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.
Is there anything against believing in God?
Jeffrey
Veteran
I grew up an agnostic and that was that. Going to Buddhism my mind has become more open. I desire to share more with Christians since I am in a Christian nation. I will cherry pick and be unorthodox if I do experiment with Christianity.
But I was wondering if Buddha or -ism ever says that you shouldn't believe in God? Since being Buddhist I am much more open to Jesus having an enlightened consciousness because Buddhism in my mind has some mystical things.
The Buddha said that he would remain silent on God. Is this right? And then there is the conundrum of heaven versus rebirth. But for a lot of conundrums like that I can just remain agnostic.
Any thoughts? @Silouan @SimonthePilgram
But I was wondering if Buddha or -ism ever says that you shouldn't believe in God? Since being Buddhist I am much more open to Jesus having an enlightened consciousness because Buddhism in my mind has some mystical things.
The Buddha said that he would remain silent on God. Is this right? And then there is the conundrum of heaven versus rebirth. But for a lot of conundrums like that I can just remain agnostic.
Any thoughts? @Silouan @SimonthePilgram
0
Comments
So it is not about being for or against something. It is about being skillful.
The mind-as-god idea to me, reconciles Buddhism and contemplative Christianity. But I do not expect others to accept that.
So I want God to exist so everyone can lose their kleshas and be happy.
I don't think Christian cosmology really fits with Buddhist cosmology - not sure how much that matters. However, picking and choosing only the parts you like of a spiritual system can lead to confusion - I've been there done that!
I think Mahayana to Christ is easier than atheist to Christ. For one thing I have no need for proof, to be honest. I just need practice and that is Buddhism. Belief in God might just be a metta 'factory'.
Can't say it that's all accurate...but it works for me.
Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree and was enlightened. Got any proof?
But on the other hand, I'd hate a world where all we believed in were facts.
@Jeffrey, I seriously doubt there is a 'wrongness' if you devote faith or belief in the Christian God, especially from the Buddhist point of view. Rack my brains, but Buddhism as I understand it just doesn't make those kind of prohibitions. I get the impression the Buddha was perfectly fine with and encouraged people to do exactly what he exhorted them NOT to do, and discover for themselves why sexual misconduct (et al) is 'wrong'. Once you 'get it', you won't WANT to do it, it's very effective
Gautama's example of refusing to answer the question has the meaning of many encyclopedias of knowledge (and a moment of wisdom
'Wrongness' or unskillfulness comes in with the consequences or results of devoting your belief or faith also toward the Christian God (just me thinking it through here). Is the purpose/intention of devotion to God (as well as Buddha) be in service to the elimination of suffering? If so, it doesn't sound like it can go wrong!
I just watched "The Dhamma Brothers" last night on Netflix, and was shocked that the prison was 'ordered' to shut down the Vipassana program due to complaints by the Christian chaplaincy (or whoever up there high enough to call such shots). Overt religious persecution, at the state level, in the year 2002 in the good ole USA??? I know, I know :dunce:
My point is, the Christian side of the equation won't offer up a lot of, erm, friends. And *if* the Christian God is, as He claims, the only true and real God, your ass is grass if you are a Buddhist, so you might want to think about that LOL. You may not want to draw His attention . . . :rarr:
Gassho
Do you want a science god?
http://yinyana.tumblr.com/day/2012/04/02
This is my understanding of Christianity but a mystic, contemplative or realised being will be beyond stated fish recipes.
John 13:34-35
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
My Cod, did not the Buddha say something similar? Something fishy somewhere . . .
and now back to the music . . .
But a lot of Christians have their own custom made views. My mom is a Christian but she doesn't give a crap who has idols etc..
I'm not looking to be a model Christian I just wonder if I could have a belief in my own way.
That's an excellent suggestion to contemplate the no idols thing. It's actually related to the prohibition of homosexuality. The Bible says loving another man is to take that man as an idol over God. True story.
My girlfriend is Christian and I would love to learn more or go to her Church just to be around people, you know? I feel warm towards other spiritual people. I could share in such things as being thankful. I like St. Francis from TNH's book Living Buddha Living Christ.
I was going to say something about 'making up your own ideas of God', something along the lines of 'How in the world can you do that? A deity stands just a bit outside our human purview . . .'
But then I thought if there *is* such a 'being' or . . . . or whateveritis
Keep in mind 'the end of suffering', that's my advice anyway. In a roundabout way, it looks like it was Jehovah's plan in the long run.
