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.
God
ThailandTom
Veteran
After hearing a variety of buddhists say they believe in a god and some continue to exclaim that some buddhist monks do, I am curious to know if anybody could provide a direct sutta extraction stating an existance of a god or any reference to one, if the buddha even spoke of it that is..
0
Comments
http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm
I agree with
With Metta
He goes on to say that, "The Buddha says: "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines". Yup. Ever been to Thailand? The Buddhists do indeed go to "sacred mountains", "sacred groves" (such as Lumpini in India, also, BTW), and "shrines". Oops. Wipe out all the Theravadists in SE Asia and you wipe out half the Buddhist population of the world.
The he says, "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." Okay, fair enough. What if someone criticized Buddhism because, "There are numerous Buddhist sects (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc.), all claiming that they alone have Buddha’s intent and that they alone understand the nature of Buddha's teachings."
Further, he says, "that the belief [in God] is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea." We don't KNOW how the universe came into being, other than perhaps the mechanical mechanism.
He says, "There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god." That's a proof of anything? We could just as accurately say, "There are millions of people around the world who live useful, happy and meaningful lives because of their belief in a god."
He says, "One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god." And the opposite can be said, as well.
Here's my point. Each person here has the right to think for themselves and decide what they believe. If you want to believe in God, you can still follow Buddhist principles (I don't notice the Noble Eightfold Path or any of the other basic principles of Buddhism being based on God or based on not-God). If you do not believe in God, you can still follow Buddhist principles. If you are open-minded about whether or not there is a god, you can still follow Buddhist principles.
The cited article is nothing but dogma...IN MY VIEW. Your view may be different. That's okay. No problem.
The second citation says, "All religions have myths and stories...." You bet...including Buddhism (like the one about the white elephant entering the side of Gautama's mother, which led to the birth of Buddha).
I've said it before and I'll say it now. Personal beliefs do not have to be a competition that essentially says, "My religion is better than your religion." And if we are going to judge the validity of various religions, then we ought to judge them all based on the same fair principles.
The authors cited have laid out their personal logic for a disbelief in God. Other great thinkers have laid out their logic for the presence of God. In terms of humankind, and BTW, cited by an article today about an international survey...the jury is still out on the issue.
Dogma, dogma, dogma.
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. I think it's safe to say that Buddhism is essentially non-theistic in view. However, I also happen to be of the opinion that, if we dig a bit deeper, 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 negates the idea of a creator God in that it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause. 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): At best, God would have be more like the impassive and impersonal God of Aristotle, existing outside of time and space, to find a place within Buddhist cosmology. Nevertheless, even in the earliest parts of the Pali Canon, there are references to devas or what we might call 'heavenly beings.' However, devas (literally 'radiant ones'), which are often seen as gods when taken literally, are simply non-human beings who are more powerful and long-lived than ordinary humans, and are by no means eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. (e.g., see DN 1). 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).
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: 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 efficiency of actions and the intentions underlying them, not the existence of a supreme being (e.g., see MN 61).
Here's where I have a problem -- not with your post, but with religious thinking on every side of the aisle.
Buddhists talk about devas.
Christians talk about angels.
Christians talk about their heaven and hell.
Buddhists talk about their multiple heavens and hells.
Neither group has any concrete evidence. It's all supposition. It's all faith.
With Metta
My logic and reasoning tells me differently. But that's okay.
Getting into the whole Genesis controversy. To be honest, the vast majority of Christians I know do not believe the Genesis version of creation. They think it is a story that satisfied the limited knowledge of the people of the time.
My initial college background is in the geosciences, with a slight emphasis on paleontology/evolution. Every paleontologist/geologist I studied under was a regular Christian church-goer, yet they all believed in the scientific explanations of the creation of the earth and evolution.
Of course I could be entirely wrong on this.
In metta,
Raven
What do you believe that will accomplish?