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.
Okay...this is a REALLY basic question about Buddhism, but I would like some feedback because I have asked multiple people and have gotten multiple responses.
Is there a God in Buddhism?
Thank you!
0
Comments
My answer would be no. I happen to be of the opinion that Buddhism ultimately rejects the idea of a creator God. Essentially, the logic of dependent co-arising negates God because it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause. So in this sense, Buddhism is non-theistic in view.
In the case of devas (literally "radiant ones"), however, which are often seen as gods when taken literally, they are simply non-human beings who are more powerful and long-lived than ordinary humans, but by no means eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. But 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 a denial of the efficacy of karma (literally "action") and a life of inaction:
That doesn't mean that people can't believe in God and still practice the Dhamma, especially the noble eightfold path, but it does mean that such a view can negatively impact that practice if held inappropriately.
As our dear friend Simon once said (although probably for different reasons), in relation to the four noble truths and the practice of the noble eightfold path, the matter of the existence of God is irrelevant and, ultimately, a distraction to be avoided.
God's there while you need him.
I found, after 30-odd years of concentrated Theism, I didn't need him any more.
If you find comfort in there being a God, well, go for it.
Personally, I no longer ponder it.
Does he exist?
Does he not exist?
Who knows?
Does it matter?
My thoughts:)
Does he exist?
There is no reason to think so, and many reasons to think not.
Does he not exist?
See above.
Who knows?
Nobody in the "mathematical sense" of "knows" that the statment alludes to. But in the inductive sense common to science and reason most modern atheists are happy with the sure belief that he doesn't.
Does it matter?
It is the biggest question mankind has faced, so I would say yes, it matters.
Mat
The most important thing however, is that you not believe anything anyone says unless you first test that belief against your own experiences. I believe the exact wording was:
Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability or by thinking "This contemplative is our teacher."
Basically, one of the most interesting things about Buddhism is that, while the Buddha has many, many teachings, and many others have many points of view, you are in no way required to accept any of them, and in fact are specifically told not to take anything on blind faith. This could be applied both to belief in god and lack of belief in god. So, to an extent what others (even myself) believe is irrelevant. Meditate on it yourself and ask carefully whether or not your belief or lack-thereof is bringing you happiness, and then meditate on the cause of that happiness or lack-thereof.
This is as far as I understand, at least. I'm new at this too.
But then, one can also answer 'yes' but the answer gets very complex and may possibly to offend theistics.
In theistic religions of morality, such as Judaism and Islam, the conception of God is the same as the laws of nature. It is the personification of the laws of nature.
For example, the Koran is very naturalistic, saying God created the trees, fruits, water, etc, but human beings do not give thanks. They do not show gratitude.
The Buddha taught about the laws of nature (dhammaniyama). The Buddha recommended if human beings wish to be without suffering and dwell in well-being or happiness, they should act in conformity with the laws of nature.
Just as Buddhism teaches about the law of karma (kammaniyama), these theistic teachings teach about the moral law (torah).
So, it is possible to say Buddhism does have a 'god' but one must be clear to say it is an 'impersonal god' rather than a 'personal god'. It is a 'god' because it is honored and obeyed.
Christianity evolved theistic religion and declared: "God is love".
This teaching is also found in Buddhism. Buddhism teaches about the dwellings of the gods (brahmavihara), namely, universal limitless love, compassion, appreciative joy and equinimity.
So to end, the notion of 'god' is not completely foreign to Buddhism.
At our first beginner's class in Buddhism, our teacher (a monk from the Dalai Lama's monastery) started off by telling us that Buddhism does not teach there is a god. And that the concept of god is not important, because no one can do our work for us.
Yep, or he may have said something un muddy, like "God does not exist"
Yes, I happen to think that's one of the most important paggages in any text, but its very disputed as to the scope of its application (I dont get why) and the notion of "exact wording" with any text is untennable:)
I agree.
Humm... well I think if instead of god you said rebirth then I would disagree:)
Yep... but not just meditate... contemplate... be.
Salome!:)
Mat
Taken in context, the passage is clearly a discussion of ethics. The sentence immediately following physicsstudent's quote talks about avoiding things that are blamable or cause harm. Taken as a whole, the sutta is about the advantages of avoiding greed, hate, and delusion.
I agree, when the text is a translation. That's why it's so important not to take things out of context.
I disagree. I think the buddha is sayiong, doubt everything, be your own light.
Why can we not take things as they seem in the text?
Why can we not read that single paragraph in its self contained meaning?
Is it not possible that the text you refer to is added later on from the original recollection of the story. We know that this has happened with other texts, why not the KS?
