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.
Buddhism and God and how the world came into existance - Im confused
Hi there,
I have a question about Buddhism and God.
I know that Buddhism doesnt believe in a single god like Krishna or Allah etc but Im a little confused. In the few books ive read about Buddhism it talks of Demons when Buddha was seeking enlightenment, and then mentions Devas/ demigods ??
If Buddhism doesnt believe in God or any kind of devinity, then how are there demi gods and demons ?
Also, do Buddhists have any concept of a creative ''life force '' ?? or any kind of energy that is responsible for creation and all life ??
If not - how do buddhists believe the world and life in general came to be...
Apologies if this question has already been asked to death.. ive tried to read about it on the net but what i read just confuses me more!
If any one can give me a simple explanation on the whole thing id be really gratefull...
)
I have a question about Buddhism and God.
I know that Buddhism doesnt believe in a single god like Krishna or Allah etc but Im a little confused. In the few books ive read about Buddhism it talks of Demons when Buddha was seeking enlightenment, and then mentions Devas/ demigods ??
If Buddhism doesnt believe in God or any kind of devinity, then how are there demi gods and demons ?
Also, do Buddhists have any concept of a creative ''life force '' ?? or any kind of energy that is responsible for creation and all life ??
If not - how do buddhists believe the world and life in general came to be...
Apologies if this question has already been asked to death.. ive tried to read about it on the net but what i read just confuses me more!
If any one can give me a simple explanation on the whole thing id be really gratefull...
) 0
Comments
Greetings, Channah,
There are countless others who frequent this website that have a greater comprehension and experience of Buddhism than I. However, I do have a few things to say.
Question 1: If Buddhism doesn't believe in God or any kind of divinity, then how are there demi gods and demons?
Buddhism does not believe. It teaches. Buddhists believe or disbelieve. Same with any other ism. Christianity teaches, Christians believe. Adherents of Buddhism in various cultures and traditions have adopted art-forms which incorporate diverse mythologies. Therefore, many Buddhists engage in these art-forms which deal with many hierarchies of beings. That is not a problem, really, especially if it helps focus adherents on spiritual goals. I am unaware of any anti-iconic Buddhist traditions, and would wish to be informed of any if there are some.
Question 2: do Buddhists have any concept of a creative ''life force '' ?? or any kind of energy that is responsible for creation and all life ??
If not - how do buddhists believe the world and life in general came to be...
This is a very good question, which I hope to follow up on, looking forward to the replies of others more competent than I. I believe, though, that there must be many answers to this one.
We do know that all living species contain a creative life force within (usually) most of their members. It's the procreative, or reproductive, ability. This in itself is quite awesome. Lord Buddha himself did not care to address questions as to the origin of all things, as he maintained that such questions were unprofitable and distracted from the essential business of the spiritual aspirant: to be free of the grievous pains associated with one's own earthly attachments to this and to that. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhadharma
Buddhadharma teaches mindful "being here NOW," which is more future-oriented than backward-oriented. What is done is done. No matter who built the City (or state or whatever) centuries and centuries and centuries ago, it's here now and our job is to maintain it with the pertinent information we have received.
Living in that great City, is for us the living to pick up the pieces and go on grounded in hope and faith, aspiring to be joyful and loving beings, accepting what cannot be changed and also challenging ourselves to be more grounded in our paths. So being, may we not mind so much the slings and arrows of others so much as our own failures to speak the truth, to be the truth, and to be the light. That, my Friend, is illumination: to be deeply concerned for the well-being of others. That's what a great saint of our own modern times said was the seal of the illumined soul.
In Buddhism there are many kinds of gods. The gods represent certain mental states of human beings.
For example, if a human being is powerful, like a king, politician or dictator, they are a certain kind of god (deva) that has power over other peoples creations. Or if a human being has alot of love & compassion, they are another kind of god (brahma). Or if a person has deep meditation, they are another kind of god (radiant). Of if a person lives an easy lifestyle with servants, such as the lifestyles of the rich & famous, they are another kind of god. Or if a person is a temptor (mara), they are another kind of god.
In the scriptures, there are stories of wars between the gods (devas) and the demi-gods (asuras). If we actually read these stories, they are about ruling philosophies. The devas wish to rule the people with love & forgiveness in regards to wrong doings where the asuras wish to rule the people using punishment and control. (see this link).
Another thing I will be frank about. There are many teachings in Buddhism which are debated by learned Buddhists, such as rebirth. Often it is debated is the 'rebirth' taught by the Buddha literal (physical) or spiritual (mental)?
But one subject that is not debated by learned Buddhists and accepted by learned Buddhists and that is the reality that certain minds are capable of possessing supernormal or psychic powers.
Therefore, sometimes the Buddha was tempted by Mara, who is a god with psychic powers but does not like the Buddha's teaching of 'not-self'. Many gods in the scriptures dislike the Buddha's teaching of 'not-self'.
