Well only if you strictly define theistic as having a primitive view if deity, which excludes other deity images and their worshippers and has human pettiness and sentments. This is unabashedly nightmarish and very common.
    I should refine my statement and say that if the deity is used as a tool, as seen as one aspect of divinity with which the practitioner resonates, this is not unintelligent. (*exceedingly rare) along the same vein, I generally consider multi deity systems to be more authentic mature organic expressions of spirituality.

    Basically to answer your question no.. I believe in god, but I refuse to give it an arbitrary name, or personality, or see it as anything less than beyond description and the very fabric of everything that is...everything we are.
    Although this will start a vicious troll war, I'd like to say that Buddhism is a recipe to become acquainted with a more mature, universal understanding of god. An understanding which renders the term 'god' obsolete.
    Kundo
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    That's your self imposed task then @oceancaldera207.
    Other views of God are available. Other folk have other layers of conditioning to work through.
  • oceancaldera207oceancaldera207 Veteran
    edited August 2013
    Citta said:

    That's your self imposed task then @oceancaldera207.
    Other views of God are available. Other folk have other layers of conditioning to work through.

    Not sure what you mean here. Having independently and heavily analyzed the various concepts of god in my formative years I can assure you that anything and everything concerning what we call 'god' is complicated and requires much deliberation. Very early masonic literature was very instructive; a relatively unbiased but in-depth look at religions from centuries past. The concept god is not child's play even in its most illogical and superstitious manifestations. Luckily by following a simple moral line of questioning (ie questioning the exclusivity doctrine ie why do good people of other religions go to hell), we can immediately see that there must be more than meets the eye here. Then serious analysis begins..we begin to question what the word really means, and how others see it as well.

    Thus with moral awakenings come realizations of depth, the abstract, the profound...the truly powerful...the universal.
  • buddhism isnt a religion its a way of being.
    Victorious
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited August 2013

    This
    and also that any crude, limited, compartmental, or humanized, conceptualization of god becomes a massive impediment to wisdom.

    Maturing past cultural imagery as god and belief of the ridiculous human pettiness of god... This is rare and intelligent.

    So, am I correct in interpreting your statement to mean you believe theistic Buddhists to be of lower intelligence than non-theistic Buddhists?
    I read an article about a scientific study that suggested just that.

    If anybody is curious...

    /Victor.
  • blu3reeblu3ree Veteran
    edited August 2013
    @ oceancaldera207
    wisdom and intelligence are 2 very seperate categories of the mind.
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran

    Well only if you strictly define theistic as having a primitive view if deity, which excludes other deity images and their worshippers and has human pettiness and sentments. This is unabashedly nightmarish and very common.
    I should refine my statement and say that if the deity is used as a tool, as seen as one aspect of divinity with which the practitioner resonates, this is not unintelligent. (*exceedingly rare) along the same vein, I generally consider multi deity systems to be more authentic mature organic expressions of spirituality.

    Basically to answer your question no.. I believe in god, but I refuse to give it an arbitrary name, or personality, or see it as anything less than beyond description and the very fabric of everything that is...everything we are.
    Although this will start a vicious troll war, I'd like to say that Buddhism is a recipe to become acquainted with a more mature, universal understanding of god. An understanding which renders the term 'god' obsolete.

    This is precisely why Buddhism doesn't do the creator God.
  • The Buddha's understanding of creator gods was informed by his religious culture, and his doctrine of emptiness is very much applicable to them, because there is no separation between them and all other phenomena with the absolute. All are like a drop in a vast ocean grounded in emptiness.

    In contrast, the religious cultures in the Levant hold that there is a separation between the source of being beyond being and creation Ex Nihilo or out of nothing. Here creation is revealed as something outside of God, but not by location but by nature. I have offered this example before, though rather limiting, that a reflection of the moon on water is an image of its archetype but it is not the archetype.

    The fact that something is subject to change is evidence that it has a beginning, so how does a God, who is without cause or origin and unchanging, create out of nothing and maintain a relationship with His creation?

    One can either assume that the Buddha's doctrine are applicable no matter what without further investigation and dismiss any opposing doctrine, or one can actually investigate the opposing doctrines and apply his teachings to them and see if they hold water or not. There are many commentaries and treaties on these topics available for investigation.

    If someone makes the assertion that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can be dismissed with the doctrine of emptiness but can speak with an informed understanding about Trinity, essence, energies, Logos, logoi, movement, being, non-being, well-being,etc., by going to the traditional sources it would be much more meaningful, because one would not be speaking from a position of blind faith but rather through examination and that holds a lot of weight.

    The Buddha was very familiar with the predominate religions of his culture and applied his teachings to them, but if we take them and just cut and paste them to support our limited ideas or notions this is a form of confirmation bias.
    CittaDaftChrisDaivaperson
  • My teachers former teacher (not root guru I think) was Trungpa Rinpoche. The latter was very critical of theism particularly in his book Spiritual Materialism.

    But my teacher uses the term theism to mean that you are opening to blessings of Buddha or the lineage or your teacher. So in this context it is an opening. In Tibetan the word for pray has no subject or object. So you would say "pray guru rinpoche" (padmasambhava) instead of I pray to guru rinpoche. She said she taught at Gampo Abbey where her dharma sister's, via Trungpa, sangha concluded 'oh there is good theism and bad theism'.
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited August 2013
    caz said:


    This is precisely why Buddhism doesn't do the creator God.

    That is not entirely correct.

