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
All the best
Nickidoodle
You are using the word Atheist wrong. Atheist is someone who denies gods or deities of any kind not only those who deny the Christian concept of God.
The first sutta you quoted on the other thread from SB is the Avijjia sutta I referred to earlier in this thread.
Here it is again
http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=13
As you can see if you read the whole sutta. It is in reality a sutta that confirms the reality of the Brahma and how to reach unity with him. And that the Buddha taugth that to laymen. So how is he being an Atheist doing that?
Could you please post the referrence to the other sutta you quoted from Atheist Buddhist by SB. So I can read it in its entireity please.
But you are entirely correct that being a buddhist it is difficult to believe in a being that is eternal and flawless in this samsara as many Christians envision Him.
On more thing
When you say
In conclusion, belief in God or anything of the sort, is NOT compatible with Buddhism! It's a matter of definition and nuances of Buddhist doctrine. A Muslim can't be an Atheist and a Buddhist can't be a Theist. You can be whoever you want to be or believe whatever, but to say you are a Buddhist Theist is to say you are a square-circle. Simple as that!
in the other thread you know you are using the term Theist wrong too? Just to clarify? Theism is not generelly limited to the belife in one Christian God. You do mean Christian monotheism do you not?
/Victor
PS
Have you noticed that if you write SB:s initials backwards they become BS?:). Sorry I could not resist.
DS
Direct knowleadge is just the strongest form of belief. The best we can do so to speak.
So from that scale it is better to have direct knowleadge of a thing than just believing in it.
On the other hand sometimes people want to have credible deniability. (I m not familiar with the right term).
They want to have a degree of knowleadge (belief) about something so they kan deny knowing it.
Like many politicians do.
In that case belief is better than direct knowleadge.
/Victor
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6LEdGIcBheM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6LEdGIcBheM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
god won't let you cling anyway. in which case yr really clinging to unverified superstition.
I never implied that Atheist means the rejection of Yahweh. Atheism rejects all forms of God, even the Deist God. Also, Buddha even rejected a Universal Mind or some sort of vague ground of being.
I read the whole sutta and you have to understand the context. There were two Hindu brahmins arguing about the "true path" to union with Brahma. They then decided to consult the Buddha to see who was right. They were both appealing to the authority of the Hindu gurus as to what the right path to union with Brahma. Union with Brahma is salvation for Hindu's as Nirvana is Salvation for Buddhists. He was simply speaking a language that the brahmins could understand. He wouldn't come out and tell them that, "Sorry, Brahma doesn't exist, your idea of Salvation is wrong. Let me tell you the true meaning of Salvation." No, Buddha wanted to be skillful in teaching them by speaking a language they understand. Thich Nhat Hanh, a Zen master, makes references to "Allah" as Ultimate Reality in his Dharma talks to Israeli and Palestinians. Does that mean Thich Nhat Hanh believes in Allah?
Buddha advised them that they should not rely on the authority of Hindu gurus who have not even seen this Brahma, yet claim to know the path.
The moral of the story is that Buddha suggests that the way to Salvation is not blind belief and blind acceptance of authority. That message alone was enough to teach the Hindu brahmins a lesson.
So no. This sutta does not prove that Buddha taught union with Brahma.
I don't know which sutta he references. I just got the quote from the book.
Precisely. Eternalism is considered wrong view.
No. I refer to any and all conceptions of God. However, all versions of God have certain attributes in common. Eternal, creators, unchanging, omniscience, omnipotent, etc.
If there are beings with superpowers that eventually die and are not responsible for creation, they can't be called "God." Or at least not the Supreme Being that most God believers believe in, whether Christian, Muslim, or Deist.
.
You are forgetting the Nordic, Greek and the Indian gods. But I think I understand what you mean.
And I still think you are wrong in thinking that Buddha rejected a exsistance of a Brahma. He just took him/them down a couple of notches.
Hurray. Here we go again, another person argueing that the Buddha is lying or decieving people. I am not going to bother answering that.
Well alright. you know the Buddha more or less turned the Brahmanistic world up side down. Rejected the caste system, rejected animal and human sacrifice. He also argued against the other sramanic schools of his time. Why on earth do you believe the Buddha would have any problem saying that the Brahma does not exist if that is indeed what he wanted to do?
I have never met Thich Nhat Hanh and do not know his opinion but if you want to pull authority then how about Dalai Lama? Do you think he believes in gods?