To look at where life comes from think to when you watched movies on sex education when you where are child. All of those sperms wiggling & swimming to fertilise the ovum. Or if you watch jellyfish, how they vibrate. All of this movement is the life-force probably made up of elements like craving, wind, heat, etc.
So the life force moves from one thing to another thing, like sperm moves from father to mother and then grows to be a child because the mother eats other life forces, such as food. Or the heat of the sun enters into plants or the wind in the sky turns a turbine to produce energy.
Buddha would say life comes from the various physical & mental elements.
<o></o>
As far as the beginning of everything, Buddha taught it is irrelevant. Knowing or not knowing how everything began changes nothing about suffering or the ending of suffering and therefore does not matter. Its just another attachment we can add to our already heavy burdens.
(seriously, that's not a metaphor right, ? i dunno)
..so lets say huge amount of eons, kalpas, have passed,
In that huge time and HUGE HUGE space, math and odds would speculate that other lifeforms have evolved.
An advanced being of this way,
could be considered a god,
maybe "he/she" even created this brane of the multi-verse,
that we live in..
(hence Christians were maybe right about a creator god, could have been a mad scientist from another dimension that they worship but he would not be the Apex or the first etc etc...
hahahah , sounds like it now that I think about it...... a scientist would consider himself FATHER of his creations and would take sunday off LOL etc)
anyway- just like we probably seem like gods to our pets, and our pets seem like gods to insects.
So if you get where I'm going with this, If Buddha talked of demons and gods, maybe he was talking about not just mental states.
now if you take into account multiple universe theory and all sorts of stuff, who knows what ghosts, mental and physical incarnations are floating around in front of our faces, and we can't tune in...like a radio on only one channel...maybe this explains psychics and ghosts..
OR he was just talking about mental states, which i find utterly unexciting.
OR he was using zen double talk like they exist in reality and in your mental states.....but don't exist in reality and don't exist in your mental states
I DUNNO ?:p
from what I understand according to buddhism all those gods, demigods, hungry ghosts, humans, animals and hell beings do exist and it's possible to be reincarnated as one. However, even though someone may now be human mentally they can be any one of the above, and what's more they can change who exactly that is, and only in human form find liberation from this importuitous cycle of rebirth.
However
I have seen humans, and I have sometimes seen animals, but I have yet to see a hungry ghost or a god or demigod or indeed a hell being.
yup, in Buddhism, when it says gods, means beings of immense power that live for eons and stuff, but the general nature of their existence is still life->death->rebirth
They are metaphors for mind-states.
Have you not heard the phrase, "he had to face his demons"? That's what the Buddha had to do.
And the different realms in the wheel of life, are the same. Some people take them literally. But I - and countless others - feel they are more descriptive of different mind-states. Mind-states we find ourselves in, variously, at any given moment.
The instant you die, is the most important one. it governs your re-birth. So it stands to reason that your mind-state should be as calm and unhindered as possible.
Karma also plays its part, naturally.
This is one of the four unconjecturables. the Buddha told us to not concern ourselves with it, or we'd go nuts trying to work it out.
Best to consider our Suffering and its termination. That's what Buddhism is about.
Practice.
ahh I see, so rather than there being actual ghosts/demons/gods, these are just ways of describing the "qualities" of beings of those universes. For instance you can be reincarnated into a very advanced society where the vast majority of people are kind and loving and live long and stuff, or to a more hellish one, where most of the emotions are negative- I think even the earth can be divided into different "zones" of this sort. come to think about it this makes things much more universal. One of the scruples I have with buddhism was it's absolute attitude towards the types of life forms - it constrained them to gods, demigods, hungry ghosts, humans, animals and hell beings- but what about intelligent alien life that looks completly different? As far as I'm aware buddhism/hinduism doesn't object to it's existence, so that must mean alien beings all have the same conceptual emotions? But what if some/all alien emotions are different or indeed unimaginable by us? Is there some kind of conversion process where an N amount of anger is translated into B of "unknown but sorta equivalent emotion" when you reincarnate into that being? I object to such vagauaries and demand more info! For instance, if an alien being were to appear with all sorts of new and strange emotions incomprehensible to us, would that disprove buddhism or at least some aspects of it?
In my dreams i can fly is this a real experience ? it was real enough at the time but upon wakeing i realize that it has just been another illusion, at the same time upon wakeing from the sleep of ignorance the same realization will come to effect.
Palzang
They are allegorical representations of states of mind humans find themselves in. This has nothing to do with societies and earth-zones. it is purely a mental manifestation, and can occur in any zone of earth, in any society.
As their existence is possible, but pure conjecture, there's no point wondering about it.
we've all got more than enough to think about with regard to our own Mind-states, let alone a hypothetical intelligent alien life form....
Why must it mean that?
Pure conjecture and hypothesis.
I would think they already are, aren't they?
