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.
Buddhism and God
Steve108
Explorer
Do Buddhists have a belief in God ?
0
Comments
There are Samsaric beings who inhabit the God realms but they are not eternal or free from Delusion.
I personally do not believe in God or any sort of deity. It just never worked for me. There is a cause and an effect for everything that exists. Just because we don't have the answers, doesn't mean something is unanswerable, and shouldn't have to mean we have to rely on a super powerful being to hold the answers.
My sister is likewise a Buddhist Christian, but mostly only so far as she believes Jesus was real and she believes his teachings are true the same as Buddhas. She does not really believe in God as a higher power, or in heaven and hell, but simply in in Christ's teachings. It's just easier to say "I'm a Buddhist Christian" than to say "I'm a practicing Buddhist who also believes in the teachings of Christ."
If God arises, then you have God. Nice or delusional dependent on where you reside. Believe it or not an atheist can be a priest or meditate in Church. I remember meeting Moslems hanging out at a Tantric temple etc . . .
Walking in two direction at once is a mundane form of bi-location. Might not be available at every step . . .
(although it is important to learn as much as you can from your teacher, if you are fortunate to come across them in this life)
but you know, skillful means manifest in many ways, maybe the only way for jesus to reach the people of the time was to explain a Beyond in terms of a God, etc..
I think the word "God" can denote some deeper spiritual ideas, like my brother uses it this way, and he talks of Everyone being God.. You know, it's a word that everyone has this sort-of almighty feel to from the outset, so if it can be used to bend thinking out of the comfort zone then I think it can be beneficial.
Everything you need is already on-board!
"there are three things that cannot long remain hidden; the sun, the moon, and the truth" ~ buddha
Ich bin ein Buddhist.
This is a belief that some Buddhists have, but not all Buddhists.
I have no problem with caz saying that there is no creator god in Buddhism.
I think he should have stopped there. He has made assertions that cannot be proven any more than god can.
These are perception attainments that occur when concentration and letting go is cultivated.
These are also considered samsaric still because the individual is bounded by the minds construction of reality.
Just some information for you guys.
Could they be the same? Cod and God?
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
That's fine for you. But frankly, most of us are not fundamentalists. We don't believe what some monk orders us to believe. We have put together our own faith system based on our own beliefs. Or, we look at Buddhism as a philosophy, rather than a religion. We look at principles, rather than principals.
I respectfully disagree that we can't make general statements about Buddhism.
Obviously an external creator deity wouldn't fit the bill but an all encompassing kind of consciousness just may.
I'm just talking strictly Buddhism and am not meaning to alienate any of our friends that have a mingling of Abraham's notion of God alongside their Buddhism although it doesn't work in my understanding. That entry from Wiki doesn't take the Rohitassa Sutta into account.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.045.than.html
Clearly the questions regarding the origin of the cosmos aren't so worthless afterall. It's just that the answers lie within you and Buddha only points the way.
@Steve108;
It really depends on the Buddhist and what one really means when they say "God". I only capitalize it as not to have it confused with any one of many gods. I don't see God as a proper noun but more like a verb or a process.
But one cannot say that "Buddhists believe _____". You may want to go back to another thread here from just a few weeks ago that pointed out that many members of our forum do believe in God or are open-minded about it. Many Buddhists I have personally known here is the States (not a majority) believe in God or are open-minded about it. Many Buddhists I knew or met in Thailand also believed in God or are open-minded about it.
I kind of thought over a period of several months that we, on this forum, had gotten away from statements that insinuated that "a real Buddhist _____." I would hope that people here believe in freedom of thought and freedom of beliefs.
Reason #1: According to the texts, a beginning point to samsara (literally 'wandering on') isn't evident (SN 15.3). This can be interpreted two ways — that a beginning point to the continual cycle of death and rebirth of beings isn't evident, or that a beginning point to the continual cycle of death and rebirth of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta), isn't evident — and they're not mutually exclusive. Either way, the point is the same: all that really matters in the here and now is whether suffering is present, and if so, how it can be overcome.
Reason #2: The idea of a creator God is incompatible with certain aspects and teachings that, if taken to their logical conclusion, seem to reject the idea of, or a need for, a creator God. For one thing, the logic of dependent co-arising, while primarily concerned with the psychological process by which suffering arises in the mind, negates the idea of a creator God in that it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause when applied to cosmology (think of oscillating universe theory).
Then there's this famous problem of evil passage from the Bhuridatta Jataka (although, to be fair, this is most likely a later addition that some date to the 13th century): In addition, according to AN 3.61, the belief in a supreme being can be unskillful and interfere with Dhamma practice if it leads 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: Nevertheless, even in the earliest parts of the Pali Canon, there are references to devas (literally 'radiant ones') or what we might call 'heavenly beings.' Early Buddhism seems to have incorporated the Brahmnanic/proto-Hindu pantheon and myths, but gives them a unique spin, transforming immortal gods into non-human beings who are more powerful and long-lived than ordinary humans, but by no means eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. (e.g., see DN 1), and creation myths into Dhamma lessons (e.g., DN 27). But more importantly, they can also be viewed metaphorically as the indulgent and hedonistic aspects of our psychology (i.e., the parts that are addicted to sensual pleasures).
Personally, I'm skeptical about the existence of such beings; although I suppose it's possible they could exist, especially if string theory is correct and extra dimensions do exist, which could account for the various 'realms of existence' in Buddhist cosmology. But I tend to view them metaphorically, and as such, they don't really play much of a role in my practice besides being illustrative.
