Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

The Buddha EXPLICITLY Rejected God (Proof)

edited May 2010 in Faith & Religion
Let me first say that this is not a matter of intolerance, exclusivism, or anything of the sort. Nor is it a matter of telling people what to believe. It's a matter of definition and theological, metaphysical distinctions. (This should be informative and interesting as well for some.)

I will first say that Buddha was both an Atheist and an Anti-Theist. First he denied God as a creator and as an eternal being (and it should be obvious why). Second, Buddha even granted that even if such a being did exist that claimed to be God, he still rejected him! (Hence the Anti-Theism). He simply dismissed him as delusional for believing that he or anyone could be the creator of all things.

AccesstoInsight: "From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator God conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality. In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator God (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world."

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html

Excerpt from "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist" :

"A young brahmin called Vasettha once went to see Gotama. "This is the only straight path," he declared, "the path of salvation that leads one who follows it to union with Brahma [God], as is taught by brahmin Pokkharasati!" Gotama asked him whether any brahmin had ever seen Brahma face-to-face. Since God is invisible and unknowable, Vasettha was obliged to reply: "No." In that case, countered Gotama, any claim about a path that leads to union with Brahma must be groundless. "Just as a file of blind men go on, clinging to each other, and the first one sees nothing, the middle sees nothing, and the last one sees nothing, so it is with the talk of these brahmins. Their talk is laughable, mere words, empty and vain."

...

When the wanderer Udayin was asked by Gotama what doctrine he followed, he replied: "Our doctrine teaches: "This is the Perfect Splendor, this is the Perfect Splendor!'" "But what is that Perfect Splendor, Udayin?" asked the Buddha. "That Splendor is the Perfect Splendor which is unsurpassed by any other Splendor higher or more sublime!" replied Udayin. Each time Gotama asked him to clarify what he meant, Udayin simply added another superlative to his declaration. "Udayin," said Gotama. "You could go on like this for a long time." With both Vasettha and Udayin, Gotama enjoyed poking fun at the absurdity of their claims. He exposed belief in an unknowable God as an irrational claim, unsupported by either experience or reason, based solely on the assertion of a teacher or a scripture that is reverently repeated."
Just look at the Kevatta Sutta narrated by Buddha himself:
Kevatta Sutta:

"...'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.'

...Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off to one side, said to him, 'These gods of the retinue of Brahma believe, "There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great Brahma has not realized." That is why I did not say in their [lower devas] presence that I [Great Brahma God], too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.'

...'the monk disappeared from the Brahma world and immediately appeared in front of me [the Blessed One]."
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html


As this discourse from Buddha indicates, the Blessed One explains that it is incorrect to go to God for answers to existence. He also makes a mockery of Brahma and demonstrates superior knowledge over the supposed God, and shown him to be a fraud acting "tough" in front of the other devas.


This next Sutta, called the Brahma (God) Invitation Sutta [Brahma-nimantanika], illustrates a rejection of God once again.

From AccesstoInsight: "In this sutta, the Buddha faces two antagonists: Baka, a brahma who believes that his brahma-attainment is the highest attainment there is; and Mara, who wants (1) to keep Baka under his power by allowing Baka to maintain his deluded opinion, and (2) to prevent the Buddha from sharing his awakened knowledge with others."
Brahma Invitation Sutta:


Buddha: I told Baka Brahma, 'How immersed in ignorance is Baka Brahma! How immersed in ignorance is Baka Brahma! — in that what is actually inconstant he calls "constant." What is actually impermanent he calls "permanent." What is actually non-eternal he calls "eternal." What is actually partial he calls "total." What is actually subject to falling away he calls "not subject to falling away." Where one takes birth, ages, dies, falls away, and reappears, he says, "For here one does not take birth, does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear." And there being another, higher escape, he says, "There is no other, higher escape."'
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html

The Three Marks of Existence are DIRECTLY contradictory to the belief in God! God is eternal! God is permanent! God has a self! God does not suffer!

Belief in God DENIES the primary existential tenets of Buddhism!!


From the Bhuridatta Jataka, we see Buddha making a direct disproof of a creator God using the Argument from Evil! (Looks like Buddha invented the argument!):
Bhuridatta Jataka:

"If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!
"
Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha068.htm


We also see the Mahayana Patriarch and great Buddhist philosopher, Nagarjuna dismissed God as well:
"The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow
.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man may not rely on gods."
-- Nagarjuna
Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha068.htm


Let me note that Federica (much respect), when trying to refute my position, in fact affirmed it!

Federica: "To be a Buddhist is to really not concern ones self with whether god exists or not."
So how can a Buddhist be a believer in God, if to be a Buddhist means you don't concern yourself with the existence of God? A believer in God puts God in the center of his or her life (generalization)!!


According to Stephen Batchelor, author of "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist." (He's been a life-long Buddhist, studying all the traditions, even with Dalai Lama himself, and spent much time translating Buddhist texts):

Stephen Batchelor: "There are some passages, and I cite them in the book, where the Buddha does address the question of Theism and Atheism. And he takes a stance of what I call an "ironic Atheist." Buddha treats belief in God with a certain kind of ironic amusement. He doesn't take it seriously at all. And the passages in which he addresses it, are really a sort of like a short diversional entertainment. Once he's dealt with those ideas, he puts them aside, and no longer dwells on that topic."
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-VdStdzQxw

And this I agree with! I as well don't make this a focus, however, I find the debate entertaining, as did Buddha!



In conclusion, belief in God or anything of the sort, is NOT compatible with Buddhism! It's a matter of definition and nuances of Buddhist doctrine. A Muslim can't be an Atheist and a Buddhist can't be a Theist. You can be whoever you want to be or believe whatever, but to say you are a Buddhist Theist is to say you are a square-circle. Simple as that!

