Buddha nature another word for "God"?

ClayTheScribe

I was reading The Tibetan Book of the Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche and came across the following passage in regard to the mind:

"Saints and mystics throughout history have adorned their realizations with different names and given them different faces and interpretations, but what they are all fundamentally experiencing is the essential nature of the mind. Christians and Jews call it "God"; Hindus call it "the Self," "Shiva," "Brahman," and "Vishnu"; Sufi mystics name it "the Hidden Essence"; and Buddhists call it "buddha nature." At the heart of all religions is the certainty that there is a fundamental truth, and that this life is a sacred opportunity to evolve and realize it." -- Pg. 47

The reason I bring this up is because I know many Buddhists also identify as atheists. If you believe in God or not, what do you make of this passage and how does it relate to what you've uncovered in your practice?

Personally, I think he's right and the reason so many people don't believe in "God" is because they're going by other people's definitions or not understanding it.

Dakini

Clay, this is a really good question, and I don't have an answer. It's really good food for thought. Buddhanature isn't supposed to = God, but the statement here is made so well, I don't know how to tackle it. They do say "The Kingdom of God is within you", which does sound like Buddhanature. And someone here said a couple of months ago, that in Zen they say, lose the self, find the Self. I love the term "Hidden Essence".

I'm stumped, and I'm impressed with this question.

vinlyn

I have to think more about what you guys are talking about.

But I have long held the belief that people who believe in God really have no idea how God works.

Lady_Alison

I think Buddha nature is a state of being that may facilitate the person to view and experience the essence of God in this reality. Not entirely, but just a glimpse. This glimpse is probably refered as the kingdom of God, inner peace or stillness, emptiness, or space consciousness.

How is that!? I tried.

Dakini

But I have long held the belief that people who believe in God really have no idea how God works.

Does anyone, except maybe the rare mystic? When people talk about "God", do they really have any idea what they're talking about, exactly? I like the Native American term, "the Great Mystery". It's clear there, that it's a mystery and impossible to know or understand. That's honest.

@Lady_Alison haha! "A" for effort! ^_^

Lady_Alison

@vinlyn...like an ant to an ocean.

vinlyn

But I have long held the belief that people who believe in God really have no idea how God works.

Does anyone, except maybe the rare mystic? When people talk about "God", do they really have any idea what they're talking about, exactly? I like the Native American term, "the Great Mystery". It's clear there, that it's a mystery and impossible to know or understand. That's honest.

@Lady_Alison haha! "A" for effort! ^_^

Exactly. If there is God, then this myth that if you pray to him your prayers will be answered...well, how many times have we seen that fail miserably. And then they say, "God works in mysterious ways." Well, yes...ways we don't understand.

federica

I think the difference between God and Buddha Nature, is the same as that between a pillow and a cushion.....

Dazzle

This excerpt from "Question Time with Ajahn Sumedho" is interesting:

Question:... "This word 'citta' is used in the suttas for the subjective consciousness. If there's a citta from which the asavas (biases) are removed and a citta which is liberated, how does this fit in with the idea of self or no-self? How does one avoid self-view in thinking about the citta? If there's no self, who is it that's aware and what is it that becomes enlightened? "

Answer:... "This is where Buddhism excels. It totally frustrates that desire. The Buddha wouldn't give an inch on that, because that's the non-dualism of the Buddha's teaching. It's psychologically uninspiring. You're left with just letting go of things rather than holding on to the feeling of a God or Oneness or the Soul or the Subject with capital S, or the Overself, or the Atman or Brahman or whatever - because those are all perceptions and the Buddha was pointing to the grasping of perception.

The "I am" is a perception - isn't it? - and "God" is a perception. They're conventionally valid for communication and so forth, but as a practice, if you don't let go of perception then you tend to still have the illusion - an illusoriness coming from a belief in the perception of the overself, or God or the Oneness or Buddha Nature, or the divine substance or the divine essence, or something like that.

Like with monism - monistic thinking is very inspiring. "We're all one. We are one - that's our true nature - the one mind." And you can talk of the universal mind and the wholeness and the oneness of everything. That's very uplifting, that's the inspiration. But non-dualism doesn't inspire. It's deliberately psychologically non-inspiring because you're letting go of the desire for inspiration, of that desire and need and clutching at inspiring concepts.

This doesn't mean that those concepts are wrong or that monistic thinking is wrong; but the Buddha very much reflected the attachment to it. So, you're not an annihilationist saying there's nobody, nothing, no subject, but by non-dualism, you just let go of things till there's only the way things are.