    In Dn 13 the Buddha teaches the path to union with Brahma or as you say God.

    http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/13-tevijja-e.html

    Or am I misreading you @caz?
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    Silouan said:

    The Buddha's understanding of creator gods was informed by his religious culture, and his doctrine of emptiness is very much applicable to them, because there is no separation between them and all other phenomena with the absolute. All are like a drop in a vast ocean grounded in emptiness.

    In contrast, the religious cultures in the Levant hold that there is a separation between the source of being beyond being and creation Ex Nihilo or out of nothing. Here creation is revealed as something outside of God, but not by location but by nature. I have offered this example before, though rather limiting, that a reflection of the moon on water is an image of its archetype but it is not the archetype.

    The fact that something is subject to change is evidence that it has a beginning, so how does a God, who is without cause or origin and unchanging, create out of nothing and maintain a relationship with His creation?

    One can either assume that the Buddha's doctrine are applicable no matter what without further investigation and dismiss any opposing doctrine, or one can actually investigate the opposing doctrines and apply his teachings to them and see if they hold water or not. There are many commentaries and treaties on these topics available for investigation.

    If someone makes the assertion that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can be dismissed with the doctrine of emptiness but can speak with an informed understanding about Trinity, essence, energies, Logos, logoi, movement, being, non-being, well-being,etc., by going to the traditional sources it would be much more meaningful, because one would not be speaking from a position of blind faith but rather through examination and that holds a lot of weight.

    The Buddha was very familiar with the predominate religions of his culture and applied his teachings to them, but if we take them and just cut and paste them to support our limited ideas or notions this is a form of confirmation bias.

    The definition of Nibbana is such that No Thing, not even God however God is defined, is included in it.

    In my eyes that is the sole purpose and heart of Dhamma. Without that definition nothing makes sense in Dhamma.

    That being said. You mentioned twice that Gotamas view on God was influenced by his time and culture? Now I am curious to what those influences were you are speaking of and how those influences led to his teaching that the God was a part of samsara rather than apart?

    I thought that in vedic tradition God was Absolute and Eternal?

    /Victor
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    edited August 2013
    @Victorius I’m glad you asked those questions. It has given me the opportunity to better clarify what I meant.

    What I'm referring to as influence here is a cosmic world view, running as a thread through the various beliefs on the Indian sub-continent, that makes the doctrine of emptiness plausible, and that is that the absolute is eternal, meaning beginningless, the essence of which is found in all things and phenomena, thus all are eternal and beginningless being renewed again and again in an endless cycle of rebirth.

    The Buddha saw that clinging to a false sense of self and not identifying with the absolute within perpetuates the cycle of rebirth, so Nibbana is the extinguishing of this false sense of self. I think you are very spot on in saying “The definition of Nibbana is such that No Thing, not even God however God is defined, is included in it. In my eyes that is the sole purpose and heart of Dhamma. Without that definition nothing makes sense in Dhamma.”

    From an Orthodox Christian cosmic world view perspective, creation is not eternal and has a beginning. It is not of the same essence or nature as God; therefore the source of being beyond being is not a thing and cannot be defined in such a manner or by any other anthropic limits. Emptiness requires that God be identified as being one with creation in same essence which creation ex nihilo prevents.

    In general, ultimately it all depends after thorough investigation of what makes most sense to each on a personal level. If one believes that the absolute essence is the ultimate reality of all things then emptiness can work, but at least know in that context why it works and why in the other it doesn’t.

    These are two unique and different cosmic world views and each stand on their own, and understanding this helps us to better appreciate and respect the other in a more tolerant manner.

    I offer these links to very informed commentaries on the topic of creation if interested:

    jbburnett.com/resources/lossky/lossky-createdbeing.pdf

    jbburnett.com/resources/florovsky/3/florovsky_3-3-creation.pdf

    duq.edu/Documents/theology/_pdf/faculty-publications/art-mordeianu-max.pdf
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    @Silouan. I think you have opened up a door for me into Christian Ortodox Perspective I did not know about. Thank you very much! I will persue it and the links you provided with interest!

    I think our concept worlds are very far apart. So I will make some statements and see if you agree.

    1. I would first of all want to replace "false sense of self" with "illusory sense on self". In (my understanding of the) Dhamma the sense of self in neither false nor true. Do you agree and understand the distinction?

    This is the essence of Anatta. IMMO.

    2. Again IMO. Emptiness, the Absolute or any defined thing is not part of nibbana. So extinguishing the false sense of self (i.e attaining nibbana) will not mean that the Absolute sense of self remains. Do you agree?

    Now a question.
    Is it God you are referring to as the source of being beyond being?

    I think you are totally correct about

    "In general, ultimately it all depends after thorough investigation of what makes most sense to each on a personal level. If one believes that the absolute essence is the ultimate reality of all things then emptiness can work, but at least know in that context why it works and why in the other it doesn’t."


    In the end that which makes sense to a person is all that matters.

    /Victor
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    Ah... dear old Ockham and his razor.
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited August 2013
    Citta said:

    Ah... dear old Ockham and his razor.

    Not even that razor can cut Nibbana. It is the most beautiful logical construct I have ever encountered.

    EDIT: Am I mad? No just a Fanatical Buddhist. :) .

  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited August 2013
    I don't see why a creator is needed when it makes more sense to me that the universe is without beginning.

    I can see god as the universe itself becoming aware but not the creator of the universe because universe means all that is.

    If god created the universe from outside then god isn't. God is the universe itself, a part/function of the universe or else doesn't exist.

    jmho

Sign In or Register to comment.