Thank you for your time.




.

Comments

  • edited May 2010
    Which form of God or creators that is being rejected? There are these god in Buddhism, Christian God, god in chinese prayer etc
  • edited May 2010
    Disney wrote: »
    Which form of God or creators that is being rejected?

    The monotheistic God. Any creator God. Any eternal God. God, by definition is eternal. Anything eternal is automatically rejected by Buddhist doctrine.

    Also, if you read the first post, Buddha rejected any vague assertion of a "ground of being" or vague assertion of supreme force, consciousness, etc. Specifics don't really matter because he rejected all of them.
    There are these god in Buddhism, Christian God, god in chinese prayer etc
    There are no "gods" in Buddhism. There are devas that are falsely translated as "gods." But the devas are more ignorant than humans in many cases, indulged in sensual pleasures, and they are not exempt from suffering and death. That does not fit the definition of any God I've heard of. They may have some "super" powers, but so does Superman. That doesn't make him God.


    .
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Yes I pretty much agree, I am not sure its any big revelation that Buddha was an athiest?

    As for was he an antitheist, I think he certainly was, but I am not sure I will ever find certainty on that belief:)

    There certainly is no proof either way for any of these controversail issues. There isn't really any historical evidence that could be used in proof either way.

    But a couple of points:

    1) You cant really use commentators comments on Buddhism to make any proof. That is merely using opinion to confirm hearsay, it holds no real ground.

    2) You cant really use the suttas themselves. You can bet for every sutta you find supporting your view, there will be someone who will be able to find a sutta that can be interpreted as supporting the opposing view. That way leads to a thicket of pointless pingpong...


    These questions have their answer in Dharma but the answers can only ever be self illuminating, of this I am pretty sure.... but I may well be wrong.

    namaste
  • edited May 2010
    thickpaper wrote: »
    Yes I pretty much agree, I am not sure its any big revelation that Buddha was an athiest?

    As for was he an antitheist, I think he certainly was, but I am not sure I will ever find certainty on that belief:)

    I'm with ya man. However, I say he is Anti-Theist because he doesn't just reject God on mere lack of evidence, he rejects God regardless. Though, Stephen Batchelor argues that Buddha was not an Anti-Theist because he doesn't make the rejection of God his main focus, or even concern himself much with the matter at all. So I suppose I agree in both cases. It just depends on what sense of the word "Anti-Theist" you use.
    There certainly is no proof either way for any of these controversail issues. There isn't really any historical evidence that could be used in proof either way.
    I disagree. Here's why:
    But a couple of points:

    1) You cant really use commentators comments on Buddhism to make any proof. That is merely using opinion to confirm hearsay, it holds no real ground.
    It's not someone's opinion confirming hearsay. I quoted a book that quoted scripture. The author has studied Buddhist scripture extensively. One may be tempted to cry out, Appeal to Authority fallacy, but this is not the case given that said reference is an expert concerning the matter at hand.
    2) You cant really use the suttas themselves. You can bet for every sutta you find supporting your view, there will be someone who will be able to find a sutta that can be interpreted as supporting the opposing view.
    I am almost certain of the contrary. I challenge anyone to find a Sutta that supports or can be interpreted as Buddha accepting God.


    Let me make note that the primary tenets of Buddhism such as impermanence and dukkha are incompatible with God. God is eternal, permanent, and free from suffering. This contradicts the truth of impermanence and dukkha. This is considered wrong view. So no amount of suttas or bended interpretations could ever change this fact.



    .
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited May 2010
    I'm with ya man. However, I say he is Anti-Theist because he doesn't just reject God on mere lack of evidence, he rejects God regardless.

    Sure:) But the moment you say you got a proof in your pocket you end up standing with the "faithheads" (As Dawkins calls them) in claiming truths you are not entitled to. This is why the buddha says there are some questions its pointless to discuss. I only got this point recently.

    It's not someone's opinion confirming hearsay. I quoted a book that quoted scripture. The author has studied Buddhist scripture extensively. One may be tempted to cry out, Appeal to Authority fallacy, but this is not the case given that said reference is an expert concerning the matter at hand.

    No, you make another mistake here, in that you are treating the scriptures as concrete representations of Lord Buddha's teaching. There is not one sentence written on the planet about which we can say "The Buddha said this."

    By virtua of the fact that for centuries the teachings were passed from mouth to ear I think we can agree that what we have now is, by definition, hearsay.

    Also let us not forget that many of the suttas start with "Thus I have heard..." Another example of hearsay.

    In fact, many suttas are hearsay about hearsay....

    I am almost certain of the contrary. I challenge anyone to find a Sutta that supports or can be interpreted as Buddha accepting God.

    Um... Is it the Metta Sutta where Buddha speaks of Gods and Divas? I dunno, there are many.
    Let me make note that the primary tenets of Buddhism such as impermanence and dukkha are incompatible with God. God is eternal, permanent, and free from suffering. This contradicts the truth of impermanence and dukkha. This is considered wrong view. So no amount of suttas or bended interpretations could ever change this fact.


    No, I agree. I think the same kind of reasoning applies to an afterlife too. My singular point is and remains, you do not have proof of this fact, nor will you ever have:)

    Don't call your kitty a tiger;)

    namaste
  • edited May 2010
    thickpaper wrote: »
    Sure:) But the moment you say you got a proof in your pocket you end up standing with the "faithheads" (As Dawkins calls them) in claiming truths you are not entitled to.

