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.
There is no Creator God in Buddhism
caz
VeteranUnited Kingdom Veteran
See the Brahmajala Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
There is a being that proclaims to be the creator and is as such worshipped by many cultures however even such a being according to Buddha arises due to the force of Karma, This beings belief that it creates others and that below it arises due to its own prideful Ignorance. The Buddha taught that Samsara is cyclic with no beginning and as such universes and the beings that dwell within them have arisen time and time again due to the force of Karma.
...
39. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world.[7] There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
40. "But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
41. "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
42. "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'
"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.'
43. "Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who re-arose there after him.
44. "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'
...
There is a being that proclaims to be the creator and is as such worshipped by many cultures however even such a being according to Buddha arises due to the force of Karma, This beings belief that it creates others and that below it arises due to its own prideful Ignorance. The Buddha taught that Samsara is cyclic with no beginning and as such universes and the beings that dwell within them have arisen time and time again due to the force of Karma.
...
39. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world.[7] There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
40. "But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
41. "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
42. "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'
"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.'
43. "Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who re-arose there after him.
44. "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'
...
1
Comments
There are plenty of theistic Buddhists. As long as they are good, compassionate people, does it really matter of they believe in God or not?
Any god described in that manner the Christian mystic can likewise dispense with, so for me it is a great reference and very validating information you have provided.
/Victor
:-/
So in a purely dualistic system that would imply that Buddha is a God.
Even so, I don't think that implies Buddha is a God. In Buddhist lore there are many beings in the heavens that can help people, but they are not considered gods.
Second of all I am not imlying that Buddha is a God.
Third of all helping people is one thing helping people against samsara is an entirely different ballgame.
Fourth of all that was TheEccentircs definition not mine...
/Victor
I just meant that being in a higher place in Samsara (on that scale) entitles those being the name God among common people.
In the mahayana Buddha Shakyamuni exists because we need him. He is a nirmanaka Buddha which means that we can see him. We cannot see the other two parts of the bodies of Buddha: samboghakaya and nirmanakaya. So nirmanakaya IS helping us. That's part of the true meaning of refuge. It's not just a call to devote your practice, rather it is also acknowledging how the actual universe will meet you and aid you. We cannot get off the hook. We need it! The features of this universe are: changing, having a heart to meet our heart, finely structured ie not an amorphous blob of emptiness, and having things non-manifest and manifest.
In the sutras it is always said that the Buddhas (yes plural) and bodhisattvas rejoice whenever someone has a realization. My lama enjoys the thought that there are these beings saying "oh look I think he has gotten it... be praised!" I like it too.
Hmm. I guess I was pretty unclear as to what I said and why.
Using the criteria of not mortal and help against samsara the only beings that qualify as a God are Buddhas.
I think that is not the case. God is just a name on a being (a lot) furthur up the karma scale.
@Jeffrey
What you said makes a lot of sense. I know the Universe has a heart to meet my heart. In fact I think I have relied on it many many times! Thanks for putting that into words!
/Victor
Not all god concepts involve a first cause much less an original name, especially if said god isn't even fully awakened yet.
Evolution could be just a process of self discovery.
But Buddhistic Theists are frequently encountered , particularly in contemplative circles.
When I hear people think that theism and Buddhism are incompatible, I want to ask the question, "What percentage of Buddhist principles could not exist if there is a God?" Frankly, most Buddhist wisdom could exist very nicely either way.
I have long assumed that God is not a micro-manager of man (in general) or of a man's life.
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 when held inappropriately.
Often the Shrines for the Gods are side by side with the shrine to the Buddha.
/Victor
and also that any crude, limited, compartmental, or humanized, conceptualization of god becomes a massive impediment to wisdom.
Maturing past cultural imagery as god and belief of the ridiculous human pettiness of god... This is rare and intelligent.
:clap:
I should refine my statement and say that if the deity is used as a tool, as seen as one aspect of divinity with which the practitioner resonates, this is not unintelligent. (*exceedingly rare) along the same vein, I generally consider multi deity systems to be more authentic mature organic expressions of spirituality.
Basically to answer your question no.. I believe in god, but I refuse to give it an arbitrary name, or personality, or see it as anything less than beyond description and the very fabric of everything that is...everything we are.
Although this will start a vicious troll war, I'd like to say that Buddhism is a recipe to become acquainted with a more mature, universal understanding of god. An understanding which renders the term 'god' obsolete.
Other views of God are available. Other folk have other layers of conditioning to work through.
Thus with moral awakenings come realizations of depth, the abstract, the profound...the truly powerful...the universal.
If anybody is curious...
/Victor.
wisdom and intelligence are 2 very seperate categories of the mind.