Who knows?
Who cares?
if and when they appear, we'll find out. Until then, you'll just have to suck it up and no matter how much you demand more info - it will all still be hypothesis and conjecture.
Which is why I advised in another thread, to stop dwelling on the mind-wrought dream-imaginary occurences, and concentrate more on the tangible, ever-present now, because that's all you've got.
You could say that dependent-being is the life force.
But then, of course, I don't. :crazy:
It's true that in some cases, Mara is portrayed as an actual being who apparently considers himself the head of the kamavacara world. Nevertheless, looking at the texts more critically, it's evident that in most contexts Mara is used in reference to death or to the mental defilements of greed, hatred and delusion.
In regard to the story of the Buddha being assailed by the hosts of Mara under the Bodhi tree, for example, G. P. Malalasekera's entry in the Dictionary of Pali Names states:
There is no need to ask, as does Thomas, with apparently great suspicion (Thomas, op. cit., 230), whether we can assume that the elaborators of the Mara story were recording "a subjective experience under the form of an objective reality," and did they know or think that this was the real psychological experience which the Buddha went through? The living traditions of the Buddhist countries supply the adequate answer, without the aid of the rationalists. The epic nature of the subject gave ample scope for the elaboration so dear to the hearts of the Pali rhapsodists.
As for the earthquake after Mara's defeat, to me this represents the the fact that Buddha's enlightenment was a stupendous, earth shaking event, not that the earth actually moved. A lot of people tend to take these poetic allegories literally, but I'm not one of them. This is partially due to the nature of ancient Indian literature itself, which was full of allegory and symbolism.
I'll admit that when I first began studying the Suttas, I tended to take everything literally; but now, I've learned how to "read between the lines" as they say.
Jason
The idea of being a "real" being is, in actuality, just that, an idea. It is a habitual thought pattern that is a natural development of the original delusion of "self" and "other". Once we are able to eliminate that delusion, the whole structure of "self" goes with it and we are once again able to be free and part of the universe as we always have been.
Trungpa Rinpoche was once asked whether the deities of Buddhism are real, and his response was that on the one hand they are reflections of our own true nature, while on the other hand they do have an existence apart from ourselves. This comes very close, it seems, to the idea of an archetype as posited by Jung. Eh?
Palzang
Funny so you dont think it could be literal ?
Perhapes there is more understanding of the mind to do.
many scholars across different traditions agree to this.
There are of course, those who don't.
That's their business.
Just as those who don't believe it to be literal, are free to think so.
You are joking when you say this, Right..........???
:eek: :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPIJhO8ipgs
:eek: :eek: :eek:
:buck:
Except of course the Buddha was an ordinary human being that had acheived enlightenment...not a magic-wielding messiah like Jesus. To believe that the Buddha could literally teleport or walk through walls reduces him to the level of a comicbook character like one of the X-Men.
When we are told that the Buddha could walk through solid objects obviously this is meant as an allegory of how he was free of attachments and how his teachings surpass all barriers.
If you listen to the video, Venerable Jyasaro wisely & correctly states people can get distracted by these kinds of things.
However, your view is something unsubstantiated. You are chosing to disbelieve something that may be true. (However, whether it is true or not is irrelevent to liberation or the purpose of the path).
The difference between Buddha & Jesus is expressed in Kevatta Sutta, where the Buddha regarded it as 'disgusting' to display feats of physic power merely for the purpose of generating faith in ordinary people.
In my opinion, the frenzy Jesus created supports the wisdom of the Buddha's view.
In fact, based on the monks rules in the Vinaya, what Jesus did is considered a transgression.
Where your view differs from the view of myself and Dazzle is you have never met anyone with supernormal powers.
However, these powers are merely worldly phenomena. They are unrelated to enlightenment. Also, they are human. Human beings can possess them.
Some Buddhists teach if one can attain jhana they will attain supernormal powers. But this is false. Only a mind with a pre-disposition can possess supernormal powers.
Of the Buddha's two supremely enlightened disciples, Sariputta did not have any supernormal powers but Maha-Moggallana was the foremost in supernormal powers.
Kind regards
Not sure what the smiley face means, but I assume you are making a joke! LOL!...
Anyhow, I''m a Vedantist with a deep respect for Buddha. I'm not so sure, though, that I'd like most Buddhists, as they can be quite the contentious lot. (as if the other religions were immune from that sort of thing!)
I believe that people believe the sorts of things that their personalities tend towards. Therefore, why keep going over these same issues again and again and again?
For me personally, the Four Noble Truths with their Eighfold Path is mostly what I think of when I think of Buddhism. All the rest is just either frosting on the cake or boring, repetitive sutras. I prefer the sorts of gleanings from the sayings of Lord Buddha like the one you have alluded to. I'll take the Hindu sutras anytime, though!
Metta, Fivebells.
I think you're a sport.
Nirvy
Palzang