The great irony here Ren is how you refuse to doubt a text that implores you, in plane english (ho ho) to doubt itself.
The KS is antiindoctrination but you want to indoctrinate others otherwise!
funny, when you think about it.
I wish you the will to doubt the Buddha's treaties on doubt.
Mat
Do you have any specific evidence that the text you're discounting was added later? It is consistent with the rest of the passage, and without evidence I see no reason to discount it.
No, there's nothing in the KS that suggests that I should doubt what's in the KS. Unless, of course, you take a passage out of context, in which case you can interpret to mean anything you want.
Let's look at the passage that physicsstudent quoted. And let's do in the way that you want to do it, in plain English and self contained; i.e. out of context. The first thing this rules out is reports. In science, it's important to do literature searches to see what other researchers have reported on their work. The whole process of learning a particular branch of science depends on reading reports on existing research. So this first prohibition rules out studying science or doing literature searches because we can't go by reports.
The fifth item on this list is logical conjecture. Theorizing in science is basically logical conjecture. A researcher takes the available evidence and creates conjectures that are logically consistent with the evidence. So this item banns theorizing in science.
The sixth item is inference. Both theorizing and the testing of hypotheses requires inference. The truth or falseness of a hypothesis is an inference from the results of an experiment. So this rules out doing any science at all.
Item nine is probability. Most experimental results are expressed as probabilities. For example, without probability it would be impossible to test the safety or effectiveness of drugs.
So, either the KS is an attack on science, or taking sentences out of context is an irrational procedure.
Straw man and ad hom.
There is your answer
Nios.
So the short answer is "no". Even if these other spiritual realms exist, the beings on them have no power to help us and are themselves in need of help. The best realm is said to be the human one, because we have equal potential for pleasure and pain, which makes it possible for us to see the cause of our suffering and to reach for enlightenment.
Because of the relative unimportance of beings on other planes, other than to show us that even the blissful realms are places of ignorance, it makes little or no difference whether an individual chooses to believe in these states as metaphorical or literal.
The above, taken out of context, could be taken as an attack on free inquiry. And we've seen other passages which, if taken out of context, could be seen as advocating free inquiry. The fact is that the Buddha wasn't a western Enlightenment sage, and wasn't terribly concerned about the issue of free inquiry. He found a solution to the problem of dhukha, and was trying to communicate it to his followers. There's no indication that the Buddha objected to free inquiry per se, but he didn't think it was necessary for attaining liberation. He'd already found the way and was devoting his life to teaching everyone else how to do it. If you read the suttas, the overall message is unambiguous; "Follow these steps." The message of the sutta I found is not "Shut down your minds", but "You don't know how to do this, but I do know how because I've already done it." Similarly, the message of the Kalama Sutta and similar passages is not "This is how you determine what is true", but rather "This is how you distinguish between behavior that leads to liberation and behavior that doesn't."
What, prey tell, is the opposite of free enquiry?
Is it dogma?
Is it bind faith?
You mean your opinion not "fact".
I agree, he completely endorsed it.
The very first step in that way... is?
As they would be if Buddhism had been hijacked by ancient agendas.
Even so, to say its unamigigous is very misleading to any new Buddhists here.
I have been wondering for weeks why the KS gets this bogus readng. The answer is clear.
Free enquiry is the enemy of woo.
Or have I missed something?
I stopped reading here and must assume the answer you came to must be the one Ren gave you: things need to be read in context. :wtf:
Superb answer DD. Thanks
That also seems seems reasonable. Free inquiry requires things like logical conjecture, inference, and the reports of other observers. You don't see a problem with the fact that this passage, taken out of context, attacks the basis of free inquiry?
See, I can respect that:)
No, that is no problem for me. In fact it is expected, one should doubt even the question of the method doubt. Do you not think the Buddha thinks this when he invites even his words to be doubted?
I really urge you to reread the KS and ask "Is this Suttra the product of one agenda?"
We know that the MP suttra was the result of many, so why not the KS?
Could it not be that the single passage we skeptics focus on was subsummed by the other passages you focus on at a date after the buddhas death?
Well wishes Ren,
Peace
Mat
what do you mean about the MP sutta? And do you have evidence of this happening to the KS sutta or is this all speculation? How do we know the KS sutta wasn't entirely fabricated and falsely attributed to the Buddha and he in fact actually taught us all to blindly follow dogma? :crazy:
It's not the work of one pen. As I understand it it is generally acknowledged.
When we talk about evidence over these ancient echos we call the suttras, It is all speculation.
Most rational people familiar with the critical method will see a succinct statement of initial doubt in the paragraph that begings..."It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful...."
