God
kriscmh
New
Hello. I am new to the forum. I am sure that this has been talked about before, but I would like to post a question.
I was raised in a conservative Christian home and have always practiced the Christian faith. In recent years, however, I have become somewhat dis-enchanted with Christianity. I have studied about Buddhism quite a bit and find that I resonate with it, that it is much more practical to my daily life, and that overall, it makes more sense than Christianity. I just have one hang-up: God.
I no longer believe in God in the way that I was raised as a Christian. I believe that God exists more as the Source - or energy - behind the universe. A consciousness that is greater than us. It seems to me that things like karma and reincarnation (I know Buddhists differ on these things) point to some consciousness that is behind those things. Yet, I find that most Buddhists don't want to speak of or believe that there is a God type consciousness behind these things. I understand the whole God is irrelevant to Buddhism thing, but it still bothers me on some level that there is not more of an openness to the idea of God (not a personal God) in Buddhism.
Thoughts?
Comments
I bring up this poem often in threads about Buddhism and God but if you have not read it before, I urge you to read "Call me by my true names" by Thich Nhat Hanh.
I'm on my phone at the moment but it can be found by googling it.
There is no creator God in Buddhism.
Buddha taught about the cycle of Samsara which is "Uncontrolled Rebirth and Death"
There are many Gods and Goddess but they are subject to Death like the rest of us.
Rebirth or Reincarnation as you put it is not a cause that comes from any sort of creator but rather a result of a persons accumulated karma which throws them into their next Rebirth.
Although a Creator God may not exist within Buddhism there are plenty of Buddha's that practitioners rely on, As seen in the top left of the Wheel of life there is a depiction of Amitabha Buddha practitioners and devotes of this Buddha rely on his practice to Transform their minds and lead their consciousness to Sukhavati Pureland after death.
Buddhists are not open to the ideas you suggest because they do not make sense in the light of Buddha's instructions either in Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana.
Hope this helps.
Don't make the assumption that all Buddhists don't believe in God. I have no idea what thread it was, but a while back there was one where quite a few of us said that we believed in God, but not necessarily in the standard Christian view of God.
For example, I see myself as somewhat of a secularist. I look at Buddhism and Christianity from more of a philosophical perspective than a religious perspective. Such a view can free you up from the idea that you have to discard one religion before you fall into another. I believe in God, but my experiences in life have convinced me that, for the most part, God is not a micro-manager of an individual's life, or even human life, in general. I don't try to convince anyone else of that viewpoint...it's just where I am.
I take wisdom where I find it. And I find an immense amount of wisdom in Buddhism...and in the New Testament...and many other places, as well.
I understand the whole God is irrelevant to Buddhism thing, but it still bothers me on some level that there is not more of an openness to the idea of God (not a personal God) in Buddhism.
To practise Buddhism you don't have to drop one set of beliefs and take on another. You might find though that your beliefs and assumptions will change over time.
@kriscmh You say Buddhism isn't open, but I disagree. I think you are not open to the possibility that there is no God.
Give me good reason to believe in God, and I will. At that point I will even try to convince others, because I care about truth. Buddhism seems to largely be about truth itself, and not faith-based propositions.
@AldrisTorvalds, that is the same thing -- give me a good reason to believe -- that many of us say about rebirth (as just one example). But why necessarily make an effort to convince others?
How do you know that I am not open to the possibility that there is no God?
Actually, I went through and Agnostic/Atheist period for a few years. However, I believe that there is something larger than us that is behind all of this. I just do. I would like to fit that within a Buddhist approach.
@vinlyn God and literal muli-lifetime rebirth and Bigfoot are all rowing in the same boat in the middle of an imaginary ocean in someone else's mind. I don't mean I'd go out of my way to convince anyone; I'd just argue for it, like I argue for transience and selflessness.
@kriscmh But why do you believe that? You can believe in God and be a Buddhist; many do. Buddhism itself just doesn't carry that belief. And if it's not anything like the interventionalist Creator of Christianity, why call it God? That's really confusing.