In contrast, the religious cultures in the Levant hold that there is a separation between the source of being beyond being and creation Ex Nihilo or out of nothing. Here creation is revealed as something outside of God, but not by location but by nature. I have offered this example before, though rather limiting, that a reflection of the moon on water is an image of its archetype but it is not the archetype.
The fact that something is subject to change is evidence that it has a beginning, so how does a God, who is without cause or origin and unchanging, create out of nothing and maintain a relationship with His creation?
One can either assume that the Buddha's doctrine are applicable no matter what without further investigation and dismiss any opposing doctrine, or one can actually investigate the opposing doctrines and apply his teachings to them and see if they hold water or not. There are many commentaries and treaties on these topics available for investigation.
If someone makes the assertion that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can be dismissed with the doctrine of emptiness but can speak with an informed understanding about Trinity, essence, energies, Logos, logoi, movement, being, non-being, well-being,etc., by going to the traditional sources it would be much more meaningful, because one would not be speaking from a position of blind faith but rather through examination and that holds a lot of weight.
The Buddha was very familiar with the predominate religions of his culture and applied his teachings to them, but if we take them and just cut and paste them to support our limited ideas or notions this is a form of confirmation bias.
But my teacher uses the term theism to mean that you are opening to blessings of Buddha or the lineage or your teacher. So in this context it is an opening. In Tibetan the word for pray has no subject or object. So you would say "pray guru rinpoche" (padmasambhava) instead of I pray to guru rinpoche. She said she taught at Gampo Abbey where her dharma sister's, via Trungpa, sangha concluded 'oh there is good theism and bad theism'.
In Dn 13 the Buddha teaches the path to union with Brahma or as you say God.
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/13-tevijja-e.html
Or am I misreading you @caz?
In my eyes that is the sole purpose and heart of Dhamma. Without that definition nothing makes sense in Dhamma.
That being said. You mentioned twice that Gotamas view on God was influenced by his time and culture? Now I am curious to what those influences were you are speaking of and how those influences led to his teaching that the God was a part of samsara rather than apart?
I thought that in vedic tradition God was Absolute and Eternal?
/Victor
What I'm referring to as influence here is a cosmic world view, running as a thread through the various beliefs on the Indian sub-continent, that makes the doctrine of emptiness plausible, and that is that the absolute is eternal, meaning beginningless, the essence of which is found in all things and phenomena, thus all are eternal and beginningless being renewed again and again in an endless cycle of rebirth.
The Buddha saw that clinging to a false sense of self and not identifying with the absolute within perpetuates the cycle of rebirth, so Nibbana is the extinguishing of this false sense of self. I think you are very spot on in saying “The definition of Nibbana is such that No Thing, not even God however God is defined, is included in it. In my eyes that is the sole purpose and heart of Dhamma. Without that definition nothing makes sense in Dhamma.”
From an Orthodox Christian cosmic world view perspective, creation is not eternal and has a beginning. It is not of the same essence or nature as God; therefore the source of being beyond being is not a thing and cannot be defined in such a manner or by any other anthropic limits. Emptiness requires that God be identified as being one with creation in same essence which creation ex nihilo prevents.
In general, ultimately it all depends after thorough investigation of what makes most sense to each on a personal level. If one believes that the absolute essence is the ultimate reality of all things then emptiness can work, but at least know in that context why it works and why in the other it doesn’t.
These are two unique and different cosmic world views and each stand on their own, and understanding this helps us to better appreciate and respect the other in a more tolerant manner.
I offer these links to very informed commentaries on the topic of creation if interested:
jbburnett.com/resources/lossky/lossky-createdbeing.pdf
jbburnett.com/resources/florovsky/3/florovsky_3-3-creation.pdf
duq.edu/Documents/theology/_pdf/faculty-publications/art-mordeianu-max.pdf
I think our concept worlds are very far apart. So I will make some statements and see if you agree.
1. I would first of all want to replace "false sense of self" with "illusory sense on self". In (my understanding of the) Dhamma the sense of self in neither false nor true. Do you agree and understand the distinction?
This is the essence of Anatta. IMMO.
2. Again IMO. Emptiness, the Absolute or any defined thing is not part of nibbana. So extinguishing the false sense of self (i.e attaining nibbana) will not mean that the Absolute sense of self remains. Do you agree?
Now a question.
Is it God you are referring to as the source of being beyond being?
I think you are totally correct about
"In general, ultimately it all depends after thorough investigation of what makes most sense to each on a personal level. If one believes that the absolute essence is the ultimate reality of all things then emptiness can work, but at least know in that context why it works and why in the other it doesn’t."
In the end that which makes sense to a person is all that matters.
/Victor
EDIT: Am I mad? No just a Fanatical Buddhist.
I can see god as the universe itself becoming aware but not the creator of the universe because universe means all that is.
If god created the universe from outside then god isn't. God is the universe itself, a part/function of the universe or else doesn't exist.
jmho