    I have proof in my pocket of what? If you're referring to God's non-existence, I haven't claimed such. I said I have proof that Buddha rejected God. And if "proof" is too strong of a word, then we shall say, "highly probably" and a firm basis.
    This is why the buddha says there are some questions its pointless to discuss. I only got this point recently.
    Pointless to attaining Nirvana perhaps, though such discussions are entertaining, and thus deterring dukkha. ;)
    No, you make another mistake here, in that you are treating the scriptures as concrete representations of Lord Buddha's teaching. There is not one sentence written on the planet about which we can say "The Buddha said this."

    By virtua of the fact that for centuries the teachings were passed from mouth to ear I think we can agree that what we have now is, by definition, hearsay.

    Also let us not forget that many of the suttas start with "Thus I have heard..." Another example of hearsay.

    In fact, many suttas are hearsay about hearsay....
    As Buddhists, everything we speak of is based on the assumption that the earliest records of Buddha's discourses are accurate or near-accurate.

    If we can't first make that assumption, there's nothing to discuss, nor does anyone have grounds to call themselves Buddhists if they first don't accept the validity of scripture.

    For example, Christians will have theological debates amongst themselves, but they both must first accept the validity of the Bible to discuss or make arguments for the true interpretation of theology. You see what I'm getting at with this?


    Um... Is it the Metta Sutta where Buddha speaks of Gods and Divas? I dunno, there are many.
    Are these beings creators of the Universe? Are they eternal? Do they die?

    You see, these beings with superpowers are NOT God. These beings in Buddhist literature are finite, these beings are ignorant, and will die. Does this sound at all like an omnipotent, omniscient, creator God and the ground of all being?

    Edit: By the way, in my initial post, I quoted the Kevatta Sutta. Buddha acknowledged the Great Brahma (equivalent to Biblical God, Yahweh) who claimed to be the all-powerful, all-knowing, creator of all things, and Buddha simply outright denied this being completely and dismissed him as a delusional deva.

    This is why Stephen Batchelor calls Buddha an "ironic Atheist." When he comes in contact with God and the devas, he denies them, makes fun of them, and calls them delusional.


    .
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited May 2010
    I have proof in my pocket of what? If you're referring to God's non-existence, I haven't claimed such. I said I have proof that Buddha rejected God. And if "proof" is too strong of a word, then we shall say, "highly probably" and a firm basis.

    There we go:p I too believe with high probability the Buddha was an antithiest.
    Pointless to attaining Nirvana perhaps, though such discussions are entertaining, and thus deterring dukkha. ;)

    I used to think this, but what I find happens is that in order to argue something either way you need to use reason. And as soon as you try to use reason about god/notgod you always end up that no side can know either way and it is ultimately no different.

    I might believe that this universes a simulation used to produce good dharmic beings and that the Gods are like shepherds in this simulation and the Buddha knew this after meeting them during meditation.

    Ultimatly no view of that which cannot be known can be said to be superior.
    As Buddhists, everything we speak of is based on the assumption that the earliest records of Buddha's discourses are accurate or near-accurate.

    Not this Buddhist:) I apply the Kalama Suttra directives rigorously to Buddhism. These is lots about Dharma I cannot doubt, even after trying. The accuracy of the texts doesn't belong in this indubitable truths mind set.

    If we can't first make that assumption, there's nothing to discuss, nor does anyone have grounds to call themselves Buddhists if they first don't accept the validity of scripture.

    Take the The Four Noble Truths, and ask yourself if, after reflection and analysis and contemplation, do they seem to you to be true?

    Do they seem to be the discovery of the greatest mind ever?
    Do you think they explain and are explained by many other principles of dharma, including the path itself, to make a robust and perfect system?
    Do they seem original in history?
    Do you not think that if someone else had discovered and taught them it would be that person, not The Buddha, who we now followed?

    Clearly the suttas contain many ultimate and eternal truths, but let us not treat them with some ridiculous prescription of literalism and perfect authenticity.

    For example, Christians will have theological debates amongst themselves, but they both must first accept the validity of the Bible to discuss or make arguments for the true interpretation of theology. You see what I'm getting at with this?

    Yes, and you are mistaken. I mean, even your point in this thread shows why.

    Could the bible be true without god? No

    Could the suttras be true without god? Yes

    Could the suttas be true with god? Yes

    See what I mean?
  • edited May 2010
    thickpaper wrote: »
    I used to think this, but what I find happens is that in order to argue something either way you need to use reason. And as soon as you try to use reason about god/notgod you always end up that no side can know either way and it is ultimately no different.

    I might believe that this universes a simulation used to produce good dharmic beings and that the Gods are like shepherds in this simulation and the Buddha knew this after meeting them during meditation.

    Ultimatly no view of that which cannot be known can be said to be superior.

    Yes, one argument can be said to be superior. The view that doesn't defy reason and has a more firm basis. Also, postulates that pose inherent contradictions can't be true.

    As Christopher Hitchens said: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."


    Not this Buddhist:) I apply the Kalama Suttra directives rigorously to Buddhism. These is lots about Dharma I cannot doubt, even after trying. The accuracy of the texts doesn't belong in this indubitable truths mind set.




    Take the The Four Noble Truths, and ask yourself if, after reflection and analysis and contemplation, do they seem to you to be true?

    Do they seem to be the discovery of the greatest mind ever?
    Do you think they explain and are explained by many other principles of dharma, including the path itself, to make a robust and perfect system?
    Do they seem original in history?
    Do you not think that if someone else had discovered and taught them it would be that person, not The Buddha, who we now followed?

    Clearly the suttas contain many ultimate and eternal truths, but let us not treat them with some ridiculous prescription of literalism and perfect authenticity.
    Clearly you misunderstand my position. First of all, it was the Kalama Sutra that convinced me towards Buddhism and the mere fact that it asserted that we question everything including Buddha and his own scriptures. Btw, I do reject some of the minor tenets (31 literal realms, literal rebirth), but not major ones like the Three Marks of Existence, Emptiness, Dependent Co-Arising, etc.