I only care whether there's good reason to think something is true. People believe things for all sorts of reasons, many of which I consider to be bad reasons. Hence so many religions all claiming different things; so many pseudosciences and con-artists in the world taking advantage of this human weakness.
cool
I still find it puzzling that you're secular about Buddhism but not about God. I'd have thought that anyone with a skeptical orientation would be skeptical about all of it.
Why does one's beliefs have to be absolute?
I stake very little belief in the Old Testament.
I think every mainstream Christian church has got most of "it" wrong, although they may be very well-meaning.
I see much wisdom in the overall philosophy of Jesus...at least as it is recorded, but don't have enough evidence to believe in the miracle/magic aspect of it all.
I also disagree with the extent to which we have come to believe that science is all that coincidental.
Aren't secularists skeptical about everything which is religious and / or unverifiable?
So, SpinyNorman, does it come down to:
All Christians must believe the entire body of X.
All Buddhists must believe the entire body of Y.
All secularists must believe the entire body of Z.
?
It seems to me that if that is true, then secularism is just another religion.
You don't have to be a Skeptic to be a Secularist.
No, that's not the point. You labelled yourself as a secularist, I'm saying that's it's an incongruous label given your belief in God.
@kriscmh
To impart cause and effect with a consciousness, is to study it through Christian colored glasses. That consciousness is only being brought to the table by you.
People will believe in just about anything that is possible to believe in.
One of the purposes for** practicing** meditation is to simply allow existence to unfold as it is, free of where both the worldly & the spiritually inclined have habitually dressed it up to suit our own story lines.
Whatever anyone else wishes to believe, how can that really compare that to you dropping the leash to whatever binds you to such beliefs.
The two are inextricably entwined. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Secularist
Not in practice.
So you're not a skeptic?
I am, and I've said I am many times. It's secularists that aren't necessarily Skeptics (note the capital S, not skeptical about just some things but all unsubstantiated claims). I'm an atheist and I know atheists that believe in ghosts and Bigfoot. You don't have to be uber-rational and skeptical to not believe in some things.
Secularists are by definition skeptical or dismissive about anything religious. So an atheist that believed in ghosts wouldn't be classed as a secularist, and similarly a Buddhist that believed in God wouldn't be classed as a secularist. OK, so I'm being pedantic but I get a bit irritated with the lazy and imprecise use of language we see on forums like this.
But what's "religious"? Beyond that, being skeptical of religious stuff doesn't make one a Skeptic. Skeptic means you apply skepticism to all unsubstantiated claims, which would include UFO abductions, Bigfoot, ghosts, homeopathy et al... it's the application of intense scrutiny to all areas of belief.
And when I hear Secular, I think more about how Wikipedia puts it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism). Many people are Secularists without necessarily being Atheists, and certainly without going so far as to consider themselves downright Skeptics. How people actually use the terms is at least as important, if not more so, as the dictionary definitions (which are supposed to reflect usage, not set meanings in stone).
Anyway I think we're derailing the thread.
From Wikipedia: "It has been argued that the definiton of secularism has frequently been misinterpreted. In a 2012 Huffington Post article titled Secularism Is Not Atheism, Jacques Berlinerblau, Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, wrote that "Secularism must be the most misunderstood and mangled ism in the American political lexicon. Commentators on the right and the left routinely equate it with Stalinism, Nazism and Socialism, among other dreaded isms. In the United States, of late, another false equation has emerged. That would be the groundless association of secularism with atheism. The religious right has profitably promulgated this misconception at least since the 1970s."
There are few words, including "secularist", that have one absolutely precise meaning. Take the word "blue". Is there only one exact "blue"? No, there's actually a continuum. Take the word "Buddhist". Are you telling me there's a precise definition of "Buddhist". Because if there were such a precise definition, we wouldn't have so many sects of Buddhism.
