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.
I have heard Buddha did not believe in God, Is this person right? link:
Both the question & answer here miss the mark, especially the question, which is trying to link the various doctrines together. Buddha was unconcerned with Shiva, Brahma, Vishu, etc, per se.
If we read the entirety of this sutta, the Buddha first describes the Brahmin priests as good for nothing blind men, because they all talk about Brahma or God without ever having seen Brahma.
Then, the Buddha REDEFINES "God", by saying "God is love".
The Buddha DEDFINES the way to God or the way to be "God-like"; that is, to radiant the Brahma Vihara, namely, universal love, compassion, appreciative joy & equinimity, in all directions.
What the Buddha taught here is the same as the following Christian teaching:
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1 John 4
With metta
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
It doesn't matter what Buddha believed about gods. He never taught any form of god worship, nor did he incorporate any god worship into his 8-fold Path. If worship of the gods or a single God was necessary to follow the Middle Way, it would have been included.
People might argue about whether early Buddhists believed gods existed, or various heavenly realms, etc. The Dharma has nothing to do with gods, and that's all we need to know.
It doesn't matter what Buddha believed about gods. He never taught any form of god worship, nor did he incorporate any god worship into his 8-fold Path. If worship of the gods or a single God was necessary to follow the Middle Way, it would have been included.
People might argue about whether early Buddhists believed gods existed, or various heavenly realms, etc. The Dharma has nothing to do with gods, and that's all we need to know.
Well, perhaps Buddhism is not all we need to know in life.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Well, perhaps Buddhism is not all we need to know in life.
True. But once you find Buddhism, you realise all that other stuff "you 'need' to know" isn't stuff you need to know, at all. But first, I guess you need to know it, before realising you don't need to know it.
All religions are all about saving yourself from (Fill in the blank).
No one else can save you except yourself. On that note, I have to say the Buddha is partially spot on on this one. You can still believe in God but it's up to you to do the work.
It doesn't matter what Buddha believed about gods. He never taught any form of god worship, nor did he incorporate any god worship into his 8-fold Path. If worship of the gods or a single God was necessary to follow the Middle Way, it would have been included.
People might argue about whether early Buddhists believed gods existed, or various heavenly realms, etc. The Dharma has nothing to do with gods, and that's all we need to know.
Well, perhaps Buddhism is not all we need to know in life.
If we read the entirety of this sutta, the Buddha first describes the Brahmin priests as good for nothing blind men, because they all talk about Brahma or God without ever having seen Brahma.
I would like to read the entire sutta, does anyone have linkage?
Buddha said (as I recall and paraphrase): don't bother thinking about god, it will just create trouble and is irrelevant to attaining less suffering, more happiness and the eventual promise of enlightenment.
I like to repeat this. I feel better when I say it. It's sooooo obvious yet "nobody" (not enough people IMO) get it. Ready? here goes:
I don't know WTF (F=frick) people are talking about when they use the word "god." Yes, "supreme creator" is the dictionary definition.
What I mean is:
Q: How does an ant, a little ground-dwelling "engineer" understand a skyscraper?
A: It does not and never will.
Conclusion: Humans are sooooo arrogant thinking they can understand and know things absolutely beyond their comprehension!
How arrogant to think "the infinite and boundless endless universes" and all they contain, INCLUDING the highly presumptuous existence of whatever or whomever is behind all, can be comprehended and **even dimly** understood! Hilarious! :screwy:
I laugh and laugh it's extremely FUNNY! Seriously!! After I enjoy my laughter, like watching the funny animals at the zoo, I calm down and relax and clean their cages, feed them pet them and love them.
One more thing: you CAN perceive the absolute factuality of the HUGE-OSITY of "IT" through meditation. However, you will never be able to communicate it to others and you will never be able to explain it as long as you're living in our exclusively human realm.
Ahhhhh..., thank you for letting me express that. I can't explain why I feel better. I also sincerely hope it makes sense to somebody.
... Conclusion: Humans are sooooo arrogant thinking they can understand and know things absolutely beyond their comprehension! ...
1. It's human nature, and I can't quite see how my wondering if there is a God, or if there is, what that entity is like hurts anyone, or even hurts myself. Did Buddha actually restrict freedom of thought?
2. How many things that man contemplated back in Siddhartha's time has man since figured out? Things that were unfathomable at the time. Did you ever take an antibiotic? Curing disease through medicine was once thought to be impossible. Ride in a car? Fly in a plane? Did people in Buddha's time accept slavery?
My amateur view/guess? No restrictions, he just dissuaded his students from dealing with the question of god. After all, he was the master; if you studied with the master you "subjugated" yourself to his wisdom (his dissuasion in this case). Sorry, "subjugated" is a very bad word I went to thesaurus and can't find the correct word. I need help finding the right, milder word describing master-pupil relationship. Anyway... . Good to ask that question IMO, vinlyn.
My amateur view/guess? No restrictions, he just dissuaded his students from dealing with the question of god. After all, he was the master; if you studied with the master you "subjugated" yourself to his wisdom (his dissuasion in this case). Sorry, "subjugated" is a very bad word I went to thesaurus and can't find the correct word. I need help finding the right, milder word describing master-pupil relationship. Anyway... . Good to ask that question IMO, vinlyn.