    My argument is that the Buddha, as presented in the earliest texts, clearly rejected God. For all we know, Buddha may not have existed, he may have even been a Randian Objectivist. However, this is irrelevant. We can only talk about the Buddha as presented in the earliest records and determine validity of various nuances based on the context as well (for example, Batchelor dismisses anything in the Pali that looks like baggage from Hinduism that got mistakenly carried over and taught as a Buddha teaching. We can make these discernments by understanding the fundamental nature of the Buddha and his teachings.)



    Could the suttas be true with god? Yes
    No. Primary existential claim of Buddhism. Impermanence. God = permanent, eternal. Contradiction. Not possible in Buddhism.



    .
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Yes, one argument can be said to be superior. The view that doesn't defy reason and has a more firm basis. Also, postulates that pose inherent contradictions can't be true.

    As Christopher Hitchens said: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."


    No, you are speaking from with inside the rational sphere. Anything you say, or Hitchens, I can just say, "That's how god made things, he works in mysterious ways."

    Clearly you misunderstand my position. First of all, it was the Kalama Sutra that convinced me towards Buddhism and the mere fact that it asserted that we question everything including Buddha and his own scriptures.

    Me too!:) I think we argue simply because you said proof when you meant highly probably... we are over that now:P


    Btw, I do reject some of the minor tenets (31 literal realms, literal rebirth), but not major ones like the Three Marks of Existence, Emptiness, Dependent Co-Arising, etc.

    You should reject everything it is possible to reject. If it is not possible to reject, then you know you know it. You cannot reject DO or Anataman, even if you tried.

    This is the majestic power of doubt!

    Doubt as a hindrance when it is applied incorectly, not just in itself. As the KS shows, doubt is essential to Dharma.


    My argument is that the Buddha, as presented in the earliest texts, clearly rejected God.

    Probably, I am sure others would disagree. Have you read all 10,000+ suttas...
    For all we know, Buddha may not have existed,

    I agree, but some genius first found then completed The Noble Eightfold Path...
    he may have even been a Randian Objectivist. However, this is irrelevant.

    I dont think so, they disagree fundamentally on the nature of Ego. But I have thought them similar, for sure.

    We can only talk about the Buddha as presented in the earliest records and determine validity of various nuances based on the context as well (for example, Batchelor dismisses anything in the Pali that looks like baggage from Hinduism that got mistakenly carried over and taught as a Buddha teaching. We can make these discernments by understanding the fundamental nature of the Buddha and his teachings.)

    From the dharma, not the sutta.

    No. Primary existential claim of Buddhism. Impermanence. God = permanent, eternal. Contradiction. Not possible in Buddhism.

    No, your wrong. Dharma only makes sense in a universe with finite possibility spaces like this one. This is why often people prefix terms like "things" with "contingent things".

    All contingent things are impermanent... etc....

    People just need say, God is permanent and non empty, all things that are not god are impermanent and empty.

    And you have no way to refute that.

    (Fun chatting!)

    namaste
  • edited May 2010
    thickpaper wrote: »
    No, you are speaking from with inside the rational sphere. Anything you say, or Hitchens, I can just say, "That's how god made things, he works in mysterious ways."

    That would be an inferior argument. You asserted that no one can make a superior argument, but one based on reason and evidence is superior. Claims like "God made things, he works in mysterious ways" has the same potency as making claims about invisible pink unicorns, or Spaghetti Monsters working in mysterious ways. An inferior argument has contradictions like "invisible, pink unicorn," it defies reason and logical argument, and lacks evidential basis.



    You should reject everything it is possible to reject. If it is not possible to reject, then you know you know it. You cannot reject DO or Anataman, even if you tried.

    This is the majestic power of doubt!

    Doubt as a hindrance when it is applied incorectly, not just in itself. As the KS shows, doubt is essential to Dharma.

    Agree. :)




    Probably, I am sure others would disagree. Have you read all 10,000+ suttas...


    I can't say that I have, but I doubt many have. It's $2,000 for the whole Pali Canon. Though, I know of two people who have and both reached the conclusion I have.

    I agree, but some genius first found then completed The Noble Eightfold Path...

    Which gives us good reason to believe there was a person who had these ideas whose attributed to the name of Siddhartha.


    I dont think so, they disagree fundamentally on the nature of Ego. But I have thought them similar, for sure.

    Lol. I wasn't implying they were similar. In fact, I was implying they were fundamentally different as an example that Buddha could be entirely different than initially thought.

    However, your previous argument actually convinced me that we can logically affirm that he did exist and did expound such teachings (not that I denied it anyways).


    No, your wrong. Dharma only makes sense in a universe with finite possibility spaces like this one. This is why often people prefix terms like "things" with "contingent things".

    All contingent things are impermanent... etc....

    People just need say, God is permanent and non empty, all things that are not god are impermanent and empty.

    And you have no way to refute that.

    Actually, Buddha's precepts and philosophy apply to the whole of existence. Hence, the Three Marks of Existence. All things that exist are impermanent, subject to dukkha, and have no-self.

    People can posit realms outside of space-time, outside of our singularity point, or posit anything they'd like. But they can't posit something outside of existence! If it's not part of existence, it doesn't exist! :eek: Lol.

    Buddha's 3 precepts don't apply only to some cases and some parts of existence. His precepts apply to all of existence, no matter what realm. In fact, he even granted other realms and said regardless, these precepts still apply.


    (Fun chatting!)

    namaste

    Agreed. Interesting chat indeed. :)


    .
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Claims like "God made things, he works in mysterious ways" has the same potency as making claims about invisible pink unicorns, or Spaghetti Monsters working in mysterious ways.