And, it's that continuum of religion that I (and you) are on. I believe in God. I do not believe he micromanages lives. I do not believe that he answers all prayers. There are tons of things about him I don't believe...that are, in my view, just part of the fable that has built up around the concept of God.
this is what any intelligent person should do
but
remember these are worldly wisdom
and
only Buddha's Teaching provides the Wisdom beyond the world
~MODERATOR NOTE:~
Can we please stick to addressing the issues raised by the OP?
Not to say the discussion is invalid or un-interesting - by all means open up a thread to discuss your specific points, they're all good; however, it would be more useful to adhere to topic and discuss the questions specifically mentioned in the Original Post.
~Note ends~
>
You are incorrect, or have a misunderstanding of these two processes. That's what they are; simply processes. The word Karma (Sanskrit) or Kamma (Pali) merely means Volitional, deliberate, pre-meditated Intentional Action. There is no judgemental, evaluative quality. What you do, has results. That's it. as has been said, one way of looking at it, is to consider that you are not punished FOR your negative actions, but BY them.
Reincarnation is - if one wishes to be pedantic - a slightly different thing to rebirth. At least I, for myself and in my opinion, say this. As I have read and come to accept, Reincarnation is the transmigration of the specific persona-essence of one Lama into a new representation. In other words, it is a deliberate choice of an enlightened, or advanced Practitioner, to actually choose to be re-born. This specific process is relevant to Tibetan Buddhism (The Mahayana School). Re-birth - that is to say, a completely random process - is for the unenlightened, normal, run-of-the-mill Buddhist - no matter which tradition or school they follow.
This is a thought process expounded by some, and I see it as a logical teaching. However, that doesn't mean I completely agree with it, or believe it to be so.
>
That's because there isn't, as I have said, it's largely a process which many Buddhists practise, but we know for ourselves that whatever we do has consequences. it naturally follows. Why should there be an entity that has anything to do with the process? in what capacity, given that Kamma is a non-evaluative, neutral process?
>
As I have stated before: There is nothing to prevent anyone practising a religion, from incorporating pretty much all of Buddhism into their own specific religious practice. Buddhism - by very virtue of the fact that there is no God-head - is a moral, philosophical calling which pretty much underpins any other type of votive calling one may follow.
However: A dedicated adherent to Buddhism, must at one point or another, choose which boat they sit in; The Buddha stated that speculation on the existence of an omnipotent Deity was a complete waste of time, as there was - and yet still is - no way of proving their existence - or otherwise. It's not a question of not being open to the existence of God. It's a question of whether there is any point.
Why would I be open to an idea of God, if nothing about such a process does anything to necessarily advance my progress in practice? Why be open about something which has no direct bearing on what I follow?
I would add that I was a practising Roman Catholic until around 20 years go. Then I transferred my focus to Buddhism, and laid Christianity aside. Much of what lies at the heart of Christianity, makes sense. But it also lies at the heart of Buddhism, and that on the whole, makes more sense to me.
Hope this helps!
.
My impression was the Buddha avoided or outright refused to answer questions that begged him to confirm or deny a transcendent Being (Brahma in that day and age).
The Buddha said it is the question (is there a God?) that is problematic. You can ask the wrong questions and get distracted and go down a completely useless dead-end road.
There may be a transcendent Being or there may be no such thing -- this question is addressed in the Pali canon (the earliest Buddhist scriptures) as 'not helpful or useful TO answer'.
To me, karma and rebirth do not necessarily require a higher being/energy/whatever in order for them to be true. To me, it makes the most sense that these things are stored in our stream of consciousness, which in rebirth is what moves through lives and times. It's not about being accountable to something "out there" that is keeping track. But everyone has a slightly different understanding based on their history, their tradition, their teacher, their reading and other things. That's ok because none of us knows. We just suspect.
