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.
Reconciling God with the Dharma
Nirvana
aka BUBBA ` ` South Carolina, USA Veteran
In the spirit of the Upanishads is offered the following excerpt from Sir Francis Younghusband's Introduction to the 1925 and 1939 editions of SOME SAYINGS OF THE BUDDHA: According to the Pali Canon:
“It is, however, in his attitude towards the idea of God that Buddha is most misrepresented. Because he refrained from making any sharp definition of God, and especially because he did not define Him as a Person —as a Father, for example— he is put down as an atheist and Buddhism is contemptuously tossed aside as unimportant. But it may have been because Buddha had too great, not too small, an idea of God that he refused to restrict himself to a sharp definition of the Deity. There are certain things which are too great to be put into words. Who, for instance, would care to define love? Buddha did not presume to define God, but both he and his disciples were saturated with the conception of a Power behind the eye that sees and the ear that hears, and behind all the phenomena of Nature. They had no hard, cold, mechanistic, materialistic view of the universe. They never conceived of it as anything else than spiritual. They assumed as a matter of course that there was a great spiritual power driving through all things as through themselves, and making for ever higher perfection. Buddhism cannot therefore be regarded as mere atheism.
“This imputation of atheism to Buddhism has indeed aroused much resentment among students of Buddhism. The veteran Buddhist scholar, Mrs. Rhys Davids, especially has vehemently protested and contended that Buddhism is neither antitheistic nor atheistic. ‘The educated man in Buddha’s day,’ she says, ‘believed in Deity as immanent in each man, as the Most, the Highest, the Best in that man’s spiritual being or self.’
“It seems, in fact to have been as much taken for granted that men were imbued with the Spirit of the Universe as nowadays it is assumed that Frenchmen are imbued with the spirit of France. It was taken as a matter of course that man was saturated with the Divine Universal Spirit, but it was thought no more necessary, or indeed possible, to define that Spirit in precise terms than it is for Frenchmen to define what is the spirit of France. That spirit is indeed at times symbolised in a person. In the Rubens Gallery at the Louvre, France is symbolised in the pictures as a glorious personage in a magnificent helmet. She is painted among other persons in groups. But no one would seriously regard her as standing for an actual person like the others. All recognize that the figure merely symbolises the spirit of France. In the same way in other pictures God is represented as a tremendous male figure, but no one would regard that figure as more than symbolical.
“Now it would seem that Buddha shrank from giving even symbolical expression to the inexpressibly tremendous Spirit which actuates the Universe and drives through every one of us. To describe It —especially to describe It as a Person— was only to belittle It. He was silent on the Nature of God not from any inadequacy of appreciation, but from excess of reverence. But we can conjecture what was in his mind as to the fundamental nature of things by studying the philosophical writings which were prevalent in his day. Both he and those about him were brought up on the Upanishads and according to those writings, ancient even in Buddha’s day, there was one Source, one Power, one Reality, one Being —call It what we may— from which —and from which alone— emanated all our intellectual powers, all our faculties. and all the powers of nature. In that Great Reality we all exist as It exists in us. It permeates us through and through as the spirit of France permeates all Frenchmen. It is the source of all the activity in the world, human or natural, vital or purely physical.
“But this Greatest, Highest, Most is not something wholly outside us and apart from us, any more than France is wholly outside Frenchmen. It is an Ideal which is actuating, drawing, compelling, and impelling us. the Upanishads regard It as the true Self in us all. If we could delve deep down within ourselves to the profoundest depths we would find the Supreme Reality. Or occasions may arise when in a flash It is revealed to us. There, in each of us, is the very essence of the whole Universe— ‘nearer to us than breathing and closer than hands and feet.’ There may not be a distant, aloof, Divine Potentate who knows all and can do anything, but working through the world may be an all-pervasive Principle constraining the whole towards an ultimate Perfection.