    No No, those things are posited in this universe. The point is you cannot extract any probabilistic confirmation from observations in this universe to outside it.

    On what grounds could you say its more probably that god exists than that he does not?

    However, your previous argument actually convinced me that we can logically affirm that he did exist and did expound such teachings (not that I denied it anyways).

    Sure, but my argument may be flawed.

    Actually, Buddha's precepts and philosophy apply to the whole of existence. Hence, the Three Marks of Existence. All things that exist are impermanent, subject to dukkha, and have no-self.

    I agree, but, playing the devils advocate, one could simply say: "they don't apply to god, silly."

    And you, and I, are helpless to refute that....

    People can posit realms outside of space-time, outside of our singularity point, or posit anything they'd like. But they can't posit something outside of existence! If it's not part of existence, it doesn't exist!


    They cant rationally or meaningfully, but that doesn't mean they just cant say "Existential properties do not apply to god."

    And you can't refute that, you can only say "its absurd" and then they say "relative to us, aspects of god do seem absurd."



    Buddha's 3 precepts don't apply only to some cases and some parts of existence. His precepts apply to all of existence, no matter what realm.

    I think for different reasons that they only apply to finite realms. But relative to this point, I agree.

    namaste:)
  • edited May 2010
    What about the various deities of Tibetan Buddhism?, are they not Buddhist then?, you even have a practice called Deity Yoga in Tibetan Buddhism.

    Personally, why does it matter, to you, that a Buddhist does, or does not, believe in God, or Gods?, what difference does it make to anyone what someone believes?.

    Personally, I find the arrogance of Atheists like Dawkins to be the same as the arrogance of Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Hindus, who think they've got the best way or believe they're way is the only way. Maybe more people should try and be as wise as Socrates, who had achieved enough Wisdom, to say "I know nothing", or "I don't know". If people concentrated more on transforming themselves, instead of focusing on others, or trying to say how others are "wrong", the world might be a better place.
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited May 2010
    What about the various deities of Tibetan Buddhism?, are they not Buddhist then?, you even have a practice called Deity Yoga in Tibetan Buddhism.

    Read more carefully.
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited May 2010
    David_2009 wrote: »
    what difference does it make to anyone what someone believes?

    I agree 1000%

    The only time we should be concerned about the beliefs of others is when they are pressured onto other people.
    Personally, I find the arrogance of Atheists like Dawkins to be the same as the arrogance of Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Hindus, who think they've got the best way or believe they're way is the only way.

    Actually its not quite like that, though I see what you say. But really the main gripe with new atheism is not the beliefs of others but the teaching of those beliefs to children.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Buddha said to realize his teachings yourself and not to take them on authority. So for most people God has nothing to do with their practice. Untestable.

    For those with a God belief I am sure that it comes up during their meditation. They should just say 'thinking' or 'there is the God belief'...
  • edited May 2010
    Why is this such a concern to you? You don't believe. That's fine and perfectly valid. Whether others believe in God is of no concern of yours. So why worry about it?
  • johnathanjohnathan Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Let me make note that the primary tenets of Buddhism such as impermanence and dukkha are incompatible with God. God is eternal, permanent, and free from suffering. This contradicts the truth of impermanence and dukkha. This is considered wrong view. So no amount of suttas or bended interpretations could ever change this fact.

    Well, although I give as much credence to the Bible as the little comics you get from a stick of hubba bubba... If you read the Bible you will see a god full of Dukkha... Anger, Jealousy, Discontentment, and a plethora of other emotions one can only experience when they are experiencing Dukkha.

    So although some might perceive this almighty being as eternal and permanent, it is false to suggest, should the Bible be an accurate tale, that it is free of suffering...
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited May 2010
    How can you deny the existence of God? There is a huge library of books that describe in detail what God is, as well as billions of people all who consider God to be a primary formulation entity. God certainly exists.

    Denying God is the same as dis-communicating yourself from a huge portion of humankind.

    With warmth,

    Matt
  • johnathanjohnathan Veteran
    edited May 2010
    No, this is not proof that god certainly exists...

    It means we needed answers to questions and had no other way to explain it...

    It was made as powerful as it is today because most of us would not exist today without a belief in god (or at least by keeping our disbelief to our selves) as most of our ancestors would have been wiped out... I would probably believe too (or at least never reveal my unbelief) if I was under the fear of death as has been the case for centuries and still continues in parts of the world today...

    I would contend that more wrong has occurred in this world due to beliefs in "gods" than has gone right... More have died because of beliefs in "gods" than I care to imagine...

    Buddhism, Humanism, Pantheism, etc... are of more value to today's society than the garbage we have recycled from the past...

    I judge no one for believing in whatever they wish to believe in... I do take question with brainwashing children before they have a chance to start thinking for themselves... Religion fault cults for what they themselves already do, they just don't like the competition.

    If children were allowed to grow up and use their own reason to tell them the truth you would most certainly see the fall of god belief in the world...
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Taking the authority of the Bible as proof is no worse than taking the authority of sutras, Buddhas, and commentaries... Indeed who can prove something does not exist? Can you prove unicorns do not exist? What if it says in the Bible or Sutras that unicorns do not exist? Is that proof?

    I of course know that there is also no proof that Gods/unicorns do exist but you are stating you have proof that they do NOT so the burden is on you alls.

    First show that you can prove EXISTENCE (or non) of anything without resorting to premises and I will be impressed lolz..
  • johnathanjohnathan Veteran
    edited May 2010
    There is a difference...

    The Bible claims Absolute truth...

    The Buddha (who is more important than the Sutras) directed those who follow his way;

    Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”


    traditional religion says believe what you are told or else, the Buddha told us to believe what we can rationally believe and then apply it to our lives...