And when they think about the ten items they will see how encompassing this initial doubt is.
Togther, these points, beautify encapsulated by that single passage in the KS are all the evidence I need to relive the KS is much more than the wishy washy doogooder encouragement some seem to think the suttra is about.
We don't know that. And the beauty is that what the KS advises makes it nigh on irrelevant.
And frankly, the mind behind the discovery of dharma isn't the mind of a man or woman who would advise such a method as to blindly follow dogma. I am sure we can all at least agree that.
It's all speculation, please see for youself:)
About some questions, yes, but not all, for sure. And not all ponderings about god or afterlife are fruitless.
Have you read the Mirror Of Dharma passage from the mahaparinibbana suttra? It seems like an emphatic declaration is made, rather than any ambivalence on the subject:)
Mat
From here.
Thanks
And this is my attempt to annotate in accord with my theory. It make give you some reason to think I am not a nut-case troll:)
The Mirror of the Dhamma
I read this as being the start if the handover from the old beliefs of Samsara to the new way. If you read the passsages before the Mirror of Dharma is given you will see how Anada is asking the Buddha about what stage various people are in the escape from the Hindu samsara.
And the Buddha is saying, if there is rebirth, then every life time you will have these troubling questions.
Then he goes on:
Therefore, Ananda, I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma,
So this gift of The Buddha to his most loved friend is the Mirror of Dharma.
I dont think there were that many other gifts given by the Buddha?
I think its important to really think about that mirror metaphor when looking at the rest of this passage. confront the reality of yourself. That is what Mirrors are. Also note that its not a word we can be ambiguous about, mirrors are mirrors.
He continues:
possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself:
So the mirror, this gift, is owned just by declaring something (and knowing later) and that something is the equally unambiguous:
'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe.'A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
So that is pretty clear. Clear that this is your last life and you are bound for enlightenment.
As for the reference to "stream enterer" I read that differently in dharma to the normal "stage of meditation". I take it to mean immersed in the stream of change, empty and interconnected and final.
Then we get these passages about gods and men that dont really make sense to me but then at the end we get back to the twin passage to the above. Please tell me you can at leasnt see a hint of a distinction between this passage and the one that follows:
So that above and then this:
Have a read of this passage with just the two passages Im regfering to, ie, loose the "mystical middle" and you get a simple thing:
Look into the mirror, delcare that this is your last life and then know that this is your last life.
Please think about what I say before reacting to it:)
Thanks
Mat
Dependent origination is very much about context MatSalted.
PS, Mat nobody is forcing you to swallow the mysticism.. Just say I want the dharma hold the lettuce hold the pickel..
I find you to be inaccurate and you are making assumptions... 'I read this to mean', 'I take this differently'...
These are your choices of interpretation.
What you mean is that this is what you have concluded by adding two and two together and making sixty-seven....
I do consider your findings to be imaginative. But I do not find they link with my understanding.
At all.
And this thread is about 'God'. Not re-birth. I merely posted a link to try and elaborate upon your mentioning.
In future, if you refer to specific dhamma quotations or passages, please be so kind as to give reference, in order to expedite the reader's understanding.
Please now be so good as to remain on topic and discuss the existence of God in relation to Buddhism, as requested by the OP
Do not steer this thread towards yet more analysis of your re-birth theory.
You're a joke. And now ignored.
Palzang
According to Buddha, the question of God's existence doesn't matter.
"Shakyamuni was asked many questions which are being asked today: such as, 'Is there a God? Who created the world? Is there life after death? Where is heaven and hell?' The classic answer given by the Buddha was silence. He refused to answer these questions purposely, because "these profit not, nor have they anything to do with the fundamentals of the religious life, nor do they lead to Supreme Wisdom."
http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys1/amida-go.htm
Indeed, but if i remember rightly from a Jack Kornfield book i think he said something about cultivating a 'don't know' mind...
Anyway thought this quote was good for this thread...
"Thich Nhat Hanh uses the language of theism when he says, “a kingdom of God or Pure Land.” This language might be helpful to some, and unhelpful to others. It’s pretty clear that the Buddha said questions about God’s existence, is not pragmatic on the path to Enlightenment, it’s a red herring. But Buddhism isn’t a stickler for dogma. What ever practically helps you on the path to enlightenment. If thoughts of god help you, then well it doesn’t matter what the Buddha said. Of course because the Buddha has said something, according to the tradition, there’s a good reason to look into it and take it seriously.
Thich Nhat Hanh, “Buddha Mind, Buddha Body: Walking Toward Enlightenment”
Steve Bell (February 15, 2010)
I think someone (maybe Buddha) said something like these debates were eel wrangling.