Reason #3: 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 if and when they're held inappropriately. In addition, I think one can certainly present Judeo-Christian ideas, or those from any other predominately monotheistic tradition, in a more or less Buddhistic way, and vice versa.
As I've often mentioned before, my dear friend Simon shared with me some of his ideas regarding the "excellence of the synthesis of the messages and practices" of Buddhism and Christianity, for example; and people like David Cooper (God is a Verb) and Thomas Merton (Mystics and Zen Masters) seem to continually find harmony between these spiritual disciplines.
Certainly some Mahayana/Vajrayana schools talk of a 'ground of being' which some take to be equivalent to a Brahman-style deity. However, this idea does not sit comfortably against core Buddhist ideas.
I was particularly awed by the epiphany of Almighty Cod
Jesus Christ, the Aunty of All Mighty Flying Fish and Spaghetti Monsters.
I was once told by my 8 limbed Guru (Olli the Octopus) that
First there is a God, then no Cod, then we go fishing.
As we all probably know, the fish is a symbol for the awakened Jesus Fish.
We may also know that there are states of trade marked mind, which trance ascend
the belief of earlier mindlessness . . .
A mind where Cod and no-cod have had their chips and exist in nonexistence or rather transcend notions of being and non being as Rainbow Trout.
OM MANI PADME HALI BUT
Also, what Jason said.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=violent agreement&defid=5129289
Anybody watching the current Richard Dawkins serial on UK TV?
Does God have to be something that created everything on a whim?
Do we all understand the difference between God and a god?
Is God perhaps a bad label for the way of things becoming aware?
There can't be a conscious creator for that which has no beginning but I would imagine that which has no beginning and is always changing will one day become aware.
The difference here in this discussion (in my view) is that one person is talking about "formal Buddhism", while I am talking about "what Buddhists do".
For example, although I couldn't verify the original survey, I found one which said that in a survey of American Buddhists, a majority believed in "God"; that among Taiwanese Buddhists, 83.9% believed in Got; 56.7% of Japanese Buddhists believed in "God"; and 86.3% of Singaporean Buddhists believe in "God". I put God in parenthesis here because I couldn't find how God was defined in the survey.
I began life as a baptised Roman Catholic. When I decided to follow a Buddhist path, It was more of a transition than a switch. Looking back now, I realise that it was more a 'fear of letting go of the familiar and comfortable' than any form of confusion, pondering or lingering faith. It slowly dawned on me over time that I'd believed in an all-powerful, omnipotent Creator-God - because I was with a huge crowd of people who also did, I was expected to, I ran with the crowd and believed I had to. There's safety in numbers.
While I do not completely discount the possibility, it matters less and less to me whether a God exists or not.
It's simply a case of living life as if one did.
And you can perfectly do that just as well without him - or her - looking over your shoulders.
Buddhism covers all the bases.
if you want to continue believing in God, feel free to do so.
Some, in your position, have to at some point or another, make the decision to put both feet on just one raft.
Others make effort to ford the steam, watching their balance, by carefully making their way over the water on those weird 'foot-canoes'.
The journey is more precarious, unsettling and you go partly where you want to and partly where the damn things take you.
And it takes a lot longer, because in my opinion, you just make it unnecessarily hard on yourself.
The question is not so much "Do Buddhists have a belief in God?" but for some, it's "Why would you want to?"
If caz is referring to what the Buddha taught perhaps he should have backed it up with references.
If I have understood him correctly he is asserting that mind exists prior to form, creates form. My understanding is that this view has been soundly refuted by the likes of Nagarjuna and Shantideva.
I am suggesting that not all Buddhists hold his view on this.
Caz went on to assert that there are beings living in God realms. Could be true.
Taiyaki said he takes these realms to be human attainments. Deep meditative states.
Jason has stated that he views these type of stories as metaphorical.
What the Buddha taught is open to a range of interpretations.
That's why I said that caz should have stopped short of asserting his own beliefs in a discussion in which he was refuting the beliefs of other Buddhists.
With the dawning of non dual insight the subject and object are seen to be constructions of mind.
The whole point of Buddhism is freedom from suffering (dualistic vision).
Unless the non dual ground is made into God, but then it wouldn't be a belief nor would it be an external other.
It might produce internal conflict but this soon dissipates.
I have been in Buddhist retreats with people saying grace internally, praying instead of meditating and spreading rumours of strange pieces of wood decorated with a living corpse. Holy ghosts and such . . fine with everyone as far as my experience goes . . . :clap:
When we examine sound directly there is only the sound with no distance other than the conceptual assumption of a hearer in this assumed location with the assumed location of the sound over "there". In hearing there is just sound with no hearer. Zero dimensional sound.
This sound also has no edges, no center, it is mirage appearance with no true substance.
The mind is the groundless ground of all the interdependent arisings. In this case it is the sound. But we just explored how the sound arises from specific conditions. Even those conditions are imputed. In actuality the sound requires everything in the whole universe past, present, and future to arise. So in that sound contains everything.
From top to down, from solidity to recognition of empty luminosity, it is the unborn buddha mind.
But then lets explore the creator, the unborn mind. It too is dependent upon everything else, it too empty and unestablished having no center, edge, or truly existent reference point.
Sorry this is a bit wordy, but non duality of mind is a difficult and complex thing to describe using words and practically impossible to because we have to use dualistic language to describe essentially an experience/realization.
Hope this helps.