Gassho
DN 11 also treats the idea of such a being in a similarly humourous manner when "Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be" is stumped by a question from a monk with supranormal powers, and quietly takes the questioner aside so his retinue can't hear to suggest that he ask the Buddha instead.
In general, though, it seems to me that the question of God is basically a non-issue in Buddhism and there are three main reasons why.
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, while primarily concerned with the psychological process by which suffering arises in the mind, negates the idea of a creator God in that it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause when applied to cosmology.
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; and anything existing outside of time and space would logically be completely static, meaning that God would be an undynamic being if God exists at all. Since everything within the range of our experience (i.e., within space and time) is subject to change, however, it's more logical to conclude that everything within our realm of experience is impermanent, meaning that for God to able to interact with our universe, God would also be temporal and subject to illness, aging and death just like every other being, hence not God.
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 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. In addition, I understand that a belief in God can provide comfort in difficult times, as well as serve as the basis for a beneficial ethical-spiritual practice. I also accept that certain people may have had some kind of profound spiritual experience that has led them to adopt such beliefs, and I don't have any issues with that myself. (I mean, who am I to argue with someone's personal experiences?)
Moreover, I think one can certainly present theistic ideas in a more or less Buddhistic way, and vice versa. As I've often mentioned before, my dear friend Simon shared with me some of his ideas regarding the "excellence of the synthesis of the messages and practices" of Buddhism and Christianity, for example; and people like David Cooper (God is a Verb) and Thomas Merton (Mystics and Zen Masters) seem to continually find harmony between these spiritual disciplines. So I don't see anything inherently wrong with experimenting with Christianity.
So how can there be samsara that God created? At least I have isolated a good question...
That's the kicker. I am glad I posted this. And then I would say that God definitely does exist if only in the fantasies of his followers. So that God should be respected because it is tied to sentient beings.
Anyone have any ideas for how a creator God can exist without a beginning to ignorance?
Is there anything against believing in God?
Depends how you use that belief and the fruit that it bears.
Some Christians can have a belief in God the way that some Buddhists have a belief in their teacher. It can be the deliberate putting of ones self under the control of something we believe to be greater than that self. Both can be the fostering of selflessness via faith/devotion and both can end up as fellow travelers on a path towards sufferings cessation.
So in the end, I think the main thing against believing in God, depends on whether it manifests as greed, hate & delusion or
compassion, love & wisdom.
God might have created humans and then humans were in Samsara. God might not be subject to permanence or impermanence since he is ultimate truth or love. For 'samsara is beginingless' to have a meaning you would have to have a sense of 'time'. Time could be a property of human mind. So Buddha was speaking provisionally to humans. A lot of places Buddha gives a provisional truth.
What do they cling to, when even accusations of piety are empty for them . . .
O lord!
If I worship You from fear of Hell, Cast me into Hell.
If I worship You from desire for Paradise, deny me Paradise.
but if i worship You for your own sake
then withhold not from me your Eternal Beauty
http://www.noormedini.com/sufipoems.html
and now back to the cling film . . .
:wave:
Positing a first cause has never made sense to me. It makes more sense that causation has always been. Even an eternal creator would be eternally creating which in itself means there is no absolute beginning.
Ya know what i say to the group? Piss off lol, what does it matter what people(or even ancient texts) here think about a belief in god, the most important thing is to have confidence in yourself to be able to find the path that works for you.
Personally i have much more respect for a Christian person with strong faith and confidence, then i do with some hippie-dippy buddhist new agey all over the place person who cant find confidence in themselves.
Of course its not an easy thing to gain the confidence in yourself to find your path, but the confidence in yourself is imo as important or more so then the path itself. I hope i dont sound too judgmental in this thread but i cant over estimate the power of self confidence enough.
When you have confidence in yourself, questions lessen, and practice(whatever it is)is greatly enhanenhanced.
"Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
First, the idea of one single God Creator who creates and runs this entire universe is too simplistic idea. The world is way too complicated for that!
Second, if there is a God Creator then who created God?
Third, if there is a caring God like a loving father why God with all his powers would let his children suffer so? Why would he send Jesus, his only son to die for us? If he has all these powers, why would he even bothers to do that?
Fourth, if we don't believe in God, we will be condemned to an eternal hell. I feel rebellious against this threat!
I like the idea: In Buddhism, there are only Buddhas (the awaken ones) and there are thousands of Buddhas. There are many different realms and Buddha lands. The universe always exists and evolved and is ruled by Cause and Effect (Karma).
This looks more realistic to me. Buddhas are not God but they've attained higher levels and are full of compassions when they see the rest of us suffer due to our ignorance. Shakyamuni Buddha can't help us, he can only show us the way.