“Somewhat like this was the conception of things in Gautama’s time. And it was known that the illumination of men’s true inner selves brought to the few who were privileged to experience it a Joy which transfigured their whole lives. They would have touched the Fountain Source of all that is. They would have directly experienced the Joy of Creation —the Joy from which every power and every faculty proceeds. And it was such Illumination that eventually came to Gautama. He reached Nirvana. And thenceforth he became the Buddha, the Enlightened One.
—SIR FRANCIS YOUNGHUSBAND ca 1925, from his INTRODUCTION to F.L. Woodward’s SOME SAYINGS OF THE BUDDHA
________________________________________________________
Younghusband’s Introduction has been replaced in later editions by a lesser one by Christmas Humphreys.
“It is, however, in his attitude towards the idea of God that Buddha is most misrepresented. Because he refrained from making any sharp definition of God, and especially because he did not define Him as a Person —as a Father, for example— he is put down as an atheist and Buddhism is contemptuously tossed aside as unimportant. But it may have been because Buddha had too great, not too small, an idea of God that he refused to restrict himself to a sharp definition of the Deity. There are certain things which are too great to be put into words. Who, for instance, would care to define love? Buddha did not presume to define God, but both he and his disciples were saturated with the conception of a Power behind the eye that sees and the ear that hears, and behind all the phenomena of Nature. They had no hard, cold, mechanistic, materialistic view of the universe. They never conceived of it as anything else than spiritual. They assumed as a matter of course that there was a great spiritual power driving through all things as through themselves, and making for ever higher perfection. Buddhism cannot therefore be regarded as mere atheism.
“This imputation of atheism to Buddhism has indeed aroused much resentment among students of Buddhism. The veteran Buddhist scholar, Mrs. Rhys Davids, especially has vehemently protested and contended that Buddhism is neither antitheistic nor atheistic. ‘The educated man in Buddha’s day,’ she says, ‘believed in Deity as immanent in each man, as the Most, the Highest, the Best in that man’s spiritual being or self.’
“It seems, in fact to have been as much taken for granted that men were imbued with the Spirit of the Universe as nowadays it is assumed that Frenchmen are imbued with the spirit of France. It was taken as a matter of course that man was saturated with the Divine Universal Spirit, but it was thought no more necessary, or indeed possible, to define that Spirit in precise terms than it is for Frenchmen to define what is the spirit of France. That spirit is indeed at times symbolised in a person. In the Rubens Gallery at the Louvre, France is symbolised in the pictures as a glorious personage in a magnificent helmet. She is painted among other persons in groups. But no one would seriously regard her as standing for an actual person like the others. All recognize that the figure merely symbolises the spirit of France. In the same way in other pictures God is represented as a tremendous male figure, but no one would regard that figure as more than symbolical.
“Now it would seem that Buddha shrank from giving even symbolical expression to the inexpressibly tremendous Spirit which actuates the Universe and drives through every one of us. To describe It —especially to describe It as a Person— was only to belittle It. He was silent on the Nature of God not from any inadequacy of appreciation, but from excess of reverence. But we can conjecture what was in his mind as to the fundamental nature of things by studying the philosophical writings which were prevalent in his day. Both he and those about him were brought up on the Upanishads and according to those writings, ancient even in Buddha’s day, there was one Source, one Power, one Reality, one Being —call It what we may— from which —and from which alone— emanated all our intellectual powers, all our faculties. and all the powers of nature. In that Great Reality we all exist as It exists in us. It permeates us through and through as the spirit of France permeates all Frenchmen. It is the source of all the activity in the world, human or natural, vital or purely physical.
“But this Greatest, Highest, Most is not something wholly outside us and apart from us, any more than France is wholly outside Frenchmen. It is an Ideal which is actuating, drawing, compelling, and impelling us. the Upanishads regard It as the true Self in us all. If we could delve deep down within ourselves to the profoundest depths we would find the Supreme Reality. Or occasions may arise when in a flash It is revealed to us. There, in each of us, is the very essence of the whole Universe— ‘nearer to us than breathing and closer than hands and feet.’ There may not be a distant, aloof, Divine Potentate who knows all and can do anything, but working through the world may be an all-pervasive Principle constraining the whole towards an ultimate Perfection.