    I cannot rationally believe in a supreme being...

    Finally, this is an old and tired debate, one that has not been solved in thousands of years, so i care not to continue it here... i was simply stating my view... Some people like to argue their points veraciously... I am not one of those people...

    As an aside, my main point was not so much about belief in God but

    a) If the God depicted in the Bible is an existing entity depicted justly by the Bible then god is surely a being who suffers Dukkha

    and

    b) that the belief in god has been ensured through threat of death, incarceration, imprisonment, excommunication, the threat of eternal damnation, etc, etc... (fear) and in the brainwashing of children to ensure said beliefs perpetuation... (BTW, these are all proven outcomes for those who have shown disbelief in the past of a god and I doubt many would wish to contend)
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited May 2010
    I cannot rationally believe in a supreme being...
    Existence of God is not supported by rationality. But you may still believe it. In fact suggesting that you should only believe things which can be proven is irrational. Because you cannot prove anything without premises. Even proving you are at a computer uses the premises called definitions which define what a computer is. The reason is that relative truth is just a coming together of causes and conditions understood via mental labeling. A computer itself has no existent nature when inspected with madyamaka logic.

    Believing that buddha says god does not exist and taking that as proof is no more or less rational than.....

    Believing that jesus says god does exist and taking that as proof.

    Note: I feel 'proving' and 'knowing' are different. I know I am at a computer but I cannot prove it... Many people have an experience of God in their lives. In fact many even talk to god.. so in effect god exists experientially for them. But not ultimately existence of course. Buddha himself does not exist ultimately [as a graspable entity].
  • edited May 2010
    aMatt wrote: »
    How can you deny the existence of God? There is a huge library of books that describe in detail what God is, as well as billions of people all who consider God to be a primary formulation entity. God certainly exists.

    Denying God is the same as dis-communicating yourself from a huge portion of humankind.

    The majority is not always correct. There was a time when everyone thought the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth. If truth is based on the majority of viewpoints, we're in big trouble. Can billions of people be wrong? You bet!
  • johnathanjohnathan Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Clarification: I do not believe in "god" because Buddha said there is no god... I do not believe in god because I cannot rationally or irrationally conceive of a supreme being... There is nothing but blind faith to allow one to believe that... blind Faith, to me, is just a form of wishing something to be... There is a reason religion has been divided a million ways, its that different people wish different things... If God were real (IMO) there would be one faith (unless we're talking about beliefs in multiple gods) across the globe... Why would he/she/it need to play games with us to confuse us?

    Its funny you mention that Uzeb, wasn't it from the Bible that the so many believed something on the simple fact it was written in the Bible... because they had not the knowledge yet to know the truth...
  • edited May 2010
    title_buddhism-and-the-god-.gif
    title_question.gif
    Do Buddhists believe in a god?
    title_answer.gif
    "No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:
    "Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines."
    Dp. 188

    Primitive humans found themselves 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 were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.

    To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.

    The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

    The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god's nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god.

    It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming."


    continued here:

    http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm








    .
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited May 2010
    If you had dreamed of an elephant last night you would not be able to prove it to me. So I could say you were irrational for claiming you dreamed of an elephant. By same logic.

    In the same way many Christians etc have a personal relationship with God and they talk to him and try to please him. Telling them that God does not exist will fall on deaf ears. Just as my telling you you did not dream of an elephant last night will fall on deaf ears (if you did).

    By the way pinch yourself. You may be dreaming....
  • edited May 2010
    I read recently that the scholars cannot agree either on when Buddha was actually born, or even where. In this case, knowing this, we cannot actually prove there was an a guy named Gautama, let alone what he said. Let’s face it, these words put onto his mouth could have been written by a committee, a little like the think-tanks of today.

    But, these details actually matter very little, like the question of God.

    What is important is, when looking into these words you are able to find with any clarity that they are correct, stand up to a thorough investigation, and also work for you…well what else do you need to know?

    I personally found as I traveled along this path that my understanding of what I was reading changed as I changed, even when rereading the same exact words again. This shows how subjective this path really is. Unless it is both personal and altogether intimate, it is of no worth to you or me.

    It is my understanding that Buddha was trying to lead us away from seeing things as being out there, (mental objects as things), whether it be a God, or a universe.

    The finite mind is really quite inventive and hypnotic. He was trying to bring us home to our own personal experience, (before monkey mind led us astray, and we went on to identfy with the vast array that imagination could create.). Self reliance, when it came to truth, was a key point of his.

    Warm Regards,
    S9
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Dazzle wrote: »

    I appreciate the novice qualities of that work, and did read it. I don't think its wise to assume that all Buddhists have any form of unified perception.... though for the sake of answering lay people and giving a general 'gist' to other religions and children and the like it makes sense to say "Buddhists believe XYZ"

    I didn't pay close attention to the fact that Trans placed this in the beginner forum, or I would have extrapolated my initial post. It seems to belong in religion.

    God is certainly an existent archetype in the minds of millions of people... therefore exists. Does science exist? Does metaphysics? Now, whether there is a formulating principle that is existent outside of that, it has not been proven or disproven by science as far as I have seen.

    With warmth,

    Matt
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    I read recently that the scholars cannot agree either on when Buddha was actually born, or even where. In this case, knowing this, we cannot actually prove there was an a guy named Gautama, let alone what he said.
    This kind of reasoning has no place in discussion.
    It is my understanding that Buddha was trying to....
    As I said, your reasoning above has no place in disussion because in the immediate quote above you have completely contradicted yourself.

    You have said it cannot be proved the Buddha existed and now you are saying you have an understanding of what the Buddha was trying to teach.
    He was trying to bring us home to our own personal experience...
    Actually, Buddha was trying to bring us to universal truth that exists in each & every phenomena & experience, namely, all is empty of self or anything belonging to self.