No they do not. For one thing the Buddhist concept of the Brahman is totally different.
I think you have a very narrow and erranous vision of what a God is and is not.
/Victor
He acknowledged the existence of Brahma, yes. But he dismisses Brahma as merely a deva that is deluded for thinking that he is the omnipotent, omniscient, creator God. This is made absolutely clear.
AccesstoInsight: "From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality. In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world"
Since you like to appeal to the Dalai Lama, the Dalai Lama himself said that Buddha taught contradictory philosophies to different people to account for his audiences mental predisposition. It is not lying, nor did I say Buddha was a lyer. That is a strawman on your part. I said that Buddha spoke a language that they could understand. He taught them the path to salvation, but didn't bother debating them about what "true" salvation is.
I already explained why. You failed to understand.
I am not pulling authority. I was using Thich Nhat Hanh as an example of a teacher using language the audience understands. You think that I implied that since Thich doesn't believe in God, therefore, Buddhism doesn't either. If that's what you imply, this is false and not my argument.
I was saying that even though Thich Nhat Hanh doesn't believe in God, he made reference to Allah when talking about Ultimate Reality to an audience of Muslims. Do you see my point here? He isn't going to speak to a Muslim audience trying to teach them Dharma, by offending them by saying that their Allah doesn't exist. That would create an immediate, knee-jerk reaction and dismissal of Thich Nhat Hanh by the Muslims. He wants to take it easy on them first, before going deeper into the true essence of the Dharma.
Brahman is not the equivalent of "God." Brahma is. Brahma is the Supreme Deity, Brahman is like an infinite consciousness, akin to Pantheism.
And if you think Buddhism accepts Brahman, you're wrong. I thought this at first myself, as I too was a Pantheist that believed a similar concept to Brahman.
"The Buddha criticized the Brahmins' theories of an Absolute as yet another reification, instead giving a path to self-perfection as a means of transcending the world of name and form." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy
God cannot mean whatever you want it to mean. You can tell me that "car" means "plane" all you want, but you will still be false. God is eternal, God is omnipotent, God is omniscient, God is a creator.
If I am incorrect, tell me what is the "open minded" version of God that you speak of.
.
If only you really understood your own words here. Do you feel you have a skillful behavior on these forums?
Shrugging,
Matt
The reality is that you may be correct. Or NOT. Speculation :rant:
Transmetaphysical, your absolutist atheistic interperetation of Buddhism is alien (pun intended) to the family of both Mahayana and Theravada practitioners I have shared my whole adult life with.
So that is a good answer to the original question.
If the Buddha acknowleadged the exsitance of Brahma how can he be a Atheist? Using the word in its true definition. You might want to look up the word in a dictionary before answering.
Really? Where did His Holiness say that? Reference please?
Counciously speaking and using concepts you do not believe to be true as if you do is per definition lying or decieving.
You might want to look up those words in a dictionary too so you understand their true meaning.
Do you have any other argument that does not involve the Buddha breaking one of his own precepts (musavada veramani...) ? I will be happy to try and understand what you are saying. Otherwise you will have to forgive my limited intellect not being able to comprehend such a novel idea.
That was not my implication.
Hm as I said I have not met TNH. And therfore have no idea what He believes.
These links below seems to indicate he does believe in God and that he finds no objection for a Buddhist to be a Christian (second link).
http://community.livejournal.com/buddhists/682684.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/september-19-2003/extended-interview-thich-nhat-hanh/2758/
No I can not see your point. It seems as if you are saying that venerable TNH is also breaking one of the basic five precepts. Since I do not think you are stupid I will assume that is not what you mean.
Again this is a very narrow definition of God you speak of.
I agree a 100% when you say God cannot mean whatever you want it to mean.
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
What you speak of is the main notion of God.
Get real man/woman. There are probably as many and varying notions of God as there are people.
/Victor
I agree totally. Leave God be.
/Victor
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
It does not matter if he said he believed in god(s) or didn't ... He is telling every practitioner of Buddhism to decide for themselvesbased on their own observations and analysis and its agreeance to their reason and that they can see that it is beneficial to all that they should accept it and live up to it...
Christianity, when practiced properly is good and is for the benefit of all... I have a hard time accepting this sometimes as I harbor some bias based on some of the acts done in Christianities name, but I am slowly coming to realize that those things i have issue with are not the outcome of Christianity but by individuals who were not following Christ's teachings properly... As for standing up to ones reason, well... who can measure that? Is my reason better than yours or visa versa?