“Somewhat like this was the conception of things in Gautama’s time. And it was known that the illumination of men’s true inner selves brought to the few who were privileged to experience it a Joy which transfigured their whole lives. They would have touched the Fountain Source of all that is. They would have directly experienced the Joy of Creation —the Joy from which every power and every faculty proceeds. And it was such Illumination that eventually came to Gautama. He reached Nirvana. And thenceforth he became the Buddha, the Enlightened One.
—SIR FRANCIS YOUNGHUSBAND ca 1925, from his INTRODUCTION to F.L. Woodward’s SOME SAYINGS OF THE BUDDHA
________________________________________________________
Younghusband’s Introduction has been replaced in later editions by a lesser one by Christmas Humphreys.
3
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It seems to me like he mostly says that because the Buddha didn't spend much time talking about God therefore God could still exist within Buddhism. I don't know sutra passages but I'm pretty sure there are some where Buddha did deny certain versions of God. Also, the notion of emptiness and dependent arising on the cosmological scale sort of negates the need and the existence of a creator.
So I guess for me, the passage doesn't reconcile the Dharma with God at all.
God, if God there be, must take little notice of such struggles to prove to such people's own satisfaction that they are right and that others are wrong.
Only when we let go of futile clinging to our imaginings will we be like a ploughed field in which the seeds of stress-relieving Dharma can take root, grow and come to ripeness for harvest.
since we are talking opinions here is one from me lol.. i think this is a better discourse on the suttas and the god issue, although also no direct sutta links -
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html
Also buddhanet.net page on the topic.
@Nirvana: Please remain where you are, a death sqad has been dispatched to your location and will arrive shortly.
I don't know Younghusband's personal intentions myself, but I could mistake his 'opinion piece' for a nod to the milieu the Buddha operated from, rather than an ignorant or insidious attempt to mollify his own precious theism.
There is a difference between "this is what I think" and " this is what the suttas say". Hell it wasn't even a " well this is what I think the suttas say" kind of thing it was more matter of fact. I've been struggling to think of Suttas where there may be some talk of an eternal god but I don't think I've ever heard of one or read one. I know he talks about Brahama quite often, which may be the closest thing to it but if i'm not mistaken isn't even Brahama not eternal?
It is an escape from reality.
An omnipotent god, where is he?
Buddha said there are devas, loosely translated as gods.
According to Buddha, these beings are also afflicted by suffering.
They are just as likely to be reborn in lower realms.
Why the need to reconcile Buddha's teaching with Hinduism?
If you like a pantheon of gods, go for Hinduism.
It is very different from what Buddha taught.
If his wide power no limit can restrain, Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain? Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail? Why triumphs falsehood -- truth and justice fail?
I count your God one among the unjust , who made a world in which to shelter wrong." ~ Bhuridatta Jataka"
Buddhists believe that there are beings that inhabit the various celestial realms. These are variously called angels, spirits, gods and devas by various cultures. But do Buddhists believe that a God created everything and manipulate human lives? No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. Modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the Creator-God idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:
"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines ~ Dhammapada 188"
Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of a God that gives him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.
vinlyn, if i remember correctly, you do not consider yourself a buddhist...
Great Brahmas (Maha brahma) One of this realm's most famous inhabitants is the Great Brahma, a deity whose delusion leads him to regard himself as the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the Universe. According to the Brahmajāla Sutta, a Mahā brahmā is a being from the Ābhāsvara worlds who falls into a lower world through exhaustion of his merits and is reborn alone in the Brahma-world; forgetting his former existence, he imagines himself to have come into existence without cause.
He was born in the middle of Queen Victoria's reign, long before any reliable translations of Buddhist texts were available in English.
He has been described as a pioneer of hippydom..despite his army background he had all sorts of new ageish beliefs, including at one point of his life that he was in touch by cosmic rays with aliens...He ended his life as a kind of Bertrand Russell type athiest
In brief I don't think his views on Buddhadharma OR God need detain us.
They also explain why his preface was replaced with one by Christmas Humphries.
( mind you there was another rum cove ...)
