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.
Do Buddhists Believe in God?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You mean, the All-Knowledge-Accomplished Thus Come One :-/
:hohum:
Exactly Palzang and just what I was trying to express. The more I learn about Buddisim the more it relates to Christianity. Its a shame people are too afraid to open the many Budhistic books out there that are most helpful to all of us. Im glad I took a big ol' bite. (heh heh):bigclap:
All the best
Nickidoodle
So true, Nickidoodle (I love that name!), and when we loosen the labels, the world becomes far more fun to inhabit. Having spent some time on archaeological digs, I have come across wonderful examples of the process of leaping to a conclusion by attaching a label to a find.
On the other hand, deliberately applying labels can also be an interesting exercise. This happened to me when I was an undergraduate at Oxford in the early 1960s. One of the Dominicans at Blackfriars suggested an exercise: to walk from Blackfriars to Carfax and to say to oneself as a greeting to everyone one saw: "I see Christ in you." I managed to get to the Martyrs' Memorial (about halfway) before being completely overwhelmed. All labels dissolved and, with them all "I & Thou".
All the best
Nickidoodle
.
What people need - or do not need - to get through their heads, is for them to decide for themselves.
It's not for you to insist upon.
Let it be, and relax.
It's no big deal, or skin off your nose.......
To be a Buddhist is to deny God. What if I said, "Let every atheist decide for himself whether God exists." Well, if that person decides there is a God, he is no longer an atheist.
Buddha mentioned and rejected God multiple times in the Pali Canon.
I have a problem with Buddhism being mischaracterized as being compatible with Christianity or Deism. This is simply false. We can be all flowery or we can be honest. Perhaps, it requires that people bend the truth in order to avoid immediately scaring people away from Buddhism, though this is unfortunate.
.
To be a Buddhist is to really not concern ones self with whether god exists or not....
An atheist is an atheist, but not necessarily a Buddhist. An Atheist denies God. A Buddhist doesn't either deny or confirm.....Not through agnosticism, but through indifference.
Links and references....?
No,. You just have a problem. It's called being closed-minded.....
.
If The Dalai Lama can be accepting of the faith of others, and see parallels between faiths, and work constructively to unite and work with Catholicism and Christianity - he's false?
I have no misconceptions of Buddhism being compatible with Christianity - Buddhism has no "saviour" - that's the most glaringly obvious difference. Deism however, I believe is not so clear.
Whilst researching the Log Parable I came across this:
Darukkhandhopama Sutta (The Parable of the Log) in Samyutta Nikaya. In this discourse the Buddha points out that if there is not any of these eight faults (below), the log will reach the ocean. Then He explain each of the similes.
1) If that log is not caught on the near bank, it will reach the ocean.
2) If it is not caught on the far bank, it will reach the ocean.
3) If it is not submerged under the water, it will reach the ocean.
4) If it does not land on a small island in the middle of the river, it will reach the ocean.
5) If it is not taken away by a human being, it will reach the ocean.
6) If it is not taken away by a deity, it will reach the ocean.
7) If it does not sink into a whirlpool, it will reach the ocean.
8) If it does not become rotten, it will reach the ocean.
This to me, does not point out belief in a Deity holding you back. My understanding so far on my journey in Buddhism is that The Buddha never engaged in discussion on whether or not "God" existed as it was not necessary to attain enlightenment.
Honestly, to me it really ISN'T relevant. And judging from Fede's answer, it most likely isn't to many others. My question here is, is it such a sticking point to you as an atheist or as a buddhist practicioner? Because it's very obvious from previous threads that you are a Dawkins school Atheist, which is fine, but is it colouring your perception on this question? (which again, is no biggie).
Because you don't speak for me when you say to deny "God" is to be a Buddhist that's all.
Respectfully,
Raven
.
I thought the Buddha was silent on the matter of God(s), in his eyes, it wasn't important whether God, or Gods, existed or not.
Also, aren't there multiple Buddhist Scriptures, where Buddha is said to teach the Gods?.
Then, there's, Tibetan Buddhism, which has a whole pantheon of deities, demonic beings, and other supernatural beings.
Why can't a Christian practice both Christianity and Buddhism?, there are areas where they are quite similar (and different too). Gnostic Christianity, especially, from what I've read, was very similar to Buddhism, in places.
A Buddhist should decide for themselves whether or not they believe in, or want to worship, any God(s).
David,
I find it troubling that people would waste their time declaring "You are not Buddhist if you believe blahblah" or "You are not Cristian if you believe blahblah". Some people find similar truth between the two forms, some declare it impossible to be both. Silly chaps, all of them.
I think you're spot on to say that people can practice both.
If a person comes up to us and says "I'm a Buddhist that believes in God." I think we should say "great, want some tea?"
If a person comes up to us and says "I'm a Buddhist that doesn't believe in God." I think we should say "great, want some tea?"
Clinging to this or that is just as distracting.
With warmth,
Matt
Heh. Well, I have paid far too much attention to the teachings of Buddha to be a Buddhist.
With warmth,
Matt
There are certainly those who believe in God who are intent upon harm in "His" name but these people are a minority. I don't think it's possible to answer this question with a blanket statement. So I think it's best left up to each individual to decide whether its worth it or not to believe in one god, two gods, a million gods or zero gods for themselves and not impose their beliefs on others. It is the imposing our beliefs onto others which is perhaps the most harmful thing we can do whether or not we are atheist, monotheist, polytheist, pantheist or flyingspagghettimonsterist.