Yes, I agree subjugated is not quite the right word. :-) You know, I used to be a middle school teacher and then principal, and my primary goal was always to teach students to think, over teaching students facts. So I guess that is why I see Buddha as a guide to part of the unknown, but I still believe I must find my own way. I appreciate your dialog!
First, he is vague as to his sutta source, which makes me suspicious. He only broadly refers to a certain book written in 1894 that "combines narrative of the life of Buddha coupled with his saying as recorded in the Tipitaka."
Second, it seems more likely to me that the poster is confusing Hindu beliefs about the Buddha with Buddhism, since Hindus do believe the Buddha was an avatar of the god Vishnu. I do not know this to be certain, but the story he presents seems far more likely to me to be a Hindu narrative.
Third, the suttas I know of clearly indicate that the Buddha consistently avoided discussing metaphysical questions, such as the existence or non-existence of gods. A number of examples of this can be produced, though many here I am sure have already read at least one of them.
Interesting Dhamma Dhatu, thanks for the links. I'll have to reread it, but it appears to me that this sutta was a way of dealing with the preexisting Vedic ideal of union with Brahma. But as the commentator in the second link states,
"It should be recollected that the argument here is only an argumettium ad hominem. If you want union with Brahmà, which you had much better not want, this is the way to attain to it."
I agree, because Arhantship, and later Bodhisattvaship, are the ideals to aspire to in Buddhism. Certainly not union with Brahma, or any other deity.
It is unusual for the suttas in that it speaks about attaining union with Brahma as a real option. Elsewhere, the Buddha treats deities and anything in regards to them as not worth discussing.
Comments
he sat in silence and that was his answer. Śūnyatā. Potential.
Lol
Both the question & answer here miss the mark, especially the question, which is trying to link the various doctrines together. Buddha was unconcerned with Shiva, Brahma, Vishu, etc, per se.
If we read the entirety of this sutta, the Buddha first describes the Brahmin priests as good for nothing blind men, because they all talk about Brahma or God without ever having seen Brahma.
Then, the Buddha REDEFINES "God", by saying "God is love".
The Buddha DEDFINES the way to God or the way to be "God-like"; that is, to radiant the Brahma Vihara, namely, universal love, compassion, appreciative joy & equinimity, in all directions.
What the Buddha taught here is the same as the following Christian teaching: With metta
People might argue about whether early Buddhists believed gods existed, or various heavenly realms, etc. The Dharma has nothing to do with gods, and that's all we need to know.
Thank you, Cinorjer. We can always count on you to put it well.
Great answer DD! Thanks.
/Victor
But first, I guess you need to know it, before realising you don't need to know it.
:crazy:
(I think I need to go lie down.....!
No one else can save you except yourself. On that note, I have to say the Buddha is partially spot on on this one. You can still believe in God but it's up to you to do the work.
I like to repeat this. I feel better when I say it. It's sooooo obvious yet "nobody" (not enough people IMO) get it. Ready? here goes:
I don't know WTF (F=frick) people are talking about when they use the word "god." Yes, "supreme creator" is the dictionary definition.
What I mean is:
Q: How does an ant, a little ground-dwelling "engineer" understand a skyscraper?
A: It does not and never will.
Conclusion: Humans are sooooo arrogant thinking they can understand and know things absolutely beyond their comprehension!
How arrogant to think "the infinite and boundless endless universes" and all they contain, INCLUDING the highly presumptuous existence of whatever or whomever is behind all, can be comprehended and **even dimly** understood! Hilarious! :screwy:
I laugh and laugh it's extremely FUNNY! Seriously!! After I enjoy my laughter, like watching the funny animals at the zoo, I calm down and relax and clean their cages, feed them pet them and love them.
One more thing: you CAN perceive the absolute factuality of the HUGE-OSITY of "IT" through meditation. However, you will never be able to communicate it to others and you will never be able to explain it as long as you're living in our exclusively human realm.
Ahhhhh..., thank you for letting me express that. I can't explain why I feel better. I also sincerely hope it makes sense to somebody.
2. How many things that man contemplated back in Siddhartha's time has man since figured out? Things that were unfathomable at the time. Did you ever take an antibiotic? Curing disease through medicine was once thought to be impossible. Ride in a car? Fly in a plane? Did people in Buddha's time accept slavery?
First, he is vague as to his sutta source, which makes me suspicious. He only broadly refers to a certain book written in 1894 that "combines narrative of the life of Buddha coupled with his saying as recorded in the Tipitaka."
Second, it seems more likely to me that the poster is confusing Hindu beliefs about the Buddha with Buddhism, since Hindus do believe the Buddha was an avatar of the god Vishnu. I do not know this to be certain, but the story he presents seems far more likely to me to be a Hindu narrative.
Third, the suttas I know of clearly indicate that the Buddha consistently avoided discussing metaphysical questions, such as the existence or non-existence of gods. A number of examples of this can be produced, though many here I am sure have already read at least one of them.
http://www.leighb.com/dn13.htm
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/13-tevijja-e.html
It is unusual for the suttas in that it speaks about attaining union with Brahma as a real option. Elsewhere, the Buddha treats deities and anything in regards to them as not worth discussing.