Is Buddhism a form of panentheism?
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
It is according to this author. What do you think?
"At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience. Again, Buddhism is not pantheistic in the sense that it identifies the universe with God. On the other hand, the Buddhist God is absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation, is necessarily fragmental and imperfect. To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, "panentheism," according to which God is πᾶν καὶ ἕν (all and one) and more than the totality of existence."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm
Comments
No, sorry. I think that's Bull.
It's an article from someone who clearly doesn't understand the basis of Buddhism which is to recognise Suffering, and Transcend it.
I've honestly yet to meet a Buddhist who, as this author puts it, identifies with " "panentheism," according to which God is πᾶν καὶ ἕν (all and one) and more than the totality of existence."
I also apologise (if you noticed it) that I changed the spelling of the title. I have now modified it to read the original.
Interesting. I've read 'God' described as the 'Great Reality' and mystic Christians have described God as something similar to how a Buddhist may describe Emptiness.
I've also read that the deeper meaning of idolatry isn't the worship of false statues, but the worship of the false concept of God (and Buddhism teaches that all concepts are false; that they're 'truth concealers').
In my opinion, the author is totally wrong when saying why Buddhists avoid the word God.
It implies some kind of personality that never needed any development as well as a first cause.
As far as I understand Buddha said the creator gods were delusional and only think they created the world but I can't think of the names of any discourse so I can't back it up at the moment.
The only ultimate reality I can think of is change itself but change could only ever be aware through beings like us waking up to it.
Reading the full article I noticed he talked quite a lot about Dharmakaya:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakāya
I can't help but wonder if saying "Buddhism is...." or "Buddhism is like...." isn't off the mark.
What would you actually know if you knew the fill-in-the-blank additions to such phrases? Would anyone be happier? Would anyone be closer to the "truth?" Would anyone feel fulfilled and at ease at last? What the hell would anyone get out of such explanations and explications? If you name the truth is it any longer the truth? If you don't name the truth is it any longer the truth? Honestly, it all feels loo much like picking your nose ... there's always more treasure where that came from.
Bleah.
If you get into sects of Buddhism that focus on Buddha Nature or Dharmakaya there is some similarity to the notion of God. Though they usually make a point to not reify this ultimate reality into some sort of grand oneness like Advaita. So personally I think his interpretation is off or at best only hitting a small section of Buddhist thought.
There is also tathagatagharbha. The Wiki article includes this: "All are agreed that the tathāgatagarbha is an immortal, inherent transcendental essence or potency and that it resides in a concealed state (concealed by mental and behavioural negativities) in every single being."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathāgatagarbha_sūtras
Let's look at it the other way: Is Panentheism a form of Buddhism? Taking the paragraph in the original thread-post....
(No, it hasn't.)
(I'd love clarification on this point...)
('Not exactly...? How about 'not even in the slightest'...?)
(...what...?)
(which one, again..?)
See?
It's rubbish. It's jargon, pseudo-cleverness.
Sorry, but it is, in my opinion.
I saw this:
We don't use those terms IN PLACE of God, or anything else for that matter.
The dharmakaya (fa-shen ) is the experience of the transcendence of form of the five senses - and realization of true thusness
The Buddha himself insisted he was not any form of deity, but a mortal just like any other; just an 'awake' one.
AdiBuddha: Adi-Buddha, among some sects of Mahayana Buddhism, the first, or self-existing, buddha (“enlightened one”), from whom are said to have evolved the five Dhyani-Buddhas.... ...Scholars in recent years have pointed out that the term Dhyani-Buddha does not appear in the original texts, but the nomenclature continues to be commonly used...
Tathagata: Tathāgata (Sanskrit: [t̪əˈt̪ʰɑːɡət̪ə]) is a Pali and Sanskrit word; Gautama Buddha uses it when referring to himself in the Pāli Canon.
Still can't grasp any 'God' connection, myself. Maybe the author is uncomfortable with Buddhism's unique stance of the absence of an omnipotent, all-powerful, eternal deity, and is filling in the 'gaps' himself.
ETA: Or maybe he's just trying to convey the concept of Buddhism to a theistic audience in order to assuage any incredulity that a religion can, and does, exist without an omnipotent godhead.
Either way, he's 'sugaring the pill'....
Buddhanature isn't "All in One", as your link defines panentheism, nor does it have any connection with the universe.
So, I have to disagree. Any similarities would be something people project onto Buddhism, IMO. It's a nice idea, but there are no sutras that would indicate anything of the kind. I like the idea though. I just don't think it applies to Buddhism.
On a side note, your link on Panentheism links it to the ancient Greeks (though I've never heard of it in that context before, but whatever). The ancient Greeks had a significant influence on Buddhism, and some scholars say that Buddhism influence some Greek philosophers. So I wonder if that's why you're seeing some similarity.
This thread Really, really confuses me. In the excerpts from the weblink I only see the word "panentheism" once, and after that we're back to "pantheism," which is totally different. I don't understand the understanding that "panentheism" is touched upon here.
Pantheism is a tendency to believe that all things are God, whereas panentheism is the realization of a theist that God is in all things. There's really quite a difference.
The trouble with the link is that it is just unbridled thinking and wrong-guessing.