The belief of god(s) or not is not a concern to Buddhists, we practice for ourselves and our own enlightenment... When we start telling others that what they believe is wrong or right we risk sounding like Christian Puritanists (which nobody likes :-))
Stop worrying what others believe... It has no bearing on your own attainment of Enlightenment, where as your clinging to your need to have everyone believe that "to be a Buddhist is to not believe in a god" does.
Let go and you will be one step closer to enlightenment.
All the best
Nickidoodle
As music teacher I would compare it to wanting to learn to play piano by studying guitar technique.
Buddhism isn't about God, so there is no Buddhist answer to the question. If one wants to learn about God, study a religion that is about God, if one wants to learn about Buddhism, study Buddhism. (note I said "study"...I am not suggesting one cannot "practice" belief in God and Buddhism)
Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai is very influenced by Jodo Shinshu, which is a Japanese sect of Pure Land Buddhism, and by a large measure the most popular form of Buddhism in Japan.
"Teaching of Buddha" is really a sort of readers digest condensed version of all the sutras/suttas, but because the founder of BDK was very influenced by Pure Land he devoted a fairly sizable amount of the book to Pure Land teachings.
(I think the story is he was a wealthy industrialist who came down with incurable tuberculosis. He decided to go spend the rest of his life in a Jodo Shinshu Temple. After a time he started to feel better and upon seeing a Doctor was told he was completely healed. He felt that it was his time in the Temple that healed him and so he established BDK in gratitude...I could be wrong on some details)
The sections of "Teaching of Buddha" you are referring too come from the Larger sutra on immeasurable life, the Contemplation Sutra, and the Amida sutra. In each of these sutras The Buddha talks about a transcendant Buddha by the name of Amitabha/Amitayus (transliterated in Japanese as Amida) which means "infinite light and life". Amida Buddha, in a desire to save all beings, manifested a "Pure Land" called "Sukhavati" (Utmost Bliss or perfect Happiness) where people can be born after physical death, and attain perfect enlightenment. All that is required to be born into this land is a sincere desire for birth, and reciting Amida's name as little as ten times. This is done with the phrase "Namo Amithabha Buddha" or in Japanese "Namu Amida Butsu", ..in Chinese "Namo Amitoufu"
Namu/Namo means "I take refuge in" or "Homage to" or in this case "I am embraced by" is also a good interpretation. In Jodo Shinshu this is not really a mantra, but rather an expression of gratitude that we are embraced by perfectly Awakened infinite light and life, even if we are unable to see it directly due to our blind passions.
Some Pure Land traditions recommend reciting this many many times each day as a form of meditation, but in Jodo Shinshu that is not necessary. One sincere recitation is fine. Of course if you are moved to recite more that is fine too.
Now this does appear on the surface to be rather Christian-like, and indeed there are some Pure Land Buddhists who take it very literally.
Most people in Jodo Shinshu do not take it literally and instead view Amida as a personification of enlightenment...of Suchness, or absolute reality. Again, his name really means 'Perfectly Awakened infinite Light and Life"
And so by entrusting ourselves to perfectly awakened infinite light and life we are born into a state of perfect bliss.
An important part of this is the idea of "Other power" as opposed to 'Self Power". This again can appear to be "Higher power" and Christian-like. However really it is the same as the idea of "Letting go"...letting go of ego.
The question can be asked why would the Buddha talk about a personification of suchness? Does this not seem to be at odds with his other teachings?
In the contemplation Sutra (a bit of a dramatic story involving a King and Queen and their power thirsty son...spurred on by Shakyamuni's nasty cousin...however within this drama the Buddha tells the Queen in detail of a method of visualisation meditation on Amida and the Pure Land) Buddha talks about the idea that our minds take the shape of the things we contemplate. So if we contemplate the mind of a Buddha, our minds take the shape of a Buddha mind.
For myself I think Amida and the pure Land are real (because I think True reality/Suchness and Nirvana are real)...but they are described in a way people of that time and station in life could relate too. As Shinran (founder of Jodo Shinshu sect) said "The true Buddha is formless". Amida is presented with name and form for the sake of people unable to contemplate the formless.
Now the obvious question would be is "Amida the same as God?"
For me the answer is no more or less than "is Suchness the same thing as God?" for my answer to that see my post above.