If we believe in Amitabha Buddha land and apply for immigration there, he will help but if we don't believe in him, we are not condemned to an eternal hell. We will just go to a different place.
Dude, don't beat yourself up about this.
We will believe what we believe, regardless of who says what, including the Buddha, and that's okay.
At all?
Why are you here?
Why is any one personal belief a problem to be solved any more than any other one personal belief?
As far as why do people posit a first cause, it seems the most natural thing for man to wonder about -- where did I come from?
But, I don't see that you (or anyone) has any more evidence for one than the other. So it all comes down to personal logic.
But when I get swayed by those emotional leanings, I start studying Christian religion (which rings the most true to me as far as Personal God religions go). And what do I see? Fear of the devil and of hell, a very ugly kind of fear. Self-righteousness, to the point where even believers of other Christian confessions are seen as deluded at best. Insane hangups about sexuality. And, of course, rather unsavoury history and politics.
In my mind I can't possibly subscribe to that. And so Buddhism, as shaky as I am on some of its teachings, is the only thing that I can kind of fit into my worldview and disposition. It certainly makes more sense to me than anything else and it does teach compassion which satisfies my emotional self partially. But I haven't fully figured out what to do about this heart of mine. It is my main challenge to figure that out, to become emotionally complete and mature. I feel that the real gold is in there but mining it is no easy task to mine it.
By the way, there's a great movie I saw which, I believe, covers this "God-craving" I'm talking about and the associated psychology pretty well. It's called "The Ledge". It definitely helped me when I was in the midst of an itense struggle with the God question. Rather raw, not happy viewing, though.
I get what you're saying but that still begs the question of what caused the supposed first cause? I understand why we ask the questions but to claim there must have been a first cause doesn't really follow.
- all gods are mortal
- No god created the universe
- Anyone can become a god
- There can be lots of gods
Maybe not a problem because with science providing reasonable explanations for so much via astronomy, maybe religious cosmology isn't so important.
while Christian cosmology assumes
- common Buddhist practices (having a statue in a home shrine) is idolatry
- and ... well all other religions are works of the devil * (Unitarian Universalism excluded!-- the only church that accepts gays, atheists and Buddhists as they are)
The Christian rules put more restrictions on practicing other religions than vica versa. Most of the sectarian/ "anti-them" things I've read so far in ancient Buddhists texts are against practicing 2 kinds of Buddhism (say Therevada and Mahayana), or jabs at Jain or Hindu practices. Ancient India was unaware of Christians so they never wrote any rules discouraging Christian practice.
All that said, Amitaba & Shin Buddhism is a re-invention of Christianity. The Darmakaya, nirmanakya and samboghakaya is a near re-invention of the trinity. So certain corners are like super compatible-- different books, same words.
Things change. I don't see how that could change.
If there was ever a "time" with no potential for change then we would not be here right now. We wouldn't even be able to have illusions or delusions of existence.
If tthere is a creator deity before causation, how could it possibly decide somehow to start to create?
Obviously I don't claim my view as truth but ever since I could remember a beginning to all things just doesn't make sense to me. Something would have to cause the beginning.
Not that it's a big deal or anything. We are here. That's what matters.
The Buddha taught suffering and the end of suffering. He was silent in reference to God, because he thought that contemplating whether God exists or not was not conducive to religious practice but rather a distraction.
However, the Triune God of the Christian was obviously unknown in his culture,time, and cosmology, and we can only speculate about his position on the matter through the teachings he left behind. In order to do this many Buddhists attempt to fit the uncaused Mind of the Christian into the box of gods of the Buddha's to subordinate it to the dhamma, as if He were like every other causal being with self consciousness that is under constant development rather than complete in itself.
Anyway, I suggest that you follow your heart despite the problems, objections, and issues others may have with believing in the uncaused Mind. Those problems, objections, and issues show a lack of the clarity and illumination that is provided through intimate familiarity with patristic sources.
Fr Dumitru Staniloae's , “The Holy Trinity In The Beginning There Was Love” is a fairly short book that I recommend you read at the very least if you have an opportunity. You might find many things that you initially agree with. It is available at Amazon with some of the Foreward, Preface, and 1st chapter available for preview.
amazon.com/Holy-Trinity-Beginning-There-Love/dp/1935317318/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389708353&sr=1-1&keywords=dumitru+staniloae+the+holy+trinity+in+the+beginning+was+love
A complicating factor in discussions like this is that people seem to all sorts of different ideas about God actually is.