Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

What does Buddhism have to say about Gods?

BuddhaOdinBuddhaOdin
edited April 2010 in Buddhism Basics
What does Buddhism have to say about Gods?

Comments

  • BuddhaOdinBuddhaOdin
    edited April 2010
    Are there are Theravada texts where Buddha speaks of meeting the Hindu pantheon? Did Buddha have much to say about Gods?
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited April 2010
    They are not really the focus, so I would say it is not the most important topic of the Canon.
  • TransmetaphysicalTransmetaphysical Veteran
    edited April 2010
    God or gods are irrelevant and are no more important than a little ant.

    However, a distinction must be made between a monotheistic, eternal creator god, and the plural gods.

    There is no monotheistic God in Buddhism. However, the "deities" or "gods" are either thought of as awakened beings or archetypal mental states.
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Also Devas are not necessarily Gods, in a literal sense. More like a different category of beings.

    A God usually stands for omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.

    A Deva stands for long-lived, happier than human, powerful being.
  • BuddhaOdinBuddhaOdin
    edited April 2010
    NamelessRiver wrote: »
    Also Devas are not necessarily Gods, in a literal sense. More like a different category of beings.

    A God usually stands for omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.

    A Deva stands for long-lived, happier than human, powerful being.

    Well most of the religions of the world have been and are polytheistic by nature. So the word god does not have to mean the Abrahamic conception of it. Yet most people think God means that.

    What is a deva? Do Buddhists believe supernatural beings exist? If not a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God?
  • BuddhaOdinBuddhaOdin
    edited April 2010
    Transmetaphysical wrote: »
    God or gods are irrelevant and are no more important than a little ant.

    However, a distinction must be made between a monotheistic, eternal creator god, and the plural gods.

    There is no monotheistic God in Buddhism. However, the "deities" or "gods" are either thought of as awakened beings or archetypal mental states.

    Why is it irrelevent, surely the universe would be very different depending on whether there is a God or are plural Gods?
  • TransmetaphysicalTransmetaphysical Veteran
    edited April 2010
    BuddhaOdin wrote: »
    Well most of the religions of the world have been and are polytheistic by nature. So the word god does not have to mean the Abrahamic conception of it. Yet most people think God means that.

    What is a deva? Do Buddhists believe supernatural beings exist?

    There is no supernatural. Everything is natural, and if "devas" exist, they too are natural.

    If not a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God?

    This is an absolute "no."

    Though, can someone clarify for me if "Nirvana" is similar to "Brahman" (infinite awareness)?
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited April 2010
    What is a deva?

    Beings that were reborn in a better position than human beings, so to speak.
    Do Buddhists believe supernatural beings exist?

    Traditionally, yes. Although this belief takes different aspects in different countries. For example, in Japan they had to make Buddhism coexist with Shintoism, and the Kamis (Amaterasu, etc) are either seen as guardians of the Dharma or as Bodhissatvas. They also have a holiday for the deceased.

    In Tibet they even believe in people that come back from the dead and things that would come close to what a zombie would be.

    In the West people tend to deny it completely, say it is an allegory, whatever. It is actually the way Buddhism is seen by many in the west, as a form of rationalist auto-therapy without a religious context.
    If not a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God?

    This one I haven't encountered in any Buddhist tradition. :-)
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited April 2010
    BuddhaOdin, you will find several answers to this question in a thread started just recently by another poster here.
  • StephenStephen
    edited April 2010
    In short, gods/devas are only useful in Buddhism to demonstrate that even gods are limited, ignorant of reality, and eventually die. All phenomena are subject to Impermanence.
  • TransmetaphysicalTransmetaphysical Veteran
    edited April 2010
    BuddhaOdin wrote: »
    Why is it irrelevent, surely the universe would be very different depending on whether there is a God or are plural Gods?

    When Buddha is asked questions about whether God exists, he would answer in "silence." His reason for doing so is because these questions "profit not, nor have anything to do with the fundamentals of religious life, nor do they lead to Supreme Wisdom." - Buddha

    Buddhism is concerned with what IS, not man-made concepts of "God."


    .
  • BuddhaOdinBuddhaOdin
    edited April 2010
    Stephen wrote: »
    In short, gods/devas are only useful in Buddhism to demonstrate that even gods are limited, ignorant of reality, and eventually die. All phenomena are subject to Impermanence.

    Is that what Buddha taught? Someone said he believed Gods exist but are powerless or something like that.
  • StephenStephen
    edited April 2010
    That's how I understand it, yes. There was nothing more than "contact" between enlightened beings and these devas in the teachings as I've read them or heard them explained. I don't personally believe in all of the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, but I've pulled myself back from the trap of disbelief and sit in tranquility with an open mind. It's very peaceful here. :)
  • BuddhaOdinBuddhaOdin
    edited April 2010
    Stephen wrote: »
    These devas as they are explained are powerless on the human level in the same way that we're powerless except on our own spiritual plane of existence. Nothing more than "contact" was ever suggested in any of the teachings I've read or heard explained. The gods of Buddhism are far different than the God of the Abrahamic religions, or any gods of any other religions for that matter that are said to have power in our realm.

    Did Buddha believe that Hindu Gods were Devas? Do Japanese Buddhists think Shinto Gods are Devas?
  • StephenStephen
    edited April 2010
    That I don't know, but ultimately these issues have no bearing on suffering and its cessation. It's actually a distraction from the goal. ;)
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited April 2010
    BuddhaOdin wrote: »
    Is that what Buddha taught? Someone said he believed Gods exist but are powerless or something like that.
    No, he said that they were just as immortal and transitory as human beings.
    BuddhaOdin wrote:
    Did Buddha believe that Hindu Gods were Devas? Do Japanese Buddhists think Shinto Gods are Devas?
    And this is absolutely vitally important to your practice, because....?
  • IrrisIrris Explorer
    edited April 2010
    federica wrote: »
    And this is absolutely vitally important to your practice, because....?
    Are we not supposed to ask questions unless they're "absolutely vitally important to our practice" ?
    Transmetaphysical wrote: »
    Buddhism is concerned with what IS, not man-made concepts of "God."
    I think this beautiful, simple statement is overlooked all too often.
  • StephenStephen
    edited April 2010
    It's right for us to question all of the teachings that are concerned with suffering and the cessation of suffering. As to speculative issues, the Buddha admonished his monks that these were unskillful and not connected with the goal. If we can not prove something as either true or false, we seek to create a belief; a belief that is a support of the self, which we know is non-self. Such pursuits are unskillful in that whichever way we choose to believe, we are creating attachments, and so doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Best is to let go of the question entirely, recognizing it for its unskillful nature, and find tranquility in "I don't know, and it doesn't change the methods to attain liberation".
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited April 2010
    Irris wrote: »
    Are we not supposed to ask questions unless they're "absolutely vitally important to our practice" ?
    Not if they are not conducive to further our practice. The Buddha told us that flippant questions with no answer, or questions which did not support practice, were a waste of time.
    Why ask a question if there is no answer?
    Why ask a question if it doesn't help you walk further along the path?

    Window shopping for pretty clothes and frivolous accessories is all very well, but it doesn't put food on the table, does it?

    Wonder, by all means, but don't spend time on it that could be better spent being mindful, and being present.
  • BuddhaOdinBuddhaOdin
    edited April 2010
    The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear?

    http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm
Sign In or Register to comment.