However even if we were to take Amida as a literal thing, there are at least three important differences
1. Amida is not the creator
2. Amida is not a judge handing out punishment for bad people
3. Amida does not perform miracles or intercede in our lives if we pray to him.
I definitely agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence is quite surprising to say the least. It is possible -though unconventional- to practice the eightfold path, and continue Christian practices at the same time. For example, one can observe the five precepts and the ten commandments, because there is no contradiction between them; in fact there is some overlap. Or one can go to church, pray to Jesus, and also engage in vipassana or samatha meditation. Again, no contradiction.
But can one "get past all the God and Jesus stuff" and still consider oneself Christian? I don't think this is possible. There wouldn't be much left of Christianity if one takes God and Jesus out of the equation (...obviously just the Holy Ghost...:)). It's is a bit like taking the four noble truths and dependent origination out of the Buddhist equation. Ultimately, one has to accept that Buddhism and Christianity -while having some similarities- are doctrinally incompatible.
However, it could be argued that on a very profound level, that is to say on the supramundane level, Buddhism and Christianity lead to the same destination. This destination is called "nirvana" by Buddhism and "God communion" by Christianity.
Cheers, Thomas
I agree with almost everything, except the part about "always been in existence" and "sentient beings most likely having been gods". The operative term for samsara is beginningless, which is not the same as eternal. It does not imply infinity, but beginningless like in a circle where it is impossible to point out a beginning. A circle is a finite structure, but its circumference doesn't have beginning. It could be argued that because the creation of world systems is beyond spacetime, concepts such as spatial or temporal infinity don't apply. The question whether sentient beings have or have not been gods in previous existences cannot be answered for this reason.
Cheers, Thomas
Thomas,
I think it would be closer to say "once you get past all the noble truths, Jesus, DO, and God, you see its all just the same thing anyway." I think at some point along the path, the inner wisdom is rooted enough that you sit in communion will all four of those things, no matter what tradition you're from.
With warmth,
Matt
Palzang
Phew I'll stop and take a deep breath now.
Happiness and peace to all
You still can't say that Christianity and Buddhism are compatible. Just because the historical Jesus of the Gnostics taught some very similar things to Buddhism, doesn't mean the religion of Christianity and all its doctrines are similar as well. Jesus =/= Christianity. The main tenets of Christianity completely contradict Buddhist philosophy. Saviors, creators, eternalism, souls, divine command, etc. And I'd say that is quite the essence of Christianity. If you take all that out, what is there left?
(I also don't feel that Christianity is compatible with Jesus. I have formally debated the topic that "Christianity is an Attack on Jesus Christ.")
.
No. Not at all. I don't want people to just say I'm right. I want true understanding. I would prefer to be wrong, as long as things are understood properly.
.
Atheism is foreign to Mahayana? What do you call this?
"The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man may not rely on gods."
-- Nagarjuna (Mahayana Patriarch)
.
Oh? I'm the one forgetting it? That's my favorite Sutta, so to tell me I'm forgetting it, is both arrogant and false.
I know. I never told anyone to disbelieve in God because Buddha said. I'm simply trying to make clear that Buddha disbelieved God and such belief is incompatible with Buddhism. My point is that if a Buddhist began believing in God, they have just parted ways with Buddhism and onto the Deist path or Christian path, etc. And they have every right to do so and believe it. But the distinctions between what you call such belief must be made clear.
Buddha said "after observation and analysis"? Have God believers OBSERVED and ANALYZED God? I would say a resounding "no."
That wasn't particularly my intent with my assertion of Buddha as an atheist. My intent is to show that God in Buddhism is like saying "square-circle." It's a direct contradiction and not compatible.
I always have an urgent need to "set the record straight."
No one can tell another how to reach enlightenment. Everyone is a light unto themselves.
.
A previous member called MatSalted was banned for very much this reason.
I would respectfully suggest - and I do mean, respectfully and emphatically suggest - you quit insisting everyone else have true understanding simply because you believe you have the true understanding you truly feel they should understand - and let things lie.
Threads like this have a habit of disappearing up their own backsides.
If you wish to continue arguing the point, I would suggest that those who do, do so via PMs.
I think this thread has just about gone as far as it can.
The amount of hot air floating around threads like these has been much in evidence lately. It's getting so stuffy here it's almost exhausting.
Really, some folks should know when to quit.
If any of you have anything really worth-while and earth-shatteringly significant and ground-breaking to add, do let me know. I'll consider re-opening based on the post content.
Otherwise, Goodnight all, and thank you for participating.