If you want to believe there is something there, you are free to do so, even within Buddhism. The biggest thing to remember is to always keep your mind and heart open so that you are willing to observe your views shifting. You might find they change entirely, a little, or not at all. You might find things you thought you strongly believed in fall away. I have experienced all of those. If you are open to the constant shifting, things will be fine. But when you cling to any belief, such as "I totally believe there is a Godenergy out there, and NO one will EVER convince me otherwise" you are going to miss some thing as you practice and study because of your attachment to that belief. Leave them all up for grabs. You find your way the easiest by being willing to let things go.
I am perfectly open to gods that transcend their own being/non being. Know any? It is part of my practice, where I am happy to state, 'God is Greater'. In other words God integrates or transcends ideas, labelling, affiliations, my Yahweh is better than your Allah, Faceless Existence, ineffability etc.
Here is a Buddhist depiction of wisdom (Manjushri), that is only a click away from being and non existence . . .
When I think of God, I think of a process and a mind set. A universal state of being rather than a being that created the universe.
When I think of things like natural selection and instinct I feel there must be some kind of driving force at work. Something that tends towards the sharing of information and awakening.
In my view, even God could not be a permanent and unchanging self because there are an infinite amount of perspectives and constant growth.
Interesting, @ourself.
Well there is consciousness right? How can conscious intelligence come out of an unintelligent universe?
I believe we are all part of it. Call it whatever you want
I think consciousness is just an emergent property of biological life.
Anyway "God" has become a meaningless term because everyone has their own idea about it but can never quite explain what that idea is.
A bit like Nirvana then?
A good book on the subject, is this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Talk-About-When-God/dp/0007427336
It's pretty good and non-dogmatic; almost 'Buddhist' in parts.
Buddhists don't believe in god because there is no concept of god in buddhism.
Perhaps one should be analysing the basis of potential eternal and permanent concepts first before positing God and see where that leads. If you can name something that fulfils the criteria of eternal and permanent, then we might discuss God in a more meaningful way.
Buddhists are a diverse bunch and some do believe in something similar to God. I don't bother believing but I have a feeling.
As far as we know, the universe is eternal and permanent even though it is in a constant state of change.
No need to posit a universal consciousness but it makes sense from some points of view given that awareness is obviously a function of the universe.
@ourself Matter and energy at least seem to be a mainstay, but all compounded things made up of matter and energy are fleeting.
Well sure, but they change, their essence isn't lost or anything.
There's nowhere to go, really.
@ourself What essence?
This is, I think, the point.
The potential for change.
@ourself Perhaps "nature" is better, but I understand you. Anyway that's enough of us derailing the thread. I must go back to learning proper Zazen!
Nature, essence, Tao, whatever...
We aren't derailing the thread, this is the topic.
To be empty is really to be full of potential. The same potential for awareness that has always been.
The element of the topic lies within the contents of the first post.
>
I'm not surprised.
Most Westerners are running away from their former religion...some form of Christianity. To truly run away, one must reject.
Some of us are, instead, attempting to broaden our understanding and human being and the world. Rejection is not important to us. It doesn't consume our thinking.
I am glad that you phrased your sentence perfectly by saying that God is irrelevant in Buddhism, which is not the same as saying God does not exist. And one cannot pretend to be open-minded when they are only open-minded about the things that appeal to them (not you, just in general).
Is there a God?
Isn't there a God?
Does somebody here think that their belief will make one or the other true?
Anybody want to ask themselves why they care?
If you read my first post on the subject you will see that that is precisely the point I made. I don't really care one way or the other....
Perhaps it is a question of skilfulness and focus.
There are many things that are not part of what is important to our happiness. Buddhism does not focus on music or scientific discovery.
In dharma God can be an unnecessary fiddler. However @Tosh in another thread, has described a skilful use of looking for god in situations . . .
:wave: .
Rejection is not important to us. It doesn't consume our thinking.
I agree that disbelief and rejection can be as problematic as belief and attachment. But then why are the teachings on rebirth still a problem for you?
It's an interesting line of thought is all. There doesn't seem to be room to hang any hope on the idea but it's fun.
Since it seems logical to me, I need no faith and without faith a belief is just something one thinks is true.