    A famous teacher monk once said the Buddha can be seen in dog shit.
    Self reliance, when it came to truth, was a key point of his.
    Now there you go again, worse in a more personal way, referring to "his".

    You have become somewhat intimate towards an imaginary friend which you deny can be proven to exist.
    Then the thought occurred to Ven. Pukkusati: "Surely, the Teacher has come to me! Surely, the One Well-gone has come to me! Surely, the Rightly Self-awakened One has come to me!"

    Getting up from his seat, arranging his upper robe over one shoulder and bowing down with his head at the Blessed One's feet, he said, "A transgression has overcome me, lord, in that I was so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to assume that it was proper to address the Blessed One as 'friend.' May the Blessed One please accept this confession of my transgression as such, so that I may achieve restraint in the future."

    Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta
  • johnathanjohnathan Veteran
    edited May 2010
    aMatt wrote: »
    God is certainly an existent archetype in the minds of millions of people... therefore exists.

    Put this way aMatt, I can believe that "god" surely exists...

    With this explanation, however, one must conclude that the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and The Tooth Fairy all exist because they are existent archetypes in the minds of millions of people (children, whom we've lied to BTW)
  • edited May 2010
    DD,

    It matters little if there was a guy named Buddha. What matters is if the words that are attributed to him work in a personal way for me…okay and you too. ; ^ )

    If there were a universal truth, it wouldn’t be an impersonal object. It would be part of the fabric of each and every one of us. We can quibble about what that fabric is…but we certainly would need to experience truth as intimate, or it would be a dead thing.

    I do agree that there is an Ultimate truth. But paradoxically it is also manifests as quite subjective with varying perspective. This is probably because the individual finite mind is not capable of containing the All.

    Friendly Regards,
    S9.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    If there were a universal truth, it wouldn’t be an impersonal object.
    The Buddha advised universal truth is the conditionality of phenomena & their impermanence, possession of unsatisfactoriness & not-self. Nothing can be clung to as being oneself or belonging to oneself due to impermanence & conditionality.

    This is universal because each & every being, when they suffer, do so because they are clinging to something as being 'I" or "mine".

    Each & every being is subject to impermanence, namely, birth, aging, illness & death.

    Universal truth is the "impersonal" experienced by each "person".
    We can quibble about what that fabric is…but we certainly would need to experience truth as intimate, or it would be a dead thing.
    In a way, emptiness has a certain "deadness", that is, of "non-becoming" or "non-arising".

    Buddha was not concerned with "fabric" but with the instability of parts. He was concerned with illusoriness & insubstantialness and not "fabric".

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    johnathan wrote: »
    With this explanation, however, one must conclude that the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and The Tooth Fairy all exist because they are existent archetypes in the minds of millions of people (children, whom we've lied to BTW)

    :p
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    "A young brahmin called Vasettha once went to see Gotama. "This is the only straight path," he declared, "the path of salvation that leads one who follows it to union with Brahma [God], as is taught by brahmin Pokkharasati!" Gotama asked him whether any brahmin had ever seen Brahma face-to-face. Since God is invisible and unknowable, Vasettha was obliged to reply: "No." In that case, countered Gotama, any claim about a path that leads to union with Brahma must be groundless. "Just as a file of blind men go on, clinging to each other, and the first one sees nothing, the middle sees nothing, and the last one sees nothing, so it is with the talk of these brahmins. Their talk is laughable, mere words, empty and vain."
    I trust if we finish reading the sutta above (or it could be another sutta), the Buddha goes on to say although the Brahmins do not know the way to Brahma, he does.

    The Buddha says by radiating love in all directions, this is the path to God.

    So the Buddha did not believe in a creator god (Isvara) but like the Christian redefinition, he did teach the way to God is via love.

    :)
  • edited May 2010
    Johnathan,

    The Easter Bunny does “exist” as an imaginary creature. Does it exist as an individual being outside of our imagination? Well that is a whole other thing, isn’t it? ; ^ )

    Existence is not synonymous with Ultimate Reality. Something can exist as a mistake. Existence simply means that the mind is aware of it, in some capacity, a little like a mirage, which is understood to be a trick on our eyes.


    Why, however, does the word/idea of God have such potency in so many lives, and does the concept of God linger throughout the centuries?

    I think it is because it represents something to the human heart that is far deeper than the Easter Bunny. In fact, I think God represents an Ultimate Truth that we instinctively cleave to.

    The problem occurs when we stay frozen in more literal ideas about what God means, or IS. It is rather childlike, and not really investigated fully. God is in most part also very anthropomorphic in character.

    God when fully understood might morph from being ‘a guy in the sky’ into Buddha Nature given time and perseverance, and spiritual maturity, on the part of the seeker.

    I started as a child with God, and I just kept moving in my understanding, to a place where my earlier self would have been very surprised.

    I don’t resent my earlier self or my earlier understanding, nor do I resent those persons who still hold these very ideas firmly, even defensively, because I see them as the first baby steps towards Ultimate Truth.

    Friendly Regards,
    S9
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited May 2010
    johnathan wrote: »
    Put this way aMatt, I can believe that "god" surely exists...

    With this explanation, however, one must conclude that the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and The Tooth Fairy all exist because they are existent archetypes in the minds of millions of people (children, whom we've lied to BTW)

    If you went into a kindergarten class and told everyone that there was no Santa, and that they were fools for believing in Santa... would you be acting skillfully?

    Some adults never grow up enough to see that the idea of a little angry man on a throne casting spells is a ridiculous notion. Aggressively decrying their belief seems to have no compassionate purpose.