Since the work of the Higher Criticism in the 19th Century, we have progressively learned to read more deeply into parables - and to understand how counter-intuitive are the multiple meanings of such teaching stories. For me, this wonderful image does not teach about the 'existence' or not of a god, gods or God. It is about how we may react most skillfully to the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune", what we call living.
We may look at the images and say to ourselves that things like being taken away or rotting are outwith our own volition but that the Buddha still says we shall not "reach the ocean", whereas our general understanding of the Dharma seems to suggest that the "ocean" is reached or not reached as a result of our own actions. A log, after all, is incapable of voluntary action. This is why Aesop's frogs want an active king: the log does and can do nothing.
Thus, our first understanding of the parable must be that we are not to be 'logs'.
If we then consider the form of the list, we can see that it is set out in pairs, a style we recognise from the Dhammapada. Should we, perhaps, take each pair as a single image? If so, we then read:
"Not caught on the near bank, nor caught on the far bank,the log will reach the ocean.
Neither submerged under the water, nor landing on a small island in the middle of the river, will it reach the ocean.
Not taken away by a human being nor by a deity, it will reach the ocean.
If it neither sinks into a whirlpool nor rots, it will reach the ocean."
The pair about being 'taken away' are now very obviously about attachment. If it says anything at all about the existence of deities, it is to put that existence on the same basis as that of human beings. This would fit with a view of godhood being on the wheel of rebirth but is in no way a commentary or declaration about "God as we understand God", as the Big Book of AA has it.
If we are to take the parable almost literally, we will have to get our heads around the idea that we are as responsible as a log for what we do or what happens to us. This is not Buddhism as I understand it but, perhaps, I am wrong.
All the best
Nickidoodle
God is eternal! God is permanent! God has a self! God does not suffer! Buddha scorned those who believed that the finite is eternal, that the impermanent is permanent.
Why can't anyone see this?! Are you a Buddhist if you reject the 3 existential tenets?!
Note: Non-eternal and impermanent are the same. The three marks are impermanence, dukkha, and non-self.
.
Respectfully,
Raven
I can see how you would reject non-self if you believe in God as usually, belief in a Deity requires belief in a soul. But I don't see how believing in a God automatically means you don't believe in dukkha and impermanence. After all, in Christianity it is taught that this life is not permanent and that suffering is to be expected (albeit, in Christianity it is taught that suffer BECAUSE of your belief in "God").
I can see where you're going with this, but I don't believe it is quite as clear cut as you make out.
Respectfully,
Raven
Just two points, Transm.:
1. In your opinion, is the Dharma marked by impermanence and non -self?
2. You are no doubt aware that there are differing Buddhist opinions on what precisely are the Three Marks. Some exclude dukkha and include Nirvana.
All the best
Nickidoodle
That's it, NickiD.
The answer to the OP must be: Some do and some don't, but it all depends what you understand by "God" - and, it seems, what you mean by "Buddhist".
All the best
Nickidoodle
It explaines how to worship God and be a buddhist at the same time without neccessaraly looking "down" on God as a deluded being.
http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=13
And yes it is a Digha Nikaya sutta...if you do not like it then just do not read it.
/Victor
That's really true, I think people get hung up on what people believe, for myself, I don't think it matters if someone believes in God, or Jesus, or Shiva/Kali/Shakti, or whoever.
What?
In the bible Paul clearly states that Christians will suffer for their beliefs and some (and a lot were) killed for following Yeshua's teachings. Can't get much clearer than that IME
Before Paul, Jesus said the same thing over and over again: challenge the prevailing imperial order and you will be persecuted (Sermon on the Mount and parables). History demonstrates the truth of this, and it does not apply simply to Christians. Try being an 'observant' Buddhist in Tibet, Jew or Mandean in Iraq.
What, however, has this got to do with belief in God? And why do you use the name "Yeshua" rather than Joshua or Jesus when you are happy to use the name "Paul"?
Whenever we choose a path which is at variance with the prevailing ethos of the rich and powerful, we shall run into trouble; and that trouble will often include pain and death.
Force of habit, nothing sinister.
- Raven
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6008
.
You seem really hung up on this issue. Perhaps you should let it go. It won't bring you any closer to peace, happiness, or enlightenment, though it may well hinder you.
'Basic Buddhism....Buddhism and the God-idea.'
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm
.
I'm glad you find sutras to support your opinion about the 'existence' of God, gods, devas or any sort of divinity. You fail, nevertheless, to convince me (and others, I am sure) that Buddhists as a gathering of millions all disbelieve as you do.
You are trying, I think, to advance your view as the only orthodoxy, whereas I avoid such absolutism because orthodoxy always implies heresy - and we know what the 'orthodox' do to 'heretics'.
Make them play scrabble?
All the best
Nickidoodle
From my link from Buddhanet learning which I mentioned earlier.
continues here in the Buddhist studies section:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm
.
All the best
Nickidoodle
Strawman. I'm not making that argument at all. I know there are millions of God and deity believing "Buddhists" but my point is simply that such a belief contradicts the existential tenets of Buddhism and that Buddha himself explicitly rejected God.
Anyone who believes in an eternal God doesn't accept the Buddhist precept of impermanence. Eternalism is considered wrong view.
No, my aim is not to turn my view into orthodoxy. I just want it made clear to the world that Buddha was an Atheist. And thank God for Stephen Batchelor and his new "Buddhist Atheist" book!
.
Whatever floats your boat.
QFT, Nickid
Considering there have been many Buddha's, how do you know that all Buddhas that have existed were "Atheist"?.
All the best
Nickidoodle