The creative aspect which is Brahma, the destructive aspect which is Shiva and the preserver of knowledge which is Vishnu. Vishnu is the aspect of Brahman that takes form as sentient beings.
From what I understand, Brahman would not have any one identity except when personified through either the three aspects of the Trimurti or as an awakened avatar of Vishnu. Because of the teachings of the Buddha and what most people believed at the time (in that area), he was mistaken for an awakened avater of Vishnu because that is what Krishna is said to be in the Gita. It was Krishna that proclaimed he could remember every past life he had ever lived and so Buddha had to explain that he was nothing special.
But Brahman... Brahman is more like the Tao.
Personally, I think it goes without saying that an Abrahamic notion of God does not compute in light of the awakened mind because the God of the Bible suffers from hatred, jealousy and rage. It just simply makes no sense to have an ultimate being suffer from silly delusions of grandeur.
Teachings that line up with what Jesus taught can surely go hand in hand but I have a feeling Buddha had heard somehow about Abrahams God just like I'm sure Jesus had heard in passing the tales of Buddha.
Maybe Buddha didn't talk about Brahman because he didn't want it to be confused for what we know as the Biblical God.
I think to Buddha, the Biblical God is actually Brahma, but certainly not Brahman, the eternal and ultimate being.
@Jayantha, no problem. Not many people realize that Hinduism is actually monotheistic.
However, this thread isn't about that. Its about whether the idea of God can survive a Buddhist understanding period.
I think it can as long as we leave the need for an absolute beginning out of it and don't assign a personality.
The question I always ask is why does God need to have created everything?
When I got up this morning, breakfast wasn't just sitting there out of nowhere.
When the gas station/convenience store next door was built, it wasn't an empty lot one day, and then the next morning there it was.
The tree that grew in my field when I was a kid, grew there because I planted it there.
And so, many of assume that just as trees don't magically appear out of nothing, neither does a solar system.
I am uneducated. What does science say about the universe coming from nothing?
Nobody I know thinks anything came from nowhere or nothing. These are not even real designations.
But the great question of man -- "why are we here" -- has not yet been answered. And I am open to all the possibilities. But I am not sure that everyone here is open to whatever that answer is.
By coincidence, I happen to be watching a documentary about Darwin and creationism. Some of the things that the most enthusiastic Christians say on the documentary just don't ring true to me.
But for me -- a science teacher who taught evolution and believes in it -- to believe that all life came from stromatolites (probably the most common belief of scientists), and that your heart, and your retinas, and your brain evolved by sheer accident from blue-green algae...well, I simply find that difficult to believe, as well.
I think there is a maxim: 'If you meet God on the road, consider Her Buddha road kill and dharmic food stuff . . .
http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/670
However, what I was saying is that I don't see why the universe would need a beginning at all. It isn't like the universe is a thing or a place... It is the sum of all that exists, anywhere.
We can't have God with no universe but we can have universe with no God. As long as there is anything to exist anywhere (including God) then there is universe.
Boldly, I say that there is no such thing as nothing and so the universe has always been.
Why let such a little thing as God come between us?
Logically, if there was ever truely nothing then there couldn't be any potential to change from nothing and there would still be nothing. That means there is absolutely zero energy.
We wouldn't even be able to delude ourselves into thinking there was anything if there was ever a time of absolutely nothing.
I had someone try to cite a study that proves we can get something from nothing but they actually had to start out with two charged plates. I couldn't help but laugh at the guy... As if two charged plates is the definition of nothing.
Every single scientist that tries to explain how something can come from nothing always end up having their so called nothing be something afterall.
And the issue of there being gods but not a creator god is such fine scholastic nitpicking, like being an atheist with respects to a kitchen god, but being fine with restaurant gods, or, well, a personal Dharmakaya that will do something for you if only you were more sincere in your offerings.
Or to put it in Biblical terms, why did God set up Adam and Eve to fail in the Garden of Eden? Why not let them eat apples to their hearts content and have an idyllic life, and make friends with devious talking snakes and unicorns and suchlike?
Or to put it another way, why not just put people straight into Heaven?!