    With warmth,

    Matt
  • edited May 2010
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Taking the authority of the Bible as proof is no worse than taking the authority of sutras, Buddhas, and commentaries...

    I don't take the suttas as proof. I am simply stating that, based on early Buddhist records, Buddha was an Atheist.
    Indeed who can prove something does not exist? Can you prove unicorns do not exist? What if it says in the Bible or Sutras that unicorns do not exist? Is that proof?

    With all due respect, please read my initial post. I never said I disproved God. I said I had proof that Buddha was an Atheist. That's what the thread is about.

    You say that you can't prove unicorns don't exist as if that some how warrants belief in God. First of all, unfalsifiable claims are invalid in reason and formal logic. Second of all, you can't prove a negative claim, nor are you required to. Even Richard Dawkins concede that you can't disprove anything. However, reason and formal logic tell us that just because something can't be disproved doesn't make it valid. It makes it less valid.
    I of course know that there is also no proof that Gods/unicorns do exist but you are stating you have proof that they do NOT so the burden is on you alls.

    Come on, please. The thread is about whether Buddha rejected God or not. It's not about proofs/disproofs of Gods existence. And I never claimed such either.
    First show that you can prove EXISTENCE (or non) of anything without resorting to premises and I will be impressed lolz..

    Throughout this whole post, you have committed a logical fallacy. It's called Demanding Negative Proof fallacy. I suggest going to Wiki and look up the list of logical fallacies.

    .
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Transmetaphysical ......."you obviously haven't looked into the vast amount of research that has gone into ancient extraterrestrials. I highly recommend the works of David Icke (20 years of research) and Michael Tsarion (30 years of research). The extraterrestrial hypothesis is based on evidence, NOT preconceived notions or faith"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctIpUmJjkAs

    http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6056789081969524094
  • edited May 2010
    I highly recommend the works of David Icke

    Isn't he the guy that once announced he was the son of God on a TV chat show here in the UK ? :-/





    .
  • edited May 2010
    Dazzle wrote: »
    Isn't he the guy that once announced he was the son of God on a chat show here in the UK ? :-/





    .

    I have David Ickes books and he explained this incident. Icke is a sort of Pantheist who uses the phrase "We are all droplets of water in an infinite ocean of consciousness." He said "son of God" in a metaphorical sense and it got horribly misconstrued. David Icke is partly the reason I came to Buddhism because he constantly pushed metaphysics that are similar to Buddhism.




    .
  • edited May 2010
    Transmetaphysical ......."you obviously haven't looked into the vast amount of research that has gone into ancient extraterrestrials. I highly recommend the works of David Icke (20 years of research) and Michael Tsarion (30 years of research). The extraterrestrial hypothesis is based on evidence, NOT preconceived notions or faith"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctIpUmJjkAs

    http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6056789081969524094


    (If I misunderstand your intent, I apologize ahead of time, please disregard this post.)


    Thanks for staying on topic. Red Herring fallacy. Whether you can refute David Icke or Tsarion has NO bearing whatsoever on the argument I am presenting in this thread. If you want to refute my argument, at least attack the argument and not my personal interests.


    .
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Context.



    The 4 minute mark is where this world view is explained....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctIpUmJjkAs
  • edited May 2010
    thickpaper wrote: »
    I agree 1000%

    The only time we should be concerned about the beliefs of others is when they are pressured onto other people.

    QFT
    Actually its not quite like that, though I see what you say. But really the main gripe with new atheism is not the beliefs of others but the teaching of those beliefs to children.

    That's true, it's just, I don't like the arrogance of some of the New Atheists who seem to think they've got the "Truth", and everyone else is ignorant.
  • edited May 2010
    David_2009 wrote: »
    That's true, it's just, I don't like the arrogance of some of the New Atheists who seem to think they've got the "Truth", and everyone else is ignorant.

    Strawman. None of them make that claim or imply it. The Atheists are simply negating what is commonly held to be true. People like Dawkins actually asserts that the scientists and Atheists are the ones proud to be wrong about things and welcome refutations of scientific theories. But only welcome criticisms that actually bring evidence and reason. Religion criticizes for faith reasons, not evidence reasons (with the exception of the sophisticated Christian apologists).


    .
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Transmetaphysical...."Extraterrestrials are aware of the dharma, at least to an extent. Ive talked to a Pleiadien and used his guided meditation techniques. He teaches many things that are similar to dharma. This being has videos if anyones interested."

    "Biological life forming on other rocks in space is not funny nor extraordinary. However, the Pleiadians actually predate the Earth human race. They were probably skeptical of our existence first."

    "I'm guessing you've never read a David Icke book. He starts off by telling the readers that he's not trying to get you to believe anything because everyday we are bombarded by people telling us what to believe. He says in his books that he's just presenting a compilation 15-20 years of research he's gathered over the years and attempts to do his own dot-connecting with the information. Then based on the evidence and facts he puts forth, he comes to his own conclusions. You don't have to agree with his conclusions, but the facts are presented in plain sight for you to make your own judgments. He has about 3 pages of sources after every chapter so if you don't believe him, you can look it up yourself"

    "You clearly have been sheltered from the gathering mass of evidence for extraterrestrial intervention".


    Did the Buddha know about reptilian aliens?
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2010
    Right.
    Transmetaphysical set out to prove absolutely indubitably that The Buddha rejected God.
    Here we are 45 posts later talking about extraterrestrials and whackjobs like David Icke. (I saw the interview. he is a whackjob.)
    We've already got another thread on Buddhist belief in God, and yet another on Buddhism and aliens.
    As this is a purely composite thread, take it either there or there.

    I can't believe the level of discussion happening on this forum at the moment.
    What 'new Buddhists' must think of this collection of thoughts frankly worries me.
This discussion has been closed.