Then who is it that knows? People say: "Then what is it that knows? Who is it that knows the way things are, who is it that's aware? What is it that's aware?" You want me to tell you? I mean you're aware aren't you? Why do you have to have a name for it? Do you have to have a perception? Why can't there just be awareness? Why do you have to call it mine, or the eternal essence, or whatever? Why do you have to name it? Why not just be that, be aware. Then you see the desire, the doubt, wanting to label it, add to it. It's avijja paccaya sankhara (creating conditions out of ignorance). The process goes on of wanting to complicate it by giving it a name, calling it something. "

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Ajahn_Sumedho_Question_Time.htm

person

Maybe? There are many different subtle levels of absorbtion and realization so I don't think its true to say that everyone who has a profound spiritual experience is experiencing the same thing.

I do wonder if what other religions are trying to talk about is this non-dual field of potential or Buddha nature? If they are, the conceptual frameworks describing it aren't the same. I think the conceptual framework one approaches these experiences from matters. I see the concept as like taking aim and the experience as hitting the target. If the concept is different then the experience is different.

There are philosophical and textual reasons why most Buddhists don't beleive in a creator god.

ittybittybat

It may be god, it may not be. No one can know at this point in life.

I actually agree with the quote in the OP's post. I've always thought that everyone just calls 'god' a different thing, although I don't know if buddha nature is 'god', though. But, then again, he might be wrong. There is no way to know for sure.

But I have long held the belief that people who believe in God really have no idea how God works.

I would agree with that, seeing as I believe in god and have "ideas" of what I think god is, but no real concrete knowledge.

I would argue that neither a person who believes in god, nor a person who does not believe in god knows how god works. The only difference is that one group tries to figure out the workings of god, while the other group couldn't care less.

Zero

Depends on what God means to you I guess.

Some people prefer God to be an abrogation of responsibility - here I think there isnt a good correlation to Buddha nature and nor practice.

Others see God as just a definition of something they cannot understand - here I guess the correlation is closer to Buddha nature and there may be similarities in practice.

It is easier for Buddhism to include other definitions of a God but tougher for other religions to reciprocate - I think that's why the Buddhist way sits more comfortably for me.

Ahbleza

Form IS Emptiness;
Emptiness IS Form

Buddha IS God;
God IS Buddha

What's in a word?

vinlyn

I would argue that neither a person who believes in god, nor a person who does not believe in god knows how god works. The only difference is that one group tries to figure out the workings of god, while the other group couldn't care less.

Very good point.

vinlyn

Howdy,

God in reality is the explanation of existence of all...İn devine religions God is a creator. but in this case, God needs another creator. So to define God is a problem ...

Buddha nature does not judge, Buddha nature is only a witness...It is our real nature. Pure consciousness. Everyone can feel it.

Lets all be mindful,

I would say let's all be mindful that we don't know what "God in reality" is.

ClayTheScribe

I think the reason so many people don't understand God and then often don't believe in God is because they're going by the definitions of our major religions which are distinctly human definitions, many of them established thousands of years ago when we were less aware of our reality and existence.

I don't see God (I also call it The Source and All That Is because those are more accurate) as a being who suffers, has wants, fears, thoughts, has special "sons" etc. God is not a creator being. God needs no creator because God was never created. It just is. God, to me, is pure energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Since matter, what we are, is energy and mass, we are also God manifested in physical form, so to harm another of us is not only to harm God, but is to harm ourselves, something very much in line with the interconnectedness principle of Buddhism. This three dimensional reality is sort of a dream we are all co-creating, though I have not completely figured out to what end we do this. In Buddhist terms, we live in relative reality where as absolute reality is our Buddha nature, where God "comes from." However, what's really tripped me up recently is that if God is everything, then God is also the darkness, fear, pain, suffering, anger, hatred, violence. I guess that's where yin/yang comes in, God is both the light and the dark side. This is a very primitive explanation of epiphanies I've had as part of my spiritual awakening over the past year because I still have too primitive a brain to explain it.

I do think I understand why The Buddha never gave a straight answer about the existence of "God." I think he knew very well about it, but knew it would be impossible to explain in human terms so instructed people to find the answer for themselves by going inside.

zenff

What's in a word?

I think there are some Eckhart quotes which suggest there’s a way of using the idea of God in a similar way as the idea of Buddha Nature.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart
We shall find God in everything alike, and find God always alike in everything.
Meister Eckhart

Jeffrey

Buddha-nature may be hard to pin down, which is like God. There are manifestations. I think the crucial difference is 'that' the manifestation from bodhicitta spread outward unhindered by both grasping and craving, as conceptualized in the Mahayana. The third turning is I have heard is seemless truth, unhidden. I guess it's like the Mahayana path reveals the buddha nature like the gold from ore.

In my own thinking of God, I am quite frightened and trying to align so that I don't get hurt or punished. I know that the essence of Christianity may be forgiveness, and that is a view of mine.

FoibleFull

No matter how much we try to pin it down with words, thoughts, concepts ... the understanding of these matters comes as an experience, which has no words, thoughts or concepts.
Until then, we are only trying to find "certainty" through our intellect. Which is the opposite of what Buddhism tells us to do ... we are supposed to let go of even our attachment to "certainty".